426 replies to this topic

[Kraven Kor]

ShaneoftheDead, on 14 July 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Excellent comment Mooky.

Did they think the module system was broken? I did not think this area of the game was broken. I am puzzled as to why PGI is messing around the with the module slots. Are there not better things to be working on or fixing? *cough*Community Warfare*cough*

If they are going to do this, I would prefer more Mech slots over consumable or weapon.

Now that I think about it, I would love if they limited the the air/arty strikes so you had to pick only one, not both. So you cannot have an airstrike and an artillerystrike loaded at the same time. I know that is not going to happen, but one can dream.

Seriously, the weapon modules in their current form actually make your Mech worse. (except for the machine gun module) The heat increase is way to high for the minimal range increase. Most modules increase range 10-20m. That's like 2 or 3 steps forwards. --step--step--step--...there I just gave my Mech the range module...for free...on all my weapons...and without the heat penalty. You don't notice the damage increase, but you do notice the heat increase. A few of my Mechs run very hot. Why would I want to make that worse?

Or put it this way: I do not load the current weapon modules. I am not going to load the current weapon modules. Even if they are made to be the only ones you can load. Every module slot that is dedicated to a current weapons module will be empty on my Mechs. They are not worth the c-bill price to buy. They are definately not worth the GXP price to unlock. I'm not sure, but I think I would not load the current weapon modules on my Mechs even if PGI paid me to do it.

How about upping the range increase to something noticable? Or give us modules that make our weapons cooler? I belive another poster already commented on trading reduced range for reduced heat. I'd try that. Or how about a module that raises the Ghost Heat count? So you could fire 3 ER Large Lasers without the Ghost Heat, instead of only 2. (or whatever it is) I'd load that one on a few Mechs.

To force us to buy the $#!+ weapon modules, naturally.

[kazlaton]

ShaneoftheDead, on 14 July 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Or put it this way: I do not load the current weapon modules. I am not going to load the current weapon modules. Even if they are made to be the only ones you can load. Every module slot that is dedicated to a current weapons module will be empty on my Mechs. They are not worth the c-bill price to buy. They are definately not worth the GXP price to unlock. I'm not sure, but I think I would not load the current weapon modules on my Mechs even if PGI paid me to do it.

I was thinking this exact same thing myself. And to add to that, I hardly ever use consumables myself and I am not likely to increase that amount. Even if it means having free slots sitting empty. And I'm pretty sure most of the guys in my unit will do the same.

If this is intended as a C-bill sink, how many people think it will backfire? Before the clan pack, I had about a dozen mechs, each with 14-18 million c-bills worth of mech modules. Since the clan pack released, I've spent over 80 million on new mech modules.

I'm not one to buy every mech that comes out. Most of my c-bills go towards modules. Do you know where that money will go under this new system?

No where.

And since I will have a stockpile of modules (2-3 times what I can use), I won't be spending c-bills for a long time to come.

[Commissar Aku]

Dear PGI,
Please stop letting your accountants make game decisions for you, it makes them game not fun and has started to really deteriorate game play. If you want people to spend more money on your game try adding a new color with every patch, a new unique skin for each mech type, and adding lots and lots of different consumables, if you want suggestions here are a few, deployable turrets (AMS, ECM, maybe even small laser) don't make them permanent make them with limited ammo or time on the battle field, smoke grenades making mechs untargetable except when using thermal, attack UAVs strike a single mech doing maybe small damage or NARC, UAVs that you can use to see over terrain, Satellite targeting, temporary jump jets (limited use maybe a fuel bar that only has one use and no recharge). Mech modules are my bread and butter and basically worthless when you only get one, by making this kind of change you are just asking people to abuse one or two modules and not use any of the rest. I don't understand what was wrong with the module system as it is, it is the only thing making lights playable at the moment and if you take that away not one person will be able to survive long enough in a light/medium making you lose money not gain it.

[Ovion]

I like how we don't really know what it'll be, and everyone's losing their mind.

[Cimarb]

Ovion, on 15 July 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

I like how we don't really know what it'll be, and everyone's losing their mind.

That is the reason behind 99% of the outrage and arguments on the forums: incomplete information from PGI.

[Luminarium]

We all said it a million times. This game needs 3 main fixes and clan wars.[/color]

1) Accuracy spread / weapons convergence[/color]
2) Small mechs size / collision mechanics change[/color]
3) Interface overhaul - make it like smurfys lab maybe.[/color]

]Is JJ heat really a problem ? The development priorities need to reflect issue with the game, not introduce clunky new mechanics. Gauss change wasn't necessary. You could have made the damage spread over an area or better yet introduce WOT like accuracy changes. You had no problem limiting them to 2 per mech, and yet you had to introduce ghost heat to balance the rest of the game? Why not limit the amount of ML to 6 per mech instead of some silly ghost heat....

Edited by Luminarium, 15 July 2014 - 01:59 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

The correct way to make people equip weapon modules is to make said modules worth it - not stripping the ability to equip regular modules.

[Pjwned]

Annoying that I can't find a transcript for this anywhere.

[Ovion]

Pjwned, on 16 July 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

Annoying that I can't find a transcript for this anywhere.

Someone posted one in this thread.

It's in a spoiler, and I think it's around page 6, but with 17 pages and just stopping for Spoilers it shouldn't take you long to find it.

[Reno Blade]

Cimarb, on 15 July 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

That is the reason behind 99% of the outrage and arguments on the forums: incomplete information from PGI.

It's like politics. If you give too much information, people will argue about numbers. And if you give too vague information, people will nag and call for "you guys didn't even finish the brainstorming phase".

Here we got too much information about the module numbers.
PGI is usually trying to not give numbers before they finished the whole thing (like the recent JJet changes, or ghost heat before...).
Giving out such information can be used to gather community feedback, like we give here in this thread, and then change values appropriately.
Ofc, the same effect could be achived by using a poll in a more controlled fashion, but I guess PGI wants to be seen strong and not "asking for help" that some people would obviously use to point out their weeknesses.

If they had just said:
"We are splitting modules in seperate categories and give the mechs different amounts per category to increase the effect of moduls for role warfare."
it would have turned out better, I guess.
But if that would be all, then people would nagg about the very short answer and lable the whole thing "worthless" because it has no "real" information (numbers) in it.
And also, there would be less feedback about what we want or not want (like all the posts here about the mastery weapon module slot).

Edited by Reno Blade, 17 July 2014 - 12:40 AM.

[Cimarb]

Reno Blade, on 17 July 2014 - 12:37 AM, said:

If they had just said:
"We are splitting modules in seperate categories and give the mechs different amounts per category to increase the effect of moduls for role warfare."
it would have turned out better, I guess.

I agree on the rest of your post, but I think more information is always better, unless it involves national security, of course.

PGI has actually made the "withhold specific information" mistake many times, and it always bites them harder than if they had just discussed it with us. The problem is, 99% of the time at least, is they toss out information and then go running back to their corners to hide. If they would just say, "hey, here is what we are looking at doing, can you find any issues with this?", the community would be able to brainstorm issues and the person that posted it could interact (I know, gasp) with us for the next couple days to iron out any issues and misunderstandings. Then, you would have a community vetted system that the majority of people would actually enjoy and feel they contributed to.

No, it would still not be perfect, and you would still have arguments, but proper community management is always a juggling act and it is the proper way to handle live development. This "ninja bubble" they currently use is irritating for those of us trying to help out.

[Reggimus]

Ovion, on 16 July 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Someone posted one in this thread.

It's in a spoiler, and I think it's around page 6, but with 17 pages and just stopping for Spoilers it shouldn't take you long to find it.

Page 15,

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 15 July 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

That is the reason behind 99% of the outrage and arguments on the forums: incomplete information from PGI.

you mean like the whole "group handicap" in the patch notes with absolutely zero explanation?


The Vlog was interesting. The modules.....

I don't understand why PGI insists on making things more complicated than they have to be.
Point A to Point B
not
Point A to D to H to Y to E before finally hitting B

There's no need to get all complicated with modules like this.
Give all mechs an extra module slot
Limit modules to certain mechs. (Want to see an increase in mediums and lights? try limiting arty and air to those scout mechs) and be done with it. Limit support modules to class specific mechs. Increase their usefulness by using this to help with role warfare. Give class specific modules for pilots such as things like:

Light Mech Specialist = + 5% to speed and xx seconds added to enemy lock to show the affects of giving a smaller signature
Scout Specialist = increased sensor range in light mechs
LRM Specialist = decrease in lock times

you have all of this stuff already in place. Use it to promote role warfare by having these types of things restricted by class and type. Follow Mech Commander's example. Expand on that.
Give every pilot one "specialist" module per weight class.

This IS mech WARRIOR right? Start giving pilot bonuses and such. That's the whole point behind Mechwarrior. It puts you in the cockpit to add an RPG element to the game. Let pilots use their GXP to level stuff like that up. This kind of stuff doesn't have to be complicated and can really enhance the game with relatively little work

[Devil Fox]

Are we actually gonna get a transcript to this devblog? or shall I just ignore it completely now?

[IraqiWalker]

Apostal Sinclair, on 18 July 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

Are we actually gonna get a transcript to this devblog? or shall I just ignore it completely now?

there's one on page 15. In a spoiler I think.

[Devil Fox]

IraqiWalker, on 18 July 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

there's one on page 15. In a spoiler I think.

Found it but it is a fan-created one... no official post like they usually do... and it's been over a week up...

[Cimarb]

Apostal Sinclair, on 18 July 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Found it but it is a fan-created one... no official post like they usually do... and it's been over a week up...

It has been over a week and you have been unable to watch a short video? Just read the transcript on page 15 if you are unable, or too lazy, to watch the video.

[IraqiWalker]

Cimarb, on 19 July 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

It has been over a week and you have been unable to watch a short video? Just read the transcript on page 15 if you are unable, or too lazy, to watch the video.

could be deaf? People with handicaps do play videogames as well.

[Cimarb]

IraqiWalker, on 19 July 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

could be deaf? People with handicaps do play videogames as well.

I understand that, but if that actually is the case, there is a transcript on page 15, as has already been pointed out both in my post and a few posts before that. He is just complaining to complain because there is not an "official" one.

[DAYLEET]

I noticed only 2 guys claiming to have reconnected while we have 1 or 2 disco every other game. LITERALLY. I had huge lag once and i closed the game and reconnected successfully. I dont think people are losing connection, they are deliberately leaving the game because it's not carrying them hard enough.

Add a big penalty to disco when alive now, make sure you cant play another mech at all. It makes sense now that you can reconnect, no excuse.

Edited by DAYLEET, 21 July 2014 - 01:37 PM.