314 replies to this topic

[Asmosis]

some are worth it though. Increasing SSRM range for example is well worth the heat trade-off since they don't generate much heat in the first place. Other weapons are in a similar position.

Lasers should be handled differently I think though. They should get an increase in optimal range, but a reduction in max range. a med laser would go from 270m-540m to being 300-510m range for example. Giving them a heat penalty simply hurts and isn't worth it.

Xeno Phalcon, on 22 July 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Its a poor mis conception that americans like to bomb stuff, thats middle easterners.

We do however own guns, lots of them; My grandma owns a gun, my dog owns a gun

[Cimarb]

Bhael Fire, on 21 July 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

What happened to the Role Module slot? Wasn't that a thing some time ago?

That is you could equip a hard-lined "Role" module that rewarded you for performing specific role duties. Such as:

Scout Module: +50% C-Bill bonus for spotting, NARC/TAG, holding locks (see below) and capping.
Brawler Module: +25% C-Bill bonus for kills achieved within 200 meters.
Support Module: +15% C-Bill bonus for savior kills and assists.
Command Module: +5,000 C-Bills for each teammate alive at the end of the match if you win.

That said, the way spotting rewards work needs to be changed to the reward scouts for HOLDING locks...not just spotting them. They should get rewarded the longer they manage to hold a lock. For example, if they manage to hold a lock for 10 seconds, +2500 C-Bills, 20 seconds +5000 C-BIlls, 30 seconds +10,000 C-Bills, 40 seconds +20,000 C-Bills, etc. I see no reason why these rewards can't be awarded to anyone holding the same lock at the same time if they have the Scout module....to encourage synergy between the scouts.

The numbers and conditions are completely random off the top of my beer-addled mind...but you get the gist.

I think Role Rewards need to be revamped before Role Modules will help much.

Your spotting reward is a good example: the longer I stand on a cap node, the more points I should get. The current flat reward is horrible.

Another example is spotting. The longer I spot for my teammates, the more points I should get. A better way than just a static timer, though, would be to give "assist damage" points. Similar to the current flat spotting bonus (one bonus for each of your allies that hits the enemy mech once per match), this would give a dynamic spotting bonus instead that was based upon the amount of damage your team scored on the enemy you were spotting. It would only be a fraction of the points gained from actually damaging the enemy yourself, but compounded by the number of teammates benefiting from your spotting, it would add up quickly.

Then, once Role Rewards are in a good place:
Scout Module: increase TAG/NARC and spotting range, decrease enemy sensor range to spot scout
Brawler Module: decrease enemy sensor range to spot brawler and +5% torso twist
Support Module: increase optimum range by +5% (but not maximum) and sensor range by 10%
Command Module: (what you said)

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

I dunno. If they do something like that I would think they would just reset all modules for everyone

It is in game money, so I would not have a problem with that. WoW did it every time there was a substantial change in the skill tree, though it was not really a money sink like the MWO one is...

[Koniks]

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

But thats why they are allowing a more flexible use of the mastered mech slot, so as to not cut back on the mech modules, it is the very reason for this announcement I think?

---

But considering that the viable use of "modules" with this announcement to allow for flexible use with almost consistant numbers due to the possible idea of using the mastered slot as either a weapon or mech module slot as previously then I don't see the need to do this [GXP and CBill refund].

Except they said in the Dev Vlog the most common base configuration is 2 weapon module slots, 2 consummable slots, and 1 mech module slot. So the most common configuration, even with the player's choice module slot, is still a reduction in mech module slots for most players.

If I'm losing 1/3rd of my mech module slots, I want the CBIlls and GXP back from the modules I've unlocked and purchased.

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, on 22 July 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

Unless you increase damage of a weapon, most people will never equip a module that increases heat.

A range increase effectively increases average damage per shot for all shots over optimal range. It's just not a max damage per shot increase.

Edited by Mizeur, 22 July 2014 - 08:08 AM.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 22 July 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

I think Role Rewards need to be revamped before Role Modules will help much.

Your spotting reward is a good example: the longer I stand on a cap node, the more points I should get. The current flat reward is horrible.

Another example is spotting. The longer I spot for my teammates, the more points I should get. A better way than just a static timer, though, would be to give "assist damage" points. Similar to the current flat spotting bonus (one bonus for each of your allies that hits the enemy mech once per match), this would give a dynamic spotting bonus instead that was based upon the amount of damage your team scored on the enemy you were spotting. It would only be a fraction of the points gained from actually damaging the enemy yourself, but compounded by the number of teammates benefiting from your spotting, it would add up quickly.

Then, once Role Rewards are in a good place:
Scout Module: increase TAG/NARC and spotting range, decrease enemy sensor range to spot scout
Brawler Module: decrease enemy sensor range to spot brawler and +5% torso twist
Support Module: increase optimum range by +5% (but not maximum) and sensor range by 10%
Command Module: (what you said)


It is in game money, so I would not have a problem with that. WoW did it every time there was a substantial change in the skill tree, though it was not really a money sink like the MWO one is...

Agreed all the way across. PGI has a great opportunity to really enhance the game with this.
use this system to really get role warfare ramped up

I have no issue if they reset modules. It would allow players to rethink modules after all the changes that have been made

[sabujo]

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, on 22 July 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

Remove the heat penalty from weapon modules... No one likes heat, hell I can't imagine firing a clan erppc with more heat then they are already... Remove the heat penalty from weapon modules

I think that what is missing for these modules to be considered are those that promote the reverse effect: less range, less heat. That and make the range improvement on the current modules more significant so that the trade-off can pose better.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Asmosis, on 22 July 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

I will not raise to your bait!




.....now where did I put that big red button...

--------------------------------------------

But back on topic and in all seriousness, the success of this change is largely dependent on how they treat artillery/airstrike and how quickly /diversely they implement weapon modules. Originally they had planned many more ranks when they first pooped out the original weapon modules but so far we havent seen hide nore hair of the higher ranks. (I mean don't get me wrong, my 6 extra meters on lbx is just fabulous! -.^)

Im hoping they will have higher ranks AND a greater diversity in effects instead of just +range +heat, such as -cooldown +heat for lasers or -heat +cooldown, that sort of thing....the possibilities are quite varied.

Edited by Xeno Phalcon, 22 July 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Corbenik]

Why not make the Weapon Modules that increase heat just remove Ghost Heat from those weapons?

[WintermuteOmega]

As much as i appreciate the Change to Omni-Slots, the module-System as a whole feels totally like Patchwork.
Very few useful modules, many useless modules, all mixed in respect of sensory-, movement-, weapon-, misc-benefits. Extremly expensive for their benefits too, so you have to "swap" the around every time which is no fun time consuming busywork etc.

I am all for a complete overhaul, because patching here and there won't make the game more coherent, but propably less ("why is this a mech- and not a Weapon-Module etc.")

I recall there were plans to overhaul, why not just do it?

[Hydrocarbon]

FupDup, on 21 July 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

A. Weapon modules need to be useful. Their boosts need to be a little bit higher, and they shouldn't have a heat penalty. After all, "mech modules" and consumables lack penalties, so it's only fair.

Exactly. The range boost is pitiful, and only helps less than 1% of the time for most weapons. However the heat penalty hurts 100% of the time. On top of that you must blow C-Bill's to equip them, and only after blowing rare GXP to unlock them. Most people would jump all over them if it was reversed, less heat for less range - even if they cost more.

I can say with much certainty my weapons module slots will never be used.

[Wintersdark]

Hydrocarbon, on 22 July 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Exactly. The range boost is pitiful, and only helps less than 1% of the time for most weapons. However the heat penalty hurts 100% of the time. On top of that you must blow C-Bill's to equip them, and only after blowing rare GXP to unlock them. Most people would jump all over them if it was reversed, less heat for less range - even if they cost more.

I can say with much certainty my weapons module slots will never be used.

Until they're changed, anyways.

Sadly, right now Weapon Mods are Noob Traps. There's some limited circumstances when they aren't actually a net loss, but in the vast majority of cases, Weapon Mods actually make your mech worse. At a great cost of c-bills and GXP.

Even a lot of regular modules can *sound* good to a new player, but are ultimately such garbage as to be a total waste of time.

[Wabbit Swaya]

On a smartphone and didn't want to read thru seven pages of tiny text. Will AMS Modules be considered weapons or mech slots? Hopefully weapons, they do use ammo and though they are a defensive weapon still a weaposn none the less.
If this was already brought up , then sorry.

[Wintersdark]

There's an AMS range extension weapon mod. I believe there was also an AMS Overload Mech Mod added when the Clans arrived, but I'm not positive and am also rocking my phone so I can't check.

[corpse256]

Sounds like everyone wants to hurt players that run two shots of flush and uav but, hey if you want to give an unfair advantage you got your wish if you only get one consumable. Players only get one flush? now you can't use 9 by 9 to equal out the 18 one shot? thats pretty dumb. At least 2 consumables not one. I don't mind getting rid of my 6 by 9 + uav I'll change but issue is that if you do that for public match players they still won't look for enemy mechs even when I show them where the whole team is and still don't understand why they lost the game. I feel some of these restrictions should only be 12 v 12 rules and not to hurt players that are trying to help others out. I never use mech modules because they are not worth my time, only helping just one player out not the whole team. I like trying to help players play the game but you can't force players to learn they will play the way they want to play, only can help the ones that want to learn.

Try this players are restricted to one strike module either air or arty keep the players that want to help the team help the team, because adding in 2 mech module slots only help the player and not the team. IF you don't use a strike you should be able to put on 3 consumables instead of just 2, would hurt the performence of my mechs and other players that run flush shots to keep their mech cool, very unfair advantage to high heatsink builds with energy only might as will give the win to them and restrict mech building. But as Nikolai posted changes maybe for better or for worse, I'll except only 2 consumables in respect for change of the game. But forcing people to use mech modules is no way to go. I've never used mech modules and I don't think I will. Maybe if you added uav as a mech module instead of a consumable and only have one per game instead of wasting 40k on one per match might get players to use information gathering tools instead of helping out themselves.

[OznerpaG]

Asmosis, on 22 July 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

Lasers should be handled differently I think though. They should get an increase in optimal range, but a reduction in max range. a med laser would go from 270m-540m to being 300-510m range for example. Giving them a heat penalty simply hurts and isn't worth it.

wicked idea - optimal range up by x%, effective range penalized by x% times 3 (eg optimal range up by 5%, effective range down by 15%)

another possible (but maybe more dangerous) idea - laser damage up x%, optimal/effective range penalized by x% times 2 or even 3

Edited by JagdFlanker, 22 July 2014 - 12:32 PM.

[SemperDie]

Does this mean that some more clan modules will also be released during this patch?

[Prezimonto]

FupDup, on 21 July 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Thank you, this was a good decision. However, there are still other issues with the upcoming new system, including but not limited to:


A. Weapon modules need to be useful. Their boosts need to be a little bit higher, and they shouldn't have a heat penalty. After all, "mech modules" and consumables lack penalties, so it's only fair.

B. There should be a much larger variety of weapon mods. Not just range. We should also have things like heat, cooldown, damage, and unique/weapon-specific weapon mods.

C. Dedicated consumable slots is just begging for arty/airstrike spam all day erryday. No consumable slots, please.

D1. Consumables should be classified into some of the categories above. For example, UAV would be a sensor mod and arty/airstrike would probably be support mods. Coolant Flush might be a mech mod or potentially even a weapon mod.

I would love if the Command Console was responsible for providing a "support consumable" slot, and if coolant was reclassified as a mech modules and UAV as a sensor module.

And then allow the "master" tier slot to be generic, ie... anything you want.

Edited by Prezimonto, 22 July 2014 - 01:30 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

WintermuteOmega, on 22 July 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

I recall there were plans to overhaul, why not just do it?

This is the overhaul ... That is the sad thing

[M1Combat]

Myke Pantera, on 21 July 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Better than what has been announced in the DevLog#6, but this is still a system change solely meant to generate more money, and not meant to improve the game.

You give us 2 consumable slots, so that everyone of us blasts 80k C-Bills per round, which leaves us with about 20k C-Bill gain per match aka no progress at all. It doesn't help define the role of a mech, it doesn't add to the fun, its meant to eat our C-Bills. Period. I haven't been as disappointed since the announcement of the Clan Packages before Christmas. Meany good things happened since UI2.0 was released, and i thought you finally understood, that making the best possible game, will convince players to pay for it. Free Mechs and Tournaments and nice Events made me buy more MCs. Changes like this just frustrate me quite a bit.

A module system meant to help with role warefare would have been appreciated by the community! Happy Community == Money. But what do i know...

Stupid.


Everyone already carries Arty/Air. Now we'll just have the ability to carry those AND a few others that are useful. If you don't want to use "waste" CBills then just carry them anyway and only launch when you'll MAKE money from doing so (3 mechs).

[xeromynd]

I really think that what would make the most sense for PGI would be doing (as a base example) 2/2/2 for modules, with an unlockable seventh that can either be a weapon or a mech module.
[2 Mech Modules, 2 Weapon Modules, 2 Consumable Modules]

Some ways I think this could be done right:

2 Mech Module Slots (+1 Unlockable via. Mastery)
-Players (like myself) who are currently playing with 3+ of these 'Mech Modules' would be able to keep 3 on their loadout, and not take away too much. (I've yet to play a mech that has four, but I'd assume the percentage of mechs that can mount 4 islow)

----> 2 (+1) Mech Module slots increases potential for role warfare and further customization. Plus you need GXP to unlock those expensive-as-f**k modules, so it promotes the conversion of MXP to GXP [$$$]

2 Consumable Module Slots
-Because, I get it, it's a cash grab for PGI. And I don't think they'll change this. It's meant for us to either buy Consumables with MC [$$$] , or spend so many CB on refilling consumables that we resort to buying mechs or other purchases with MC [$$$].

---> If this is true. It's time to slightly nerf airstrikes and arty to 30dmg per shell.
---->If this is true, we shouldn't be allowed to equip two of the same consumable (ie. two airstrikes) This may already be a thing, but I don't use consumables, so I wouldn't know.

2 Weapon Module Slots (+1 Unlockable via. Mastery)
-Weapon modules, are slightly useful. AMS overload, SSRM range, and enhanced narc aren't terrible to have on hand. The buffs for other weapon modules really aren't worth it right now when the same slots could be filled with infinitely more useful mech modules. But when this new system is implemented, there's pretty much an "oh why the hell not" appeal to them. (Imo) most of my builds are pretty heat efficient anyway, and the slight heat increase really doesn't make or break my build.

-------> If we get a possibility of 3 weapon modules total, some of them will need slight buffing to make them viable. [AC Ranges, Laser Ranges etc...]
----> Just think of ALL the modules you could introduce. Shorter Beam Duration, Faster AC Reload and....dare I say it......damage increase modules?


Also:
This would be a fantastic time to implement the auto-reloading of consumable modules, no? PGI gets more $$$, and we get a feature most of us have always wanted.

Edited by xeromynd, 22 July 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[LordLosh]

lets keep this post active so the devs and everyone can see everyone's concerns and input. I think they changed there mind on the master slot being a weapon mod because of the up roar we all voiced. Lets keep this going so we can maybe get more useful weapons mods, arty/air strikes limits, or more useful consumables to make a strategic decision on not bringing an air or arty strike.

Edited by LordLosh, 22 July 2014 - 03:25 PM.