314 replies to this topic

[FireDog]

Hey PGI, Anyway to trade the Weapon/Consumable slots in at 2-for-1 for mech slots? If so sign me up!

I find the Mech modules far too useful and will equip them in most cases. I will sometimes equip an arty drop on some 12 mans. But that is only when it counts for my MWO unit or when I just wish to practice their dropping. Having only two Mech modules will degrade most of my Mastered mechs.

Also, what becomes of the few mechs that were equiped with extra module slots from the start as part of their chassie balancing? ie Jenner K vs the D, with the K having 1 less missle HP and one more module slot. Or the Raven 3L that was supposed to be the electronics heavy Raven and carry a full sensior suite? Any changes there?

Edited by FireDog, 24 July 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[LordLosh]

more posts please. I want to see PGI follow through with what Nikolai L. said about changes. "As an online experience, one will always have to expect changes to content in the game. We appreciate these might not be the changes you personally want, but they are the ones expected or desired by the majority of players and will open the door for further improvements."

So far I would say the majority of the players desire and expect more out of the current design and implementation on the new mod system they are currently working on!

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Dear PGI,

Why so vague about new module slot functionality?

Sincerely,
Those of us who are tired of guessing games and reading conjecture.

In a post a while ago, Russ was kind enough to explain the cost of an ingame Kit Fox in great detail. Such a post would be helpful with this major overhaul of module slots. Also you may want to revisit the potential game breaking consumable module (red smoke everywhere) situation, and the uselessness of weapon modules.

Edited by 00ohDstruct, 24 July 2014 - 04:32 PM.

[Sandpit]

00ohDstruct, on 24 July 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

Dear PGI,

Why so vague about new module slot functionality?

Sincerely,
Those of us who are tired of guessing games and reading conjecture.

he just described the majority of problems with MWO and the cynicism, frustration, and anger from some of the players in one single post lol

[BLOOD WOLF]

Not the the majority of problems. Its a problem of sorts but is is really small. This change will not drastically affect the game in much of anything other than how many modules you can use.

[Cimarb]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 July 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Not the the majority of problems. Its a problem of sorts but is is really small. This change will not drastically affect the game in much of anything other than how many modules you can use.

He was saying the vagueness of PGI in general, not just about the module situation. If PGI would be as communicative and forthcoming with ideas and issues as they should be, 90% of the issues and arguments on the forums would disappear. I do not follow Star Citizen, and it annoys me when other people say this, but honestly, if PGI would communicate like they do over there, it would be amazingly more positive over here. (Disclaimer being that PGI has made drastic improvements this year, but they still have a long way to go too)

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 24 July 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

He was saying the vagueness of PGI in general, not just about the module situation. If PGI would be as communicative and forthcoming with ideas and issues as they should be, 90% of the issues and arguments on the forums would disappear. I do not follow Star Citizen, and it annoys me when other people say this, but honestly, if PGI would communicate like they do over there, it would be amazingly more positive over here. (Disclaimer being that PGI has made drastic improvements this year, but they still have a long way to go too)

^this

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

00ohDstruct, on 24 July 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

Dear PGI, Why so vague about new module slot functionality?
Sincerely, Those of us who are tired of guessing games and reading conjecture.
(re-sized an snipped, because if you haven't read the OP, it fills up two screens above)

In my observation ... part of the problem is that PGI has a different yardstick for measuring "successful communication". Their "let's get some community feedback" process seems to be ...

(1) Float an idea (like a revamped module system) and see what the community thinks
(2) Watch the forum firestorm for a few days, sort out the good ideas, positive and negative feedback, ignore as much extra noise as possible
(3) (new step added this year) if something is particularly contentious or if there's a nugget of brilliant wisdom in the feedback, acknowledge it and return to step (2)
(3.a.) Forum firestorm continues
(4) When it makes the agenda at a scheduled meeting (this might take a few weeks), revise the design document
(4.a.) Forum firestorm starts dying off
(5) Start programming the change (this might take weeks)
(5.a.) New issue replaces previous forum firestorm, excpet for guys who just can't stop bitching about it, or those who keep a list of all the things they've ever bitched about and just won't get over it
(6) QA testing (this will take weeks)
(7) Build into patch
(8) If it's a big change, document it in patch notes or a Command Chair post
(9) Go back to step (2)

Part of the problem is patience. This particular thread is only three days old, and they've already fixed, kind of, my biggest gripe, which I sincerely appreciate. I do wish the process was faster, and that they would communicate with us more, but I would rather that they spend more time actually doing development work than talking about it (although I sincerely appreciate it when they do talk to us about it).

For the record, I completely agree with Cimarb that PGI has improved in this area, but still has a way to go.

[Night Fury76]

All i want is my level 5 weapon buffs and see that bonous thing from my phoenix mechs.
oh and updated ui mechlab
and CW
and one IS mech a month after clans released
and new maps
and merc life
and ...... well that turned into a long list....

Soon I guess, soon.

[Cimarb]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 24 July 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

In my observation ... part of the problem is that PGI has a different yardstick for measuring "successful communication". Their "let's get some community feedback" process seems to be ...

Spoiler

(1) Float an idea (like a revamped module system) and see what the community thinks
(2) Watch the forum firestorm for a few days, sort out the good ideas, positive and negative feedback, ignore as much extra noise as possible
(3) (new step added this year) if something is particularly contentious or if there's a nugget of brilliant wisdom in the feedback, acknowledge it and return to step (2)
(3.a.) Forum firestorm continues
(4) When it makes the agenda at a scheduled meeting (this might take a few weeks), revise the design document
(4.a.) Forum firestorm starts dying off
(5) Start programming the change (this might take weeks)
(5.a.) New issue replaces previous forum firestorm, excpet for guys who just can't stop bitching about it, or those who keep a list of all the things they've ever bitched about and just won't get over it
(6) QA testing (this will take weeks)
(7) Build into patch
(8) If it's a big change, document it in patch notes or a Command Chair post
(9) Go back to step (2)

Part of the problem is patience. This particular thread is only three days old, and they've already fixed, kind of, my biggest gripe, which I sincerely appreciate. I do wish the process was faster, and that they would communicate with us more, but I would rather that they spend more time actually doing development work than talking about it (although I sincerely appreciate it when they do talk to us about it).

Spot on. 5a is a particular pet peeve of mine regarding this community, actually...

[BSK]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 July 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Not the the majority of problems. Its a problem of sorts but is is really small. This change will not drastically affect the game in much of anything other than how many modules you can use.

No.

Sorry, but no. With the Clan LRMs they introduced us another bug, the missile lock delay. When I now get a lock for my missiles I have to wait 1 additional secound to be sure I don't send that salvo into the ground where I am looking at. Without the target decay module and the target info gathering the small window you get to achieve a lock would be just too small. If I could use only one module, then I had to wait additional 3 secounds after a lock and the enemy had no need for a radar deprivation module.

If they don't fix the Clan missile lock delay bug before they introduce the changes to the module system, they will destroy the indirect fire gameplay which will lead to even more camping.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

BSK, on 26 July 2014 - 12:37 AM, said:

...
If they don't fix the Clan missile lock delay bug before they introduce the changes to the module system, they will destroy the indirect fire gameplay which will lead to even more camping.

Less LRMs = more camping? ... as a guy who is pretty dedicated to brawling, I strongly disagree. I would much rather see a group of poptarts or ridge humpers than half a dozen volleys of LRMs every time I peek around a corner.

[Reno Blade]

I hear a lot of people say that the heat penalty of weapon modules keeps them from beeing good.
But did anyone check out heat/range increase numbers?
It seems that you still get more cooling efficient than without the modules!

Lets look at the LLaser range module Rank1:
Increase range by 10m and heat by 0.14.
So instead of 7 heat you will now generate 7.14 heat. marginal change of what, 2% higher total heat?

The range goes from 450m to 460m. A gain of 2.2% more range.

If we consider heat / range
before:
7 heat / 450m range
1,5555 heat / 100m

and after the module:
7.14 heat / 460m range
1,5521 heat / 100m

double all these values for Rank 2 (curently highest available)
and after the module:
7.28 heat / 470m range
1,5489 heat / 100m

less heat per range than without the module!

for the MLaser range:

Spoiler

before the module:
4 heat / 270m range
1,4814 heat / 100m

and after the module +5.4m and +0.08 heat :
4.08 heat / 275,4 m range
1,48148 heat / 100m
exactly the same

and after the module Rank2 +10.8 m and +0.16 heat :
4.16 heat / 280,8 m range
1,48148 heat / 100m
exactly the same

for the LPulse:

Spoiler

before the module:
8 heat / 350m range
2,28571 heat / 100m

and after the module +6.6 m and +0.15 heat :
8.15 heat / 356.6 m range
2,28547 heat / 100m
less heat

and after the module Rank2 +13.2 m and +0.30 heat :
8.30 heat / 363,2 m range
2,28524 heat / 100m
even less heat

But what about the SLaser? It will definitely be different/worthless, right?

Spoiler

before the module:
2 heat / 100m range
2 heat / 100m

and after the module +2.0 m and +0.04 heat :
2.04 heat / 102.0 m range
2 heat / 100m
exactly the same

and after the module Rank2 +13.2 m and +0.30 heat :
2 heat / 104.0 m range
2 heat / 100m
exactly the same
Stays the same, just like MLaser.

Lets look at SRM6s:

Spoiler

before the module:
4 heat / 270m range
1,4814 heat / 100m

and after the module +6 m and +0.08 heat (already 0.6m more range than MLaser):
4.08 heat / 276,0 m range
1,4782 heat / 100m
less heat

and after the module Rank2 +12.0 m and +0.16 heat :
4.16 heat / 282,0 m range
1,4751 heat / 100m
less heat

But maybe ACs are different?
AC2

Spoiler

before the module:
1 heat / 720m range
0,1388 heat / 100m

and after the module +12 m and +0.02 heat:
4.08 heat / 735,0 m range
0,1387 heat / 100m
less heat

and after the module Rank2 +30.0 m and +0.04 heat :
1.04 heat / 750,0 m range
0,1386 heat / 100m
less heat
very marginaly, but less than without the module.

AC20

Spoiler

before the module:
6 heat / 270m range
2.2222 heat / 100m

and after the module +5.4 m and +0.12 heat:
6.12 heat / 275,4 m range
2.2222 heat / 100m
exactly the same

and after the module Rank2 +30.0 m and +0.04 heat :
6.24 heat / 280,8 m range
2.2222 heat / 100m
exactly the same
Stays at the same rate, just like MLaser do.

Funny enough that you get more heat efficient for all the modules (but the constant SL/ML/AC20) by very low margin than before.
But people are so negative about the heat "penalty" of these modules.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Reno Blade, on 26 July 2014 - 01:20 AM, said:

(snip)
Funny enough that you get more heat efficient for all the modules (but the constant SL/ML/AC20) by very low margin than before.
But people are so negative about the heat "penalty" of these modules.

You point is valid. My real problem with the weapon modules problem is not really the effect, but the cost ...

At nearly four times the expense of the most costly IS weapon, and more than the expense of many 'mechs, the trade of a very slight range increase (which only affects the weapon outside of the original max effective range ... so, some of the time) for a very slight heat increase (which affects the weapon all of the time), I don't think the modules are worth it.

For a free-to-play player, who only owns four 'mechs, and has them all fully mastered and doesn't know what to spend C-Bills on, sure, why not ... but if for some reason I decided I wanted to equip these on my 'mechs, I'm either wasting more time when changing 'mechs or spending a ridiculous amount of C-Bills. No thanks.

[BSK]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 26 July 2014 - 12:43 AM, said:

I would much rather see a group of poptarts or ridge humpers than half a dozen volleys of LRMs every time I peek around a corner.

And that is why there is more camping with less LRMs, the teams are less spread out and the fighting locations are limited. Less variety means less weak spots, means less fighting - therefor more camping.

[Reno Blade]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 26 July 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:

You point is valid. My real problem with the weapon modules problem is not really the effect, but the cost ...

At nearly four times the expense of the most costly IS weapon, and more than the expense of many 'mechs, the trade of a very slight range increase (which only affects the weapon outside of the original max effective range ... so, some of the time) for a very slight heat increase (which affects the weapon all of the time), I don't think the modules are worth it.

For a free-to-play player, who only owns four 'mechs, and has them all fully mastered and doesn't know what to spend C-Bills on, sure, why not ... but if for some reason I decided I wanted to equip these on my 'mechs, I'm either wasting more time when changing 'mechs or spending a ridiculous amount of C-Bills. No thanks.

Yeah, they are pretty expensive.
But the Devs said it's considered one of the "end-game goals".
If thats still the goal, that means the "small upgrade" weapon modules are where they should be.
As the effect is not much, leaving one or two slots empty is not much of a loss.

Ofc, we all want to use all slots, but they are now added "on top" of the other modules.

[LordLosh]

I hear a lot of people say that the heat penalty of weapon modules keeps them from beeing good.
But did anyone check out heat/range increase numbers?
It seems that you still get more cooling efficient than without the modules!

Lets look at the LLaser range module Rank1:
Increase range by 10m and heat by 0.14.
So instead of 7 heat you will now generate 7.14 heat. marginal change of what, 2% higher total heat?

The range goes from 450m to 460m. A gain of 2.2% more range.

If we consider heat / range
before:
7 heat / 450m range
1,5555 heat / 100m

and after the module:
7.14 heat / 460m range
1,5521 heat / 100m

double all these values for Rank 2 (curently highest available)
and after the module:
7.28 heat / 470m range
1,5489 heat / 100m

less heat per range than without the module!

Thanks for your math......... but we are complaining that the minimum gain of the 20m is not worth the extra heat. you can break down numbers and stats to show your side of the argument all day long. Bottom line is its added heat to a game were you live and die by it.
PS I'm right 90% of the time 100% of the time. dividing over 100m on the weapon does not work because with out the mod the weapon still hits at those ranges and the extra heat is always present

[Ian Grahame]

Wintersdark, on 21 July 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

Where are the other types of modules, and higher ranks?

And more to the point, where are the weapon modules that are actually worth expending a module slot on?

[Sergeant Miles]

WTF all my weapon modules are gone. I paid a crap load to unlock all those and now they are gone.

What the hell is wrong with you people.. can't you get this straight for a minute.

You don't fix something by taking it away??

OK.. I've had it.. this is going to be the last straw.... bring back all those weapon modules or I'll start a class action against your company for bait and switch tactic's.

I have never lost a case against anyone ever. Make this right or I'll file a complaint with California legal system.

You think because your in Canada that I can't come after you for this Bait and Switch bullshit. We have laws here that protect us from crap like this.

Fix it.. and fix it soon.. or expect your lawyers to get busy with traveling to California courts to explain this.

STOP messing with us players or pay the piper!

[Sandpit]

Lol