314 replies to this topic

[Shlkt]

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

Seriously, though, when the weapon modules where added, it was under the premise they'd go to Level 5, and that there would be more than just +range/+heat modules.

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

Presumably they're delayed until the interface can sensibly support another fifty-four modules without cluttering an already busy selection screen...

[Llymrel]

Lots of complaining for what looks like a great new update.

Did anyone stop think that if they put in cool powerful modules without limiting by class it will break the system?

As mentioned early on, there are people with 4 slots already today and no limit to what they put. 4 mech modules can get pretty powerful. The limit is now going to be 3. It also means you can be a scout for LRMs and drop arty.

I agree the weapon modules had no value compared to mech and consumables. Now you can use them without competing. Original weapon module idea was to increase significantly over many levels. Without a 2 weapon limit someone could put nice weapon upgrades on all their loadout for any mech.

These are lots of if, and I see no downside to the design.

Those asking for refunds must never run more than a single mech. Kind of misses the point of the system to play multiple mechs in multiple rolls. Lots of complaining for a nice update. Thanks PGI. Keep the updates rolling. Would be nice to have a new set of maps soon. Good to hear it is a priority so let us know when to expect.

[Sandpit]

Llymrel, on 21 July 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

Lots of complaining for what looks like a great new update.

Did anyone stop think that if they put in cool powerful modules without limiting by class it will break the system?

As mentioned early on, there are people with 4 slots already today and no limit to what they put. 4 mech modules can get pretty powerful. The limit is now going to be 3. It also means you can be a scout for LRMs and drop arty.

I agree the weapon modules had no value compared to mech and consumables. Now you can use them without competing. Original weapon module idea was to increase significantly over many levels. Without a 2 weapon limit someone could put nice weapon upgrades on all their loadout for any mech.

These are lots of if, and I see no downside to the design.

Those asking for refunds must never run more than a single mech. Kind of misses the point of the system to play multiple mechs in multiple rolls. Lots of complaining for a nice update. Thanks PGI. Keep the updates rolling. Would be nice to have a new set of maps soon. Good to hear it is a priority so let us know when to expect.

See my above post

There's a big difference between "complaining" and showing how they could use this system to offer a lot more depth than what they're planning

[Vassago Rain]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 21 July 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

While we are more than happy to help out players with refunds in cases of billing errors or incorrect purchases, we also have a responsibility to protect ourselves from those who might seek to personally profit off of our efforts to improve the game.

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. In such circumstances: We have not simply a right, but an obligation to the game to make those changes. Additionally, it is worth noting that you haven't purchased any modules for MC and we do not typically offer refunds on any items acquired for free through game-play.

It wasn't a serious question.

I think we all knew since day 1 that the placeholder 1-4 module system would be redesigned, and the very early, utterly worthless modules would fall out of use in favor of stronger ones. I mean, when was the last time anyone equipped 360 targeting? It's still unlocked for me, and I never ended up selling the actual module, but I'm not putting it on any of my mechs under any circumstance.

I'm merely expressing my disappointment that this system was chosen to replace the placeholder. There's so much more that could have been done, so many better modules that should have been included, but aren't, and the design team is somehow expecting us to invest in the pretty worthless weapon mods.

>implying I'd ever seriously ask for a refund of my digital grind money.

Edit: I'd still like it clarified whether or not you went with Bryan's mock-up where you can equip multiples of various consumables.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 21 July 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

and just to throw my .002 in on it, yes, weapon modules are useless in my opinion. You really expect extra heat to be worth an extra 1-5 meters of range? how about you give me less heat for shorter range by 1-5 meters? That's still pretty "worthless" in my eyes compared to the other modules but at least it would do something "useful" at that point. Especially given the cost of those modules. Good idea, horrible implementation on that one.

I sincerely hope PGI looks at some of the suggestions regarding the modules in this this thread. You pretty much have players telling you what they want, don't ignore it

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Nikolai,

Not trying to be dense here, or maybe I missed something... but is there any changes that are going to happen with the modules themselves to make them... I dunno, desirable?

Not trying to be sarcastic, but let's take a look at the "Flamer" weapon module. A whopping whole 1 (one) meter long and maximum range increase. Maybe I'm not pro, or lack the mental capacity, but I can't fathom a realm as to where any of my mech builds would live or die based around that module.

So based on the assumption that all that will be offered for weapon modules is a few meters sneezing distance in range, I imagine that they will still be used as much then as they are now... if at all. Don't the powers that be see/understand this?

[Sandpit]

00ohDstruct, on 21 July 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Nikolai,

Not trying to be dense here, or maybe I missed something... but is there any changes that are going to happen with the modules themselves to make them... I dunno, desirable?

Not trying to be sarcastic, but let's take a look at the "Flamer" weapon module. A whopping whole 1 (one) meter long and maximum range increase. Maybe I'm not pro, or lack the mental capacity, but I can't fathom a realm as to where any of my mech builds would live or die based around that module.

So based on the assumption that all that will be offered for weapon modules is a few meters sneezing distance in range, I imagine that they will still be used as much then as they are now... if at all. Don't the powers that be see/understand this?

IS weapon modules that increased range enough to be slightly under clan weapons would be worth it. I still can't believe that PGI looked at their weapon modules and thought "Yea! Extra heat for 2 meters of range! Players will love this!"

Things like that really make me wonder if they play this game outside of private servers much...

[CyborgDragon]

When the weapon modules were originally introduced it was stated in a post somewhere that weapon module tiers 3-5 were still to be added. With this new system does that mean the higher tiers are going to be added soon?

[Bounty Dogg]

Vassago Rain, on 21 July 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Every single player will now carry X weapon mods and practically everybody will spam consumables, because there's nothing else to equip.

Hope you like red smoke.

I find it quite lively, actually

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

This is supposed to be mechWARRIOR online. That means we're supposed to be playing as an IS or CLan pilot. The mechs aren't the "characters" we are. So give pilots some skills and a certain number of skill "modules" that are tied to the pilot, not the mech.

Erm .. "Mech" modules ... plugged into "Mechs" as additional "MECH" technology. What you are describing sounds more a part of potential revisions with pilot skilling as opposed to the additional tech the specific Mech uses. Though of course additional tech could be as a result of some qualification with skill, but this would still imply a needed pilot skilling component for this kind of pilot related effects.

Also I'd suggest for balance reasons that rather than just adding bonuses with modules that you try to offset or balance use with penalties in addition to the bonuses. Specialisation then usually increasing some specific capabilities at the expense of others. This will also then beneficially reduce the impact to newer players who would be at a disadvantage to more experienced pilots if modules simply applied bonuses that either increase capabilities or rewards without some detrimental effect to performance to offset those gains.

Edited by Noesis, 21 July 2014 - 06:57 PM.

[Mechwarrior807015]

consumabe autoreload?

my bad english.. dont understand all here

Edited by 00BloodAsp00, 21 July 2014 - 07:03 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

Erm .. "Mech" modules ... plugged into "Mechs" as additional "MECH" technology. What you are describing sounds more a part of potential revisions with pilot skilling as opposed to the additional tech the specific Mech uses. Though of course additional tech could be as a result of some qualification with skill, but this would still imply a needed pilot skilling component for this kind of pilot related effects.

Also I'd suggest for balance reasons that rather than just adding bonuses with modules that you try to offset or balance use with penalties in addition to the bonuses. Specialisation then usually increasing some specific capabilities at the expense of others. This will also then beneficially reduce the impact to newer players who would be at a disadvantage to more experienced pilots if modules simply applied bonuses that either increase capabilities or rewards without some detrimental effect to performance to offset those gains.

that's fine if you want to offset them with penalties (although that defeats the purpose in my opinion)

point being they are missing a huge opportunity to use the module system to add a lot of depth and immersion to the game.

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

point being they are missing a huge opportunity to use the module system to add a lot of depth and immersion to the game.

WIP

[Sandpit]

you're overthinking it a bit. Explain the fluff any way you like

"you gain a sensor range bonus for your scouting module because you have learned to fine tune your sensor array"

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

WIP

?

and again, this is another situation where they've announced something, the community is giving them very good feedback on how to improve the system they're planning on implementing. Whether it's a WIP or not (i looked it up lol)

There's better ways to do it and to communicate. Such as, actually responding to the official feedback threads to let your customers know you're listening (this is simple PR stuff), and if you do like some of the ideas, SAY IT. Don't sit there in silence while your customers think you're ignoring them. This is where you wind up with stuff like "Argghghh PGI never listens! Look at all the ideas we gave them!"

[Exzander]

Thank you!

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:

you're overthinking it a bit. Explain the fluff any way you like

"you gain a sensor range bonus for your scouting module because you have learned to fine tune your sensor array"


?

and again, this is another situation where they've announced something, the community is giving them very good feedback on how to improve the system they're planning on implementing. Whether it's a WIP or not (i looked it up lol)

There's better ways to do it and to communicate. Such as, actually responding to the official feedback threads to let your customers know you're listening (this is simple PR stuff), and if you do like some of the ideas, SAY IT. Don't sit there in silence while your customers think you're ignoring them. This is where you wind up with stuff like "Argghghh PGI never listens! Look at all the ideas we gave them!"

The previous annoucements with modules suggested a number of ongoing revisions with additional content with varying qualities as part of the process to introduce new content. As such it is understood as a WIP, not a completed feature. By all means then present suggestions, but your claim that they are not looking into additional module content with variable features then is inaccurate as you do not know what they intend to introduce. Especially when they also previously mentioned a potential possible revision of pilot skilling also that could accomodate Role Warfare better.

Balancing modules is not about explaining the fluff, its about good game design and to reduce disparities with players due to the grind. It also makes it more challenging and interesting to consider choices if there are detriments as opposed to just bonuses. These then varying different Mech characteristics to "specialise" the mech or orientate it more towards a certain role.

PGI never listens is just Hyperbole. You yourself historically have claimed being "influential" to PGI with suggestions in previous discussion threads and we have seen PGI respond to player concerns on many occasion. I guess however sometimes you have to accept that PGI has a vision for MWO that might slightly differ from your own and try to come to terms with it in a mature way? Being beligerant with your concerns then could be detrimental to those interests, e.g. getting banned from Twitter perhaps?

Edited by Noesis, 21 July 2014 - 07:17 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

InnerSphereNews, on 21 July 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Changes to the Module Slot System

In Vlog #6 we stated, that the additional module you receive when mastering a Mech was a Weapon Module. We decided to change this module slot to a Mech Module slot for the launch of the feature.

In an upcoming patch (either the next patch or the one following): This Mech Module slot will be changed to a hybrid Weapon / Mech Module slot. This means you will be able to equip either a Weapon Module or a Mech Module. You can change this at any time based on your preference.

I like this idea! Yay!

[Cimarb]

TheCaptainJZ, on 21 July 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

Well, arty and airstrikes won't be so overpowering if there were other good choices to compete with, but we only have 4 consumables right now. The more modules they offer (of roughly equal value), the less likely everyone will carry the same.

I agree with that, but also think that arty/air, and possibly UAV, should be tied to the CTC/CC, since they are all Command-type modules. Require CTC/CC before those can be equipped, and it balances them much better.

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

Ok...

I think PGI is really dropping the ball here and missing the biggest potential factor in helping get a diverse variety of mechs on the battlefield.

To mirror what a few others have said (although I think I'm taking it a step further)

First make some modules that are mech and weight specific.
IE:
Scouting Module: +5% sensor range or a speed boost for certain mechs (or weight classes although using this on specific chassis such as the locust would give a reason to use those mechs more) and a +10% cbill and/or xp earned for any action related to scouting (think a bonus for every spotting reward you get)

Recon Module = increase in enemy lock time, or reduced enemy sensor range for your mech only, stuff like that.

Get creative with this stuff. This is where you have a chance to add some diversity to the game. Brawler module = maybe a bigger twist radius. You can doo all kinds of stuff with this. Limit some of the modules to specific chassis and this entices players to use those unpopular mechs more often without feeling "forced" to do so.

This is supposed to be mechWARRIOR online. That means we're supposed to be playing as an IS or CLan pilot. The mechs aren't the "characters" we are. So give pilots some skills and a certain number of skill "modules" that are tied to the pilot, not the mech.

Light Mech Specialist: Once this skill is purchased the player gets a speed and sensor bonus to all light mechs they pilot. If they decide to become a "heavy specialist" later, allow them to reset the skill and purchase a different weight class (for a cbill or xp cost so people don't just switch it out every match) Each weight class has its own set of perks.
Medium = speed boost and something like a bonus to their mobility (so they can torso twist a little further, turn a little faster, etc.)
Heavy = maybe a slightly faster heat dissipation
Assault = something like above and maybe add in or substitute a torso twist boost, etc.

Leadership: You get a bonus to assists as opposed to kills. or your entire team gets a boost to their sensor range (to simulate an experienced "leader" being on the field)

Sensor Specialist: Any mech carrying advanced sensor suites gets a bonus to them (Narc, Tag, ECM, BAP, etc.)

Special piloting skills such as recon, brawler, etc. Tie these skills to the pilot and give them xx amount of "slots" to add in skills for their character as opposed to putting everything on the mech. you're completely forgetting that mechs aren't the only "units" in the game. We have warrior characters. It adds depth and immersion.

The current system that's being proposed just doesn't "help" anything or create anything new or add to depth. All of this stuff should be "fairly" simple because you've already laid the groundwork with weapon modules and such. You're really missing an opportunity to add a lot of depth. And the old "soon" or "well for now we're just going with this" taglines aren't cutting it. It's time for you to listen to your community on stuff like this BEFORE you deploy it. Listen to your customers telling you what they want and need to enjoy the game more.

Totally agree, though with a bit less snarkiness, lol.

Niko (or whoever may be reading from PGI), please consider some of these suggestions. Things are looking a lot better, but there are a lot of ideas the community is throwing around that just needs some feedback to focus the think tank into a wonderful product for you. Use us, please...

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

You yourself historically have claimed being "influential" to PGI with suggestions in previous discussion threads and we have seen PGI respond to player concerns on many occasion. I guess however sometimes you have to accept that PGI has a vision for MWO that might slightly differ from your own and try to come to terms with it in a mature way? Being beligerant with your concerns then could be detrimental to those interests, e.g. getting banned from Twitter perhaps?

That was not called for, and I see no reason for it to be brought up.

[Droz]

I'd like to see consumable slots go down to one, personally.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

PGI never listens is just Hyperbole. You yourself historically have claimed being "influential" to PGI with suggestions in previous discussion threads and we have seen PGI respond to player concerns on many occasion. I guess however sometimes you have to accept that PGI has a vision for MWO that might slightly differ from your own and try to come to terms with it in a mature way? Being beligerant with your concerns then could be detrimental to those interests, e.g. getting banned from Twitter perhaps?

please show me where my suggestion and feedback is immature. you can hide behind being civil all you want dude but you're just arguing against the idea because it was mine. There's no "arggh" there's no "pgi sucks" there's no "immaturity" in any of my suggestions. Maybe you should come to terms with the fact that constructive feedback is still constructive even if you don't like it?

Cimarb, on 21 July 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

That was not called for, and I see no reason for it to be brought up.

he's just trying to carry over grudges from previous threads. I know what he's doing, I'm just not going to bite and fall into it for him.

Droz, on 21 July 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

I'd like to see consumable slots go down to one, personally.

or add some consumable that are just as "effective" in taking them. You can't blame players for taking certain modules when there's nothing else that offers anything nearly as good.

Also, I saw where someone had mentioned level 4 and 5 modules. The only problem with that is if they stick with the scale of the current modules they are not going to be worth it especially considering the cost and time that has to be invested to get them.