314 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

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

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

....

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

Sandpit was throwing stones at PGI unecessarily and without reason. Apologies if my appeal to try and help him think about why he might be so "emotionally" invested that it might be skewing his thinking and not actualy helpful to his interests overall doesn't seem to be in keeping with your own views.

If you judge helping people by showing candour as snarky then fine that is your opinion Cimarb. Sometimes however it can be helpful to people to see how their "opinions" and how they present them as being detrimental to their intent or purposes. And I consider "sugar coating" this not helpful here especially when Sandpit seems so free to cast blame or belittle the efforts of PGI so openly when it is not deserved or just personal opinion that should not necessarily be considered as fact but then exaggerated for effect.

Edited by Noesis, 21 July 2014 - 08:19 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I am very happy to see this change in PGI's plan for modules at this point.

Does not mean I will ever equip a weapons module regardless, but still a good compromise imo.

[Noesis]

In other news of more interest, ty PGI for making this sensible revison to modules to provide additional pilot choice and scope for selecting module preferences as an ogoing exercise with MWO's development.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

In other news of more interest, ty PGI for making this sensible revison to modules to provide additional pilot choice and scope for selecting module preferences as an ogoing exercise with MWO's development.

Good show, chap. I concur.

[Triordinant]

I see the upcoming module system as a Darwinian exercise. Anyone dumb enough to spend cbills on maxing out their weapon module tiers instead of on useful 'mech modules or saving up for future 'mechs will be an easy kill for me.

[Bhael Fire]

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.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 21 July 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[phalanx]

What I am really excited is how this new system will affect mechs and specific variants that need some love.

For those who are questioning this, this is an opportunity to provide more mixing and matching of modules that can support a player's favored style of play.

I also agree that we need more Weapon Modules and that the current modules provide a greater range boost.

Edited by phalanx, 21 July 2014 - 08:40 PM.

[Sandpit]

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.

that's exactly what I was suggesting (which apparently makes me immature lol)

they have an excellent opportunity to add a lot of depth to the game with this and it really seems like they're missing the mark.

[Selbatrim]

I am a long time opponent of consumables and a bit of an annoying purist. i think modules are a bit of a heresy anyway as it provides grinders with a bonus over newbiews beyond what skill provides anyway. i've not fought too hard against the mech and pilot skills but imho these "achievements" are most fun because they offer an actual point to the drops beyond the gameplay. I think this is mostly adding a "journey" from a game that sadly doesn't have a gameplay journey.

bring on CW. this is all just noise. complicating a complicated system to benefit those who are mostly interested in winning. man i wish this was a single player game sometimes...

[Koniks]

Noesis, on 21 July 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

In other news of more interest, ty PGI for making this sensible revison to modules to provide additional pilot choice and scope for selecting module preferences as an ogoing exercise with MWO's development.

While this is better than the first draft, it still leaves a lot to be desired. 2 consumable slots is going to lead to too much strike spam. 2 weapon slots is at least 1 too many for most people. And cutting the mech modules back from 3 is a bad nerf.

While Nico has pointed out that they don't offer refunds on an individual basis for items purchased with free game play, this is the kind of extreme revision that merits refunding everyone the GXP and CBills they invested in the old module system.

[Noesis]

Mizeur, on 21 July 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

While this is better than the first draft, it still leaves a lot to be desired. 2 consumable slots is going to lead to too much strike spam. 2 weapon slots is at least 1 too many for most people. And cutting the mech modules back from 3 is a bad nerf.

While Nico has pointed out that they don't offer refunds on an individual basis for items purchased with free game play, this is the kind of extreme revision that merits refunding everyone the GXP and CBills they invested in the old module system.

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?

With the existing module numbers consumable spam is still possible and remembering the consumables already have individual restrictions on combinations and individual use.

Weapon module slots might seem to be more numerous than needed, but we havent seen all the weapon modules yet to be introduced.

---

If PGI see it as beneficial to re-imburse pilots with C-bills and GXP so they can re-select or reconsider which modules to invest in as a result of this change then I wont object to that as a process. 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. If anything it seems to reduce the potential number of consumable options as this isnt included as the "flexible" slot choice. Thus potentially limiting consumable use for some mech choices, but could be a consideration for some reduction in the spam use of strikes if say for example Cool shots or UAVs might be more pertinent for the mech.

Edited by Noesis, 21 July 2014 - 09:19 PM.

[Sandpit]

Mizeur, on 21 July 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

While this is better than the first draft, it still leaves a lot to be desired. 2 consumable slots is going to lead to too much strike spam. 2 weapon slots is at least 1 too many for most people. And cutting the mech modules back from 3 is a bad nerf.

While Nico has pointed out that they don't offer refunds on an individual basis for items purchased with free game play, this is the kind of extreme revision that merits refunding everyone the GXP and CBills they invested in the old module system.

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

[Shadow Magnet]

I really like the idea of role modules mentioned before, though I would give them more features and make them available at master level only (so mastering does unlock a role module slot), with more than 1 tier to have long time motivation:

These would be tier 2 (cost 50.000 GXP, 20.000.000 CBills)

* Brawler:

- you get 75% less damage if damage comes from > 500m
- you get 50% less damage if damage comes from 350-500m
- you get 25% less damage if damage comes from 200-350m
- you get do 50% more damage at 0-150m
- do 25% more damage at 150-250m
- do 25% less damage at 350-500m
- do 50% less damage at > 500m
- 5% less sensor range
- 5% less visibilty range
- 10% less speed
- less screen shake from hits

* Scout

- 10% more speed
- can position UAV like artillery strikes/air strikes (not just launch UAV on your own position)
- UAV has 25% increase life time
- 50% more sensor range
- 50% more visibility range (also for night vision and heat vision)
- 20% longer weapon cool down
- the target you lock get's 15% more damage from friendly units (but not from you)
- less fall damage
- JJ more efficient
- improved hill climbing

* Sniper

- zoom rates increased
- 25% increased crit chance
- 25% more sensor range
- 50% more beam range/ballistic range
- 50% increase in weapon cool down time
- you have 50% damage increase > 1200m
- you have 25% damage increase > 800m
- you have 25% damage reduction from 300-600m
- you have 50% damage reduction below 300m
- 25% slower torso turn rates
- more screen shake from hits

* Support

- UAV, air/artillery strikes that you deploy are more powerful/efficient
- AMS of friendly units within 350m works more efficient (including your own mech)
- if you have ECM, the range of the ECM bubble is increased
- friendly units within 350m produce 10% less heat (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m take 15% less damage (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m have 15% more sensor range (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m get 15% more cbills for damage/kills (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m have 10% more weapon range (but not your own mech!)
- you get more cbills for saviour kills
(bonus for other mechs do not add up if several support mechs are in range)

* Generic role tier 2 module:

- 5% more speed
- cause 5% more damage
- take 5% less damage
- 5% more turn speed, arm movement, twist range, twist speed
- 5% more sensor range
- 5% less weapon cool down
- 5% less heat

(tier 1 would be 2.5% for all these, similar value reduction for the other modules, costs: 15.000 GXP, 10.000.000 CBills)

Edited by Shadow Magnet, 21 July 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[Sandpit]

Shadow Magnet, on 21 July 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

I really like the idea of role modules mentioned before, though I would give them more features and make them available at master level only (with more than 1 tier to have long time motivation):

These would be tier 2:

* Brawler:

- you get 75% less damage if damage comes from > 500m
- you get 50% less damage if damage comes from 350-500m
- you get 25% less damage if damage comes from 200-350m
- you get do 50% more damage at 0-150m
- do 25% more damage at 150-250m
- do 25% less damage at 350-500m
- do 50% less damage at > 500m
- 5% less sensor range
- 5% less visibilty range
- 10% less speed
- less screen shake from hits

* Scout

- 10% more speed
- can position UAV like artillery strikes/air strikes (not just launch UAV on your own position)
- UAV has 25% increase life time
- 50% more sensor range
- 50% more visibility range (also for night vision and heat vision)
- 20% longer weapon cool down
- the target you lock get's 15% more damage from friendly units (but not from you)
- less fall damage
- JJ more efficient
- improved hill climbing

* Sniper

- zoom rates increased
- 25% increased crit chance
- 25% more sensor range
- 50% more beam range/ballistic range
- 50% increase in weapon cool down time
- you have 50% damage increase > 1200m
- you have 25% damage increase > 800m
- you have 25% damage reduction from 300-600m
- you have 50% damage reduction below 300m
- 25% slower torso turn rates
- more screen shake from hits

* Support

- UAV, air/artillery strikes that you deploy are more powerful/efficient
- AMS of friendly units within 350m works more efficient (including your own mech)
- if you have ECM, the range of the ECM bubble is increased
- friendly units within 350m produce 10% less heat (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m take 15% less damage (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m have 15% more sensor range (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m get 15% more cbills for damage/kills (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m have 10% more weapon range (but not your own mech!)
- you get more cbills for saviour kills
(bonus for other mechs do not add up if several support mechs are in range)

* Generic role tier 2 module:

- 5% more speed
- cause 5% more damage
- take 5% less damage
- 5% more turn speed, arm movement, twist range, twist speed
- 5% more sensor range
- 5% less weapon cool down
- 5% less heat

(tier 1 would be 2.5% for all these)

Yea that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm too lazy to get thay detailed. This man has an awesome idea.
They can tie some of those traits to specific mechs and weight classes as well. This would add so much depth to roles and the game.
Numbers don't even have to be that big. Let it build a bit and see where the numbers should come to rest. I'd rather they start too small and go up than vice versa on something like this.

[XX Sulla XX]

Thanks for changing this.

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

that's exactly what I was suggesting (which apparently makes me immature lol)

It is not what you said about inclusion of role based skilling or module use which is in effect in itself a good idea to help expand and emphasise Role Warfare better. Not that it is a new idea and has been considered and mentioned by PGI and others on numerous occasions already.

I consider you immature because you seem to "Throw your toys out the pram (maybe Sandpit? )" when decisions or opinions don't go as you would like them in relation to discussion or in representing opinions about PGI where you seem to use strawman fallacies in your forming of your opinions.

Though considering the above statement it may just be a case that you assume things incorrectly. So could just be a problem with interpretation of events or dialouge as you want to see it as opposed to understanding or clarifying the real meaning and/or facts?

Edited by Noesis, 21 July 2014 - 10:30 PM.

[Marodeur]

Hi,
I also would prefer it, if there would be a more differentiated distribution of the kind of module slots, that support the different mech roles. For example, the assault, and heavy mechs can take more weapon slots and less or even NO sensor slots (so that they are more dependent on the other mechs, especially medium and lights to scout and e.g. to log in for missile support), the medium can take a bit of both and the lights also both or only sensor slots. And the arti and air strike modules I would give only to the lights and no one else, because in my opinion, they are used to often and that won't be better with the consumable slots ;-). Also it would make the lights again a bit more attractive for players to take. At the moment they mostly always have the smallest percentage in the matches.
Of course that again would need a lot of fine tuning, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.
Greeting!

[Orbit Rain]

My feedback...Limit consumables to one module slot total. You *know* we're here to play mechs, not perish to RNG's from non-mechs. Find something else to sink cbills in match.

[Squarebasher]

Role modules certainly sound the way to go.

[Marodeur]

Shadow Magnet, on 21 July 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

I really like the idea of role modules mentioned before, though I would give them more features and make them available at master level only (so mastering does unlock a role module slot), with more than 1 tier to have long time motivation:

These would be tier 2 (cost 50.000 GXP, 20.000.000 CBills)

* Brawler:

- you get 75% less damage if damage comes from > 500m
- you get 50% less damage if damage comes from 350-500m
- you get 25% less damage if damage comes from 200-350m
- you get do 50% more damage at 0-150m
- do 25% more damage at 150-250m
- do 25% less damage at 350-500m
- do 50% less damage at > 500m
- 5% less sensor range
- 5% less visibilty range
- 10% less speed
- less screen shake from hits

* Scout

- 10% more speed
- can position UAV like artillery strikes/air strikes (not just launch UAV on your own position)
- UAV has 25% increase life time
- 50% more sensor range
- 50% more visibility range (also for night vision and heat vision)
- 20% longer weapon cool down
- the target you lock get's 15% more damage from friendly units (but not from you)
- less fall damage
- JJ more efficient
- improved hill climbing

* Sniper

- zoom rates increased
- 25% increased crit chance
- 25% more sensor range
- 50% more beam range/ballistic range
- 50% increase in weapon cool down time
- you have 50% damage increase > 1200m
- you have 25% damage increase > 800m
- you have 25% damage reduction from 300-600m
- you have 50% damage reduction below 300m
- 25% slower torso turn rates
- more screen shake from hits

* Support

- UAV, air/artillery strikes that you deploy are more powerful/efficient
- AMS of friendly units within 350m works more efficient (including your own mech)
- if you have ECM, the range of the ECM bubble is increased
- friendly units within 350m produce 10% less heat (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m take 15% less damage (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m have 15% more sensor range (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m get 15% more cbills for damage/kills (but not your own mech!)
- friendly units within 350m have 10% more weapon range (but not your own mech!)
- you get more cbills for saviour kills
(bonus for other mechs do not add up if several support mechs are in range)

* Generic role tier 2 module:

- 5% more speed
- cause 5% more damage
- take 5% less damage
- 5% more turn speed, arm movement, twist range, twist speed
- 5% more sensor range
- 5% less weapon cool down
- 5% less heat

(tier 1 would be 2.5% for all these, similar value reduction for the other modules, costs: 15.000 GXP, 10.000.000 CBills)

Hi,
I think this isn't the right way to create different roles in MWO. For me most of your suggestions fit very good to a role play game like WOW but not to a, lets call it mech simulation. The features you propose are to unlogical for me and mostly doesn't make sense for a "real war" (e.g. why should a brawler take less damage than another mech?). Of course not everything PGI introduced to the game until now is logical in the sense of a real war or real physics, but I have to say, that they really take care about a logical background of the new introduced features and content. Should be no offense, just my opinion.