588 replies to this topic

[zhajin]

so by reducing non weapon based customization you are actually increasing role warfare. I guess in pgi land that makes perfect sense.

[Kanin Zeta]

PGI/Devs In case you haven't heard it the first thousand plus times it's been said:

Weapons Mods are currently total garbage!!!


Just so I'm not guilty of saying "this sucks" without saying WHY it sucks, even though this has ALSO been said many times as well...low range + a heat penalty in an already (overly in some opinions) harsh heat management environment equals NOT WORTH USING.

Edited by Kanin Zeta, 30 July 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Ultimax]

DEV TEAM, on 29 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

The module slot system was changed while looking at role warfare. We are working on offering a bigger diversity of modules, we are also motivating players to play certain roles on the battlefield, which remains a great request from the Community.

1) This module slot change should have then been packaged with that "bigger diversity" of modules. At least then, there might seem to be some sense to the current changes outside of "stuff got nerfed".

2) These module slot changes, as they are on the live servers, are not successful in your goal of "motivating players to play certain roles".

Here's why:

> Most consumables are poorly designed. The only ones being used are Artillery Strike, Air Strike, UAV and Coolshot. Mostly, it's just Artillery and Air strike with a sprinkle of UAVs.

> How does everyone using the exact same consumables in any way promote "roles"? It does not.

DEV TEAM, on 29 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

A bigger number of modules not only means more choice: The new module system allows a deeper modification compared to before.

A bigger number of modules does not necessarily equate to more choice, unless you think choosing between

"bag full of cash"
"bag full of banana peels"
"bag full of confetti"

....constitutes a real "choice".

That's what we have right now.

We have some consumables and some mech modules that are good.

Then we have many that are outright bad.

And lastly we have Weapon Modules which are just completely awful both in performance gains and cost.

DEV TEAM, on 29 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

While most Mechs come with 1 Mech Module (2 when mastered), the consumables and Weapon Modules offer a wide range of combinations and specializations. As every Mech comes with at least one of these slots, old Mech modules do not become useless: What changes is the choices you will have to make when specializing in a certain play-style. This choice will always be a matter of preference and sacrifice, depending on which modules the players would like to take with them.

This sounds like you have convinced yourself, but not by actually looking at how the game is played. It sounds great, but really there is little substance in the above quote.

Please provide a few examples of how you feel you achieved this stated goal.

There was actually more customization the more mech module slots we had, as opposed to less.

Here's why (targeting players who used mech modules, as opposed to consumables):

> Players gravitated towards several critical modules that were universally useful.
> Then with any remaining slots, they would use the remaining few situational modules that would suit their build
> Few to no players used weapon modules because they are terrible value.

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 29 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

We are very sorry if this has affected or will affect your preferred build of a Mech or play style, but we are always basing our decisions on what will benefit the majority of our players and secure the highly-demanded future of role-warfare.

I think the goal is admirable, and as a grizzled veteran of countless MMOs I'm accustomed to nerfs, buffs and massive system changes.

I have no issue with any of that.


The issue is, I do not feel your current changes have even come close to the goal you've set out.

As one poster has jokingly posted, here is the new module slot load out for pretty much everyone:

Weapon 1) Empty, or AMS a
Weapon 2) Emtpy, or AMS b or Machine gun

Consumable 1) Artillery Strike
Consumable 2) Air Strike or UAV

Mech Mod 1) Seismic Sensor
Mech Mod 2) (High) Radar Dep or (Moderate) Advanced Zoom or (LRM Specific) Adv Targeting Decay


While it was a joke, it was extremely apt. This is the likely loadout of many, many players regardless of their mech weight class.




Here's what I would suggest:

1) Consumable mods require an entire overhaul so that Air/Arty strike aren't the borderline defacto choices of anything that isn't a light mech that might slot UAV in place of one of those.

2) Weapon modules need an overhaul. They have both low beneifts with a drawback, and are also too expensive for said benefits.

3) Revamp your concept for modules according to roles.

A: Go through all of the mechs. Identify the roles you see these mechs performing, use the KISS principle. Be sure to actually label the mechs, in-game, for players to see the role you intended for that mech.

B: Then identify which module types suit those specific roles. Including Weapon, Consumable & Mech Modules.

C: Then give each mech a specified number of UNIVERSAL mech module slots. here they can slot any mech module.

Then give each mech a specified number of ROLE SPECIFIC module slots, here they can slot any mech, consumable or weapon module slot that falls under the specified role umbrella as identified in B.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 30 July 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[xWiredx]

I think the module system would be far better served with loading a main module that defines the role of the mech, and that main module being the deciding factor on which sub-modules and how many can be loaded. Much better idea IMO. Also, I think consumables should be limited more, now I just see arty and airstrikes nonstop.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

More epic retardedness with this patch! Thanks for even more Arty and Air Strikes!! Thanks also for once again screwing up builds some of us have had for months and enjoyed just the way they were.

Th least you could have done was to keep the current slots and just added the consumable and weapon slots.

[Anais Opal]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 30 July 2014 - 01:05 AM, said: We are very sorry if this has affected or will affect your preferred build of a Mech or play style, but we are always basing our decisions on what will benefit the majority of our players and secure the highly-demanded future of role-warfare.


So, because we have been asking for role warfare, you blame this rubbish on us?

[G4M3R]

I haven't posted for a year but I just had to sign on for this.

Why the heck would you have a separate weapon module slot? I have NEVER used them and they will remain empty not because they compete with other modules, but because they are utterly USELESS. Only solution to have me even consider them - no heat penalty on the modules

[Nightmage61]

I have two main points:

First, this whole thing shows a lack of respect for the time players have to commit to earning the GXP and the CBs to buy the modules they want and equip a mech in a way they like. You get an idea and run with it and wonder why folks are POd when you implement it. It is this lack of respect for our time and effort, and for some, real money spent.

Second, do you folks just flat out hate lights? light participation barely cracks the 15% point now, this just screws off any kind of scout build.

Edited by Nightmage61, 30 July 2014 - 10:07 AM.

[Snoopy]

I like the direction of expanding and splitting of the module slots in categories. But I believe the distribution of the number per category is not purposeful.
To call the implementation we now have as "an increase in RoleWarfare" is close to an insult to the intelligence of each player. It reduced choice and no PR-message can change this.

IMO the two consumable slots will have a major impact on the MWO combat style. More than anything before. Two consumables-only slots are too much. It will change in-game match strategy and C-Bill economy drastically.

I assume that (except in competitive 12-man combat) not everyone was using mainly strikes in each match before. But this will be the future with two dedicated consumable-only slots. Arty- & Airstrike spam will be a integral part of every match. Using two consumable damage dealers in each match will be the standard.

If a team of 12 players, pre-made and PUG the same way, does not contain the maximum of 24 (!) or almost the maximum with some UAVs of Arty- & Airstrikes the corresponding slots it will have a disadvantage compared with a team using the full consumable slots.
It will be a constant C-Bill sink in the game. Loosing a game could even lead to loosing money. Think about R&R and how it effected the game negatively.

It will also give "old" players with huge C-Bills assets a big advantage over new players that still need their income to buy new Mechs & equipment. New players are simply not capable to spend that much C-Bills every game.
If they are "forced" to use two consumable-damage-dealers (Arty- & Airstrike) to be competitive, their income will be reduced significant and the "grind" will be longer. Or they spend real-money just to be not in a disadvantage. IMHO this sounds suspiciously like P2CUYHEIC (pay-to-be-competitive-until-you-have-enough-ingame-cash). A "auto-re-buy consumable" function only confirms my suspicion even more.

If this is all planned to increase MC sales for Mechs & consumables: please rethink it. It is a very short sighted plan for one-time fast income, but not for a long-term player-friendly business model. Spending money on a F2P game should be based on conviction, not coercion to be competitive.

I can only speak for myself, but: I do not own a single weapon module.
I have spend some GXP to unlock a few. But not a single one was, from its effect, appealing enough to buy it in contrast to a Adv. Zoom or Adv. Target Decay or Seismic or Radar Depr. , or or or ...

I only considered AMS and MG upgrade to be test worthy, but even does are IMO not worth losing the in-game effect of a Mech enhancement module ability. If all weapon modules are revised and are made available for all types of weapons, maybe ...

Changing the system now to force me to use a module that I did not used in the past (because it was not worth the cost & effect) is not very appealing to me. IMO most weapon modules are decreasing your general Mech performance instead of giving a real advantage.

• How was the decision made to give more weapon slots for each Mech?
  
• Why fell the choice for oveall most-slots-category on Mech-Consumables and not Mech-Enhancement?
  
• Why is changing the module system not used as a opportunity to introduce a real role warfare model?

Many others have made great suggestions how role warfare, based on Mech variant and available module slots, could be implemented.

Maybe it's only me, but IMO your "improvement" lost you turnover ...

[Anais Opal]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 30 July 2014 - 01:05 AM, said: We are very sorry if this has affected or will affect your preferred build of a Mech or play style, but we are always basing our decisions on what will benefit the majority of our players and secure the highly-demanded future of role-warfare.

just another point.

'Benefit the majority of our players'

you SCREWED the majority of your players.....

Oh I really wanted to add some expletives there, decided to keep it clean......

[Davers]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 30 July 2014 - 01:33 AM, said:

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the AC/20."

Finally, the last factor to mention is the importance of taking baby steps in dealing with balance so as to not revisit such fun occasions as LRMmaggedon™. Starting with just a handful of modules makes it more accessible and easier to review the overall effect of each one.

Hasn't PGI been tracking module and consumable usage this whole time? Isn't there enough data to know what moduals are being used?
How does giving the vast majority of mechs the exact same number and type of slots promote role warfare?
LRMmaggedon? Which one? The one with broken trajectories or the one due to fast missiles? Are you saying this new module system is a glitch or a badly tested idea? Is this new modual system a placeholder for the last placeholder?

[Odanan]

Odanan, on 29 July 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

2 Consumable modules for every mech: really? Do you want obligatory 48 artillery/air strikes each match?

Suggestion:

small (up to 50 tons) IS mechs: 2 consumables
large IS mechs: 1 consumable

small Clan mechs: 1 consumable
large Clan mechs: no consumables

EDIT:

PGI is also losing the opportunity to improve some inferior chassis/variants by giving them significantly more modules.*

We know the Weapon modules not worthless. Since the bonuses are ridiculous, why not REMOVING the heat penalty?

And PGI should add more options for them like:

- minimal damage increase;
- minimal rate of fire improvement;
- reduced spread (for missiles);
- faster lock-on (LRMs and SSRMs);
- shorter laser bust;
- faster projectiles;
- and so on...

TBH, I think the weapon modules should not be separated by each weapon type, but category (lasers, missiles, autocannons..)

*Spider 5V, Stalker 3H and 3M, for instance, could use some more modules to make them par with their inter-chassis variants.

[Navid A1]

Ultimatum X, on 30 July 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

...
As one poster has jokingly posted, here is the new module slot load out for pretty much everyone:

Weapon 1) Empty, or AMS a
Weapon 2) Emtpy, or AMS b or Machine gun

Consumable 1) Artillery Strike
Consumable 2) Air Strike or UAV

Mech Mod 1) Seismic Sensor
Mech Mod 2) (High) Radar Dep or (Moderate) Advanced Zoom or (LRM Specific) Adv Targeting Decay


While it was a joke, it was extremely apt. This is the likely loadout of many, many players regardless of their mech weight class.
...

I don't use AMS and MG... so my weapon slots are always empty. Seriously, why should i use a module with rare and non-existent benefits and with constant penalty.... I can close the gap for the offered extra range in an instant... even in slow mechs... meanwhile i am being punished on the worst aspect of energy weapons....heat.... all the time within base optimum range!!

also, i need the c-bills so empty consumables too.!

Edited by Navid A1, 30 July 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[BloodspatterGaming]

I do not, and will not spend c-bills on consumables. Why bother? The game is not geared toward rewarding wins over losses. I can make more C-bills on a loss than by blowing 40 or 80k to secure a win. Complete waste of my C-bills.

Weapon modules are likewise useless. The dev says that this will change "soon enough", well when you have other (READ: USEFULL) mods added and I have a choice about want to take, then I might look at it differently.

What I see now is PGI stripping my mechs of 1-2 Module slots for no return. Clan and Hero mechs I bought with a certain expectation of performance and ability. Stripping any part of that ability and not offering me a suitable compensation is tantamount to stealing from me. I don't like theft and I won't reward it with further theft. Congratulations PGI. You've closed my wallet on this game. Probably for good.

[AdamBaines]

GlycerineOxide, on 30 July 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

To: support@mwomercs.com
Subject: Clan Pack Refund
Hi,

I would like the money paid for my Clan Pack refunded as the items I purchased are now no longer the items I purchased with the changes you have made to the module system and therefore do not match the sales description of said items as set out by Trading Standards terms of conduct here in the UK.

Thank you for your swift action in this matter.

I agree with most of the disappointment here in this thread (maybe not the rage) but I understand if people are disappointed.

But whats the point in posting this? To show everyone how bad ass you are?

<Golf Clap> Bravo......

Edited by AdamBaines, 30 July 2014 - 10:43 AM.

[keith]

Navid A1, on 30 July 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

I don't use AMS and MG... so my weapon slots are always empty. Seriously, why should i use a module with rare and non-existent benefits and with constant penalty.... I can close the gap for the offered extra range in an instant... even in slow mechs... meanwhile i am being punished on the worst aspect of energy weapons....heat.... all the time within base optimum range!!

also, i need the c-bills so empty consumables too.!

there are countless good suggestion for useful weapon modules in this very same thread.... please use them PGI.!

targeting comp adds just as much benefit, the 1 ton one without any down side.

[Brienne]

I d'like to see MWO stats like "How many players used Weapon Modules last week".

-"So I read the datas. 15% of players get 1 weapon module, 12% get 2 weapon modules, 5% get 3 or more
-... Can we consider these modules respond to a real need?
-...hmmm"


PS: Pay 6M and get 2% range bonus. Yeahhh!!

[GrogX]

Not going to repeat what's already been said, just agreeing with what seems to be the majority- weapon modules being bad enough they have to be separated out speaks to how useful they are not, reducing 'Mech modules limits role warfare rather than enhancing it, arty/air spam because why not, etc.

Perhaps there could be some benefit to players who spend enormous amounts of time specializing in one 'Mech by allowing an additional 'Mech module slot at some outrageous amount of surplus XP. Say at 100k/250k/500k/whatever amount beyond your master slot being unlocked another becomes available. It seems to me that once you hit that master slot you're just getting into the groove with that 'Mech and it would reward people who look to truly specialize.

If the goal is to drive C-bill turnover and MC usage to boost the in-game and real world expenditures I think there are a lot of other ways to make that happen and other issues to look at. For one thing, give us a reason not to sell 'Mechs. I have 140'ish 'Mechs, I actively use maybe 30 of them. I've made it a point not to sell any 'Mechs because of the hit in C-bills but that's a moot point now. I've no reason to buy more 'Mech bays (loss of potential MC earnings) other than a Pokemech mentality. I'm sure there are tons of players at the same point. Give us some kind of benefit/reward/doodad that doesn't affect gameplay but still offers a reason to keep those things in the garage.

If C-bill surplus is a concern offer some vanity items for stupid amounts of C-bills. 10 million C-bills for a pair of brass balls hanging off a Hunchback, 20 million for a paint scheme, whatever. I know vanity items are typically only a real world money area but right now there's a point where C-bills are meaningless. Arty/air spam may slow down the gains but it doesn't stop it and it's annoying.

Mostly I hope all the hubbub over the modules isn't becoming a time sink for developers. I don't think the module rework has done anything to drive community warfare forward, please don't let it slow it down. CW, more 'Mechs, more maps, continuing to improve hit reg, improving map geometry, improving the UI functionality- I think most players would agree that is where we hope the focus is at.

[Navid A1]

Instead of reducing the mech modules... you could introduce slots that can accept a certain type of enhancement... or a limit on the total number of type X slots like:
- give all mechs 3/4 mech slots with the following properties:
- a slot which can accept only sensors and targeting
- a slot that accepts targeting and support only
- targeting and vision slots
- limit on the total amount of sensor / targeting / support. (e.g. a scout raven have limit of max 3 sensors but 1 max targeting / support one...)


Also, there are countless good suggestion for useful weapon modules in this very same thread.... please use them PGI.!
to name a few:
- Gauss (charge time / cooldown / range / speed / ignore %x armor / range / explode chance...etc)
- LB (spread /speed/crit chance....etc)
- PPC (more splash for less heat / speed / range / more damage for more heat / cool down...etc)
- UACs (jam chance / unjam time / faster burst for higher jam (clan) / speed / range / damage...etc)
- ACs (speed / range / damage / cool down / faster burst (clan) / ignore x% armor...etc)
- SRMs (range / flight speed / damage / spread / cool down...etc)
- SSRMs (range / accuracy / speed / lock time / cool down / visual lock in ecm jam for accuracy-locktime penalty... etc)
- LRMs (speed / range/ spread / cooldown / damage / lock on time...etc)
- lasers (duration / cooldown / heat / range / damage / delivering heat to target considering they acrualy melt the armor / reduced ghost heat...etc)
- MGs (rate of fire / range / crit chance / ignore x% armor / damage...etc)

Edited by Navid A1, 30 July 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Once again, LRMs are totally crapped on by what seems to be LRM hatred in the Devs.

No weapon boosts for LRMs, Boosted ability to have anti-LRM modules, Take away mech slots that help LRMs.

Anyone else see a small pattern here to sop the LRMQQcrowd with?

Listen, if this game is only going to be Energy and Ballistic, just say so and drop the pretense of even having missiles in your game beyond SRMs

If you're not going to outright buff LRMs where they should be in equality to the other weapons, give them nice fat weapon module bumps that they are entitled to? I mean... come on.

Oh, and a these new ludicrous prices, I'm sitting on my game wondering why I'm ever going to bother getting a single weapons mod and why I should hit 'play'.

Edited by Kjudoon, 30 July 2014 - 11:26 AM.