588 replies to this topic

[Daehoth]

ENS Puskin, on 30 July 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

I am afraid that your topic will be locked. Own experience!

I'm well aware of that possibility. Still, it will hopefully bring some awareness to PGI of what they've done wrong.

If they lock down yet another valid poll, it will only serve to prove their folly in the matter and that their true intention is never to listen to its own player base but to simply do what PGI wants to do (which is plainly obvious, to create a cbill sink that benefits them only and wholly).

Edited by Daehoth, 30 July 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Dan Nashe]

Here are my thoughts:

I *sort of* agree when it comes to mech modules and weapon modules.
As presented, if everyone has 2 mech modules, that's cool.

Various weapon modules is okay in theory, although in practice it's all "add heat for range", so there's no reason to equip most of them. If you make things like Seismic, and Target Decay (and other sensor things) weapon modules instead of mech modules, that might change.

The big thing is that whether you take 4 weapon modules, or 0, I just don't believe your role or how your mech will play will change much. That is the flaw. But the idea is sound, and fixable with tweaking.
Consumables, however - I have two issues:
(1) Your first module slot is always artillery strike or you are bad.
(2) Your second module slot could be a role choice: air strike (90%), coolshot (for pug matches/brawlers), and UAV for scout mechs.

The problem is, giving someone More, or Less module slots does not affect their role.
"My raven has 3 module slots, it is a scout." Now give it 1 consumable module slot. "My raven is a scout still, but now it is a worse scout because I can't take a UAV".

So there's a problem - how many consumable and weapon and mech slots you have isn't going to affect your role.

Second issue:
Consumables are far too expensive and far too good.
To wit, they are mandatory and cost 80,000 a match if you are playing to win. I have played 2000 games. If I play another 2000, that's 160,000 million c-bills. That's a Dire Wolf and a Ryoken, mastered. (6 total mechs). As a trade off for being able to use 2 modules.

That is killing me.

Either make them a 1 time buy-in:
"Pay 40 million, get a module that refills itself"
Or reduce the cost to 10,000.
R&R is a bad mechanic.

(a concern related to the system: I have 60 mechs. I cannot afford to buy 15 copies of the same mech module for every mech. Most people can't. AFter you buy the first, make the new ones costs 10% as much, OR make it a check the box in mechlab (so all of your mechs can simultaneously use the same modules), OR reduce the cost to 1 million each. Us experienced players will probably actually buy enough modules for all our mechs just to save ourselves from hellish mechlab module hunt experience.)

Oh, and to finish my feedback, my problems with weapon modules are going to be:
Expense: I need to buy like 15 different types to get the same effect.
Usefulness: they are bad, but that is fixable.
Disproportionate impact: they favor the mechs with 1 weapon type (or at most 2) and push mechlab builds even more towards hyper specialization and punish rounded mechs.

None of which detracts from my fun in this game - I just don't use them - but I am definitely *more likely* to use them post change, because they are no longer always a suboptimal choice compared to consumable (because they no longer compete for slots).

TL;DR: I LIKE the current module system (i.e., post-change, different types) except that it makes the thing I hate most in this game (consumables, the reason I have not played in 2 weeks) even more annoying, It also doesn't fix the underlying problem of modules being FAR FAR MORE work and effort to deal with than they are worth. I own about 10 modules. I usually drop without them - it is just not worth the time and effort to keep my spreadsheet of module locations up to date.

Edited by DanNashe, 30 July 2014 - 04:56 PM.

[SVK Puskin]

Daehoth, on 30 July 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

I'm well aware of that possibility. Still, it will hopefully bring some awareness to PGI of what they've done wrong.

Yes i agree. we have to let them know that we are unsatisfied! I just do not understand why they are not making an official poll before they bring any change to the game.

[Daehoth]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 29 July 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

This system is a good first step. However, Mech modules need to be further split into Sensor and Mobility modules (with other potential module categories to be added as needed, but those two should cover most anything that isn't a Consumable or a Weapon module). A new Universal slot needs to be implemented as well (can hold anything but a Consumable), and the Master slot should be one of those.

I think that's really the issue Levi. Why is PGI taking little MIDGET steps???? It's always little microscopic steps with them, releasing something that's not really quite here nor there. If it's not well thought out, well planned and well implemented.....common sense would dictate not releasing it in the first place!

This applies to almost any plan in any circumstance because you're just opening a can of worms and a sh*tstorm you don't wanna deal with.

But oh, I get it now...PGI loves to deal with sh*tstorms...like the one that's happening now......

ENS Puskin, on 30 July 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Yes i agree. we have to let them know that we are unsatisfied! I just do not understand why they are not making an official poll before they bring any change to the game.

Baffling....I agree, it's completely baffling.....

[Daehoth]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

I fail to see how the new system has anything to do with Role Warfare. Don't most of the mechs have the same 2/2/2 slots? Do they all do the same role?

An EXTREMELY VALID POINT! Most do have 2/2/2 slots....therefore.....most EVERY mech has the same EXACT ROLE....hahaha....that is funny PGI........ COMON!!

Edited by Daehoth, 30 July 2014 - 05:04 PM.

[wanderer]

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

Here's the latest word from the Dev Team on Modules! Please tell us what you think!

Quote

With that in mind, Clans will only be able to use Air Strikes.

First series of Clan Omnis includes this gem from TRO 3050, the Naga.

It's an frontline Omnimech specifically designed to deliver artillery strikes.

So, why are we removing arty from use on Clan designs again? I'd rather see a Clan-specific Arrow IV artillery strike that deals less damage per hit (that is 20 on a direct) over a wider area-saturation. More "shots" incoming over a wider area (50% larger) with more individual "shots" (15 max vs 10) scattered throughout. Or heck, just a general "Arrow IV strike". Arty that deals one-shot kills is screwed up anyway.

Edited by wanderer, 30 July 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[Mark Brandhauber]

The naga was only used by clan wolf and the other clans scorned them for doing so

[Daehoth]

wanderer, on 30 July 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

First series of Clan Omnis includes this gem from TRO 3050, the Naga.

It's an frontline Omnimech specifically designed to deliver artillery strikes.

So, why are we removing arty from use on Clan designs again?

Because it's PGI's style.... they say and do the first dumb thing that pops into their minds (they think it's quick fix) without any real fore-thought or research in ANY matter.

Hmmm.........Star Citizen is looking better and better to me every second now.......

Mark Brandhauber, on 30 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

The naga was only used by clan wolf and the other clans scorned them for doing so

Well....that still backs up that at least 1 clan DID use them....

Edited by Daehoth, 30 July 2014 - 05:24 PM.

[Daehoth]

Kraven Kor, on 30 July 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

I'm not playing again until you have rolled this one back, or introduced changes whereby I can use three useful modules on my mechs, as before.

We told you this was a bad idea, and you went and did it anyways.

To be polite, @#$% you

I'm with you on this...I'm not touching the game again until this debacle is fixed. Roll back roll back!

[Sandslice]

Jester McCloud, on 30 July 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

Why do we balance for "under-powered" mechs with modules? "Extra Module because I'm weak"..... sounds like pity.

I pity the fool that needs pity.

Under powered is just that, under powered.... Do we let little Toyota's break the speed limit because they can't go that fast??????

Buy a better mech and get over it.......

You miss the point of the JR7-K problem by saying that. Underpowered is one thing. Using your car analogy:

Take a 1991 Toyota Tercel. It has reliable performance that stands the test of time. Now you show me a 2014 Tercel, which is LITERALLY IDENTICAL to the '91, save for one difference: the size of its fuel tank is cut in half.

Nobody in his Burrock-loving mind would drive the 2014 model.

That is the problem with the JR7-K, relative to the JR7-D right now. The literally ONLY difference between them right now is that the -D can carry one more missile rack. Same operating parameters, same hardpoints (but for the -D's extra,) same jump jet cap, same modules.

The -K isn't merely underpowered, but incapable of justifying its existence among the Jenner variants; that's why it needs a buff. Not pity, but game balance.

[wanderer]

Mark Brandhauber, on 30 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

The naga was only used by clan wolf and the other clans scorned them for doing so

And then after Tukkayid and Wolf's great success in using it, the Mech proceeded to spread to other Clans. Let's also mention the:



Being in use since 2845 for the Clans as the go-to artillery chucker, and even more common by far than the aforementioned Naga. While Clanners might not be leaping at the chance to pilot the Arrow IV launchers on legs or treads, they most assuredly put artillery to use.

[Kraven Kor]

ENS Puskin, on 30 July 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Yes i agree. we have to let them know that we are unsatisfied! I just do not understand why they are not making an official poll before they bring any change to the game.

Well, we can't have, and don't want, Development by Democracy. We just can't / don't.

But you'd think they would listen, here and there, on big issues.

We get that we can't all get everything we want. But when there is an outcry of paying, or potentially paying, customers, well, I'd think someone would say "hang on, let's hear them out before we do this." At least take it into consideration when we are all sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches.

[Jester McCloud]

Sandslice - then why buy the JR7-K ???? I certainly wouldn't buy a Pinto...... Not every mech needs to be viable.

[ how do you quote --- I can' figure it out..... And the spell checker means I have to type incredibly slow ].

Edited by Jester McCloud, 30 July 2014 - 05:42 PM.

[Daehoth]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 30 July 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors,

The Dev Team has heard out your concerns regarding the over-use of Artillery and Air Strikes. With your feedback in mind the following changes are to be implemented within the next 2 patches.

Some have indicated that it is silly for Clans to have access to artillery in the first place, given their philosophical beliefs regarding that weapon system.
With that in mind, Clans will only be able to use Air Strikes.

To balance the Inner Sphere: MechWarriors will have the option to use both Air Strikes and Artillery, but will only be able to field one or the other on each Mech.

Please let us know what you think and update us on how this change will affect your overall impression of the module changes.

This doesn't really fix anything. It's a band aid over a gushing wound over the coratid artery......

[TheMadTypist]

Still don't see the point of purchasing modules when they have such a high c-bill price. XL engine or module? XL engine. Big chunk of a new 'mech or module? big chunk of a new 'mech. You say they're supposed to be end game content? Why is role warfare end game content?

Modules as they exist now do not warrant the high progression cost (as the only form of progression we have right now is c-bills). Why would I pick up a 6,000,000 cb module that offers a minor passive buff when I can unlock the gameplay of a whole new chassis for less? I'll get a hell of a lot more content out of that new chassis than I ever could a module. And when you do create a module that's worth such a high price, you'll likely just be creating a new "must have" upgrade like double heatsinks that will be uniformly run by everything that can afford to pull it.

This snowballs when people pay in for additional 'mechbays and start piling in more 'mechs. My 'mechbay has 49 'mechs in it, if I thought that ten meters and extra heat for the medium laser wasn't worth twice the price of the double heat sink upgrade when I only needed to outfit four 'mechs, what could possibly incentivize me to pick up 147,000,000 CB (assuming one of that module per 'mech) now? And purchasing only one to pass around between 'mechs, how much fun is spending 15 minutes between matches rummaging through my collection to figure out which ones have the modules I want to equip to drop again?

Even with your shiny makeover it's still a clumsy, overly expensive system. I have 102,187 GXP banked right now. The only thing I've ever (intentionally) spent it on is the Advanced Zoom module, of which I have exactly one, and I have no idea where that's equipped. I think I've looked in the "pilot skills" tab three times, counting the time I checked just now to get an idea of the XP prices. As it stands it just isn't a valuable aspect of the game. It doesn't matter how many slots you put on my 'mechs if I don't think you're offering a worthwhile deal to fill them.

You think what's in there now is end-game content? Okay, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on the value of what's being offered, but a step to fixing it would be to add some module content that isn't end-game stuff, so players at all stages of progression would have a reason to care what slots they've got on a 'mech.

[Daehoth]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 30 July 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

You may have missed my previous response on this subject. More weapon modules are coming, but we will have to un-roll them gradually to monitor their effect on game balance.

That's crap....this just means you haven't a clue what the other modules are yet. It's a stalling tactic. At best, you're scrambling to come up with them right now. With this current module change where hardly anyone uses weapon modules in the current state they are in, how exactly are you monitoring their effect on game balance?? And what have you rolled out gradually THUS far exactly?

Correct me if I'm wrong, monitoring effect is only possible when there is something to monitor in the first place!

At best, you're monitoring a minority of players who have succumbed to the forced move of tinkering around with level 1 weapon modules. That won't be an accurate gauge either.

Lame excuse Niko. I'm sorry, but I'm calling it as it is.

Edited by Daehoth, 30 July 2014 - 06:01 PM.

[Triordinant]

Jester McCloud, on 30 July 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

Why do we balance for "under-powered" mechs with modules? "Extra Module because I'm weak"..... sounds like pity.

I pity the fool that needs pity.

Under powered is just that, under powered.... Do we let little Toyota's break the speed limit because they can't go that fast??????

Buy a better mech and get over it.......

<<< TROLL DETECTED >>>

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mark Brandhauber, on 30 July 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

The naga was only used by clan wolf and the other clans scorned them for doing so

[Mystere]

IronChance, on 30 July 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

Making it only one per mech will help make the game feel less like WWI Trench warfare ...

But with that change I will no longer be able to:

• Drop artillery on a murder ball forming behind cover. Murder ball forms a line behind cover.
  
• Drop an air strike along the line of mechs.
  
• Profit <maniacal >.

Edited by Mystere, 30 July 2014 - 06:21 PM.

[Sandslice]

Jester McCloud, on 30 July 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Sandslice - then why buy the JR7-K ???? I certainly wouldn't buy a Pinto...... Not every mech needs to be viable.

[ how do you quote --- I can' figure it out..... And the spell checker means I have to type incredibly slow ].

In case you're not trolling: click the "toggle editing mode" so that the editor text shows up in your Unicode font, then try quoting.

And when it comes to 'Mechs that only have three non-hero variants (Jenner) or three variants absolute (Griffin,) yes, they all need to be viable because they all need to be run through Basic efficiencies in order to elite any of them.

Before yesterday's patch, these were the three regular Jenners:

-F: RA 3e, LA 1e; 1 mod.
-D: RA 2e, LA 2e, CT 2m; 2 mods.
-K: RA 2e, LA 2e, CT 1m; 3 mods.

Note the balance between the -D and -K. The patch wiped out the -K's advantage (the extra module) while keeping its drawback (the missing M hardpoint.) What people are pushing for is to restore the balance among the Jenners by restoring the -K's module advantage.