588 replies to this topic

[Sandslice]

Deathlike, on 01 August 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

I don't think people are "necessarily" asking for that, although some will. While I'm not one of them, but I shouldn't actually be able to pick like both Radar Deprivation AND Seismic Sensor, unless the mech had the slots that could field both (the former for Radar based modules, and the latter for Sensor based modules). Right now, they are competing against a host of bad ones like 350 Target Retention (which has rather limited purposes) and Sensor Range (which is woefully outdated and not as useful as it once was back in Open Beta) or 360 Targeting.

I'm just saying module diversity needs to be given through roles... and most modules have really crappy roles.

That I certainly agree with - if we had more / better modules, and/or another slot category, those would be definite improvements.

I just like the idea of consequence in choice to certain extents - and with modules being free-riders in the 'Mech design economy as they are, certainly more so.

[Pope RW]

Quote

So I'm giving you the incentive behind the design calls made and I hope that clears up some of the frustrations you have. Give it a go, adapt and see what happens. It's all I can ask.

Paul I'm sure we will adapt to the new module system or at least those of us who decide to continue playing the game will. The community has spoken in large numbers that they are not happy with the module system as it now stands and the lack of sufficient explanation as to why it was implemented as it has been and not as it was outlined in a previous command chair.

The biggest losers mech wise are the Raven 3L which with 4 modules was an excellent scout mech an the DDC Atlas which with its slots was a good command mech. With 4 module slots I was able to select the role the Raven was to play giving the sensors extra range or maybe accelerating the capture rate. Once the slots were removed and now only have 2 slots we are unable to customize the role of the Raven but simply add the modules that give us the best chance of survival. Which is the same 2 modules that are now being loaded ON EVERY OTHER MECH.

So the bigger question is not how we the players will adapt to this game change but how PGI will adapt to the lack of hard currency being put into the game by players like myself who have previously supported it.

Edited by Pope RW, 02 August 2014 - 05:13 AM.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

Paul Inouye, on 31 July 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

*Grabs fire extinguisher*

I just talked with Alex on this and I've requested the airstrike only limitation to the Clans to be removed. The initial separation is something I requested a while ago but after seeing your feedback I don't see the need to remove that module completely for the Clans.

Inner Sphere:
* Can use Air Strikes
* Can use Artillery

Clans:
* Can use Air Strikes
* Can use Artillery

HOWEVER:
Only one of each type can be fielded on a given 'Mech. So no, you will not be able to take 1 Air and 1 Arty on a single 'Mech.

To re-iterate again... the Master Module Slot (unlocked via mastering your 'Mech) is being changed to be a combo slot where you can put another Weapon Module OR a 'Mech Module.

The principle behind the limitations on Module Slots is to force a hard line decision as to what adjustments you make to your 'Mechs. Do you want to take Radar Deprivation or Seismic Sensor? Which is going to align with your playstyle? Modules were never meant to be a "leveling" system for your 'Mech where you eventually get everything put on your 'Mech.

The design approach has always been this... we plan on releasing a LOT more modules (there are 3 more tiers of weapon modules and range isn't the only property being addressed) for both weapons and 'Mechs. Basically this will be opening a large field of possible selections. The module slot restriction makes that decision a very important one when customizing the loadout of your 'Mech. There will be tough choices you will have to make as to which modules you bring with you. Different loadouts require different modules and this is where the fine tuning aspect of 'Mech customization comes into play.

So I'm giving you the incentive behind the design calls made and I hope that clears up some of the frustrations you have. Give it a go, adapt and see what happens. It's all I can ask.

can you give us a hint to the hire tier weapon modules, will they be the same as whats already available?

[Gorgo7]

Deathlike, on 01 August 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

They are called Jump Jets on mechs that can field them.
-What kind of retort is that? Not all machines use jump jets.

I should have said "value", to make the point more clear to you.
-Oh, I understood your condescending attitude just fine...

If you've never used Seismic, then clearly you've never understood its value when it was truly OP when it initially debuted.
-I own and use Seismic extensively, 6 copies to be sure. I bought my first the day they were offered for sale. They are simply not indispensable for all builds as you would have us believe.

Already adapted. The previous listed modules are the best, and will still be the case until further notice.
-If you have adapted to the new system I congratulate you and welcome you. Good things are coming!

[Triordinant]

No matter what Module system we end up with, they MUST reset the modules and refund the GXPs and cbills used so players can make informed decisions on which modules to get and how many. It's only fair.

[DAEDALOS513]

Gorgo7, on 01 August 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

Sorry chum, I think you need to loosen up.
Adapt or die.

And there is the classic line.. 'adapt or die.' In the same family as 'toughen up,' and the infamous 'stop QQ.' These statement make any change, in any game, no matter how inane or ill-timed, valid.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 02 August 2014 - 02:15 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

I get the feeling the changes were only put in to force people use the crap weapon range modules that nobody ever used, just to justify the wasted development time on something we didn't want.

Hey you can shot an extra whole 5 meters at full damage, but you'll shut down quicker, or totally negate the range advantage by having to slow down your rate of fire.

Only one worth squat is the AMS range module and the streak increase for slower rate of fire had some merrit.

But the rest is just blowing bean juice, now we get to put in modules that makes close range brawling worse..yet more backhand nerfs to the brawling build or waste slots..

stop wasting time on rubbish that none want and get the inner sphere war/ loyalty function up and running, you can waste time developing this crap, when you actually finish the core game that's two years late

Edited by Cathy, 02 August 2014 - 02:21 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Cathy, on 02 August 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

I get the feeling the changes were only put in to force people use the crap weapon range modules that nobody ever used, just to justify the wasted development time on something we didn't want.

Hey you can shot an extra whole 5 meters at full damage, but you'll shut down quicker, or totally negate the range advantage by having to slow down your rate of fire.

Only one worth squat is the AMS range module and the streak increase for slower rate of fire had some merrit.

But the rest is just blowing bean juice, now we get to put in modules that makes close range brawling worse..yet more backhand nerfs to the brawling build or waste slots..

stop wasting time on rubbish that none want and get the inner sphere war/ loyalty function up and running, you can waste time developing this crap, when you actually finish the core game that's two years late

For clans that already have SEVEN sescond refires on big SSRMS.....yeah no.

[C E Dwyer]

Triordinant, on 02 August 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

No matter what Module system we end up with, they MUST reset the modules and refund the GXPs and cbills used so players can make informed decisions on which modules to get and how many. It's only fair.

every other game that has made major changes (like this) have reset the xp, removed the 'modules' back to inventory, and in some case refunded credits.

None have said hey guys we changed stuff, you got to grind more now, and keep the, now, useless items you bought like PGI are doing with these changes

Yokaiko, on 02 August 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

For clans that already have SEVEN sescond refires on big SSRMS.....yeah no.

Was thinking of the inner sphere streak2, not clans specifically, so yes..some merrit..

irony1999, on 29 July 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

A role warfare change would have been separating out modules by role

But instead of being sensible and giving scout mechs a boost for sensor modules, command mechs a boost for command modules, etc... you separated out weapon modules which are barely used, and lumped all the mech modules together.

Why not try going back to your own design docs, separate the mech modules by role as you originally intended (and still makes the most sense), and give us a compelling reason to play different mechs for their modules?

This is pure gold

we got rotting fruit instead

[Sandslice]

Pope RW, on 02 August 2014 - 05:01 AM, said:

Paul I'm sure we will adapt to the new module system or at least those of us who decide to continue playing the game will. The community has spoken in large numbers that they are not happy with the module system as it now stands and the lack of sufficient explanation as to why it was implemented as it has been and not as it was outlined in a previous command chair.

The biggest losers mech wise are the Raven 3L which with 4 modules was an excellent scout mech an the DDC Atlas which with its slots was a good command mech.

First off, it's actually the JR7-K that's the biggest loser with the system change; and this can be demonstrated objectively.

There were only six variants that had base-3. YLW, Oxide, and SDR-5V received the 2/2/2 module spread, so they were hit less; and the Raven and Atlas both have ECM, which is still a quite unusual advantage. (Also, no ECM variant has a better spread than the 2/2/1 default.)

The JR7-K had distinguished itself from the -D by trading one missile hardpoint for one module slot, everything else being perfectly equal; now the -K is still a -D with one fewer missile hardpoint, everything else being perfectly equal - and no compensation for the missing hardpoint.

----

You can, however, still run your 'Mechs with useful (instead of the "same two" so-called mandatories.) You can run your 'Mechs with no modules at all and do fine once you adjust back. Who knows; the experiment might indicate other modules yet.

[DAEDALOS513]

Cathy, on 02 August 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

I get the feeling the changes were only put in to force people use the crap weapon range modules that nobody ever used, just to justify the wasted development time on something we didn't want.

stop wasting time on rubbish that none want and get the inner sphere war/ loyalty function up and running, you can waste time developing this crap, when you actually finish the core game that's two years late

That and they want to make it easier for you to spend more MC on consumables without worrying about sacrificing module slots

[Sandslice]

DAEDALOS513, on 02 August 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

That and they want to make it easier for you to spend more MC on consumables without worrying about sacrificing module slots

Except that consumables are available for c-bills; and they're limiting artillery, so it's not strictly a c-bill sink either. Consumables designed to be used in battle aren't worth spending MC on. If they were to sell one-shot experience or cbill boosters? Then that'd hold up better.

[Steel Scout]

I would like to see role modues/warfare put in. It was something long talked about. Im fine with the new changes, I dont see it as much of a problem. I do think you would have avoided a good bit of the criticism if you would have made the changes at the same time your rolled out the new modules so people could see the net impact at the same time. Giving some examples of the new modules may help quell the clamor.

[DemonRaziel]

Sandslice, on 02 August 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

You can, however, still run your 'Mechs with useful (instead of the "same two" so-called mandatories.) You can run your 'Mechs with no modules at all and do fine once you adjust back. Who knows; the experiment might indicate other modules yet.

Come on, those 2 modules are not called mandatories just 'cause. They are the most popular modules and they do indeed lower the usage of other 'Mech modules.

You can adapt (mostly by taking exactly these 2 modules, or going with minor changes), or you can go with different modules, but that's like running a Locust - you can do well with it, but you could most likely do just as well, if not better, in a different 'Mech (Jenner?) with the same or very similar loadout.

In the "bigger picture" (to paraphrase Bryan) that is not much of a proof of the 'Mech's viability, just as gimping yourself willing by taking suboptimat modules, or skipping the consumables isn't going to change the fact, that taking them is making your build harder, better, stronger, faster.

[DAEDALOS513]

Sandslice, on 02 August 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

Except that consumables are available for c-bills; and they're limiting artillery, so it's not strictly a c-bill sink either. Consumables designed to be used in battle aren't worth spending MC on. If they were to sell one-shot experience or cbill boosters? Then that'd hold up better.

I didn's say it was strictly for MC, but rather it's now EASIER to spend MC on consumables. Even spending CBills is better for PGI cuz it keeps you playing, constantly trying to earn that extra buck..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 03 August 2014 - 05:16 AM.

[fat4eyes]

The thing is, role warfare is already here, the problem is that a majority of players only choose the long/medium range fire support role because it (predictably) deals a lot of the damage in the game, and at the end screen damage is what people think count the most.

Off the top of my head here's some of the roles that are already in the game and are viable to play (in that playing them well leads to a win):

Scout/light harasser: ECM Raven/Cicada with llaser/ppcs

Scout/ecm-eccm specialist: ECM Raven with NARC and TAG

Fast close range striker: Ember, Jenners, arguably also the 55 ton SRM boats if they have a large engine

Medium/Long Range Direct fire support: any heavy/assault that relies on gauss/ppc/llasers/smaller acs

Medium/Long range Indirect fire support: lrmboats

Heavy brawlers: heavy/assault mechs that rely on srms/larger acs/lbx/med lasers

Yet a majority choose the direct fire support role because at the end game screen only damage and kills matter. Noone hears about the 2 light harassers that got half the enemy team looking the other way effectively halving the enemy's firepower. Or the NARC raven that kept the enemy ecm Atlas highlighted not only neutralizing its ecm but revealing the position of the bulk of the enemy's forces. Or the fast striker that legs 2 enemy mechs and takes out an atlas' right torso in one strafing run.

I believe this is the reason some people think that there is only one 'optimal' set of modules, because they've only ever played one role. If I'm in a light long range harasser with ecm, I'll choose adv zoom over seismic any day. Odds are the enemy won't get the jump on me, and even if they do I'm fast enough to get away. The enhanced narc weapon module is almost a necessity on the light narc mech. Seismic is great for close range strikers and brawlers, because the data it gives is crucial for knowing when to rush the enemy and when to hang back. Lrmboats get target decay for obvious reasons,
it's even better than seismic as long as you stay near your teammates. For direct fire support its a toss up between radar dep and adv zoom, depending on what range you shoot at and on how much you hate lrmboats.

That said, the radar dep module is very very good, and I put it on my mastered mechs in addition to the first choice. They may want to have a look at that.

Limiting the module slots makes us players choose which modules best fit the role we choose for ourselves, instead of just taking seismic radar dep and adv zoom all the time. And that's a good thing. It leads to more playstyles and the interaction of more playstyles leads to more varied gameplay.

One thing that could be added to make players go for different roles is to add 'best at' statstics ad the end game screen, for example 'most enemies legged', 'most firepower eliminated', 'most spotting/narc/tag assists', 'most (base) cbills earned' so it's not all about the damage and kills.

[stjobe]

fat4eyes, on 02 August 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

One thing that could be added to make players go for different roles is to add 'best at' statstics ad the end game screen, for example 'most enemies legged', 'most firepower eliminated', 'most spotting/narc/tag assists', 'most (base) cbills earned' so it's not all about the damage and kills.

I like this idea.

[Fooooo]

stjobe, on 02 August 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

I like this idea.

Seconded.

I remember a few fps's doing this type of thing.

They would even have some comedy type awards..... ones like

"I keep shooting my feet!!" (Most damage to self)

"Your in my way!!" ( Most team damage )


Tons of others I cant exactly remember.

More representation at the end of match screen for other types of activitys on the battlefield would be good and probably entice a lot to "go for" those end of match awards instead of just taking whatever gets them the most kills etc.

Especially if some of the awards actually gave you a reward as well, ie some extra cbills or xp.

Maybe getting 3 or so of certain awards in 3 consecutive matches nets you a free weapon etc.... who knows.

Not really about modules, but it is about roles....which is what some want modules to try and do, or at least help get to.

Edited by Fooooo, 02 August 2014 - 11:18 PM.

[ZachMan119]

This is good update!

[Talsha]

How about an linear increasing global cooldown for each side and strike type?

This would:

• still allow strikes to be used tactically,
  
• make the decision about using strikes more important,
  
• prevent strike spams ...

Just as an example:
1st Air Strike 45 seconds GCD for the next Strike
2nd Air Strike 90 seconds GCD for the next Strike
3rd Air Strike 135 seconds GCD for the next Strike