588 replies to this topic

[Silence01]

@ Mr. Lubkiewicz:

I really like the Idea of adding more Roleplay to MWO. Thank you and your Team at Piranha to care about that.
And, to be constructive, I would like to add some thoughts about this "Roleplay" concerning the actual "Player" and his "Role"...

A Roleplayer defines His/Her Role by Him/Her-Self!!!!!

Therefore... It is very important that the Player has the ability to control and outfit the owned Mechs as liked.
Makes everyone and especially the "Majority of the Community" happy!

So please keep the new Module System with a slight an easy to program alteration....

Just make every Module Slot a Hybrid Slot.


Thank You in Advance!

[mailin]

Please note that this is now after the August 5th patch. I am still very unhappy with the state of the modules. My two favorite mechs are the Spider 5D and the Raven 3L. I have them set up not with the ER LL or PPC that I am seeing far too often. Rather my Raven I use as a support mech with TAG. I used to have Advanced Sensor Range, Cap Accelerator, 360 Target Retention and whatever the module was that lets you keep the lock for a longer period of time after the enemy ducks under cover. Under the current system, I can only pick two of those. I don't care about consumables, but guess what? PGI is basically forcing me to take a UAV and arty. Okay. PGI is adding to the arty spam, and PGI is taking away my role warfare. Until this system gets corrected PGI should blame PGI. Don't just put a bandaid on the problem, roll it back the way it was before. Then we will have true mech customization. I was really hopeful about this patch, but after reading the notes I am completely underwhelmed by the changes made to the module system.

Edited by mailin, 05 August 2014 - 12:47 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Honestly, I don't really care about double-stacking art and air-strikes; I don't generally bother because of the expense, and how easy they are to dodge.

I'm not real keen on the module limitations in general - the weapons modules aren't very desirable, and in many cases I'd prefer to bring a couple sensor mods instead (range + seismic, seismic + decay, decay +range, etc). I understand the desire to differentiate battlefield roles further, but... the selection of truly viable modules that are worth buying and equipping is fairly slim.

[VanillaG]

The grouping for modules should be based on equipment that is on the mech. Here is how I would group the modules and the items in the parenthesis are the equipment they are tied to:

• Mech (Engine, Gyro) - CAPTURE ACCELERATOR, COOL SHOT, HILL CLIMB, IMPROVED GYROS, SHOCK ABSORBANCE, SPEED RETENTION
  
• Sensor (Sensors, BAP, ECM, Command Console) - 360 TARGET RETENTION, UAV, ADVANCED ZOOM, AIR STRIKE ACCURACY, ARTILLERY ACCURACY, RADAR DEPRIVATION, SEISMIC SENSOR, SENSOR RANGE, TARGET DECAY, TARGET INFO GATHERING
  
• Support (Cockpit, Command Console) - AIR STRIKE, ARTILLERY STRIKE
  
• Weapons (Hardpoints) - All weapons modules

The starting number of each type should be dictated by the variant. If a mech is known to have good handling, add additional Mech slots. If a mech is known for poor sensors remove Sensor slots. This will give each variant a unique feel. Equipping BAP, ECM, and the Command Console should provide extra module slots. This allows pilots to gain more module slots at the cost of tonnage and crits.

[Kaeb Odellas]

VanillaG, on 05 August 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

The grouping for modules should be based on equipment that is on the mech. Here is how I would group the modules and the items in the parenthesis are the equipment they are tied to:

• Mech (Engine, Gyro) - CAPTURE ACCELERATOR, COOL SHOT, HILL CLIMB, IMPROVED GYROS, SHOCK ABSORBANCE, SPEED RETENTION
  
• Sensor (Sensors, BAP, ECM, Command Console) - 360 TARGET RETENTION, UAV, ADVANCED ZOOM, AIR STRIKE ACCURACY, ARTILLERY ACCURACY, RADAR DEPRIVATION, SEISMIC SENSOR, SENSOR RANGE, TARGET DECAY, TARGET INFO GATHERING
  
• Support (Cockpit, Command Console) - AIR STRIKE, ARTILLERY STRIKE
  
• Weapons (Hardpoints) - All weapons modules

The starting number of each type should be dictated by the variant. If a mech is known to have good handling, add additional Mech slots. If a mech is known for poor sensors remove Sensor slots. This will give each variant a unique feel. Equipping BAP, ECM, and the Command Console should provide extra module slots. This allows pilots to gain more module slots at the cost of tonnage and crits.

I wouldn't give ECM more module slots, since it's already a no-brainer anyway. It would be a useful feature for the Command Console though.


I honestly don't care too much about modules at the moment since it's such a tremendous pain in the butt to have to swap them out between mechs that I usually just stick to consumables.

[Sandslice]

Chaosity, on 05 August 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Looks like I was right. Just read today's patch notes. Not a single mention of modules anywhere. Guess the office egos won out over common sense and listening/responding to user concerns. PGI, are we nothing more than open wallets to you, to be emptied by slight of hand (and bad slight of hand at that... more "in your face" with a "we don't care" attitude)?

The previous two first Tuesday following a fifth Tuesday were similarly light on substance and balance-passing, for reference. That, combined with the fact that it concerns feedback about last week's patch, is why this patch doesn't have any module passes - they haven't decided how to proceed, and/or are still in a testing cycle with the changes.

(Yes, even "simply" rolling back the changes would require a testing cycle.)

[VanillaG]

When you look at the modules, some are more valuable than others. It you made the more valuable modules take up more than 1 slot you could prevent all of the valuable modules from being taken. You would could have the choice of 1 valuable and 1 lesser or multiple lessor modules.

[DAEDALOS513]

VanillaG, on 05 August 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

When you look at the modules, some are more valuable than others. It you made the more valuable modules take up more than 1 slot you could prevent all of the valuable modules from being taken. You would could have the choice of 1 valuable and 1 lesser or multiple lessor modules.

Again, we would be asking PGI to decide for us what modules are more valuable than the others. We're saying give US the option to customize OUR mechs the way WE want to.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 06 August 2014 - 04:32 AM.

[Fire and Salt]

DAEDALOS513, on 05 August 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

You can't be that clueless.. you have 260 posts under your belt.. oh well let me school you..

Before although you could carry two arty strikes, you had to sacrifice precious mech module slots to do that. What the developers have done now is allow you to carry strikes WITHOUT sacrificing a mech module slot. So now it's a free-for-all for strikes in group and pug matches alike. You can't escape them.

Hopefully with this patch things will get better.

Actually, PGI changed it so that people have to sacrifice their UAV to get arty/air, when before, they could have all 3.

Maybe its due to ELO, but it seems like most players were carrying both arty and air before the patch, so no I really don't see the difference.

As I said, I often used 3 consumables per mech, now I am limited to only 2...

[VanillaG]

DAEDALOS513, on 06 August 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

Again, we would be asking PGI to decide for us what modules are more valuable than the others. We're saying give US the option to customize OUR mechs the way WE want to.

They already decide which ones are more valuable by setting the GXP and price. If you set the size to be the price divided by 2mil C-Bills, Target Decay would take 3 slots. You could then give mechs more that 2 slots so they could make the decision on what to load. You could also put lesser power version of the same module. A one slot Target Decay could be 1.25 sec and 2 mil, a two slot one would be 2.5 secs for 4 mil, and the 3 slot one would be 3.75 for 6 mil. Your GXP would allow you unlock more powerful modules but you could still use the less powerful ones where it made sense.

Another alternative is that instead sizing the modules, each GXP rank allowed you equip multiple of a module based on your rank. So taking the example above Target Decay starts at 1.25 seconds for 2 mil. At Rank 2 you can add a second one that gives you 2.5 seconds. With this scheme, you never lose money on a module, but you add additional ones if you want to specialize in that type.

Either of these schemes would allow you to have more slots available and you would get to determine how specialized your mech is. The first scheme give some rationalization behind why there are differences in price and GXP requirements. The second one provides entry level modules and allows for deeper customization as you spend more time and money on the modules.

Edited by VanillaG, 06 August 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[MasterBLB]

The problem with your idea VanillaG is that we don't want to take either a bunch of crappy modules or one good.
Well,a word from devs would be really proper now - what goal they want to achieve?
If they want to make as many of mech modules useful for players,if they want we players can think about and fit to some role on a battlefield then the solution is not restricting the number of slots or introducing bad ideas like module size.
I've explained that thoroughly in other post in this thread - http://mwomercs.com/...27#entry3599327

[VanillaG]

MasterBLB, on 06 August 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

The problem with your idea VanillaG is that we don't want to take either a bunch of crappy modules or one good.
Well,a word from devs would be really proper now - what goal they want to achieve?
If they want to make as many of mech modules useful for players,if they want we players can think about and fit to some role on a battlefield then the solution is not restricting the number of slots or introducing bad ideas like module size.
I've explained that thoroughly in other post in this thread - http://mwomercs.com/...27#entry3599327

The game already has a concept of tonnage and crit space limits so it would not be a big stretch to do something like for modules. Having every mech be able to equip all of the module is the worst solution I have seen. Limitations are what allows choices to have downsides.

Maybe introducing some downsides to the modules would be an alternative to module size. Radar Deprivation reduces your sensor range because running sensors at lower power. Target Decay makes your mech targetable for a little longer after losing LOS because you are running sensors at higher power. Improved gyros reduce top speed because of the added stability they provide. Have nothing but upsides is what makes thing seem overpowered.

[DAEDALOS513]

VanillaG, on 06 August 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

They already decide which ones are more valuable by setting the GXP and price. If you set the size to be the price divided by 2mil C-Bills, Target Decay would take 3 slots. You could then give mechs more that 2 slots so they could make the decision on what to load. You could also put lesser power version of the same module. A one slot Target Decay could be 1.25 sec and 2 mil, a two slot one would be 2.5 secs for 4 mil, and the 3 slot one would be 3.75 for 6 mil. Your GXP would allow you unlock more powerful modules but you could still use the less powerful ones where it made sense.

Another alternative is that instead sizing the modules, each GXP rank allowed you equip multiple of a module based on your rank. So taking the example above Target Decay starts at 1.25 seconds for 2 mil. At Rank 2 you can add a second one that gives you 2.5 seconds. With this scheme, you never lose money on a module, but you add additional ones if you want to specialize in that type.

Either of these schemes would allow you to have more slots available and you would get to determine how specialized your mech is. The first scheme give some rationalization behind why there are differences in price and GXP requirements. The second one provides entry level modules and allows for deeper customization as you spend more time and money on the modules.

I really like both ideas because they allow for greater customization. They're not a communistic cookie-cutter approach that PGI has implemented.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 06 August 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

VanillaG, on 06 August 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

The game already has a concept of tonnage and crit space limits so it would not be a big stretch to do something like for modules. Having every mech be able to equip all of the module is the worst solution I have seen. Limitations are what allows choices to have downsides.

Maybe introducing some downsides to the modules would be an alternative to module size. Radar Deprivation reduces your sensor range because running sensors at lower power. Target Decay makes your mech targetable for a little longer after losing LOS because you are running sensors at higher power. Improved gyros reduce top speed because of the added stability they provide. Have nothing but upsides is what makes thing seem overpowered.

No, downsides suck.. introducing more slots 3-4, and adding MORE VARIETY AND QUALITY MODULES would be a good way to go! Then we can further customize and mechs won't all have the same modules equipped. Now there are only a handful of good modules.. that's why they seem OP. Add variety and quality.. that's the way to go.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 06 August 2014 - 12:13 PM.

[VanillaG]

DAEDALOS513, on 06 August 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

No, downsides suck.. introducing more slots 3-4, and adding MORE VARIETY AND QUALITY MODULES would be a good way to go! Then we can further customize and mechs won't all have the same modules equipped. Now there are only a handful of good modules.. that's why they seem OP. Add variety and quality.. that's the way to go.

Maybe downsides is the wrong wording but look at weapons modules. They provide a bonus to one attribute (range) and penalty to another (heat). The latest version of Seismic only works when standing still. The rest of the modules only have bonuses with no penalties which removes any decision about what to equip if you have open slots. Giving more dimensions to modules makes it almost like customizing a loadout. Do I want one more heatsink or 1 ton of ammo becomes do I want longer sensor range or be able to break locks when not in LOS. It becomes about the tradeoffs instead of straight buffs.

[DAEDALOS513]

VanillaG, on 06 August 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Maybe downsides is the wrong wording but look at weapons modules. They provide a bonus to one attribute (range) and penalty to another (heat). The latest version of Seismic only works when standing still. The rest of the modules only have bonuses with no penalties which removes any decision about what to equip if you have open slots. Giving more dimensions to modules makes it almost like customizing a loadout. Do I want one more heatsink or 1 ton of ammo becomes do I want longer sensor range or be able to break locks when not in LOS. It becomes about the tradeoffs instead of straight buffs.

I'm saying avoid the downsides.. why do you think there should be downsides to customizing a mech? Why does it have to be a tough decision about what to equip? I'm not getting it..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 06 August 2014 - 01:14 PM.

[VanillaG]

DAEDALOS513, on 06 August 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

I'm saying avoid the downsides.. why do you think there should be downsides to customizing a mech? Why does it have to be a tough decision about what to equip? I'm not getting it..

You already make choices on what to customize for your loadout. Right now all non weapon modules are just straight bonuses. It is possible to partially create a BAP that has zero weight and crits with the modules. If you choose to equip a BAP you are making a choice to forgo some other piece of equipment. With modules your only limit is how many slots are available. If modules had downsides, you make certain combinations non-viable. Also if you stack the right combination modules you can create a role for the mech vs just take the best ones available regardless of role.

Take IS PPC vs ERPPC for instance. For the same weight and crits you can either get lower heat, min range, and shorter max range vs higher heat, no min range, and greater max range. Based on what else is equipped on your mech it might make sense to chose one vs the other. If sensor modules made you chose between being harder to target vs easier to target you need to do the some analysis of what you want to take because certain combinations might bring you back to normal stats.

[DAEDALOS513]

VanillaG, on 06 August 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

You already make choices on what to customize for your loadout. Right now all non weapon modules are just straight bonuses. It is possible to partially create a BAP that has zero weight and crits with the modules. If you choose to equip a BAP you are making a choice to forgo some other piece of equipment. With modules your only limit is how many slots are available. If modules had downsides, you make certain combinations non-viable. Also if you stack the right combination modules you can create a role for the mech vs just take the best ones available regardless of role.

Take IS PPC vs ERPPC for instance. For the same weight and crits you can either get lower heat, min range, and shorter max range vs higher heat, no min range, and greater max range. Based on what else is equipped on your mech it might make sense to chose one vs the other. If sensor modules made you chose between being harder to target vs easier to target you need to do the some analysis of what you want to take because certain combinations might bring you back to normal stats.

Well, I don't think of non-weapon modules as bonuses like you, I think of them as hardware needed to customize the mech for a certain role. Also, these modules weren't free, I grinded for the millions in cbills used to purchase them; I also grinded for that one extra module slot when I mastered my mech. They aren't 'bonuses' at all, they are rewards for your experience.

You say you want to make certain module combinations non-viable.. I say why? You still have to decide what two modules would suit your role. The problem isn't that people are just using the same modules, the problem is that there isn't enough variety of modules. If there were a greater variety you would start seeing other modules being used. Perhaps they can even boost the present modules that aren't being used as much.. for example Hill Climb could not only keep you from slowing down but help you to climb steeper hills a little. The Speed Retention module needs a big boost because how often do you really get legged. I don't even remember the last time I got legged. Speed Retention should give you at least 75% of your normal speed for people to use it; and so on...

Why can't we customize our mechs for certain roles without there being a downside? I'm still not getting it. Do you really think equipping two mech modules is OP? I beg to differ.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 06 August 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[Sandslice]

DAEDALOS513, on 06 August 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Well, I don't think of non-weapon modules as bonuses like you, I think of them as hardware needed to customize the mech for a certain role. Also, these modules weren't free, I grinded for the millions in cbills used to purchase them; I also grinded for that one extra module slot when I mastered my mech. They aren't 'bonuses' at all, they are rewards for your experience.

Maybe that's the problem - maybe such modules need to be removed from the game outright - and that modules should be something more like player-selected quirks. It's basically where weapons are and are going to go once we get more of 'em --- and where the so-called "weaker" 'Mech modules already are.

The modules that people are saying are needed for roles aren't quirk-like; they offer capabilities more in line with gear. Dep is a limited form of ECM; it can't prevent targeting as it happens, but it can prevent target-holding beyond DLoS. Decay is something I'd expect to be part of BHAP if we ever get that. Range and TIG are part of BAP, TComp, and CCon. Seismic and 360 are unique functions well beyond the quirks. Zoom was a default in Mech4 (and an improved zoom was a "module" that cost weight.

It's just me musing again.

[Richard Lionheart]

PGI you say that you trey to balancing the Game!
Please balance the Air / Artillery Strike System.
I have read many good Ideas and Suggestions.
IMO it would a first Step into the right Way if you restricted the Strike per Mech and Team.
There should be a max. limit of (Air / Artillery) Strike and UAV using per Team and Game.
IMO its absolute enough if every Team have trey ore four Strikes and UAV per Match.
Only one (Air / Artillery) Strike per Mech and install a Cool down between the Strikes from one Team.
We like to play MechWarrior and not StrikeWarrior!

I don’t like the new Module System. You like to bring more variation for the Players and the possibility to fill a specific kind of roll ore Position. But the cut down of the Mech Slots are for many people a restriction and not the new free.
I would love it if we got the Third (and Forth) slot back, but in this way that we can decide if we use it for Mech ore consumable Modules (the refill function is a good Idea). I would get the Weapon Modules her own two Slots anymore.
I don’t use the Weapon Modules at the moment, but if in the future comes better stuff I would be happy to have they.

If I be honestly since the new Module System comes out, I try it and after two matches I stopping to play this Game. And I love Battletech!

I think that was a constructive Feedback.

PGI please listen to your Backers!