588 replies to this topic

[DragonsFire]

I'm encouraged by the break out of the modules and I see the potential. There are certainly other options that could have been taken as well that were offered by the community but overall I think there is room to grow with this model as well.

My big question is regarding the Weapon Modules though. In a previous command chair post it was noted that these were eventually intended to be bumped to 5 levels. As many have noted, only very few of the weapon modules are currently really worthwhile, but I could see more usefulness actually derived if this level system is implemented. Any feedback on that would be greatly appreciated!

[Gladewolf]

I understand that this is an ongoing experiment, but can we now do away with the arty-spam set up? At the very least..that's got to change.

[Navid A1]

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

Quote

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

Unfortunately, with the current system, the deeper it goes... the worse it gets.

right now, with the almost negligible positive effects, the weapon modules are just punishment modules with their extra heat. So i always keep them empty.

Consumables also hardly pushes things in a good direction... people either leave them empty to avoid c-bill sink... or abuse them for aty/air. (the real good "consumable" here is cool shot which has a positive effect on gameplay... while still being a c-bill sink)

overall... i can't see myself fulfilling any role. The only role viable right now is arty/air marker. I feel handicapped.

[Mawai]

Thank you for the note .. it is greatly appreciated but would have been better before the changes rather than after them.

However ... I have three comments.

1) I truly like the idea of having to choose different modules. Having different types of modules and different slots for them adds diversity and in theory will require choices.

However, you have made this change when this is in fact not the case.

2) Arty and airstrike consumable modules can be extremely effective against massed enemies ... so much so that one very good or very lucky strike can change the balance of a match. This is essentially a random attack requiring limited skill beyond hitting a key when your cursor is in the correct position ... and you have just equipped every player on both sides with at least one if not two since most of the other consumables (except possibly the UAV) are far less effective. I'd rather see matches resolved on skill and tactics than random damage from massed artillery barrages.

3) On the other hand, weapon modules are completely and utterly useless as well as being ridiculously expensive. Consider the large laser weapon module for 3 MILLION cbills and 500 gxp to unlock it ... it increases the range by 10m at a cost of 0.14 heat EVERY time the laser fires. How much of an effect is this? ~0.2 damage at 460m and longer ranges at an increased heat cost that applies to every shot at any range. It has no effect on the weapon at normal ranges except for making it more heat intensive. There is absolutely no reason to EVER take this since it decreases the heat effectiveness of the weapon at all ranges. EVERY single weapon module is comparable. They are NOT worth the cost in either gxp or cbills (unless you are incredibly well off ... which I am not ... I only ever buy one of each module and move it around).

So ... you have made interesting changes to the module system while NOT having any balanced or properly designed ANY of the consumable or weapon modules to actually work properly in the new system. KInd of cart before the horse in my opinion ... why introduce the revised module system without revising the modules?

(In my case I expect to load up arty and airstrike on every mech and use them if the opportunity comes up .. the weapon modules spaces will likely remain empty since there is nothing worthwhile to go in them).

Do you see the problems with the roll out of the revised module system now? Nice idea, badly explained to the community and badly rolled out ... without listening to any of the feedback (with the exception of mastery giving a second mech slot ... if you had stuck with mastery giving an additional weapon slot that would have been a complete travesty ) from the community before hand that you might want to consider how these changes would affect game play.


P.S. Role warfare was mentioned in regards to these changes ... however, EVERY mech has the same module layout, the same choices of modules ... there is no element of role warfare whatsoever at the present time. IF the mechs had role specific module slots with a selection of modules limited to that role THEN the revised module system might support role warfare ... as it is ... the new system is generic and provides no distinguishing features related to role warfare.

Edited by Mawai, 29 July 2014 - 06:40 PM.

[Night Fury76]

I would remove certain consumables(you know the ones) and group them as company level assets.
If you have to make a new module slot so be it.

But, now this is the important bit so read the following with the above statement, mm k?
Only and only the company and lance commanders can use company level assets.

So they are loaded but you may never get to use them.
Oh wait you say if X dies a new guy can assume command and use his?
Well i'll let PGI work this out or we can just test it on the PTS and see how it rolls.

cheers

[Peiper]

Alright. Here's the biggest problem with your module system: mech modules are limited. You say you want to force people to choose which roles they want to play on the battlefield. What you're ignoring is that in limiting 'mech' modules, you're forcing us to choose whether to take the modules we NEED to survive over the modules we WANT to take. Radar deprivation is very necessary these days to survive all those improved NARCs out there. So, if we're a sniper or LRMer, we have to choose whether to take something that will help us survive versus modules we NEED to do our thing. (Advanced radar range, zoom, target decay.)

Also, if modules represent the SKILL of the mechwarrior, WHY are you limiting modules on certain mechs and adding more to others? Example: if I am really good at doing this or that in my Atlas RS, why do I all of a sudden forget how to do it on my DDC? That's irrational thinking. (I know the answer, because the DDC has ECM, which it shouldn't. If ECM wasn't overpowered, then maybe we wouldn't have to cripple mechs because they happen to be able to add it. - irrational thinking again!) By reducing the number of mech modules available to the DDC, you're basically saying that DDC pilots are WORSE than other Atlas pilots, because you're saying that if you pilot a DDC, you'll never be as good a pilot as you would be in an RS. Oh, and the Boar's Head too. You paid HOW MUCH for a Boar's Head? Well, obviously, you suck as a pilot as evidenced that you can only have one mech module.

The only way to be FAIR is to allow for the SAME number of mech modules for every mech. Why? Because we don't become better or worse pilots simply because we get in a different mech - especially one identical to another mech. Example: I can put a 2 large lasers, an AC20, and an LRM 20 in ANY Atlas. How come I have different modules available to me? Your logic is flawed, and you're attempts to balance the game through module distribution are insulting. Use your magical quirk stuff to gimp or buff mechs, but don't tell us whether we can pilot a mech better or worse by providing modules for some and not for others.

Regarding the current distribution of module slots available to mechs:

Air and Arty strikes. This is horsecrap. 24 per team? Didn't you all watch your own team tournament to see what happens when competitive teams have to choose which modules to take? Now, there's no drawback to taking consumables, except C-bills, which veteran warriors often have enough of.

Also, I thought modules represented how SKILLED the mechwarrior and/or techs are. Consumables should take tonnage and/or equipment to justify their existence. At least use TAG to designate Arty/Air Strike targets. Coolant shouldn't materialize out of the aether when you throw C-bills into the sky. UAV's don't magically appear in the sky when you swipe your credit card during combat.

Air, arty, and UAV's should be COMPANY assets, distributed before the battle by the company commander.

Weapon modules are crap. The only reason you separated the modules out to begin with was to convince us to burn C-bills and GXP trying them out, right? Because before they were useless, and now they're still useless.

You're going about consumables all wrong, and have since the beginning.

[GZBLASTERMASTER]

It was not a good decision to limit mech modules to one slot. For any mechs. Even if they gain a hybrid after grinding through the weight class, especially when the c-bill/xp grind has been ******** noticeably for non-premium time players. It also isn't cool to do so after allowing play styles which fostered in a beta environment for nearly 2+ years already and then switch it up on them. limiting consumables carried to 2 slots should have been the extent of it. Using the stimulation of "role warfare"as the reason is an insult, role warfare only applies for organized competition play and is an advantage reserved for the respective leaders of units dropping during campaigns. If the other side does not take advantage of this, it will be their handicap and they lose as a result. PUG play is absolutely DEVOID of organization and the desire for role warfare, ECM lights wander off and leave heavies and assaults open to LRM rain every 5 seconds in MWO, go play ring around the rosies with other lights that have ECM 1200-2000m away and get served when that leg drops off and they're surrounded. Tampering with the module slots was a transparent idea in the Vlog and it's still a big "WHY?" now...this was extra and is a prime example of people doing too much. In all honesty, it seems like PGI is trying to funnel c-bill/MC consumable purchases, especially since they "conveniently" added an auto refill option. I predict a post highlighting the option to purchase c-bills with MC in the near future...

This does not need a marketing major or politician to figure it out.

[Zolaz]

Hmmm, why do I feel like I am on an island and that PGI has spoken after not listening to the actual people who play the game.

[SirLankyIII]

Limiting the number of mech modules to 1 before mastering a chassis doesn't help role warfare in the slightest and as others have pointed out will only lead to people using the powerful general modules rather than specialising.

The larger problem though is the overall cost of the modules. To completely equip a mech with mech and weapon modules it's going to cost as much as 18-24 million c-bills. Noone, even those with hundreds of millions of c-bills is going to spend that sort of money on multiple mechs, it's just not good value, not when that can buy several new mechs for the same price. All modules need to have their prices reduced considerably, ideally by as much as 5/6s. It shouldn't cost more to equip your mech with modules than it does to purchase and equip a new mech. All the current costs do is encourage players to buy one of the module and then shift it between mechs, which creates it own set of frustrations as it's extremely easy to lose track of them.

Another issue is the choices we have for weapon modules. There's no real incentive to use most of them save the narc, ams and machine guns modules and even then the 3 million c-bill price tag is a bit steep.

Lastly there's the issue of the consumables, the strikes we're already too common in most games, and allowing players to have two will only make it worse. Either damage consumables need to be limited to one per player or strike cooldowns need to be considerably longer than they currently are (perhaps even increase the first strike window).

The first thing that needs to be done, at the very least, is a price reduction on all modules and a price re-evaluation as some modules are far too expensive and situational for the price they provide. It may even be a good idea to split mech modules up into further types as has already been mentioned i.e. sensor, movement, command etc

[Vassago Rain]

Your module system is, and always has been, very poor.

One could go back in time to 2012 and ask any PGI employee, and they'd all say 'yes, the module system is really bad.' It's been on the back-burner for a very long time. We've been making jokes about it for almost two years. Originally, we were billed a pretty sweet, if simple, system where you could tune your gundam to certain battlefield roles - aka role warfare.

This, for whatever reason, didn't end up happening, and there were far more pressing issues at the time, anyway. Role warfare, and modules, essentially came down to having coolant versus not having coolant. Some robots had 3 slots, some had 1 slot. Some modules are actually useful, but most are terrible. By far the most mocked and least used 'set' of modules are the weapon mods. Why is this? Because they are practically worthless, and have nothing to do with the role warfare system as laid down a billion years ago.

Many like to pretend that MWO is somehow a special snowflake, but once again, I will refer you to My Favorite Franchise. This is all basic stuff, by the way.



You have a large selection of modules, but only 4 of them can be active at any given time. As they are keyed to different categories ('slots') you can't stack ultimate power at your leisure. However, if you want to be a super beefy tank, you can get deflection, heavy armor, first aid, and even keep a slot 1 module for comfy things, like boosted zoom, or extra stamina. If you want to be the best backstabbing ninja, you can do that, too. It's no problem. I've never had to explain ghost nanobots to anyone, either, which is a clear plus with crysis.

Modules can be swapped on the fly, so if you run into heavy resistance with your ninja, you can go tank mode, or mix and match abilities as necessary. It's like...you have roles, and it's warfare, man.

But that's not all! There's an entirely secondary system in addition to the modules.



Yes, you have modules for your guns, too. I know - it's amazing. Now, unlike suit modules, weapon mods differ from gun to gun. So this scarab in the picture above, it has a lot of potential abilities, even futuristic shotguns bolted under the barrel, while a k-volt only has a handful of mods. This lack of customization is made up for by the fact that SOME WEAPONS ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS AND CAN'T EVER EVER EVER COMPETE IN RAW KILLING POWER. Except outliers like the majestic 6, which is a bit like the awesome in that it's a slow and gigantic piece of trash that looks flashy but does very little.

MWO forcing you to pick between nothing and waste of space weapon mods is heresy. How did we get here, and why haven't we fixed things? Even singleplayer crysis 3 has a richer and better customization system.

In crysis, I can pick the draw weight of my bow. In MWO, I can add 11 meters of range to my 1620 meter mech shotgun. Could the modules at least be funny? Here's an impractical shotgun build I made ages ago.



Poor showing all around, PGI. This is supposedly the foundation of role warfare, a system 3 years in the making, and all that you guys could come up with is fractional range increases and hotter lasers.

To me, this screams of some designer loving his weapon modules, despite how bad they are. Rather than improve them to make them useful, it's been decided that players will have the option of bad weapon mods or take fewer modules total. What kind of design decision is that?

And how hard is it to make the gauss mod (if such a thing existed) simply revert the gun to normal point and fire, but at a much shorter range. Say 1000 meters, down from 1980. But no, that's too complicated.

Normally, I wouldn't care, but this is supposedly the huge module redesign we've been waiting for, and I find it lacking, crude, and void of imagination.

Oh, and why is it that clan flamers get 2 meters bonus range while the IS flamer only gets a single meter? The answer is: because no one remembers there is an IS flamer module.

That's my feedback.

[SVK Puskin]

Peiper, on 29 July 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Alright. Here's the biggest problem with your module system: mech modules are limited. You say you want to force people to choose which roles they want to play on the battlefield. What you're ignoring is that in limiting 'mech' modules, you're forcing us to choose whether to take the modules we NEED to survive over the modules we WANT to take. Radar deprivation is very necessary these days to survive all those improved NARCs out there. So, if we're a sniper or LRMer, we have to choose whether to take something that will help us survive versus modules we NEED to do our thing. (Advanced radar range, zoom, target decay.)

Also, if modules represent the SKILL of the mechwarrior, WHY are you limiting modules on certain mechs and adding more to others? Example: if I am really good at doing this or that in my Atlas RS, why do I all of a sudden forget how to do it on my DDC? That's irrational thinking. (I know the answer, because the DDC has ECM, which it shouldn't. If ECM wasn't overpowered, then maybe we wouldn't have to cripple mechs because they happen to be able to add it. - irrational thinking again!) By reducing the number of mech modules available to the DDC, you're basically saying that DDC pilots are WORSE than other Atlas pilots, because you're saying that if you pilot a DDC, you'll never be as good a pilot as you would be in an RS. Oh, and the Boar's Head too. You paid HOW MUCH for a Boar's Head? Well, obviously, you suck as a pilot as evidenced that you can only have one mech module.

The only way to be FAIR is to allow for the SAME number of mech modules for every mech. Why? Because we don't become better or worse pilots simply because we get in a different mech - especially one identical to another mech. Example: I can put a 2 large lasers, an AC20, and an LRM 20 in ANY Atlas. How come I have different modules available to me? Your logic is flawed, and you're attempts to balance the game through module distribution are insulting. Use your magical quirk stuff to gimp or buff mechs, but don't tell us whether we can pilot a mech better or worse by providing modules for some and not for others.

Regarding the current distribution of module slots available to mechs:

Air and Arty strikes. This is horsecrap. 24 per team? Didn't you all watch your own team tournament to see what happens when competitive teams have to choose which modules to take? Now, there's no drawback to taking consumables, except C-bills, which veteran warriors often have enough of.

Also, I thought modules represented how SKILLED the mechwarrior and/or techs are. Consumables should take tonnage and/or equipment to justify their existence. At least use TAG to designate Arty/Air Strike targets. Coolant shouldn't materialize out of the aether when you throw C-bills into the sky. UAV's don't magically appear in the sky when you swipe your credit card during combat.

Air, arty, and UAV's should be COMPANY assets, distributed before the battle by the company commander.

Weapon modules are crap. The only reason you separated the modules out to begin with was to convince us to burn C-bills and GXP trying them out, right? Because before they were useless, and now they're still useless.

You're going about consumables all wrong, and have since the beginning.

They are just not listing us and trying to tell us that we(who do not like the new module system) are the minority! I told them that a big wave of frustration and disapointment will raise but they are not listening! Stupid idiots! Sorry but you pissed me off and deserve these vulgar words!

Edited by ENS Puskin, 29 July 2014 - 07:23 PM.

[Khobai]

theres nothing wrong with having module slots for weapons IMO.

the problem is they didnt subdivide the other modules. The result is you choose the best modules and ignore the rest.

if they subdivided the other modules, the best module would be different for EVERY mech. because not all mechs could use the same modules.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but you need the people who copy/paste info onto the new modules to review what they put in them. The Modules: Clan SP-LASER RANGE 1, Clan MP-LASER RANGE 1 and Clan LP-LASER RANGE 1's ALL say "Increase range of SMALL PULSE LASERS BY...."

Same with ER's also.

Didn't know where to put that, but in the future... you know...

Edited by 00ohDstruct, 29 July 2014 - 07:06 PM.

[SVK Puskin]

Khobai, on 29 July 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:

theres nothing wrong with having module slots for weapons IMO.

the problem is they didnt subdivide the other modules. The result is you choose the best modules and ignore the rest.

if they subdivided the other modules, the best module would be different for EVERY mech. because not all mechs could use the same modules.

No! The problem is that they are totally useless! Ridiculous extra range + extra heat. Facepalm!

[Doctor Proctor]

I'd love to know who these "other players" are that ask for features like this. I don't see them on the forums here, that's for sure. This is one of the most poorly thought out patches I've seen in a LOOOOONG time. Every mech now has almost identical module capabilities, arty/air spam is used all over the place and once again they're trying to force useless weapon modules down our throats that we have told them NUMEROUS TIMES are fundamentally broken. Even the NGNG crew, who play with the Comp crowd and generally support 90% of what PGI does have said that they're worthless.

Tell whoever over there that's trying to avoid a bruised ego to suck it up and stop shoving them down our throats when we don't want them. Or was the master plan there to make me use them so that I can buy cool shots every round and cut my earnings by 40%? Like that would happen...

No, all you've done instead is break half my specialist builds and force me to just basically do seismic/radar dep on every chassis with nothing else because I don't want to waste 40k CBills launching an Arty at a lone Hunchback, as so often happens to me. This is just asinine.

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 29 July 2014 - 07:14 PM.

[MischiefSC]

On Module Slots -

Every Atlas needs 1 more slot than average. It's not a Dire Wolf or Banshee; it's not a direct-fire killing machine. It's a command ride. If you want to narrow the D-DC with other Atlai chassis do it via chassis perks (dear god please not more nerfs). If the Atlas is not a rock solid command ride then it's an average (or slightly less) assault ride.

Otherwise I get the concept. I actually appreciate the logic and see where it's going; I think it could be a very good thing.

The issue right now isn't the change in module slots. It's that weapon modules are not just worthless but 'pointing at you and laughing' sort of useless. IS weapon modules should reduce refire time while reducing range (by every bit as much as the current modules extend them - which is to say to an utterly irrelevant degree). Clan weapon modules should reduce burst/fire time while increasing heat. That would make weapon modules useful and relevant.

Consumables - Limit of EITHER 1 Arty or 1 Airstrike. Not both. Increase global cooldown on their use.

Let people take 2x UAV.

These things would change the perception and viability of the module slot changes significantly.

[Koniks]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Do not shoot the messenger. Niko did not make these decisions he has the demanding job of being the conduit for information us.

The OP's byline should be Paul Inouye, Bryan Ekman, or Russ Bullock. Sending Niko to fall on the sword for this is a little ridiculous. It's also insulting that this post didn't lay out the road map to a role warfare module system.

Instead of a meaningful update we're given damage control. Which fits with how the module system overhaul was rolled out in the first place. A design with obvious flaws. A mediocre compromise in response to community feedback. And now an unsatisfyingly vague explanation of future plans.

I second the suggestion that the Design team should take a look at the original dev blog on role warfare. I agree with the comments pointing out that these changes have neutered role specialization rather than enhancing it. The majority of loadouts should default to 2 strikes, radar deprivation, advanced seismic, and likely no weapon modules.

Mechs that used modules instead of consumables now have a lot of wasted CBills and GXP invested in modules that won't see use because of the change.

If the goal is to enhance role specialization, then the obvious path would be to use the module types coded into the sort tabs--vision, target, support, sensor.--to balance slot numbers and give mechs a specialty, rather than the overly generic consumable, mech, and weapon types.

[SVK Puskin]

Doctor Proctor, on 29 July 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'd love to know who these "other players" are that ask for features like this. I don't see them on the forums here, that's for sure.

Yeah man they clearly lying and ignoring us!

Edited by ENS Puskin, 29 July 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[Artgathan]

First off: differentiating the module system like this (dividing it into different "classes" of modules) is, in my opinion, a good idea. The problem is that the idea, as implemented, is somewhat lackluster.

Presenting only 3 types of modules (Weapon / Consumable / Other) severely limits role warfare in the ways that role warfare has been limited for in a while (IE: you have dealing damage, and everything else). It virtually guarantees that all competitive matches will see unprecedented levels of Airstrike / Artillery Strike use, as there is no longer any sacrifice being made by taking one of these modules.

Limiting the mech modules to only 2 is likewise damaging as it doesn't allow for any real sort of Role Specialization. For instance, my Thunderbolt used to run Adv. Sensor Range, Target Info Gathering and Target Info Decay so that it could be a mobile EWAR Platform (it also carried BAP, allowing it to perform long-range information gathering). This build is no longer possible, and it decreases the amount of specialization the build possessed.

Likewise, some choices are simply bizarre in the current state of the game. Giving the Locust three weapon modules is strange, as the Locust is not a weapons platform. (Given the current selection of modules the choice is even more strange as I can't think of a Locust build that uses three distinct weapons).

I'm on board with St. Jobe's suggestions regarding modules. In lieu of that however, I suggest the following: give each mech an additional "specialized" module. This module would be in addition to the existing mech modules, but would be limited to a module of a specific class (Sensor/Vision/Support/Targeting). This way mechs could have more specialized functions available to them.

[Davers]

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?