588 replies to this topic

[Draconeran]

I would like to see some mech get a universal mech slot. So I could choose to take the extra consumable or maybe go for that extra mech module for a specific role. I really don't see many of my builds needing more than two weapon modules. Maybe consider the master module being the universal one. cut the weapon down by one to make this more balanced.

[AlmightyAeng]

Quote

This choice will always be a matter of preference and sacrifice, depending on which modules the players would like to take with them.

Previously this was true. You had to make a CHOICE between taking consumables like arty, airstrike and UAV, or you took modules like Seismic (and then radar deprivation) that make a big difference in gameplay.

Now?

Seismic and Radar dep will be your two go-to mech modules, with Target Decay a close third for Missile Mechs. If someone wants to take consumables, now they ALWAYS can...the only choice involved is how many C-Bills you want to drop.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 30 July 2014 - 05:39 AM.

[Krasnovian]

I understand the intent and agree that something needed to be done. This could be a good , not perfect, system if pgi adds a large variety of consumable to reduce the arty/air spam preferably modules that support information warfare

[Kraven Kor]

Draconeran, on 30 July 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

I would like to see some mech get a universal mech slot. So I could choose to take the extra consumable or maybe go for that extra mech module for a specific role. I really don't see many of my builds needing more than two weapon modules. Maybe consider the master module being the universal one. cut the weapon down by one to make this more balanced.

I'd be happy with a choice type situation.

1 Base "Universal Slot" and 1 Base "Consumable Slot"
Mechs meant to be heavy on secondary systems get a second "Universal Slot."
But we have to be able to fit 2 to 4 Mech Modules, as we could before, or I continue to be "Not Playing ™"

[Kraven Kor]

iLegionLord, on 30 July 2014 - 05:56 AM, said:

Why is SLI cancelled in the patch notes?

Cliff's Notes version:

Left Hand: "Hey, Right Hand! What ya doin?"

(I'm joking; the SLI thing seems a reasonable mistake to be made.)

[SgtKinCaiD]

More weapon modules please.

[Xeno Phalcon]

If you guys insist on strong arming the community into using your weapon modules; you'll need to start pumping them out faster, the inner sphere have been turning their noses up to your piddly rank 1 and 2 weapon modules for months and the clans will do the exact same thing if we wont be seeing higher ranks/different module types till 2015 or something ridiculously plausible like that.

As it stands other than the ams overload/range and narc modules people pretty much just ignore your weapon new weapon slots, if you want people to justify burning millions of cbills and a handful of gxp you will need to make it y'know.....appealing.

[Sprouticus]

Prezimonto, on 29 July 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

I enjoy that you want to help create roles through the use of modules. I don't think what's been done so far goes far enough.

I would suggest something like this, which I posted elsewhere already:

I like this a LOT. Well thought out, should not be too horrific to implement, and comsumables are mixed in with the standard modules.

[Bilbo]

The modules now sitting useless in my inventory will remain useless no matter the role I choose for my mech. They where my third and fourth choices for a reason. Short of removing the ones I still prefer that isn't likely to change.

[Prezimonto]

Sprouticus, on 30 July 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

I like this a LOT. Well thought out, should not be too horrific to implement, and comsumables are mixed in with the standard modules.

Those were the goals. Lots of mechs might end up with the ability to take 3 or even 4 consumables, but at the expense of other modules. By spreading them (and the lists probably aren't close to perfect) into "roles" you can help each mech individually define a role through modules use, but guiding them to unique modules load out choices.

In the example I showed with the Spider 5V the pilot would be able to pack, I think, 3 UAV's, then an arty or air strike. It's expensive, well over what I pilot would normally earn, but the mech can make a serious impact through those items. Or it can focus on sensors and support, packing on bonuses for tag and ams, spotting tools, and probably still more than one UAV.

The Clan mechs can be focused more towards combat, which becuase Combat modules aren't totally weapons people have some choices to make as well.

[Sprouticus]

Prezimonto, on 30 July 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Those were the goals. Lots of mechs might end up with the ability to take 3 or even 4 consumables, but at the expense of other modules. By spreading them (and the lists probably aren't close to perfect) into "roles" you can help each mech individually define a role through modules use, but guiding them to unique modules load out choices.

In the example I showed with the Spider 5V the pilot would be able to pack, I think, 3 UAV's, then an arty or air strike. It's expensive, well over what I pilot would normally earn, but the mech can make a serious impact through those items. Or it can focus on sensors and support, packing on bonuses for tag and ams, spotting tools, and probably still more than one UAV.

The Clan mechs can be focused more towards combat, which becuase Combat modules aren't totally weapons people have some choices to make as well.

It might be hard for them to code taking multiple consumables, it seems hard coded to only allow 1 right now. But it does NOT seem hard to 'shuffle the categories' and rename them to match the list.

Even if you only allow 1 UAV it still allows flexability because the spider can choose which category the UAV falls under.

[IronEricP]

I take it that as we now have weapon module slots on every mech, that there will be modules for every weapon type? We still lack modules for several key types of weapons. On the flip side, some modules could actually be changed to be treated as weapon type.

For instance: Advanced target decay. Pretty much only used by LRM boats, sometimes streakers as well. Why not treat it as a weapon module for missiles? Not saying that'd perfect, but if we are not getting anything else for lock on weapons...

If we ARE getting weapon modules that do more than simply add range for extra heat, then several interesting options open up:

Reduced min range modules for LRMs and PPCs. (Having clan lurms have no min range vs IS lurms is one thing, but standard PPCs doing NOTHING at 89 meters is a little unfair; they had a reduced damage/distance mechanic once, a module that gives it back would be pretty popular)

Increased velocity for missiles (there is one for the narc, why not the explosive missiles?)

Increased durability! Make weapons of that type harder to crit.

faster recycle (possibly in exchange for LESS range!)

reduced heat on energy (but slightly lowers damage, increases beam duration, or increases cooldown)

reduced jam chance or duration (but longer cooldown)

tighten/widen LBX spread

tighten/widen missile spread

increased flamer heat affliction

etc...

One thing that REALLY needs to be addressed is how the current changes to the module system affect certain variants. For instance, the BJ-3 and BJ-1X both use energy weapons only, and already have issues handling heat (BJ-3 more so with low engine cap and internal DHS limitation). Currently, the only offensive weapon modules they can use ADD to their heat burden, but if they don't use something, they have wasted slots. And as there are no PPC modules at this time, the PPC build of the BJ-3 suffers from having no good purpose for any weapon slots other than maybe the AMS upgrades (since the med lasers already tax its heat after PPC fire).

Looking forward to seeing how this plays out down the line, hope some of these suggestions help (if you weren't looking at them anyways).

Cheers!

[Elizander]

A step in the right direction would be to restrict Artillery or Airstrike so that you can only have one or the other and it will boil down to user preference. A command console can perhaps remove the restriction and allow you to bring 2. Some light mechs might have a quirk that will also remove this restriction.

If we had other consumables such as:

Sensor Jammer - Makes all missile locks on the mech drop after 3 seconds and locks need to be re-acquired. Lasts 12 seconds.
Jam Seismic Sensor - Prevents the mech from being detected by Seismi sensors for 10 seconds.
Capture Neutralizer - Turns a captured node to neutral at twice the normal speed.
Quick Scan - Scans a mech quickly and broadcasts the target damage info to all allied mechs or lance mates within x meters (can be used 3x in a fight).
Disposable Jump Pack - One use jump jets or used until bar is empty (doesn't refill).
Gear Tweak - Temporarily increases turning rate for 10 seconds (can be used 2x)

More meaningful non-direct damage options are needed to flesh out the consumable module system and the direct-damage modules require more restrictions. These are just quick ideas and I'm sure better ones can be made.

[Prezimonto]

Sprouticus, on 30 July 2014 - 06:16 AM, said:

It might be hard for them to code taking multiple consumables, it seems hard coded to only allow 1 right now. But it does NOT seem hard to 'shuffle the categories' and rename them to match the list.

Even if you only allow 1 UAV it still allows flexability because the spider can choose which category the UAV falls under.

Sure. I don't mind that either, and it's simpler. The thing I liked about multiple consumables is that while air and arty are more restricted, the other consumables are in places (and with enough slots) to still make taking them tempting.

[Yelland]

Unless you give folks a better picture of what you expect the future of modules to be. I am with others this isn't really what I wanted. Is it? Artillery spam, who really wanted that? It is very useful, tactical, and fun when used at the right time. It should be something we see happen occasionally on the battlefield, and be aware of the risk of one happening. Yesterday it was kind of silly how much it occurred. (I recognize it will probably die down a bit as things settle, still.)

"always basing our decisions on what will benefit the majority of our players"

That's me isn't it? If I'm not, guess I would like to know who the majority is and how you determine them. One benefit is my Misery, I am glad to see Stalkers came out ahead with this implementation.

How does the rest of this implementation secure and benefit role warfare? I feel its more like a homogenization happening. Role warfare indicates specialization, not generalist.

Weapon modules add flavor, but they are never more than a "why not?" or perhaps more applicable "why?". I like brawling, I don't yet feel like I need them to fulfill my role. I don't depend on or give much thought to the edge that ~20m provides. Maybe in the peek-a-boo park of a match, but meh. And then there isn't even modules for something I wanted to add yesterday, LBX5 for example... what is up with that? Shouldn't it be all weapons if one weapon has it?

I think weapon modules should be a defining choice with +/- for a play style, not a "sure, why not" approach. I suppose that is hard to figure out, if you create something too useful it becomes a requirement not a choice.

[Appogee]

Edited by Appogee, 30 July 2014 - 06:34 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

True Role Warfare would be...

Only Light 'mechs can carry arty/airstrike.

THAT is role warfare.

[Jody Von Jedi]

After playing over half a dozen matches last night and this morning, I've seen an increase in Arty/Air strikes. I have not experienced the Spamming of consumables others have seen, but it's still early in the patch. Let's face it, most players don't even read the forums or even the Patch Notes. But as these uninformed players become aware of the changes, consumable use will continue to rise.

As far as the Weapon Modules go, I realize a great deal of time and resources were invested in creating them. But from a player's perspective, they are not worth the investment. I don't know how your incentive plan for employees works, but I can imagine the poor guy that came up with these is not getting squat for it. I suspect by creating Weapon specific module slots, this is a way for someone to see a little return on his investment. If you want weapon modules to be used, then make them worth carrying. Make the range longer, with no heat penalty. Shorten the cool down time. No one likes adding heat to their builds and as long as they add heat, no one will carry them. Just my .02.

Jody

[Buehgler]

stjobe, on 29 July 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

Here's what you should have done.

Not this hot mess of a module system that doesn't do a thing to increase role warfare; in fact it does the exact opposite.

Not only what they should have done, but what they planned to do. Why trade that plan for this mess?

I really do not see this system increasing role warfare at all. As it is now, the only place people will make any trade offs will be in the selection of their "mech modules". The existing weapon modules (except maybe the AMS buffs) are too limited in performance to warrant their c-bill or heat cost, so people will mostly continue to not use them. Those that do use them will not see sufficient change in performance to modify their play style. As for the consumables, well now there is no longer any trade between useful mech modules and consumables. so everyone will have consumables on board. So now the choice is between brawling (with coolant flushes) or spamming air/arty/UAVs and the latter will be much more common. My only conjecture is that PGI is really eager to suck c-bills out of the economy (via the consumables) that this somehow seems to make sense to them.

[Mogney]

First what I like:

I like that not all mechs have the same number of mech module slots, I like that mastery gets you an extra one.

I love the autorefill of consumables.

I like how this enhances fun in competitive play, now you can bring mech modules and the required arty/air.

Now what I dont like:
Pugging is terrible now with everybody bringing an artillery and an air strike. I exptect this in competitive matches, not so much in PUG play, without comms is too difficult to coordinate this stuff and all we have is a great big huge mess.

You gave us weapon module slots, and even with dedicated slots to use nothing else but them, they still sit empty. Gaining an extra six meters in range is not worth the heat increase, let along the GXP and cbill cost. These things are completely without purpose. Either make them worth equipping, or remove them from the game as a failed experiment.

Thanks and please keep up the good work, most of what PGI does is excellent, but everyone makes an occasional mistake. Learn, correct, and move on.