588 replies to this topic

[Bulletsponge0]

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.

what about the useless weapons modules/module slots?

why were mechs that could carry 3 or 4 mech modules nerfed to 2?

How does that actually encourage role warfare???

Edit: for using a wrong word

Edited by Bulletsponge0, 30 July 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[Javin]

I agree with the majority of player that weapons modules lack in effectiveness. I even tried them. The amount of C-bills vs usefulness is saddening. I understand the heat increase but at least make 6 million C-bills (A brand new mech!) worthwhile.
I do not see anyone using weapon modules until changes are made to them.

I agree with the airstrikes/artillery rule.

I think if we are doing role warfare give certain types of mechs certain modules. You could certainly massively increase the modules as so many have said and provided module examples.

Keep trying to improve the game.

[M A S E]

Good to hear PGI is working to fix this critical mistake. Now so that everyone has an opportunity to fulfill these new module systems - gauss needs modules. Gauss Jagers can only benefit from the modules with 1 type of backup weapon, and putting AMS in this combination really dwindles your firepower if you equip it in this fashion. So applying weapons modules for AMS on a dual gauss jager with 2 ML's or similar is just gonna hurt the pilot's experience. Gauss rifles have been under neglection for quite a while. And the US NAVY has now released an official prototype gauss rifle that can fire projectiles as fast as mach 7. Making IS gauss sound like a nerf gun in terms of prjectile speed. Here are my suggestions to help balance this issue, it doen't really matter how small PGI would decide to fraction these adjustments.. but they are becoming very necessary if PGI plans to stick with this new module mechanic.

1. shorter charge time from 1 second
2. Longer firing window before discharge
3. Overload charge for faster projectile speed (can be toggled, limited to 1 rifle if enabled)

We could also use a toggle on AMS. It is annoying to be in places like Crimson Strait's tunnel with your AMS going off... and the sad part is they try to shoot through walls.. still. Speaking of this map, fix that damn tunnel glitch already. Fighting invisible mechs that appear and dissapear is a sad thing to deal with.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

One strike per mech?

Well, I assume many might say:

[Navid A1]

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.

A good move.
But the main problem with this new system is the handicapped mechs.
you could keep the 3/4 mech modules but limit the amount of sensor type / targeting type / support type per chassis... i.e. role warfare.!

Also, as it is mentioned/suggested in a large number of posts, weapon modules need reworking. the weapon modules have very high potential.

[Galenit]

Bulletsponge0, on 30 July 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

what about the useless weapons modules/module slots?

why were mechs that could carry 3 or 4 mech modules buffed to 2?

How does that actually encourage role warfare???

Quote

[color=#00FFFF]A bigger number of modules not only means more choice: The new module system allows a deeper modification compared to before.[/color]

Raven 3L, until the patch i used adv.seismic, target decay, sensorrange, uav.
Now i can take 2 of the 3 sensormodules and put the uav in the consumable slot.

I have less choises now, i can not go deeper in the scouting role, because i can take less of the special modules for it.

I had 4 slots that let me put in every module or combination of it.
Now i have 2,2,2 and i can only put 2,2,2 modules in it, that is not a depper modification, it reduces the number of possible combinations.
Can i take 4 mechmodules or 4 weaponmodules or 4 consumables now or any combination of it?

Saying this allows deeper modification is marketing bullshit!

x²+y²+z² is a lot less combinations then (x+y+z)^4.

Edited by Galenit, 30 July 2014 - 02:18 PM.

[L e x]

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

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.

Should have been done a LOOOOONNNGGGGG time ago, but better late than never.

Thank you for listening to the community!

[Bulletsponge0]

the fact remains that nothing about this module system change encourages role warfare in any way...and in fact, can discourage it since the mech people had been used for scouting can no longer mount all the modules they use to mount for scouting....

[Sandslice]

Bulletsponge0, on 30 July 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

the fact remains that nothing about this module system change encourages role warfare in any way...and in fact, can discourage it since the mech people had been used for scouting can no longer mount all the modules they use to mount for scouting....

And there are people who scout (and do well at it) with no modules at all. Admittedly the modules are nice; but now you need to be more choosy about them, because you have more "want" than "can have."

Mainly, though, it makes you choose between an extra module and ECM when scouting with a chassis.

[L3GR0DANCER]

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

Greetings MechWarriors,

There have been doubts raised about the new module slot system on the forums. We were hoping we could take an opportunity to explain our decision as well as where these changes are intended to lead us.

The module slot system was changed while looking at role warfare. We are working on offering a bigger diversity of modules, we are also motivating players to play certain roles on the battlefield, which remains a great request from the Community. This is planned to be unveiled in stages throughout upcoming changes to the reward system and the new command system.

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

While most Mechs come with 1 Mech Module (2 when mastered), the consumables and Weapon Modules offer a wide range of combinations and specializations. As every Mech comes with at least one of these slots, old Mech modules do not become useless: What changes is the choices you will have to make when specializing in a certain play-style. This choice will always be a matter of preference and sacrifice, depending on which modules the players would like to take with them.

We are constantly working on improving the game; This means changing areas where we think improvement is necessary in order to maintain or prepare the vision we have of MWO. Depending on the feature, this could affect any area of the game. We are very sorry if this has affected or will affect your preferred build of a Mech or play style, but we are always basing our decisions on what will benefit the majority of our players and secure the highly-demanded future of role-warfare.

Do you think anybody is going to beleive this horse shite? I mean, good on you for towing the line, Nikolai, but I really hope you had a good laugh as you typed that out.

Explain to me how fewer module slots increases customization and moves us towards an implementation of role-warfare that is less than completely fraught. You need at least 3 modules to be a competent scout and usually lrm boat, because hey, everyone wants to radar derp. Now, both of those ROLES are far less viable, and let's be real, they weren't exactly OP before. I sure am looking forward to the arty/air spam, and the further propagation of the PPFLD meta, though

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

...and secure the highly-demanded future of role-warfare.

Yep, you go do that while Rome burns. Role-warfare (especially PGI seems to be planning on implementing it) will totally entice people to play the steaming pile of refuse PGI has turned the mechwarrior franchise into.

[TercieI]

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.

Please make some that don't have negative value, as so many of the current ones do. The idea is sound, the execution is not.

[Bulletsponge0]

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.

I've seen the posts about new weapons modules coming, and I only hope they aren't more punitive than beneficial like the current ones.

But I still don't understand how it encourages role warfare or why mechs that previously had roles were nerfed out of their roles by this decision.

Not to mention how this has made some variants of a chassis irrelevant. For example, as others have pointed out, the advantage the Jenner -K had over the Jenner -D was the extra module slot, at a cost of a missile hardpoint...now both variants have the same module setup, with the -K having one fewer missile hardpoint. There is absolutely no reason to play the Jenner -K anymore when the Jenner -D can load the exact same module setup and has an extra missile hardpoint

[BLOOD WOLF]

L3GR0DANCER, on 30 July 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Do you think anybody is going to beleive this horse shite? I mean, good on you for towing the line, Nikolai, but I really hope you had a good laugh as you typed that out.

Explain to me how fewer module slots increases customization and moves us towards an implementation of role-warfare that is less than completely fraught. You need at least 3 modules to be a competent scout and usually lrm boat, because hey, everyone wants to radar derp. Now, both of those ROLES are far less viable, and let's be real, they weren't exactly OP before. I sure am looking forward to the arty/air spam, and the further propagation of the PPFLD meta, though




Yep, you go do that while Rome burns. Role-warfare (especially PGI seems to be planning on implementing it) will totally entice people to play the steaming pile of refuse PGI has turned the mechwarrior franchise into.

just because it is fewer slots does not mean that will limit it's role. this in fact forces the mech to bring what it needs, depending on what the pilot thinks will help in a given situation. two should be enough for a specific role.

the modules are just a buff, they do not define the role of any mech.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 July 2014 - 02:31 PM.

[Sandslice]

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.

I'm not sure if you can, but could you patch us in on some of the brainstorming on them? Not numbers and proportions or anything like that, just general directions / themes that y'all are considering.

If not, that's all right too - and the reasons needn't be stated. Just a request. ^^

[Kjudoon]

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 good to know. I know there is a lot of expansion to come for this system, but as it stands, I'm really gritting my teeth like we all did after UI 2.0. Once again, you got handed the rough job and are doing it well.

[Ultimax]

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.

1) Being able to only field one or the other is good.

2) Clans being relegated to only airstrike, well I can understand your reasoning but Air Strike is clearly inferior to Artillery Strike

[Galenit]

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.

500 weaponmodules?
Thats whats needed to have the same number of possible combinations we had with the old system on a 4 slot mech.


With the new 2,2,2 system we have
91 combinations for mechmodules
6 for consumables
300 for weaponmodules
thats 397 possible combinations to choose for my raven 3l.

The old system with 43 modules together gave me 123410 possible module combinations on the 3l.

Around 1/300 less possible combinations are not more and deeper,please explain that to me.

[SVK Puskin]

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

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.

So Clans can mount only air strikes and only 1 player can use it per team and IS can equip air strike OR artylery strike, right? But will be possible if player A has air strike and player B has artilery strike to use both consumables at once? Is this correct?

Edited by ENS Puskin, 30 July 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[RedEagle86]

So IS mechs will be able to have only one type of Air/Arty, per mech, but will be able to equip as many as they have consumable slots or is it still limited to 1? And Clan Mechs are now Air Strike only, with the same question - only 1 or as many as consumable slots?

P.S. Sorry if this has been already answered, too many pages, not enough time!

[Sandslice]

Galenit, on 30 July 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

500 weaponmodules?
Thats whats needed to have the same number of possible combinations we had with the old system on a 4 slot mech.


With the new 2,2,2 system we have
91 combinations for mechmodules
6 for consumables
300 for weaponmodules
thats 397 possible combinations to choose for my raven 3l.

The old system with 43 modules together gave me 123410 possible module combinations on the 3l.

Around 1/300 less possible combinations are not more and deeper,please explain that to me.

163800 - you have to multiply, not add, which means 32.7% more pure variety. However, both of these numbers, being pared down for "viability," end up being much smaller.