588 replies to this topic

[BSK]

My Dire Wolf runs at 54km/h and needs both slots left for his protection. He needs radar deprivation and seismic sensor to have a CHANCE to counter missile boats or fast scouts. No slot left to IMPROVE his role in any way. No module for missiles, no module for accuracy and no module for movement. But instead now enemies can have 48 strikes which I cannot evade because I either get stuck on the smallest pebble or I have a pug player standing in my back. I don't need consumables in my Dire Wolf.

If you want to provide this for community warfare, HOW ABOUT YOU MAKE THIS ONLY AVAILABLE IN COMMUNITY WARFARE?
And then make sure only people with a targeting computer, command console, BAP, ECM or alike can order an air strike or artillery.
Why do clan 'mechs get modules for longer range? They have targeting computers for longer range, it had made SOME sense if clan modules were the opposite of the IS modules, by reducing the range and thereby reducing the heat or the length of the pulse.
Who said that clans do not use artillery by the way? They may disdain combat vehicles, but there was a hole regiment in operation exodus and of course clan Hell's Horses fields artillery.

[Gorgo7]

My 2 cents and a bag of chips.

Well, I am currently optimistic that this is not a bad avenue to pursue regarding Role Warfare.

Generally the complaint seems to be that this *new* system of theirs is either broken or punitive. (Weapon mod suck, want to have more mech mod)

What it is, is preliminary.
Take a look at the weapon mods and you can see that the range extension alone will be nasty once they get up to lvl 5 or so. Nothing like a LPL slapping you at 420m (or whatever it works out to) for full damage. How about a battery of SRM tightened up with Artemis, reaching out and blasting your torso at 350m...NASTY.

Essentially PGI has set the foundation for a series of new modules and new play **** that they will roll out in good time. Not all at once. And yes some play time is required to assess them in game. Nothing has changed, it's just delayed gratification.

Frankly the more I see the more I recognize that ground work is being laid for CW. A lot of ground work needs to be laid and it is happening. Try playing for a couple of weeks before declaring the sky is falling. The game is a long way from being broken.

And yes, it should cost a fortune in GXP to level weapon modules, play a lot to get it or pay a snivelling amount of real dollars.

[Marukage]

Hello DEV-TEAM

i need my 4!!!!!! modulsplot in Yen-LO-Wang and DDC Atlas.
please give me/us back this 4 modulsplot.

thx

mfg/regards
maru



ps:
der patch kommt mir vor wie einer verunglücke Inspektion.
Beim kauf eines Ford Auto mit Klimaanlage,
bekommt ich nach einer Inspektion, ein Auto ohne Klimaanlage wieder .. .. dass geht noch nicht?
Ich hätte sonst nicht genau diese Auto gekauft, wenn es nicht die Klimaanlage hätte.
.. super gemacht Leute

Edited by Marukage, 31 July 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Koniks]

Limiting strikes to 1 per mech is a fine change for consumables.

It does nothing to address the other concerns about the direction of the module system. If the goal is to enhance role specialization, then the module system needs to provide more mech module slots but constrain them by sub-type. That probably requires adjusting the sub-types and how mechs are classified within them so that there's a better balance.

Vision has 1 module.
Sensor has 3. All of which affect the player's mech.
Target has 3. 2 of which affect the player's mech and 1 of which affects the enemy mech.
Support has 7, 3 of which relate to movement, 1 affects objectives, 1 limits impulse effects (so is more like vision or targeting), and 2 affect consumables.

As is, there are either only 2 meaningful effects here (sensors and everything else) or a lot more. I'd recommend further dividing the categories so that Support becomes Movement and Support. Gyros and Adv. Zoom get moved into Target.

And then each mech gets a certain number of each sub-type and between 3-5 total.

Edited by Mizeur, 31 July 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[Zolaz]

I am still looking for someone who says that there wasnt a drastic change to the module system.

[BLOOD WOLF]

I want to know how this actually affects game play rather than peoples feelings towards the change.

Zolaz, on 31 July 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I am still looking for someone who says that there wasnt a drastic change to the module system.

And no there wasn't a drastic change, My piloting suffered none nor did it greatly improve. So a change maybe, but a drastic change I think not. Also you did not ask whether it was a drastic change for the better or worse.

They keep crying for crutchwarrior.

[Kraven Kor]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 July 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

I want to know how this actually affects game play rather than peoples feelings towards the change.
And no there wasn't a drastic change, My piloting suffered none nor did it greatly improve. So a change maybe, but a drastic change I think not. Also you did not ask whether it was a drastic change for the better or worse.

They keep crying for crutchwarrior.

We just want what we had before, and none of that - for me - was a "crutch."

So keep on insulting other players rather than discussing the issue.

We are tired of PGI making unpopular changes and not listening to us when we cry out about it.

[Sardauker Legion]

1. modules
As i already wrote here, I'm here since the open beta, almost 4 hours every week,
12 weekly since clan invasion.
In all this time i saw only 2 (TWO) times someone using weapons range modules.
This means that very few people felt the need of this modules.

The sensation you're giving me with this ppatch is:
- you invested time and money to develope meapon modules,
- very rare players were using them, prefering zoom or sensor modules,
- now you modified the game, hoping that everyone will buy almost 2 modules and justify the time lost in developing them.
We will see.

2. Artillery - Airstrike:
- strip both, damage has to be done by players / turrets only,
- in assault maps, give Artillery strike a range not over 2500 mts from base,
- if you don't like to cancel them, give them to Light Mechs only. So no more than 3 mechs every squad /6 every match can use it, and more players will use light mechs.

Edited by Anavel Gato2, 31 July 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[Ragnar Bashmek]

Sandslice, on 31 July 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

...wait. So BUFF the 'Mechs' modules compared to before? Not a viable solution, because you know rather well what would happen: everyone would take the mandatories (tig, derp, seismic, sensor range) and a build-based fifth mandatory (gyro, decay, etc.)

Too many free options will lead to no variety when colliding with "optimal" play.

What is mandatory for a scout is different from what is mandatory for a LRM Boat which is different from what is mandatory for a striker or brawler.

Your conclusion is irrational.

[Paul Inouye]

*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.

[Ragnar Bashmek]

BLOOD WOLF, on 31 July 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

I think not.

Seems to summarize your responses to this discssion

[Kraven Kor]

Paul: That decision was already important.

And none of us want to use weapon modules, even the Mk V is just going to be +HEAT that I don't want.

And I, and a lot of us, don't want to use consumables, at all, ever.

So this system is nerfing us, bad.

On my Ilya, I want three Mech Modules. I want 0 Consumables. I want 0 Weapon Modules.

Make that a choice.

Make it so a mech can have 3 Mech Modules, or 2 Mech Modules and 1 + 1 Consumable / Weapon, or 1 Mech Module and 2 + 2 Consumable Weapon, something.

And stop introducing major changes after massive outcries of "We don't want this."

I'm not playing until this is fixed and I am no longer forced to trade a useful mech module for modules I do not want, at all.

[FupDup]

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

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.

I think most of the people here understand and appreciate the intentions of module slot type segregation...it's something that people have wanted for quite some time now (including myself). However, I think one of the main contention points is that there are so few categories right now. Mech/Consumable/Weapon feels somewhat bland and generic.

Have you guys considered adding more categories overall, such as recon, offensive, defensive, command, support, etc.? I think categories like those could add a much more specific flavor to mechs, like letting the Raven 3L load up on purely recon and support mods while the slower 4X and 2X variants would use primarily weapon, offensive, and defensive (defensive because they carried more stock armor, meaning they were meant to take heavier damage).

Or maybe a mech like the Clan Hellbringer would load up on pretty much purely offensive and weapon mods, because that's what its intended role was (didn't have the armor for straight-up fights or defending). Or conversely, a mech like the Thunderbolt might be more defense oriented (it was built to be a tough cookie).

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2014 - 10:26 AM.

[BSK]

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

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.

This game has VERY limited communication tools although that is the KEY of teamgames. If you take away radar deprivation AND seismic sensor from my 54km/h Dire Wolf in pug games then YOU apparently don't play the same game that I do. I can live with one weakness, but not with 3 if you add the several additional air strikes, while I still have no possibility to improve my mech unlike most other people do.
Add map pings and you can do this limited module system, but FOR NOW, it is not a good idea.

[Ragnar Bashmek]

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.

None of this provides a rational reason for reducing the number of mech module slots, in fact it would seem to more of an argument for increasing them.

PGI is not getting another single $ from me until you restore the module slots you stole from my TBRs and SCRs

Stop making lame excuses and weak rationalizations and back out this whole module slot change until you can come up with a sane replacement.

[Kraven Kor]

Or, at worst, @#$%ing roll this back until you have more useful weapon modules that we might actually want to take? You are doing this in the wrong order if that is the case.

More modules first, module selection changes later. So that we can actually use the new slot layout; as it is, I would not fit a weapon module on any of my mechs even if they offered a C-Bill boost.

[DAYLEET]

Please give us Global module refund.

[Almond Brown]

Zolaz, on 31 July 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I am still looking for someone who says that there wasnt a drastic change to the module system.

Well for us "Stalker" Pilots, there has been no real change at all, unless we want to ADD more expensive stuff.

So, no drastic change at all.

[GroovYChickeN]

I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about this. It really doesn't changes much of anything.

[Tanreh]

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.

I am sorry, but the fire is not really extinguished. Au contraire.
You took away some of our choices and force us to take (or not take) unwanted choices. Just the promise of new weapon modules with other functions is just this at the moment...a promise.
If they are not ready now...than do not take away our choices before those promised ones are available.

I am sorry but I do not have the feeling that you are really listening to what has been said. Many people here are complaining about this change and you are saying...'Trust us, we have a plan...'

On second reading I noticed you saying that the modules were never meant to be a leveling system. The next sentence you point out that the weapons modules have three more unrevealed levels. Ahem...I am sorry but this kind of logic seems to be contradicting itself.

Aehm...how about the promises of CW being introduced...aehm...how many times?...How many times do you expect the people to trust you without delivering?

Edited by Tanreh, 31 July 2014 - 11:02 AM.