588 replies to this topic

[jack 0]

I like the changes to the module system. I think it is a good thing that people have to decide what general modules they want to perform the roles they wish to. In a direwhale and want to be able to pinpoint from a distance? Great! Pick the module to help you do that. More worried about getting snuck up on? Take your seismic.

I also like that you can now bring two consumables with you. Personally, I tend to be spendthrift, so I don’t use them every match. However, it is nice that they are there if I want to use them. You managed to surprise the enemy team and they are all standing in a nice little clump? Oh look, you have a strike to punish them for that. Getting frustrated because you are surrounded by ECM mechs? Maybe pop that UAV that you always equip but never use. If in the future they release even more consumables to force you to make hard choices, I think that would be great too. Fun things like an EMP pulse that knocks out all sensor and radar information for a very limited time might be neat, or rabbit drones that run around in different directions giving off signals that imitate your mech so that people keep locking on false positives and chasing harmless drones.

I do agree that weapon modules are not currently really worth the cost in most cases. However, they have already stated they plan to release more of them that function in a variety of ways. I look forward to further diversity and improvements via weapon modules. For now, however, I’ll just keep using the free slots I just received thanks to this change to improve my AMS.

[Zhiel]

http://www.sarna.net...Naga_(OmniMech)

Clan artillery mech until 3085. Just saying...

[El Moosechacho]

I overall think the specialization/separation of module categories is a great idea for supporting the idea of role warfare
...but 2 quick things about the current system:

-The "Mech Module" category is way too broad, with way too many modules for only two slots available to it.

-Weapon modules still seem mostly irrelevant, and a waste of 2 module slots

[Triordinant]

From PGI:

"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."

Why will it take up to a month to make those changes? Shouldn't it just take a day? Do they want foolish players to spend as many cbills on arty/air strikes as possible before they make the changes in the hope that the foolish players will run low and spend MC to buy stuff? I normally give people the benefit of the doubt, but 2 to 4 weeks to limit arty/air to 1 per 'mech instead of 2? Gimme a break!

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

I would really suggest you do something with the weapon modules. Like provide a variety of differing type. Fast fire, cool down, Crit suppress. Or something. Then it would be useful to carry them.

And if you want role warfare. Then there needs to be more defining role warfare modules.

And on the subject of that XP rewards for roles other then KILL KILL KILL would go a LLOOOOONNG way towards that right now. with little effort on y'alls part as well.

Please show us you mean more than just the bare minimum needed to keep us out of rage city.

Thank you

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 31 July 2014 - 06:34 PM.

[Sandslice]

Triordinant, on 31 July 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

From PGI:

"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."

Why will it take up to a month to make those changes? Shouldn't it just take a day? Do they want foolish players to spend as many cbills on arty/air strikes as possible before they make the changes in the hope that the foolish players will run low and spend MC to buy stuff? I normally give people the benefit of the doubt, but 2 to 4 weeks to limit arty/air to 1 per 'mech instead of 2? Gimme a break!

So you have enough knowledge of the game code to say that joining arty and air - which is four modules with module-based upgrades on them - is easy enough to be a hotfix-level change, rather than a patch-level as dev has offered...

I'd sooner have the changes tested rather than quick-pushed, just in case.

[Gorgo7]

Just finished running my Hunchback.
3 Mech modules, 2 consumables, 1 weapon module (left the other empty).

Absolutely unbelievable! I love the new changes!

Adapt or die!

[MischiefSC]

The new changes are very good. Airstrike only for Clans and only 1 per mech on IS. I'm good with that. That's all good.

Weapon modules are still literally (with the exceptions of MG/AMS/NARC) worse than useless.

I get the concept, I do. I like and agree with that. Weapon modules need to be worth cbills and XP. Currently paying a heat tax on every single firing of a weapon for the potential of less than 1 point of damage difference at targets within less than 1 second of movements distance and only outside of regular range, in return for a heat increase on every shot fired, regardless of the module making a difference.

Weapon modules as currently designed and implemented are quite literally worse than not taking them. It is paying millions of cbills and a huge chunk of GXP in return for nerfing yourself.

I understand the *concept* of higher levels of these modules, but what you're presenting is something that is a self-imposed, very expensive nerf until you've paid a significantly higher GXP price - at which time they are almost as useful as a 10,000 cbill targeting computer.

IS weapon modules need to change ROF in return for range reduction. Clan weapons need to reduce weapon fire durations (shorter AC bursts, shorter laser burns) in return for heat increase (comparable to current module heat costs).

GXP costs should be significantly reduced for all of these.

Weapon modules should be as relevant a decision as mech modules. There is no version of the existing concept for them (range for heat) that will be even vaguely tempting - they are way too cbill/gxp expensive for what is otherwise an irrelevant (if not actually negative) alteration to weapons.

I like the idea. Modules that let someone alter or tweak how the weapon loadouts they carry function - it could, in theory, fundamentally shift how a swath of existing builds and mechs play. That's awesome and a very good idea. Range for heat isn't that though. That's a bad exchange and not worth it. If I want ranged weapons I'll take ranged loadouts (ERLLs, ERPPCs, etc) or Clan mechs/weapons. Adding even 100m to a Large Laser for even 0.5 heat/shot (which is way better than the modules you're proposing would ever offer) in return for several thousand GXP and millions of cbills is flat out inferior to just... taking an ERLL.

RoF for IS in return for reduced range (that's a legit but significant tradeoff for IS) and reduced burn time (same damage, less time) for increased heat for Clans (again, a legit but significant tradeoff for already hot running Clan mechs) would let people tailor builds in ways that would be worth the significant GXP and cbill costs without changing game balance - it's just doubling down on existing concepts.

[wanderer]

Yokaiko, on 31 July 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

You can't make me use weapons mods, everything is too hot already.

Weapon mods making guns COOLER might have well worked.

There's cases where I'd trade a bit of range for less heat vs. "overcharging" a gun for marginal range increases and more crippling hot-shooting. Or to give a weapon an alt-ammo mode instead of the standard. Inferno SRM module, anyone? Hotloaded LRMs?

[p4r4g0n]

Thank you Niko & Paul for your clarifications. I understand and appreciate the stated motive behind the limitation in mech slots but I wonder if you could explain why the proposals to categorise slot by roles as set out by other in previous posts or even in this thread have not been found to be suitable.

With respect to the current system, I find that the more limited number of mech module slots are making me re-evaluate both the specific play styles of certain mechs and the cost vs benefit of the command console. (I never used the CC previously due to the slot / tonnage cost as opposed to lack thereof in module slots.)

HOWEVER, since this is only available to assaults and heavies, I feel that you need to consider either providing some additional mech module slots to lights and mediums or create CC equivalents for both classes with proportionately less tonnage cost. (proportionately lower tonnage cost is critical for lights / mediums for make it viable.)

Insofar as consumable module slots are concerned, I would reiterate that the amount of arty/air spam now in game seems a little ridiculous especially in maps that allow quick fast combat and long lines of sight. Personally, I feel that the introduction of arty / air strikes has been generally detrimental to game play and is akin to grenade spam in FPS games. Further, the costs of said strikes is punitive for new players or those who do not already have a decent range of mechs to play and are trying to save c-bills to acquire more.

Since you are introducing more consumables, my only feedback on the consumable module slots is that I truly hope there are no more similar random damage generators being introduced that can be rapidly spammed from unlimited distances.

As for weapon module slots, I have no comment until all these modules are implemented or have been clearly explained. For the record I use none at this time mainly due to previous limitations on module slots and the questionable benefits thereof vs the gxp & c-bill costs.

In closing, I would again also reiterate that many players bought complementary modules that were to be used in sets of threes. The current change has created a situation were a lot of players now have modules that are excess to requirements or will no longer be used. While I appreciate your policy with respect to c-bill items, you have to consider the significant amount of gxp & c-bills spent by players on what has now been made useless or surplus to requirements due to a change YOU made to the game mechanics.

A deletion of all purchased modules (except consumables) and a refund of gxp & c-bills previously incurred on them would allow players to re-allocate these resources appropriately in light of the new module system and would seem to be fair and reasonable when game mechanics are changed.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 31 July 2014 - 07:25 PM.

[Jester McCloud]

Sandslice, on 30 July 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

In case you're not trolling: click the "toggle editing mode" so that the editor text shows up in your Unicode font, then try quoting.

And when it comes to 'Mechs that only have three non-hero variants (Jenner) or three variants absolute (Griffin,) yes, they all need to be viable because they all need to be run through Basic efficiencies in order to elite any of them.

Thanks Sandslice (both for the tip on quoting and making me realize about viability).

A) I don't troll.
I totally forgot about cases with only three variants.

True, finishing Basic is going to be more difficult. But, in general, I believe that there are a few "lemons" in the mech lineup. And that's okay...... Let suckers buy them.

Balance does not have to be made for all mechs equally. I personally believe you should have to "work up" to higher chassis - but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Shino Tenshi]

I've read through the first couple pages or so of the thread, but can't read the rest due to time. Personally I think it'd be more useful, as mentioned by others, to break the mech modules down into subcategories and assign certain numbers of slots to each category where a mech doesn't need to have all subcategory types. The mastered slot could then be an omni mech module slot as well. A much larger variety of mech module slots would help role warfare as well.

I realize it's probably too big of a change to implement, but another thing that would help role warfare would be to customize the mech skill tree based on each chassis. So any given Raven mech would have the same skill tree, but it would be different from say an Atlas or an Orion's skill tree. Then you could offer a much wider variety of skills that would help add personality to each of the different mech chassis.

[Bad Andy]

weapon modules are barely used, marginal extra range in exchange for more heat is usually a bad tradeoff

consumables are basically just UAV for lights on a team or generally just arty/air strike in both slots since cool shot is not that great

how is this role warfare?

[Appogee]

For those who didn't notice, our favourite game designer changed his mind on page 18 of the thread.

Now it's going to be one Strike per Mech, which can be either air or arty. There will be no difference or limitation between IS and Clans. Both can use both types, but both can field only one.per match.

[meteorol]

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

snip

First of all, thank you for this change of mind regarding arti for clans.
I appreciate your general the general direction you are heading towards with modules, and tbh i don't have much problem with the new limitation of mech modules.

Just a little food for thought:
Could you consider reducing the UAV price (to maybe... lets say 20K?)
The UAV is a great tool to help your team, but for the indivdual player, it gives smaller benefits than using strikes or coolshot. Hence, it is pretty much nonexistent in the solo queue and very seldom used in group queue (pretty much only see it if there is a bigger group of like 8+ on a team). You probably have some data on this, but i guess UAV gets way less usage than the other consumables.
UAV can be shot down, and i do it pretty often. A UAV users risks to spent 40k and gets his UAV shot down after 3 seconds, wasting it completely. While a strike user also risks wasting his strike, he has influence on it (good positioning, setting arti strike behind someone so it isn't noticed and so on), while UAV effeciency is solely dependent on the awareness of the enemy team.
Guys will most likely use two strikes or (after the change) one strike and coolshot. Lowering the UAV price would give players an incetive to use it.

It would probably even be more effective as cbill sink, because quite a few guys who don't use consumables at all due to their costs (and now run two empty consumable slots) would maybe look into it if they could get a consumable for like 20k.

Would be a nice way to get UAV out of the shadows outside of the competitive scene.

Edited by meteorol, 31 July 2014 - 10:08 PM.

[MasterBLB]

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.

Dear Paul

You're wrong.
The only "hard" decision you enforce is more players are not willing to spend money on your game,because when it comes to mech modules,there will always be 1st choice,2nd choice,3rd choice an so on ones.You can introduce even a million modules,but you can't avoid situation 2 of them are the most useful,and make all 999998 others may not be present in game as well.
And before you'll make a stupidity like removing from the game or nerfing TIG,Radar Dep,Seismic Sensor - bear in mind that also won't force us to make that "hard decisions".In that case either another "holy two" will be found,or players just put random modules (or none at all) having in arse all that your precious "role warfare".

" Different loadouts require different modules and this is where the fine tuning aspect of 'Mech customization comes into play"
When will you realize the truth that different loadouts ALL require first Radar Dep,Seismic Sensor|Target Info Gathering and only after fitting these there is a place to think about others?
We don't need to "see what will happen" because we clearly can see the obvious.Even if you finally introduce interesting and useful weapon modules that still won't solve the problem with too few mech modules.

You know what,I have for you and all the dev team an exercise.Figure out as many roles on battle field as possible,then do some simulation like I did in my other post http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3599327 using both your system and mine.Then present us the results of that research.

Edited by MasterBLB, 01 August 2014 - 01:34 AM.

[RetroActive]

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.

Paul,

Sure the strike issue was a small part of what people are up in arms over. But I'm not sure that you've actually read most of the complaints in this thread. What most people are saying is that limiting mechs to 2 mech modules actually forces you to bring only the best modules instead of the best + some obscure module. So, your attempt to make players assume certain roles has actually forced all players to play a similar role.

Please read what people are saying in this thread. You haven't addressed the main complaints, just the small peripheral ones.

[Sandslice]

Jester McCloud, on 31 July 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Thanks Sandslice (both for the tip on quoting and making me realize about viability).

A) I don't troll.
I totally forgot about cases with only three variants.

I didn't think you were, but someone accused you of it, leading to the just-in-case.

Quote

True, finishing Basic is going to be more difficult. But, in general, I believe that there are a few "lemons" in the mech lineup. And that's okay...... Let suckers buy them.

I have to disagree on "let suckers buy them," simply because there's a real cost in time and c-bills (if not also in MC) to making a mistake; and new players are more likely to make those mistakes.

The idea of there being lower-tier variants is inevitable, just as with any balanced-imbalance game. There's a difference, though, between these statements:

"X is quite different from Y, and the differences make X better"
"X is identical in all aspects to Y, with one exception: X can also..."

The latter has no place in a balanced-imbalance game.

[The Great Unwashed]

Although I like having 3 generic module slots, starting with only 1 mech slot makes achieving master level something worthwhile while before it was just nice. I actually like the consumable slot systems as I'll finally start using them more though I miss some combinations just as anyone else. Some (constructive) suggestions:

• I think the weapon modules should be slightly positive for the cost but always include a penalty while not shifting the balance tremendously.I disagree with many of the over-powerful suggestions that merely roll back some of the choices made earlier (Gauss charge, for example). I bought a few because it looks nice in the mechlab but the effect is small.
  
• If you have a range/heat increase it would be nice if the same module could be flipped into range /heat decrease, i.e., do exactly the opposite and still remain a good module. Set in the mechlab, not in game. So you modifiy a laser for brawling or sniping (slightly).
  
• Hill climb, speed retention, shock absorbance, and improved gyros modules could be mech skills (the modules that are rarely used). You can add entire tier of master skills if you ask me, all 21,500 XP. These boosts are small and expensive but nice for the mechs that you play often. You could keep the modules for players who really like them but haven't unlocked that skill yet or allow people to sell them back (should anyone actually have bought such a module). Perhaps this could even work for capture accelerator and advanced zoom but the latter module is used often...
  
• Many of the IS modules are already covered by the clan targeting computer (TC), e.g., target info gathering. This would mean that IS mechs need more module slots than clan mechs and clan mechs pay in weight for the bonuses. By this I mean that 2 module slots for clan mechs are actually enough.
  
• You can allow two consumable slots to act as one mech slot for certain mechs that had many module slots before. Buy the upgrade as you would buy FF/Endo/Artemis/DHS?
  
• Even more wacky: next to pilot and mech skills you add a weapon skill tab. Use a weapon more often, unlock bonusses 1 to 5 for WXP. Discard weapon modules entirely. Again, bonuses should be minor or unlock weapons. E.g., you have the normal ERLL and the ERLL with 10% more range but 5% more heat; the GR with 20% less charge time and more heat... variant weapons available in your community warfare area only.

Edited by The Great Unwashed, 01 August 2014 - 12:56 AM.

[Asmosis]

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.

The problem with this approach is that all the useful modules are in the same category, and they quickly get sorted into "Best, better, average, worse" categories. If players only have 2 module slots, they will use the best two modules available. Theres no point in taking any other module. It'd be like putting small lasers on an awesome, just because they are available doesn't mean its a real option.

There doesn't seem to be any logic behind which mechs get bonus module slots or penalties either. The DDC for example has two less slots than other atlas. huh? its supposed to be a battlefield support mech with its command module and originally it had one MORE module slot than the others.