588 replies to this topic

[DAEDALOS513]

fat4eyes, on 02 August 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

The thing is, role warfare is already here, the problem is that a majority of players only choose the long/medium range fire support role because it (predictably) deals a lot of the damage in the game, and at the end screen damage is what people think count the most.

That said, the radar dep module is very very good, and I put it on my mastered mechs in addition to the first choice. They may want to have a look at that.

Two mech modules is simply not enough to add diversity. One slot is taken up by LRM derp which any seasoned veteran knows to use due to LRM's being OP. That leaves one left in most cases. hmm such variety.. how do I control my glee?

I'm guessing you are fairly new to MWO, maybe playing 3 months, you really don't have enough experience to make a good judgement call. You haven't grinded 40 mechs for that extra slot and dropped large Cbills for modules that will now NEVER be used again.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 03 August 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[MasterBLB]

Well Devs,there is a much feedback already - in general,we are not happy with taking away mech module slots.
So,maybe some word from you now?

[Shino Tenshi]

fat4eyes, on 02 August 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

The thing is, role warfare is already here, the problem is that a majority of players only choose the long/medium range fire support role because it (predictably) deals a lot of the damage in the game, and at the end screen damage is what people think count the most.

Off the top of my head here's some of the roles that are already in the game and are viable to play (in that playing them well leads to a win):

Scout/light harasser: ECM Raven/Cicada with llaser/ppcs

Scout/ecm-eccm specialist: ECM Raven with NARC and TAG

Fast close range striker: Ember, Jenners, arguably also the 55 ton SRM boats if they have a large engine

Medium/Long Range Direct fire support: any heavy/assault that relies on gauss/ppc/llasers/smaller acs

Medium/Long range Indirect fire support: lrmboats

Heavy brawlers: heavy/assault mechs that rely on srms/larger acs/lbx/med lasers

Yet a majority choose the direct fire support role because at the end game screen only damage and kills matter. Noone hears about the 2 light harassers that got half the enemy team looking the other way effectively halving the enemy's firepower. Or the NARC raven that kept the enemy ecm Atlas highlighted not only neutralizing its ecm but revealing the position of the bulk of the enemy's forces. Or the fast striker that legs 2 enemy mechs and takes out an atlas' right torso in one strafing run.

I believe this is the reason some people think that there is only one 'optimal' set of modules, because they've only ever played one role. If I'm in a light long range harasser with ecm, I'll choose adv zoom over seismic any day. Odds are the enemy won't get the jump on me, and even if they do I'm fast enough to get away. The enhanced narc weapon module is almost a necessity on the light narc mech. Seismic is great for close range strikers and brawlers, because the data it gives is crucial for knowing when to rush the enemy and when to hang back. Lrmboats get target decay for obvious reasons,
it's even better than seismic as long as you stay near your teammates. For direct fire support its a toss up between radar dep and adv zoom, depending on what range you shoot at and on how much you hate lrmboats.

That said, the radar dep module is very very good, and I put it on my mastered mechs in addition to the first choice. They may want to have a look at that.

Limiting the module slots makes us players choose which modules best fit the role we choose for ourselves, instead of just taking seismic radar dep and adv zoom all the time. And that's a good thing. It leads to more playstyles and the interaction of more playstyles leads to more varied gameplay.

One thing that could be added to make players go for different roles is to add 'best at' statstics ad the end game screen, for example 'most enemies legged', 'most firepower eliminated', 'most spotting/narc/tag assists', 'most (base) cbills earned' so it's not all about the damage and kills.

I think fat4eyes has a really good point. Though personally I'm less concerned with how my team score page looks and more with how my personal score page looks. Unless I'm intentionally mastering a mech, then I usually play with those mechs that give me the most c-bills, which as you pointed out are the long range direct fire mechs or my LRM boat. I really love playing with my RVN-3L, but at the end of the day, it just doesn't give the same c-bills or xp.

I think if the bonuses for spotting and tag/narc were increased, it'd help. C-ECM bonus increase may help as well... maybe a bonus for ECMing your team as well... something like a bonus for every 10-15 full seconds you mask at least X number of teammates. Increasing the bonus for component destruction may help put some more focus on the MG boat lights who run in and tear chunks of firepower off an enemy once he's open.

Giving a real bonus for capping would really be great too... I'm pretty sure I've seen the occasional tiny bonus given, but I think if it were made to be better, based on much of the cap meter you've moved, it would help.

Edited by Shino Tenshi, 03 August 2014 - 09:47 PM.

[Sandslice]

Just a reformat of some thoughts.

1. For YLW, Oxide, SDR-5V... and for all 'Mechs that had been base-2 and are now x/2/1:
If such a 'Mech was taking at least one Weapon or Consumable module before the change, then it was buffed (not something taken away) after the change.

Only if it were taking three 'Mech modules did it "lose" access to one. It cannot be reasonably said that most people were doing this or even could do this (cf lack of mastery,) however.

2. For all 'Mechs that had been base-1, or had been base-2 and are now x/2/2:
The change is strictly a buff, and cannot be construed as otherwise.

3. That leaves ECM Raven, ECM Atlas, and Jenny-K.
The problem with the ECMs trying to make a case is, of course, that they have ECM. It's like paladins in WoW complaining that their Divine Shield was reduced to 8 seconds because they can no longer safely BubbleHearth (at least, without a glyph...)

That's actually part of why some of those 'Mechs' non-ECM counterparts received the buff instead - to give them something worth considering, rather than maintaining the One True Solution that the ECM variants had been before.

JR7-K, as often stated in these module feedback threads, does in fact need something, as she's got nothing on her older sister.

Edited by Sandslice, 03 August 2014 - 10:42 PM.

[Lagster]

Why do weapon modules come with a tradeoff but not mech modules?

I can never justify increased heat generation for a tiny bit more range. How often will you run into a situation where the enemy just happens to be between the default long range and your module-enhanced long range and you're thankful for not losing 1 point of damage?

[Larzous]

Lagster, on 04 August 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

Why do weapon modules come with a tradeoff but not mech modules?

I can never justify increased heat generation for a tiny bit more range. How often will you run into a situation where the enemy just happens to be between the default long range and your module-enhanced long range and you're thankful for not losing 1 point of damage?

While I don't agree about the tradeoff for mech modules -- I do wish that weapon modules had something else other than heat. Perhaps you could give us damage for additional cool down on the weapons instead of extra heat? I dunno. -- I agree though, I don't use these really because 9m on a ERPPC isn't worth it for extra heat, especially when you pull ghost heat by accident.

-=-=-

With response to the actual "consumables"

1) Clans - Why limit arty? Just because we play clan mechs doesn't mean "we are claners". -- personally I just play the game to have fun and I play the mechs I like not giving a crap about lore half the time. -- I also know people who play them simply because they like the feel of the clan mechs or the mechanics and or builds they can make. Its not about IS/Clann its just simply what they like and enjoy to play. -- I think I know one person who has said I don't do clan mechs because I'm not a clanner.. and thats it..-- Overall people like them, and to limit them for "lore" sakes ruins the feel and balance of the game.

2) I do agree that arty/airstrike should be limited to the one... Unless you want to also create a mech module so a person could equip both... -- However, that basically leaves only UAV as the only other consumable as coolant imo is pointless really. -- So, we need more consumables that help on the battlefield.

[Cpt Zaepp]

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

Here's the latest word from the Dev Team on Modules! Please tell us what you think!

Whatever fancy things you have in mind for future Modules, as long as pilots keep dropping on Alpine Peaks in a SRM-Brawler, there won't be any "Role Warfare".

Edited by zaepp, 04 August 2014 - 02:08 AM.

[Jungle Rhino]

So now that all mechs have 2 consumable slots free and available at all times I am officially at a disadvantage not buying and using coolshot.

I used to be happy that at least the other guy getting an extra alpha off didn't have seismic or something similar but now NOT taking a consumable of some type is a clear disadvantage.

Seems to me like this is pretty clearly P2W??

The irony is that I would happily throw money at PGI for this game if they weren't completely taking the p1ss with their pricing model.

Edited by Jungle Rhino, 04 August 2014 - 02:16 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Sandslice, on 03 August 2014 - 10:42 PM, said:

Just a reformat of some thoughts.

1. For YLW, Oxide, SDR-5V... and for all 'Mechs that had been base-2 and are now x/2/1:
If such a 'Mech was taking at least one Weapon or Consumable module before the change, then it was buffed (not something taken away) after the change.

Only if it were taking three 'Mech modules did it "lose" access to one. It cannot be reasonably said that most people were doing this or even could do this (cf lack of mastery,) however.

2. For all 'Mechs that had been base-1, or had been base-2 and are now x/2/2:
The change is strictly a buff, and cannot be construed as otherwise.

3. That leaves ECM Raven, ECM Atlas, and Jenny-K.
The problem with the ECMs trying to make a case is, of course, that they have ECM. It's like paladins in WoW complaining that their Divine Shield was reduced to 8 seconds because they can no longer safely BubbleHearth (at least, without a glyph...)

That's actually part of why some of those 'Mechs' non-ECM counterparts received the buff instead - to give them something worth considering, rather than maintaining the One True Solution that the ECM variants had been before.

JR7-K, as often stated in these module feedback threads, does in fact need something, as she's got nothing on her older sister.

Didn't like 95% of all mechs have 2 base mech slots, totalling 3 after mastery? Therefore 95% of mechs we're nerfed from modules that truly have any value.

5% were buffed.. so what's your point?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 August 2014 - 06:12 AM.

[Ragnar Bashmek]

MechWarriors has been my favorite game since MW1 came out on the PC about 20 or so years back. I was delighted when I discovered this version. I've had a lot of fun with it and looked forward to it's further development.

This patch however has totally killed my enthusiasm. Now I suspect the game will be continuously degraded by a never ending stream of poorly considered and generally unfortunate changes made by a functionally incompetent development team.

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that this patch was three steps in the wrong direction in the opinion of most players. The extra "consumables slots" were a ham-handed attempt to increase revenue that came at the expense of screwing up game play. The reduction of mech modules is just irrational in addition to extremely unpopular. The additional weapons slots are virtually useless.

The Devs have largely ignored voluminous negative feedback about this patch and only offered some self contradictory rationales as justification.

These are not good signs for MW fans. Based on past performance one can only assume that PGI will continue making hollow promises of a better future for MWO while screwing it up in the present. I don't see this getting any better without a change in direction at PGI, one that would probably include a change in staff.

This is really sad to see and I certainly hope PGI pulls it's head out of it's posterior and focuses on making the game more enjoyable for its players and thus more profitable for the dev team.

[Sandslice]

DAEDALOS513, on 04 August 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Didn't like 95% of all mechs have 2 base mech slots, totalling 3 after mastery? Therefore 95% of mechs we're nerfed from modules that truly have any value.

5% were buffed.. so what's your point?

95%? Numbers time.

Base-1: 10 variants.
Base-2: 142 variants.
Base-3: 6 variants.
=158. So, by this, 89,87% had base-2; 93,2% had base-2 or base-3. 95% is already wrong. However, this analysis is too simple:

Base-1: 10 vars.
Base-2 that became x/2/2: 30 vars.
Base-2 that became x/2/1: 112 vars.
Base-3: 6 vars.

This means that only 74,68% of all variants went from a certain number of modules, to a smaller number of 'Mech modules. 95% my right foot.

As for the other part of your objection - that only a certain number of passive ('Mech) modules had any real value before the change... I'm sure the red smoke in this video is the sensor ghost left behind when derp triggers, na?



People were, in fact, using artillery and UAV before the change --- and not just at the top level. Brawlers were even willing to use coolshots before the change. Some people didn't - or couldn't - allocate their base plus master-slot for any purpose (not enough modules to use, didn't have master slot unlocked, etc.)

For many (I won't call it a majority or plurality as I don't have data points,) this change is not a nerf.

----

In the end, the 'Mech module argument has a rather hard time holding, in light of raw data and (at least anecdotally) observed behaviour - and it honestly comes off as sounding like ECM Raven and ECM Atlas pilots complaining that they don't get to still be overpowered with their ECM, infinite modules, and exclusive hanging truck-balls.

But I'm all for the idea of being able to get extra modules --- but ONLY at real cost.

Try the idea, for example, that the Command Console (on top of what it does currently) adds a module slot. While this would thematically be for {zoom / sensor range / target info gather} due to what the Console buffs are, it needn't be just for those. This would give something (at a fair cost) to all IS heavy and assault 'Mechs.

If we want to throw a bone to lighter 'Mechs, we can give them the Dual Cockpit. IS only, 1 ton, 1 crit (HD only,) adds a module slot. (Technically, a dual could go into heavy and assault as well, and often did; but the separation is there to give a nifty to the smaller 'Mechs.) Again, power with cost.

[DAEDALOS513]

Sandslice, on 04 August 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

This means that only 74,68% of all variants went from a certain number of modules, to a smaller number of 'Mech modules. 95% my right foot.

For many (I won't call it a majority or plurality as I don't have data points,) this change is not a nerf.

But I'm all for the idea of being able to get extra modules --- but ONLY at real cost.

Relax friend.. 95% was obviously a guesstimate.. it's close enough to prove my point however. IMO, and you don't have to agree, this change was MORE a NERF and a MONEY-GRAB, than anything else. It has DECREASED enjoyment of the game both on the battlefield and in the lab.

Thanks but I passed on the 16 minute video for obvious reasons..

To quote a fellow mechwarrior that summarizes beautifully this whole debacle:

"Evidently, I've been using the Thunderbolt wrong, mounting a zoom-mod. (to complement a gauss rifle) and a seismic sensor without mastering the mech. That must've been borderline exploiting.
Instead, I should bring some consumables and weapon modules, because abundant airstrikes and additional heat will totally improve the gameplay.[/sarcasm]"

I give you credit for being so addament though that this was a change for the best.. do u happen to work for PGI?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 August 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[AnotherFineMechYouveGottenMeInto]

It would be unbelievably cool, not to mention more satisfying and 'realistic', if airstrike and artillery markers had to be fired from your 'mech. Similar to how smoke markers are launched from grenade launchers and mortars in real life. It's a little odd to see smoke miraculously appear at the point of impact prior to the splash.

In addition, the telltale smoke trail would at least give you a fighting chance to vacate the area.

Edited by AnotherFineMechYouveGottenMeInto, 04 August 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[Mogney]

I am betting the purpose of this change was to sell us on those weapon modules that nobody uses, but even with them not taking the place of a consumable or a mech module slot, they are still not worth equipping, let alone using MC to convert xp to GXP to buy them, which is probably what PGI was hoping for lol.

[Gorgo7]

Again, I like the changes.
I have and use more modules than ever before.
So does everyone else.
Good job on this improvement!

[DAEDALOS513]

Mogney, on 04 August 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I am betting the purpose of this change was to sell us on those weapon modules that nobody uses, but even with them not taking the place of a consumable or a mech module slot, they are still not worth equipping, let alone using MC to convert xp to GXP to buy them, which is probably what PGI was hoping for lol.

Same here, despite not having to sacrifice a mech or consumable slot, I'm not using any weapon modules... that says alot... AND I have 40million in the bank.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 August 2014 - 11:38 AM.

[damonwolf]

Gorgo7, on 04 August 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Again, I like the changes.
I have and use more modules than ever before.
So does everyone else.
Good job on this improvement!

Actually, no, I don't use more modules than before because I refuse to equip a PoS weapon module. Many people I know don't use many modules than before. If you're talking about Arty spam, then sure, but Arty spam this past week has been pathetic...pathetic! None stop Arty attacks has pissed a lot of people off. Being able to equip just 1 strike soon will NOT change anything. People will still spam Arty then.
So, basically, it's looking like the patch has 2 focuses: 1) A CBill sink using Consumables. 2) A sad attempt to justify the man hours spent developing PoS weapon modules NO ONE will use.
They can make all the promises they want about "the future", but most aware people realize that their promises tend to be hollow. Reading Paul's post, I can see that this change is more "let them eat cake" attitude. They may act like they want constructive feedback, but it's just more smoke to make people feel empowered, and think that the Devs care about their opinions. So, sadly, IMO, nothing will change as the only time they care is when the loss of $$ is involved. I for one will not spend another dollar on his game until they unf**k the mistake they made. If you're reading this Paul, I think you may have gone a change too far for the majority of the community...I recommend you change I back or fix it before you lose more veteran players/$$.

[DAEDALOS513]

Gorgo7, on 04 August 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Again, I like the changes.
I have and use more modules than ever before.
So does everyone else.
Good job on this improvement!

Arty spammers like you ruin the game.

[Sandslice]

DAEDALOS513, on 04 August 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Relax friend.. 95% was obviously a guesstimate.. it's close enough to prove my point however. IMO, and you don't have to agree, this change was MORE a NERF, a MONEY-GRAB, than anything else. It has DECREASED enjoyment of the game both on the battlefield and in the lab.

I reacted as I did because 95% appeared to be a symptom of a general problem that I'm worried about with the feedback: that a fair bit of it relies on a lack of proportion and/or perspective.

Quote

Thanks but I passed on the 16 minute video for obvious reasons..

Short form: it's the final of a tournament held in May - a Crimson Skirmish fought between Steel Jaguar and House of Lords. Artillery and UAV both saw very effective use in the fight.

Quote

I give you credit for being so addament though that this was a change for the best.. do u happen to work for PGI?

Part of me wishes; but not being Canadian would make that a bit tricky. I do, in my own line of work, have a perspective though. That drives my defence as it does, while also leading me to attack along different "battle lines" and also look for compromise solutions.

My perspective is this:
-If you're fighting against an unintended side effect of a change (eg, double arty,) that's a good fight.

-If you're fighting against a possible oversight (eg, JR7-K,) that's a good fight.

-If you're fighting because the change doesn't affect an underlying problem (eg, weapon modules,) that's a good fight.

-If you're fighting against the intended effect of a change because it's working as intended, then you need to be extra careful about how you fight.

That's where a lot of the feedback is, and why I seem to spend a fair bit of time defending: the complaint against reduced 'Mech modules is fighting against purpose, and I see people fighting it on what I think is the wrong front. It's obvious that PGI intends a reduction in free passive buffs (the 'Mech modules,) because they could have simply added weapon and consumable slots and converted the old slots to 'Mech - but opted to reduce 'Mech modules in just under 3/4 of the chassis.

I also understand the cute irony that goes with that defence.

Ideally, though, I want to see us push for things that we're likely to make progress if we push, rather than spending energy on one point that (IMO) is less critical than it seems and is likely to be ignored. I don't want weapon module improvements to be bagged because people are fixated on 'Mech modules, nor the JR7-K to be ignored because of getting lumped in with the Raven and Atlas and their louder defenders.

Nor do I want compromise solutions for 'Mech modules to be tossed completely just because people want freebies that they pro'ly won't get. ^^;

Hopefully, even if you disagree, you can see my angle.

[Kreisel]

FupDup, on 29 July 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

A few things:

1. Consumables should not have dedicated slots. They should be directly competing with passive modules.

2. We need more than three categories. Mech/weapon/consumable is far too bland and generic to add any actual flavor to chassis. A more diverse breakdown might look something like sensor/offensive/defensive/support/weapon/mech or whatever.

^This. It raises a lot of good points.

If as a c-bill sink, you feel the need to have dedicated consumable slot there should be at most 1 on most mechs.

A general 'mech' slot you can put any type of module in is a good idea, but if you really want to give the mech flavor and roles you should have you should have groupings like how you already have them organised in game... Weapon, Vision, Targeting, Support, Sensor, Mobility, Info Warfare.
You could start to have a lot more flavor in the mechs by just having some that could equip lots of mobility or lots of senor stuff but not much of the other type (or none except for in a generic slot) Heck you could even have mechs that had particular modules prebuilt into them that you can't remove a a quirk.

Quirks like you just did for Dragons and Awesome which give the mech a unique flavor do a lot more for role warfare than than splitting modules the way you have did. Also Sensor Deprivation is too good vs Target decay, having one module that makes another useless is extra problematic with this set up. It needs to do something like reduce lock time so without target decay it's an instant loss, with it it's as if neither had the module.

Quote

3. Weapon modules need to be strong enough to warrant their use. They need more range, and the heat penalty is pointless because normal modules don't even have penalties at all.

4. We need more weapon module types. Range boosts alone aren't diverse enough. We need cooldowns, heat, damage, and/or unique/weapon-specific (i.e. UAC jam rate, etc.) weapon mods.

These are really strong points about the weapons mods, they need a major overhaul be anything other than just, unthinking throw on the ones for the weapons you equip or don't bother because they are basically meaningless anyway. The heat penalty is pretty silly too cause it makes certain ones just better than others... like AMS, Machine gun, Narc, Tag... no penalty, always take those over the other ones.

they would be MUCH more desireable and interesting with features like: Projectile speed, Range, longer ECM counter for PPC, Lessened Jam chance, Faster Jam clearing, less heat, count as having 1 less for ghost heat, faster guass charge, able to hold guass charge longer, shorter laser duration. higher lrm arcs, faster or longer missile locks, or wider radius in which you can keep the crosshairs to establish/maintain a lock, etc..