588 replies to this topic

[Boaz Roshak]

For the love of all things good will you please help those of us with more than 100 mechs equipped as the load times and save times are beyond annoying between matches and any time you touch the mech bay when you have that number of mechs currently . Now cap it off with a new improved module system that wants to have you move modules between mechs. Please just make the non consumables a toggle that is unlocked with GXP and enabled with Cbills instead of a physical item that needs to be hunted for, found and moved between mechs.

Edited by Boaz Roshak, 04 August 2014 - 02:25 PM.

[Primetimex]

Boaz Roshak, on 04 August 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

For the love of all things good will you please help those of us with more than 100 mechs equipped as the load times and save times are beyond annoying between matches and any time you touch the mech bay when you have that number of mechs currently . Now cap it off with a new improved module system that wants to have you move modules between mechs. Please just make the non consumables a toggle that is unlocked with GXP and enabled with Cbills instead of a physical item that needs to be hunted for, found and moved between mechs.

Boaz, I e-mailed PGI support about this and they really just don't care unfortunately and I e-mailed them on more than one occasion!

[DAEDALOS513]

Sandslice, on 04 August 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

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.

My perspective is this:
-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.

I totally see your side, but PGI should have made this change at the proper time however. The proper time would have been when weapon modules are made more affective and when there is a greater variety of consumables too choose from.

Instead, they effectively rendered useless many modules we dropped heavy Cbills for (eg. speed retention, hill climb,etc etc etc). They also STOLE (that is the BEST term for it because they didn't comparably replace it/nor refund us) one (and in some cases two) of our mech-modules which we grinded for!

You can defend them all you want, and though you appear to be correct in your points, their timing was p1ss poor and bottom line, they can't make proper business decisions as proven time after time.

The 'unintended consequence' is upsetting PAYING CUSTOMERS.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 August 2014 - 04:43 PM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Boaz Roshak, on 04 August 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

For the love of all things good will you please help those of us with more than 100 mechs equipped as the load times and save times are beyond annoying between matches and any time you touch the mech bay when you have that number of mechs currently . Now cap it off with a new improved module system that wants to have you move modules between mechs. Please just make the non consumables a toggle that is unlocked with GXP and enabled with Cbills instead of a physical item that needs to be hunted for, found and moved between mechs.

You would think this would be a basic feature from beta.. or is this really beta? I really believe they want us to suffer so that we would rather spend Cbills buying more modules than to make it easy for us to move modules around from mech to mech.

SCREW THAT... my 'workaround' is to keep a XL spreadsheet with module locations, engine locations, etc.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 04 August 2014 - 04:53 PM.

[Desdain]

Vassago Rain, on 29 July 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

I imagine that even internally, few cared for Bryan's pet project, so they left it half done forever.

Absolutely would not doubt this is a possibility. I'm a developer (not at PGI), and I've seen this type of thing play out on many a dumb idea. I wonder if the devs feel like the project is a death-march at this point.

[Desdain]

Triordinant, on 02 August 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

No matter what Module system we end up with, they MUST reset the modules and refund the GXPs and cbills used so players can make informed decisions on which modules to get and how many. It's only fair.

[Desdain]

Gorgo7, on 01 August 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

Yes, well, some of us are playing a game that involves maneuvering.
Some of us are capable of making hard decisions where modules are concerned. Some of us don't strut and call ourselves "more competent players"...

Some of us don't just accept the crap we're given.

Gorgo7, on 01 August 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

Adapt or die.

I think this is what PGI needs to do.

[Icebergdx]

As far as only being able to use either Artillary or Air Strikes, I think it is a HORRIBLE idea. Especially because (for Battletech fans) it destroys the idea of the Combined Arms approach. We are unable to have player run Aeromechs or Armor, so the only option is the Air Strike or Artillery barrage. For some of the Houses (Davion being the primary example, but Steiner adopted it) the Regimental Combat Team, which would have 'mechs, air assets, and armor assets all together, is removed.

The only other thing int eh game that comes close to the Artillery or Air Strike, as a mech mounted weapon, was shut down by you PGI.

If you are really set on these limits, then give us the Arrow IV for use on mechs.

[Gorgo7]

Maybe you guys should hash this out before casting me into the street for liking cool shots and UAV's.

DAEDALOS513, on 04 August 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Arty spammers like you ruin the game.

Icebergdx, on 04 August 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

As far as only being able to use either Artillary or Air Strikes, I think it is a HORRIBLE idea. Especially because (for Battletech fans) it destroys the idea of the Combined Arms approach. We are unable to have player run Aeromechs or Armor, so the only option is the Air Strike or Artillery barrage. For some of the Houses (Davion being the primary example, but Steiner adopted it) the Regimental Combat Team, which would have 'mechs, air assets, and armor assets all together, is removed.

The only other thing int eh game that comes close to the Artillery or Air Strike, as a mech mounted weapon, was shut down by you PGI.

If you are really set on these limits, then give us the Arrow IV for use on mechs.

[MasterBLB]

Quote

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.

You mean some like this?
http://mwomercs.com/...s-propositions/

[Sandslice]

MasterBLB, on 04 August 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

You mean some like this?
http://mwomercs.com/...s-propositions/

Exactly.

[Elizander]

Oh, one more thing~

If a consumable module that cannot make players decide between using that or airstrike/artillery (otherwise compete with the DD module for the slot - and at least 2 are necessary to make it a real choice - 2 slots, 3 choices) then it will probably continue to be a 'problem' to some because it becomes 'mandatory'.

[Sable Phoenix]

Reducing every mech to one (two with the Master slot) Mech modules is destructive to any sort of role warfare. Everyone's going to carry Seismic and Radar Dep now, with no variation. Mechs with four module slots used to be valuable for the flexibility they had to adapt to various roles; LRM boat, scout, what have you. Now, they're the same as every other chassis. The mech's existing slots should have been converted to Mech slots, and the Weapons and Consumables module slots should have been added in ADDITION TO them, not in REPLACEMENT OF them.

Edited by Sable Phoenix, 05 August 2014 - 12:44 AM.

[MasterBLB]

Well,just in short:

• 1 and ONLY ONE consumable slot - gives choice artillery/airstrike OR UAV OR coolant.Requires to think a bit about what one is going to do on battlefield.
  
• 3 or 4 mech module slots (4 or 5 with master efficiency) - gives much more variation in choosing modules.Would make non-used due to lack of space but not bad modules (speed retention,hill climb etc) find their place in builds.And allows to create crazy but fun combinations.
  
• 1 or 2 weapon module slots (2 or 3 with master, mechs with initially 3 mech modules should have 2 weapon slots,those with 4 mech modules only 1 weapon slot).Currently would be unused,but in the future,assuming there will be some useful ones.

full post here:
http://mwomercs.com/...27#entry3599327

[TyGeR STD]

Remove the consumable module slot all together, if someone wants to use a consumable module it should directly compete with a mech module.

I think the biggest problem is with every mech being able to have a dedicated module slot is everyone takes Arty/Air and then either UAV or cool shot. This puts a lot of arty/air on each team. Even with the upcomming patch limiting IS to either arty/or air, everyone can still take one with out giving up anything to there mech.

If you remove the consumable slots all together, an let them compete to use the mech module slots, players will have to give up something in order to bring these items.

I understand that PGI is wanting to start implementing the role warfare system and the module system is to help customize your mech. If you want to help people customize their mechs setup it should be with the mech XP system. This system has been in need of a overhaul for over a year.

[Sable Phoenix]

TyGeR STD, on 05 August 2014 - 02:05 AM, said:

Remove the consumable module slot all together, if someone wants to use a consumable module it should directly compete with a mech module.

I think the biggest problem is with every mech being able to have a dedicated module slot is everyone takes Arty/Air and then either UAV or cool shot. This puts a lot of arty/air on each team. Even with the upcomming patch limiting IS to either arty/or air, everyone can still take one with out giving up anything to there mech.

If you remove the consumable slots all together, an let them compete to use the mech module slots, players will have to give up something in order to bring these items.

I understand that PGI is wanting to start implementing the role warfare system and the module system is to help customize your mech. If you want to help people customize their mechs setup it should be with the mech XP system. This system has been in need of a overhaul for over a year.

This. 100 times this. And just like MasterBLB said above, 3 or 4 mech modules slots.

[MasterBLB]

Sable Phoenix, on 05 August 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

This. 100 times this. And just like MasterBLB said above, 3 or 4 mech modules slots.

Well,truth be told having mech module slots where consumables and mech modules could be equipped would add even more thinking about optimal modules loadouts.I like it,as even now I seldom use consumables.

Edited by MasterBLB, 05 August 2014 - 03:16 AM.

[Fire and Salt]

I surprises me that people are complaining about strikes... Every mech could hold 2 before...

I also think the p2w complains are laughable since the bill and mc strikes are identical once you unlock the upgrades with gxp... Same goes for the cool shot.

I guess some people would rather use mech modules than consumables... As for me... I would often run 3 or even 4 consumables...


I wouldn't mind seeing mech modules and consumables using a shared slot. I do agree that weapon modules need to have a separate slot type in order to be worth taking (though I will leave them empty for many builds)


I like the 1 strike restriction, and I think the airstrike only rule for clan mech is a nice touch.


It would be cool if there was a quirk allowing dual strikes for certain mech:
Locusts
Non ecm capable commandos
Non ecm capable spiders
The raven 2x
Non ecm capable cicadas

Maybe the non ecm omni pods for the kit fox right arm could add a dual airstrike quirk.
This would give some incentive to use the kit fox as a non ecm scout mech.

Edited by Fire and Salt, 05 August 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Fire and Salt, on 05 August 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

I surprises me that people are complaining about strikes... Every mech could hold 2 before...

You can't be that clueless.. you have 260 posts under your belt.. oh well let me school you..

Before although you could carry two arty strikes, you had to sacrifice precious mech module slots to do that. What the developers have done now is allow you to carry strikes WITHOUT sacrificing a mech module slot. So now it's a free-for-all for strikes in group and pug matches alike. You can't escape them.

Hopefully with this patch things will get better.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 05 August 2014 - 10:01 AM.

[Chaosity]

Chaosity, on 01 August 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

It is quite obvious from the 2nd entry in the initial topic post that PGI is going to totally ignore its users regarding mech modules and try to stroke us with a change to air/arty strike.

WHOOPIE!!! I AM SO IMPRESSED!

Come on PGI... set your egos aside and LISTEN/RESPOND PROPERLY to your users. You know, the guys that ultimately make your pay checks not bounce.

Looks like I was right. Just read today's patch notes. Not a single mention of modules anywhere. Guess the office egos won out over common sense and listening/responding to user concerns. PGI, are we nothing more than open wallets to you, to be emptied by slight of hand (and bad slight of hand at that... more "in your face" with a "we don't care" attitude)?