94 replies to this topic

[Fire and Salt]

Firstly, let me say that I DO understand why you would want to create a grind such as this.

I hear the complaints about this making the game less beginner friendly, and I agree. However, the advantage given by weapon modules is no greater than the advantage given by speed tweak, etc.

I wish that all mechs came mastered, honestly, but I get it from a business standpoint, I guess.




Now that I have admitted my acceptance of your business model, and your desire to create end-game content that provides fairly small gains, I will do a strategic evaluation of the weapon modules in a cost-is-no-object environment; cost is, as commonly stated, not a balancing mechanism.



My conclusion is that weapon modules with no drawbacks will have an effect that is in direct opposition to your preivios goals, such as reducing boating. Ghost heat may be an unliked mechanic, that had the positive effect of discouraging boating.

Weapon modules, on the other hand, actively encourage boating, and one dimensional builds.

For those that can't see the obvious, allow me to explain:

With no-drawback weapon modules, all weapons effective have 2 versions. An optimal version, and a (slightly) sub optimal version.
Any mech that only uses 1 or 2 weapon systems will be mounting the optimal version of each weapon.
A mech using 5 different weapons systems will have 2 optimal weapons, and 3 sub optimal weapons. You are quite literally penalizing mech for not boating weapons.


I certainly would not call this unfair, because all symmetrical games are, by definition, fair.
However, not all fair games are fun.

Tic tac toe, for example, is barely a game. The game is not complex up to avoid a complete analysis. The optimal strategy is easily found, and I can say, with certainty, that I can force god himself into a draw every match because the game is so simple, that even a meat bag such as myself can play with perfect strategy.

Chess may indeed fall into the same category as tic TAC toe, but it has the added benefit of being complex enough that a simple strategy has not emerged as dominant, simply because people are not smart enough to figure it out, and computers neither have the storage space nor processor speed required to fully analyze the game.

Both tic TAC toe and chess are fair (if each player gets to start first the same number of times) but tic TAC toe is boring.

Removing drawbacks from modules makes this game more like tic TAC toe, and less like chess.



Please rethink your decision before you make another mistake that you will eventually realize needs reverting. You will only piss off the people who buy weapon modules in the mean time.

You already have a model for range vs. heat benefits for lasers. The fact that people can argue over the ISERLL vs the ISLL, shows that they are relatively balanced.

Weapon modules do not need to have no penalty to be useful - they need to have sensible penalties.

For this example, range enhanced ISLLs need to be at the midpoint of ISLL and ISERLL

Put another way, the ISERLL should be equivalent to (the non existent, but theoretically consistent) ISLL with range boost module tier 20.
Currently, at the degree where the ISLL would have its range increase such that it is equal to the ISERLL, the "enhanced" ISLL would make MORE heat for identical stats otherwise.




MATH FAIL.

Edited by Fire and Salt, 20 August 2014 - 07:09 AM.

[VanillaG]

Cimarb, on 20 August 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

^This. Manufacturer variants are an immensely better way to handle weapons, and fits much better into the meaningful CW we all want.

My idea in the other thread was to use the modules for defining the manufacturer. We know that weapons modules can contain multiple quirks, i.e. range bonus with additional heat. It would easy to create a "Martell Medium Laser" module that gave decreased range, increased ROF and shorter beam duration. For the CW aspect you could requires a certain amount faction loyalty to be able to equip the module to prevent people from faction hopping to get the best gear. You could still have the generic modules available to everyone but manufacturer modules could be faction specific and availability tied to CW.

[VanillaG]

Honiara, on 20 August 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

Good news on the removal of the increased heat on the weapon modules, this will actually make people use them.

Only problem is they cost 3+ mil C-Bills and this an issue for new players as they cant afford that type of cost. The rest of us who have been playing for 2+ years will have enough c-bills but will do exactly what we do with our 'Mech modules and swap them between 'Mechs.

Why not make the cost of the Weapon Modules something realistic like 250,000 C-Bills then new players can afford them, and people who have a lot of 'Mechs will then buy modules for each 'mech rather than swapping them out, It would still be a c-bill sink but would give a quality of life improvement to your players, again without making a rift between veteran and new players

New players also can't afford XL engines for every mech but seem to get along fine with buying a small number of them and swapping them between mechs. I don't see a difference when it comes to modules.

[Fire and Salt]

I like the manufacturer themed idea above.

I think that for fairness, anyone should be able to get any modules for $3 million; however the modules linked to your faction should be FREE. (Program it as a current faction module, so it changes if you change factions).

A player wanting to optimize their mech would eventually grind out the money, but they would have an incentive to lore-it-up in the mean time.

This makes sense, because an ace mechwarrior would probably be given first dibs on salvaged tech, if he/she specifically asked for it. A green pilot would not.





In regards to my boating statements above - the problem would be resolved if weapon modules were attached to each specific weapon.

Plus, I love the strategic depth of taking the left arm of my 6 laser Jenner and putting 3 martells in it for better brawling, and having 3diverse optic sunbursts in the other due to their slight range advantage.

My overall alpha may be the same, but I could slightly optimize my combat gameplay by firing the more appropriate group, in cases where I would previously just choose 1 arm to fire in an arbitrary basis.

(Cost would need to be reduced because mech would be equipping 6 modules instead of 2.

Optimization can be fun.

Edited by Fire and Salt, 20 August 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[VanillaG]

John1352, on 20 August 2014 - 05:01 AM, said:

THIS! READ IT AGAIN! While I've come to accept the stupid double heatsink tax, needing an extra 18m worth of modules (6m radar dep, 6m seismic, weapon 1 range, weapon 2 range) to get your mech onto a level playing field is ridiculous. It's even idiotic from a business point of view, as people will be buying modules instead of mechs (and mechbays).

Just to reiterate: Necessary modules are a bad business decision, as players will buy less mech bays due to grinding C-bills for modules.

GXP is the limiting factor for modules, not c-bills . If they follow the same GXP scheme for levels, 1=500, 2=600, 3=700, 4=800, 5=900 then the top level weapon module will cost 3500 gxp. For the GXP cost of Seisimic Lvl 2 and Radar Dep (32,500) you could unlock 9 max level weapons modules.

These changes would actually drive XP to GXP conversions which are the most micro of all of the MC transactions in this game.

[Andross Deverow]

I guess my only point would be to make the weapon modules more general.
- Laser Range Module (covers all lasers SL, ML, LL)
- Pulse Laser Range Module (covers all pulse lasers SPL,MPL,LPL)
- AC Modules that cover all AC's
And so on, this would make more sense and would be better for everyone.

Regards

[Bront]

Reno Blade, on 20 August 2014 - 02:03 AM, said:

On one hand people say the modules are not worth taking (10 meters on a 270m MLaser).
On the other hand, people are saying the modules give "enormous" advantage over new players.

We'll do some quick math on the ML one (rank 2 adds 10.8M)
Range UnMod Mod
100 5 5
200 5 5
300 4.444 4.658
400 2.592 2.877
500 0.740 1.096
540 0 0.384



So there isn't a huge difference in damage other than at longer ranges, but since a better or more experienced player will be able to take advantage of that it is a clear advantage.

On one hand, I like how it adds some extra customizability in how your mech operates. On the other hand, it's expensive and gives a clear advantage to players who have been playing longer and choose to specialize in just a few mechs or have tons of CBills laying around. It also limits the number of weapons you might carry on your mech given you only get 2-4 weapon mods.

Edited by Bront, 20 August 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[VanillaG]

Fire and Salt, on 20 August 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

I think that for fairness, anyone should be able to get any modules for $3 million; however the modules linked to your faction should be FREE. (Program it as a current faction module, so it changes if you change factions).

Another way to limit access to faction specific modules would be have a one time Loyalty Point fee to unlock access to a specific class of manufacturer modules, i.e medium lasers. You can than have a per-purchase Loyalty Point fee for each copy of a specific manufacturer module that you want to purchase. When your faction loses access to the planet responsible for that specific manufacturer you can no longer equip that specific type of module but it would remain in your inventory in the event that your faction retakes that planet. Using faction points instead of c-bills means that you never lose money and it would actually provide incentive for CW warfare.

This model works well for house units and could be adapted for Mercs. If they stay true to the concept of working for each house to unlock Wolf Dragoons, you could use the loyalty rank for each House to determine which faction's modules are available for a specific merc unit. So a new unit with loyalty built up in only one House would be limited to only that House's modules but a more experienced unit with loyalty built up in multiple Houses would have access to more manufacturer modules. When one House loses a specific manufacturer if a merc unit had enough standing with the new owner, they would retain access to the modules.

[Gamuray]

I think one problem with a lot of the modules, is that for the price of them, you could literally buy another mech. So unless you've filled up your mech bays, it's rather a poor trade to buy a lot of the modules. I personally have yet to use any module, because I'd much rather buy a new assault mech instead of seismic & radar deprivation,simply because it's a better deal with the amount of content I receive. And for a few weapon modules, I could instead buy a few/one lighter/heavier mech. They give such pitiful "upgrades" anyway. I have never ONCE been outdone by someone and thought to myself "I lost because I didn't have those darn weapon upgrades." They make an almost UNNOTICABLE difference in combat, you can't tell if they have them or not due to the miniscule differences.

[SemperDie]

Please look at the costs of modules too. I don't think I'll be buying many when they cost as much as a Mech. Drop the cost to like 1 million each, max, with no addition cost per level (assuming the levels will cost GXP, not C-Bills.) The Mech modules can run a little higher since they are actually useful, so 2-3 million apiece, max. I still spend a ton of time switching my modules around between Mechs.

[Asmosis]

Manufacturer themed weapons (like MechWarrior tactics) would be a much better system for players, and it'd actually cost a lot more cbills so its good for devs that way.

SemperDie, on 20 August 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Please look at the costs of modules too. I don't think I'll be buying many when they cost as much as a Mech. Drop the cost to like 1 million each, max, with no addition cost per level (assuming the levels will cost GXP, not C-Bills.) The Mech modules can run a little higher since they are actually useful, so 2-3 million apiece, max. I still spend a ton of time switching my modules around between Mechs.

There is no additional cost per level. You buy it once, it automatically upgrades. That's how every other multi-level module works currently. The price is effectively set for the max level version, and that may well be worth 3mil cbills.

Edited by Asmosis, 20 August 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[SVK Puskin]

Thank you for removing the additional heat, now the weapon modules are more attractive but...Another problem is price especially for low tier levels, think about adding more range for the price or reduce the price, thank you if you make this happen!

[Malleus011]

What does buying weapon modules that cost more than a Locust have to do with Battletech?

This game lacks a connection to the lore and universe it has licensed. Give it some soul.

Why can't we have weapons with quirks by manufacturers? I'd much rather spend C-Bills on those.

[Archon]

Koniving, on 19 August 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Was really hoping this was gonna be "we've decided to lock the rising thresholds, and will be rethinking the module systems from the ground up."

Thought the same. I don't know what came over me

[Koniving]

Archon, on 20 August 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Thought the same. I don't know what came over me

Faith that common sense truly could be common.

Or is it more correct to say hope?

[Spawnsalot]

Y'all know the cooldown modules will be just as (near) worthless as the range mods right? It'll be something like 0.1 sec reduction per tier, guaranteed.

[SVK Puskin]

Spawnsalot, on 20 August 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Y'all know the cooldown modules will be just as (near) worthless as the range mods right? It'll be something like 0.1 sec reduction per tier, guaranteed.

And do you know that this is all about tuning? If they add something very powerfull they have to reduce it and vice versa so your expectations are most likely correct.

[process]

I really like the manufacturer modifier idea, but I'm skeptical whether it could be balanced properly.

Also, I don't suppose the Clans have alternate weapon variants? In which case, they could keep weapon tuning modules. Seems to fit the narrative of Frankenstein IS mechs and advanced Clan mechs.

[Talsha]

Weapon modules

Without drawbacks the weapon modules will:
a) turn into a required grind to be competitive and
b ) turn away new players by widening the gear gap to older ones.

This game can neither use a) or b ) right now.

Module System
I) Reduce Module cost to
I.a) 500.000 per Weapon module and
I.b ) 500.000 to 2.000.000 per Mech module.

Or

II) Turn the current Modules from items into unlocks that can be applied to any mech.

And/Or

III) Implement an easy function to manage modules between mechs.

Consumables
Strikes: Introduce an increasing Global Cooldown on strikes for each side and strike type, for example:
1st Strike: 60 Seconds,
2nd Strike: 90 seconds,
3rd Strike: 120 seconds ...
This would counter the strike spam and add more tactical dimension to the decision to employ a strike.

Edited by Talsha, 20 August 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[Kanin Zeta]

Thank you devs for addressing a rational concern regarding the Weapons modules.