79 replies to this topic

[Gauvan]

Some interesting responses. A couple additional thoughts:

I think the end-game content label is not really a good one--the same reasoning would make DHS’s end-game heat sinks, and no one thinks of DHS’s that way. I think PGI labeled them as ‘end-game’ because they are priced prohibitively, and no other gameplay reason.

There is probably a line to be drawn between pilot modules and weapon modules. Weapon modules are customizable quirks while pilot modules are different. I can see a system where the two are treated differently (e.g., weapon modules are cheap and fixed, pilot are not).

One effect I predict of lowering price is forcing module balance. If there are true must-have modules, and they are cheap, and everyone runs them, then it’s a good indication that they need balancing. Think about seismic version one versus the current module. I don’t think price is a good balance mechanism as you can buy C-Bills, among other concerns.

A lot of players have a lot of mechs, and soon everyone will be thinking about having at least one four mech drop deck fully kitted out. Consider that what isn’t a problem when you own 20 mechs may seem different when you have 120.

Anyway, good discussion.

Edited by Gauvan, 18 November 2014 - 11:47 AM.

[cSand]

No but I would love a better way to manage my modules (UI 3.0???? )

[Almond Brown]

Let's not forget, unless you convert XP (via MC), All your GXP is generated for FREE (5% of XP per Match -> GXP Pool). Want more FREE GXP, then convince the Dev to increase that %...

All you have to do...is Play the Game.

Edited by Almond Brown, 18 November 2014 - 11:49 AM.

[Fut]

Khobai, on 18 November 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

the concept of end game content in a PvP game is ridiculous anyway.

all it does is disadvantage new players and discourage them.

You could always look at it from the other side, and see them as something to encourage new players. 'Keep playing, do your best, and one day you too will be able to equip your Mech with these fancy gadgets'.

If you ask me, the Mech Efficiencies are more of a disadvantage to new players than the Modules are - why don't we just make those available to people from day 1 as well?

[SharpCookie]

Khobai, on 18 November 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

the concept of end game content in a PvP game is ridiculous anyway.

all it does is disadvantage new players and discourage them.

if your game is good then you shouldnt have to trap people in a cycle of grinding to get them to keep playing it. playing the game should be its own motivation and reward.

Well said. Any elements that require real money for ANY performance boost is considered pay to win.

They started doing this when the superior consumables were introduced for MC only. Later on they changed it so that you could get the same air and artillery strikes for c-bills, but only after extensive grinding for GXP and c-bills to unlock and purchase the upgrade module. However, coolant flush and UAV are still inferior to their MC version. The hero mechs with unique hardpoints that c-bill variants do not have can be considered pay to win as well.

I don't like the idea of fixed modules. I like to change my weapons to try different builds, and would rather not incur additional costs above and beyond the existing GXP and c-bill costs for the modules every time I do so. Once and done. No nickel and dime for every action, please.

My suggestion is to keep the existing costs, but remove module quantity altogether. You already pay a large amount of GXP and c-bills to unlock and purchase that module, and afterwards should be able to equip it on any mech without limit.

Edited by SharpCookie, 18 November 2014 - 12:08 PM.

[Malleus011]

A module should never cost more than 10% the overall cost of the 'mech it's mounted on.

Destroying modules on removal would be fine, if you're only losing 200,000 C-Bills for that module on your Locust, or 1,000,000 C-Bills for that awesome module on your Atlas.

Paying the cost of a light or medium 'mech for a module doesn't fit in at all with the Battletech universe. They should fit in with the existing economy.

[Killstorm999999]

Yoseful Mallad, on 18 November 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

russ already said module swapping is never going to happen. Its part of the mech in battle and if you lose your mech in battle, it's destroyed with the mech "for that match". You don't get to run out on the battlefield an swap it out to be placed in a new mech lol.

It's not difficult to imagine a system where you can only swap for modules that are NOT locked in combat.

[EvangelionUnit]

fixed has the wrong context in this thread...
fixed should mean that the unlocked module can only be used on the mech its unlocked for
not that it is FIXED to the module slot in the mech

they should be changable like all other modules, but just for this one chassie they are for, maybe make it that a whole family of chassies can use it (like all jenners can use the modules unlocked for one ...)

would give people a reason to keep grinding a mech after mastering it.

would be neat to have something on each mech to dump exp in and making it a better killing maschine, without wasting money and/or time ...

[Burktross]

Jacob Side, on 18 November 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

No. I don't like the fixed idea at all. What if I want to change out my large laser out for some mediums but I'm stuck with a large laser cooldown 5 ?
Just a bad idea.


Modules are supposed to be top tier stuff they should cost it.

He meant:
I bought large laser module fixed to mech. I can unequip it, but not move it to another mech.

[TygerLily]

I think 1.75 mil and fixed is a good idea.

[Kirkland Langue]

Soul Tribunal, on 18 November 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

But as they have already used other companies financial models, this would be yet another example of them being able to take a working idea and apply it to their game. In WoT and WoWP they do that. Modules are cheaper, but most require gold ((with some exceptions)) to remove. And, there are very few complaints from members about it. Because if you are like me with 122 tanks to outfit, cheaper modules help....a lot.
The bonus of that is, if they start working on modules and their interface , maybe they could add a sort tab so I don't have to go mech by mech looking for something.

Pay walls are okay, so long as they are in the right places. For me personally, I would love 50% off modules that need MC to move them. Its worked for me before, and for 40K people playing WG's products.

-ST

I would agree with you - if the economy in MWO was even remotely similar to the one in WOT. It isn't. In WOT it doesn't matter how much grinding you need to get to Tier X - because if you are dropping in a Tier V tank then you aren't going to run into any Tier X tanks. In MWO, there are no tiers - it doesn't matter what you drop in, you always have the chance (and often will) to face the best and fully fitted out mechs.

Plus WOT is a very polished game with the DEVs who do what they say, and say what they mean. MWO is very Beta, as far as polish is concerned, with Devs who have always said great things but fail at delivery.

I don't trust PGI in the slightest - so any time they talk about inserting an MC cost into a system where there currently is no MC cost, is a situation that my gut reaction will be to argue against.

I don't care how good it sounds - I'm absolutely certain that their goal is to add another pay-wall into the game. A game which is loaded with pay-walls.

[Sovery_Simple]

TygerLily, on 18 November 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I think 1.75 mil and fixed is a good idea.

Rather have 6 mil and goes anywhere. Cheaper overall if you have a lot of mechs and like testing things. I'd easily be out over... god... I can't even consider how many cbills. Especially what with weapon modules these days.

If anything, they should just reduce the cost on our current mobile modules. 1.5 mil for weapon, 3 mil for fancy. Roughly 6 mil per mech, the same as it was -before- they added the new module stuff in. (Not counting mastery slots or mechs with 2 slots, ofc.)

Edit: I say this because the instant they mentioned an MC removal option ala world of tanks, I -knew- they were going to screw us with this change. Better a little more upfront for unlimited mobility, than a -slight- discount and a paywall behind it from then on out.

Edited by Whoops, 18 November 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[Soul Tribunal]

Kirkland Langue, on 18 November 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

I would agree with you - if the economy in MWO was even remotely similar to the one in WOT. It isn't. In WOT it doesn't matter how much grinding you need to get to Tier X - because if you are dropping in a Tier V tank then you aren't going to run into any Tier X tanks. In MWO, there are no tiers - it doesn't matter what you drop in, you always have the chance (and often will) to face the best and fully fitted out mechs.

Plus WOT is a very polished game with the DEVs who do what they say, and say what they mean. MWO is very Beta, as far as polish is concerned, with Devs who have always said great things but fail at delivery.

I don't trust PGI in the slightest - so any time they talk about inserting an MC cost into a system where there currently is no MC cost, is a situation that my gut reaction will be to argue against.

I don't care how good it sounds - I'm absolutely certain that their goal is to add another pay-wall into the game. A game which is loaded with pay-walls.

That is the credit economy. That is not the model I was discussing in this thread.
In MWO its MC metric is a carbon copy of WoT. Camo is a bit different, but that is in application (tanks lack the options Mechs do, but costs can get very much similar). What is wrong with adopting that model to here for Modules?

-ST

[Lil Cthulhu]

How about we leave them the same price but allow us to put them in any number of mechs we want, at the same time.

Think of it being an upgrade to your neurohelmet instead of the mech.

[Davers]

The way so much of the game is still in flux and constantly being changed I would not want fixed modules, or modules that cost MC to move.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 18 November 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

They would probably set the prices so that over time you'd actually have to pay more because of outfitting so many mechs. Module juggling is tedious, but at least they're yours forever once you buy them once.

At what point would that happen though? Not everybody has a ton of mech bays or the desire to go through a lot of mechs (some of which would end up being sold I suppose) with limited storage space.

Lil Cthulhu, on 18 November 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

How about we leave them the same price but allow us to put them in any number of mechs we want, at the same time.

Think of it being an upgrade to your neurohelmet instead of the mech.

That would be (mostly) fine, but I doubt that's an option that PGI will consider.

Edited by Pjwned, 18 November 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Monkey Lover, on 18 November 2014 - 08:52 AM, said:

I like the idea about making them cheaper and fixed to the mech as long as you can still pay the Full price for a "non fixed" version.

i agree, having the option of a fixed for low cost,
but disposable(is destroyed when removed) unless you have MC,
as well as have available one that is equip-able for full cost,

Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 18 November 2014 - 10:36 PM.

[Kirkland Langue]

Soul Tribunal, on 18 November 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

That is the credit economy. That is not the model I was discussing in this thread.
In MWO its MC metric is a carbon copy of WoT. Camo is a bit different, but that is in application (tanks lack the options Mechs do, but costs can get very much similar). What is wrong with adopting that model to here for Modules?

-ST

Well, if they really adopted the model - then the "new modules" would cost about 10% what they currently cost. If they were that cheap then I'd have no problem.

But knowing PGI - the "new modules" will cost 50% and require MC to move.

[Absolute77]

Pjwned, on 18 November 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

That would be (mostly) fine, but I doubt that's an option that PGI will consider.

That's entirely up to the playerbase, Any product is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it.
that means, if we as a playerbase are giving them an opening to put a price tag on anything - eventually it WILL have a pricetag.

It seems to me this is not just about module changes now.

I call to question the base philosophy of PGI with the game.
they either put quality and love first, or profit first.
right now it's starting to feel like profit is playing the bigger part here, and it's up to us as the player to remind them that it's wrong.

The point is not whether we are willing to pay more for something - it's whether we should.
a line should be drawn somewhere between giving out enough money for them to get an honest pay , and corporate greed.

Personally I would much prefer to have a monthly subscription for premium membership rather than F2P model.
as it stands it feels like paying 15$ a month barely scratches the surface of what you can spend in the game, and I don't like it.

[Pale Jackal]

Fixed modules for cheap sounds nice...

But I'm sure PGI's implementation would irritate me more than it would placate me. I'll take the devil I know rather than the devil I don't know.