79 replies to this topic

[Elizander]

Make it like socketed gems.

Put in socket -> stuck there until you throw another module over it and the old one gets destroyed.

Their option for MC to remove is to remove and not destroy the module, but that would just be paying MC for roughly 500,000 c-bills

[Brody319]

Maybe its my vast stock piles of GXP after never touching modules for months worth of play time, but the XP part doesn't seem like a big deal. yea its quite a bit of GXP, but I mean really not that bad.
Now the C-bill cost seems a bit excessive, especially for clanners who should have the production facilities to produce these chips without issue. I would be fine with cutting the price in half.

[Pjwned]

Absolute77, on 19 November 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

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.

I just doubt that PGI would do something like that because of their tendency to make players grind a lot to have optimal mech builds, I would be fine with a simple unlock system where you just pay once and the only other remaining problem would be certain individual modules that aren't very good but still expensive.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 November 2014 - 12:24 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Modules should cost what they do now to purchase and then have an installation and removal cost per mech (like FF adn ES).

[Absolute77]

Pjwned, on 19 November 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

I just doubt that PGI would do something like that because of their tendency to make players grind a lot to have optimal mech builds, I would be fine with a simple unlock system where you just pay once and the only other remaining problem would be certain individual modules that aren't very good but still expensive.

That's also a bad tendency imo, that was created because PGI haven't developed enough content for you to pursue in game other than 12v12 drops(Community warfare?), they'v taken to let you grind away uselessly to give you something to do.
That doesn't make it okay.

[Zakath]

I'm very much in favour of the World of Tanks model mentioned in the Town Hall. Drop the price to 500k-1m depending on the module, and make them permanent. If you want to dismount it you spend 10 MC or break the module.

Modules may be toted as end-game, but they're more than useful, they're essential. I recently picked up MWO again, and as a low ELO PUG player you _need_ the rader deprivation unless you plan on sitting behind a tall obstacle all game, every game. Getting the 6 million C-Bill to pay for that damn module was a royal pain, the 15k GXP was easy comparatively, but once I got the module I could actually play anything other than a campy AMS toting assault mech.

The short version being that as long as you have LRM boating players in low ELO modules make the difference between a horrifically boring camp game and a fun game where you get to use speed and maneuver to your advantage. Drop the module price and make them fixed, pleasepleaseplease.

[Kmieciu]

That reminds me I have to buy three additional radar derps for CW.
Derp!

[Appogee]

I've spent more than 100M CBills on weapon modules under the current system.

If someone now decides to make them lower cost and fixed, then I trust I will get a refund on the tens of millions of CBills I spent on the first version.

[QuantumButler]

No they should be cheaper but work as they currently do.

Unless it's like, 10k per weapon module, 60k per radar derp/seismic tier module, then maybe.

Edited by QuantumButler, 20 November 2014 - 01:51 AM.

[El Moosechacho]

Modules should be a good deal cheaper, but cost money to take off and put on in a similar fashion to artemis/endo/ferro etc. Or make them "fixed" with a costly sum to remove/exchange them

[Lily from animove]

they could make two versions like a 200.000k version being a fixed module that is replaceable by other modules but gets lost in that way.

Then the regular esxpensive priced one for infinite exchanges.

involving MC is not good people will rant when PGI will quirk some mechs making suddenly some module changes necessary and call this bad tactics to make MC.
Also, you emch will be very bound with its loadout than which especially on clanners with exchangeable omnipods hardly makes sense.

[Johnny Z]

This is a complaint by multiple account users. I am fine with the costs since I use one account. So no.

Edited by Johnny Z, 20 November 2014 - 02:58 AM.

[CtrlAltWheee]

The game has a lot more mechs than it did before. There's so much actual fun stuff to buy (mechs, weapons, etc) that manufacturing another c-bill sink is just ******.

When we outfit our dropship for CW then, yes, I agree we should buy 4 radar deps if we want each mech to have it. Other than that, I vote for the warframe ui where it takes the gear away from other builds.

Someone above used the term "anti-fun" to describe the current setup. Well said.

[Widowmaker1981]

I love the idea of them being (much) cheaper and fixed to mechs, don't care if they are destroyed on removal or cost MC (both would be preferable though) - i HATE swapping modules to the point that i don't do it, and trying to buy modules for every single mech i use is proving rather tedious

[Pjwned]

Absolute77, on 19 November 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

That's also a bad tendency imo, that was created because PGI haven't developed enough content for you to pursue in game other than 12v12 drops(Community warfare?), they'v taken to let you grind away uselessly to give you something to do.
That doesn't make it okay.

I'm not saying I like it, I've expressed my distaste on the grinding in this game numerous times.

cdlord, on 19 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Modules should cost what they do now to purchase and then have an installation and removal cost per mech (like FF adn ES).

So...what, you want it to be even more grind then? Give a single reason for that other than "I throw money at PGI constantly so I don't care about the rest of the playerbase."

Johnny Z, on 20 November 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

This is a complaint by multiple account users. I am fine with the costs since I use one account. So no.

That is a huge load of crap, even with a single account the modules are too expensive and even when you do get them it's a huge pain in the ass to swap modules around frequently unless you want to shell out a ton more c-bills to outfit every mech you have with modules.

Edited by Pjwned, 20 November 2014 - 02:53 PM.

[Ovion]

Still think a 'best of both worlds' approach would be best.

Full price for the first, 90% off for any following. (or even 80%
Then you'd get 6-11for the current price of 2.

Actually, more I think on it, 80% off subsequent modules is probably the 'better' option.

[Pjwned]

Ovion, on 20 November 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

Still think a 'best of both worlds' approach would be best.

Full price for the first, 90% off for any following. (or even 80%
Then you'd get 6-11for the current price of 2.

Actually, more I think on it, 80% off subsequent modules is probably the 'better' option.

That would be an improvement; maybe not as much as I would like, but an improvement.

[CDLord HHGD]

Pjwned, on 20 November 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

So...what, you want it to be even more grind then? Give a single reason for that other than "I throw money at PGI constantly so I don't care about the rest of the playerbase."

Actually, I was just testing to see who would stroke out first.....

Cost should be 1/10, but take crit space (but weightless). IDK, Something....

[GRiPSViGiL]

I treat them like they are fixed because I'm to lazy to move modules. Making them cheaper and fixed would be great and a true CB sink.

They should be like the upgrades. You change a build and want to optimize...you pay for that optimization.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 20 November 2014 - 03:29 PM.

[Vinhasa]

Gauvan, on 18 November 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Should modules be cheaper but fixed to the mech after they are installed? This idea was floated during the 11/13 Town Hall meeting. Two methods of removal were briefly mentioned. One, modules are destroyed when removed. Two, modules survive removal but doing so costs MC. Note that they are not mutually exclusive.

I really, really, like this idea (if both removal options are available). I don’t believe most modules give a benefit equal to their current cost, and with a large number of mechs in the hangar playing the “hunt the module” game is anti-fun. I would definitely invest more in modules under this system than I do now, and feel they provide a more fair value.

When you are looking to grind upwards of 21M cbills just to outfit modules on a SINGLE MECH, it's too damn expensive. Why do the modules cost, in some cases, more than two or three times the cost of a fully built up IS mech?