13 replies to this topic

[WintermuteOmega]

The current Module-System is, let's be honest, beta at best. I posted my thoughts on this topic some while ago, and since the problem still prevails, i though of updating my Idea of an alternate Quirking / Module System:

There are some very powerful Modules (Radar Deprivation, Seismic, Target Decay) and there is a bulk of Modules i still regret buying, because they are just not worth the module-slot space. And there are some useless Mech-Tree skills. The Pilot Tree is also not the GXP-Sink it could be, since once unlocked, there are is nothing more to invest in.

My idea is to mix leveling Mechs and also reviving once useless modules, and on top would make the Mechs more unique.

The 1^st step would be to make different Categories for Module Slots. The Modules already have different types in their description, why not make them separate Slots as well?

So there would be following Module Slots:

Sensors/Vision
Support
Mobility
Consumables
Weapon
Omni

Every mech would start with a base set of 1 Module in all Categories. Very powerful modules would need an additional Slot in their respective category, to be able to equip all modules from the start the Mech module-slot would be replaced by an Omni-Module-slot, fitting the 2^nd part of 2-Slot-Modules from the start.

Some mechs could be quirked to have additional Module Slots depending on their Role on the Battlefield (Raven could have 2 starting support Module-Slots instead of 1; Atlas could have 2 Weapon Module-Slots, but missing an Mobility Slot etc.).

For every 3 unlocked efficiencies you could unlock one additional Module-Slot (for 1000 GXP) increasing Slots to a maximum of 10+Omni-Slot. You can have up to two Module-Slots of each category, unless the mech has a quirk for additional unlockable maximum Slots in a category. For example: A Raven could have a quirk “”Maximum Support Slots +2”, then you could get up to 4 Support-Module-Slots.

Then there could be also a “Reskill”-Ability for MC (250? 500? 1000?).

Here is a list where every module would fit in what category.

Sensory/Vision Modules:
360°Target retention
Target Info Gather
Advanced Zoom
Target Decay
Seismic Sensors (2 Slots)
Sensor Range

Support Modules:
Radar Deptivation (2 Slots)
AMS Overload
AMS Range
Enhanced NARC
Capture Accelerator

Mobility Modules:
Improved Gyros
Hill Climb
Speed Retention
Shock absorbance

Consumables:
The usual

Weapon Modules:
The usual

TL;DR:
Modules need a revamp to emphasise Role-Warfare and to make lesser modules viable again. It would also make the mechs more unique since you must chose which module-slot to take and would also function as a C-Bill & GXP Sink with the reskilling for MC also a MC-Sink of some sorts.

[WintermuteOmega]

Additional Ideas for Modules

Here I collected some ideas I had that could make new shiny modules, just for the heck of it.

• Sensory Modules
  
  • Enhanced Night Vision (Night Vision has better range)
    
  • Enhanced Heat Vision (Range and Color coding for heat vision)
    
  • Color Coded Heat Vision (Color coding for heat vision)

• Counter Measures-Modules
  
  • AMS Accuracy
    
  • Elusive (even without ECM only targetable after 2 Seconds in LOS)

• Support Modules
  
  • Enhanced ECM Range
    
  • Enhanced TAG (Increases Range and Tag is active for 3 more seconds after losing aim).
    
  • Stealth TAG (Tag is almost not visible in normal vision; still 100% visible in heat vision).

• Mobility Modules
  
  • Mastery Anchor Turn (Additional 5% rotating Speed)
    
  • Enhanced Speed (+5% Speed)
    
  • Enhanced JJ Range by 25%
    
  • Enhanced JJ Thrust by 25%

• Consumables
  
  • EMP Pulse (range 500, scrambles Map, disturbes UAV’s, ECM)
    
  • Smoke Screen (3 Charges of smoke Screens)

[Vegalas]

Technically as a fresh change to gameplay I support your ideas but I must point out thet there are already three categories of modules in the game already: weapon, omni and consumable. These ideas of yours still require some thinking. I think the cost of the modules is the biggest issue with them atm. I can barely afford the ones I want.

[WintermuteOmega]

Thanks for the feedback.
The idea is to increase Slot-count, without abusing slots for just the overpowered Modules. So there would be 3 Module-specific slots, replacing the one Mech-Module slot.

And i agree 100%, modules are way too pricey, especially in the low-fi area.

[Lily from animove]

gone with weapon modules and the skill tree.

and a completely new skill sytsem

however mechmodules could stay they make a bit sense.

[Vegalas]

Tinkering the slot amount and size would sound like a decent idea to me. I also think that the mech pilot tree's should be atleast have a weight-class specific depth with the tree maybe varying slightly between different mechs in the same weight class.

Another option would be having pilots separated from mechs. Then you would have a separate pilot roster where you can choose your pilot from other ones before going into the game. The core of this idea is having an option to train your pilots independetly into so-called scout, skirmisher or "demolisher" which stands for heavier weight class specific traits separate from the scout or the skirmisher. Anyways all this mostly just for debate now. It's hard to take an opinion on something that hasn't been tested in the game itself. To be honest I just like my idea more but who knows which one is better.

Edited by Vegalas, 20 March 2015 - 01:20 AM.

[WintermuteOmega]

The Pilot -Tree is basically that, but with little to none options and diversity. But i could dig a different approch of splitting Mech-Efficiency and Pilot-progression.

And yeah, the Mech-Efficiencys are so broad and unspecific (also you need them all basically to get your double efficiency) that they add little in sense of mood. Right now they are just a chore to have some goal in the game.

As for the Mech-Modules, my idea was not to throw them out, but to rearrange them into different groups.

I feel though, PGI has no motivation of making the leveling / module-management better.

[Thumper3]

I would like to see development in the skill tree area long before modules get another crack.


Skill tree progression as it stands is vanilla, you just grind out the same amount of XP, cash in GXP, ect and get the same thing. Anchor Turn, Speed tweak, ect until you "Master" them.

First off, Eliting the mech gets you x2 of the basic efficiencies........why doesn't Mastering it give x2 to elite ones? Or x3 to Basics? Sure, you get an extra module slot, but that's it?

Quirks do a good job of focusing a mech chassis but I would like to see even more specialization through the skill tree that would really make mechs be independent and pilot customizable.

Something similar in design to the Borderlands system of different paths. This would focus mechs and builds to the pilot (and allow for bigger XP sinks causing us to grind out mechs more and spend money to convert xp helping PGI out there).

[MechWarrior849305]

Too complicated and sophisticated system. Make it, say, 6 (OK, 6) module slots as it was before, where you can install any module (sensor / consumable / weapon / etc). Keep it in balance by the bulkness of some modules (Let it be 3 for seismic, 2 for radar depr, 1 for zoom and TGT info gather, etc). So you can make your own combination of 6 1-slot modules or rather 2 of 3-slot. Master could add additional 1-2 module slots. Then you can find balance just by adding or removing bulkness of any module

[Vegalas]

I am a bit against what DuoAngel wrote here. Having something like that would end being overlapping in some parts. For example people could start see using consumables as a disadvantage which isn't the thing PGI is probably looking for. Thinking about balance at this point is like trying to move a mountain with a spade, no offense. It doesn't make any sense because all people are trying point when bringing up balance in a discussion like this is the fact that "everything will eventually be perfect" which makes very little sense from the standpoint of a sensible argument. Just leave the thinking to the devs.

I actually think that the stuff here is brought out well by the OP and there has been a considerable amount of effort in doing that. I do think there some flaws in these ideas. For example the possibilty of anything of these coming into the game or the fact that this topic only contains info about more content not really balancing it kind of degrade it's credibility as a serious discussion but atleast I'm not the one stating that everything will be balanced with several rows of words.

By the way if the system stated above is too complicated why not then just be straightforward about it and cut the amount of available modules as it is? The type of organisation the OP has stated above would make things such as finding the right modules easier. I don't know if MWO's going anywhere from the complex system it is at the moment which is also atleast one good advantage over other games and therefore might work well for game.

Edited by Vegalas, 20 March 2015 - 02:14 AM.

[WintermuteOmega]

Making Modules just bulker would mean, that Players still would just bring seismic and Missile Deprivation, but could just take less other modules, making the other modules even less viable.

I agree with Vegelas, that in that it would be also possible, to remove said modules that are not worth their money and slots. Since PGI has even a statistic in the profile, so it's easy data, which modules are being taken.

I too doubt, PGI will invest time to revamp the module or the leveling system (i like the mountain/shovel comparission). But if/when MWO goes live on steam, it would imho nescessary, to update the whole system. As i said, it still feels like beta (almost unchanged since the very early beta days), and i can see a flood of discussions like this:

"What does convergence do? "
"Nothing"

"And is Hill climb worth it? "
"No"

"How about Improved Gyros?"
"No No No!"

"And... "
"Forget it! Just take Seismic and Radar Derp..."

"But..."
"Trust me."

Oh, and the additional Module-Ideas are just for the fun of it, they are not meant to be taken seriously. It's just to play around with the notion of making Mechs more unique by using specific Modules to reinforce the play-stile, just like it is now with Target Decay.

Edited by WintermuteOmega, 20 March 2015 - 02:58 AM.

[Telmasa]

I like your ideas. Certainly PGI has plenty on its plate but this would make the game better, especially for players who like to stick to favorite mechs.

I do think the experience required to get modules should be increased, while the c-bill expense should be decreased - by as much as 50% in each respective direction.

[Vermaxx]

For end game equipment, which is how PGI has described the module system; none of the costs are particularly difficult. They are difficult if you are a die hard free player, and honestly you people don't matter to a company running a F2P title.

Six million for modules is pretty obscene, but it STILL isn't really that hard to work it up in lieu of new mechs. I agree that all modules should be cheaper, but only because I'm cheap. 3m for mech modules and 1.5m for weapon mods seems pretty fair, because someone is probably still going to run two or three weapon and maybe some mech also. PGI is still kind of guaranteed to make something from XP conversions on every player interested in using the module system.

[The Massive]

I'd like to see it all gone. Let weapons stand on their stats. Let players stand on their ability. Balance with repair and rearm.

But having fun doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Kids these days seem to need to be rewarded for having fun.