86 replies to this topic

[VanillaG]

I don't think that what they said in blog has anything to do with "classic" mechlab functionality but only deals with tweaking the equipment on the mech. To me the modules give the player the ability to tweak their existing modules or get better sensor/targeting/HUD without having to dedicated crits/tonnage on their mech. Here are some examples:

A commander role might have to equip a C3 system on their mech (crits/tonnage) but can use modules to configure what they can access (Sat view, UAV, ground based sensors, etc). The other non-commander roles can install a C3 Receiver module (no crits or tonnage) so they are plugged into the network but if the commander goes down, so does their network.

A recon mech equips a BAP (crits/tonnage) but adds modules to tweak the effectiveness of the BAP (i.e. better Radar, Thermal, Radio Intercept, etc).

One mech might equip a NARC pod (crits/tonnage) but any mech with LRMs would need to equip a NARC Receiver module to have their missiles home in on the signal.

[Kaemon]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

I'm getting a read that says..walk away now, PGI has opted for the LCD solution. I'm fighting that urge until we get some actual concrete information, but what I'm seeing in the last few releases from them...not a good feeling.

Troll card played sir, defend your reasoning or remain labeled as such for the next turn

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Please Kaemon - I'm getting too old to laugh that hard on a full stomach

[wyggles]

verybad, on 04 January 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

It looks like essentually internal functions for the mech tying into training needed to use those functions.

So you are a Command Tree training warrior. You might start off able to use very little in terms of equipment. You don't know how, and you aren't high enough ranked to have access.

You learn a bit, and decide to train a UAV skill, and add that to your Atlases cockpit board.

It's great, and it's helped the Lance a lot, so you decide to train further and eventually get acess to the Regiment's Satellite network. Now you have an almost perfect view of the battlefield and other lances are working with you to get enough C3 systems to give the company a look at what's happening. Unless a scout gets close enough to cover you in an ECM bubble and disrupt the com network.

To people that are worried about it not being somethign that's already in battletech.

Have you EVER played a blindsight game? Theyr'e the most exciting, most tension filled games around. This sort of system is brilliant, and it's treating people like they're adults and can understand and appreciate a bit more complex of a game than Point. Shoot.

For those concerned about Poptarting, it's no longer a concern unless you've got a forward observer with active coms. You can kill the scout, or simply cover him in an ECM bubble, or call a support strike (likely Aerospace or Artillery) on the sniper.

It's the absolute opposite of what some people's concerns seem to be. MW4's simple, but improved detection system added some complexity to the game, this is taking it to a whole new level, and is the most exciting thing that's been released about this game to date.

In addition, if you're STILL concerned that this isn't soimething mentioned in btech core rules and so must be rubbish, there are quite a few advanced rules that cover things of this nature, including Satellite detection, other observation tech, quirks, and so fort. This allows you to make a mech truly yours, it makes firepower not the only concern. I can see enormous uses for a skilled scout, and the fact that they can advance their career through methods other than just killing mechs shows that the design team for this game is actually putting a lot of thought into gameplay, not simply cutting and pasting.

That's exactly what it sounds like to me, thank you sir.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Kaemon, the blogs are written by a PR weasel, that's obvious, I expect it, can't let the devs write their own stuff because that leads to madness when things don't go exactly as the dev said they would. I'm fine with that.

But this blog is a bit heavy on weasel speak..lots of vague statements, lots of hedging, very little of any substance and those vague statements are looking VERY LCD.

Modules..customization of the Mech that ignores the BTech standard..ok..does that mean it's ON TOP of that BTech Standard..or does that mean they kicked that to the curb, cause they don't give us any clue WHICH way they mean that statement. One way is very cool, imparts of depth of gameplay that MOST of us will love. The other way is LCD and very MW4'ish..and that's something I quite simply have no interest in dealing with at all, I hated MW4.

People are trying to say the modules ONLY deal with sensors..uhm..yeah, no, I don't see that due to the fact that the blog states clearly, modules are important to ROLE Warfare, not Information Warfare. Recon will need sensors and jammers, Command needs C3 masters and sensors..ok..fine..but we won't have C3 for another year, and that'll be a DCMS thing for a while, NOT something anyone and everyone can get..remember? Brawlers, not outfitted with ECM or BAP or anything like that usually, big guns, more guns, and..don't forget, some more guns. So where does the module system fit there? I can see how it COULD be used to allow for a Targeting Computer, but..pssst..that's a Clan thing, not IS, we won't have those for a while in the game, so...again, I'm not seeing this as being a good thing so far. What exactly does a sensor based module system have for the Brawlers that makes it important to their Role? Nothing..and that bothers me, and I'm not the only one evidently.

For Kerensky's sake, I WANT MWO to be a great awesome MechWarrior game, I've been waiting for over a decade for that, because the last one we had was the aborted BattleTech 3025 beta. And I'm seeing statements that put into MY head images of MW4 and WoW being crossed..that ain't a good image either. So I'm getting the feeling right now that walking away, might be my best bet..but I WANT to wait and see something from the folks at PGI stating, for certain, one way or the other, what they mean without the weasel speak and CYA vagueness.

[Mchawkeye]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Kaemon, the blogs are written by a PR weasel, that's obvious, I expect it, can't let the devs write their own stuff because that leads to madness when things don't go exactly as the dev said they would. I'm fine with that.

But this blog is a bit heavy on weasel speak..lots of vague statements, lots of hedging, very little of any substance and those vague statements are looking VERY LCD.

Modules..customization of the Mech that ignores the BTech standard..ok..does that mean it's ON TOP of that BTech Standard..or does that mean they kicked that to the curb, cause they don't give us any clue WHICH way they mean that statement. One way is very cool, imparts of depth of gameplay that MOST of us will love. The other way is LCD and very MW4'ish..and that's something I quite simply have no interest in dealing with at all, I hated MW4.

People are trying to say the modules ONLY deal with sensors..uhm..yeah, no, I don't see that due to the fact that the blog states clearly, modules are important to ROLE Warfare, not Information Warfare. Recon will need sensors and jammers, Command needs C3 masters and sensors..ok..fine..but we won't have C3 for another year, and that'll be a DCMS thing for a while, NOT something anyone and everyone can get..remember? Brawlers, not outfitted with ECM or BAP or anything like that usually, big guns, more guns, and..don't forget, some more guns. So where does the module system fit there? I can see how it COULD be used to allow for a Targeting Computer, but..pssst..that's a Clan thing, not IS, we won't have those for a while in the game, so...again, I'm not seeing this as being a good thing so far. What exactly does a sensor based module system have for the Brawlers that makes it important to their Role? Nothing..and that bothers me, and I'm not the only one evidently.

For Kerensky's sake, I WANT MWO to be a great awesome MechWarrior game, I've been waiting for over a decade for that, because the last one we had was the aborted BattleTech 3025 beta. And I'm seeing statements that put into MY head images of MW4 and WoW being crossed..that ain't a good image either. So I'm getting the feeling right now that walking away, might be my best bet..but I WANT to wait and see something from the folks at PGI stating, for certain, one way or the other, what they mean without the weasel speak and CYA vagueness.

Alternatively, they want to stimulate conversation and keep the forums interested....also I wouldn't call the information vague, simply incomplete. And lets face it, most information like this is going to be incomplete with out the game, or demo, to hold it up against.
until we have practical experience, and more information form other blogs, it's all going to be a bit random. that's the whole point; the picture evolves as they give us more information.
in the mean time, we have these discussions without calling people, even faceless employees of PGI, names like 'weasels'.

[verybad]

Those brawlers you mentioned might train a better access to their Gyro. Making them less likely to fall in jumping or taking damage, and making the mech stabler from recoil, etc.

You say that's not in btech? Yes it is, it's pilot skill. That's CLOSER to battletech than previous games have been, becaue you have to train that skill, and you have to give up something (access to other stuff, be it gunnery sensors, or what have you.)

You're looking at it and saying if it's not exactly what's in btech, then it's rubbish. The only clue we need to recieve that this is about information tech is the title of the blog itself.

You're looking at it with a closed mind, no offense, and you need to look at how will this affect gameplay, and what does it represnt in battletech, which is what you are comparing it to.

Also look at it more from a battletech novel than the exact core rules. This is gonna be closer to one of those than any mechwarrior game preciously, I for one am overjoyed by this information.

[Bryan Ekman]

Kristov Kerensky, on 04 January 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Kaemon, the blogs are written by a PR weasel, that's obvious, I expect it, can't let the devs write their own stuff because that leads to madness when things don't go exactly as the dev said they would. I'm fine with that.

While I don't like being called a weasel, call me mad then. Because I wrote the blog with contributions from two others.

Quote

Modules..customization of the Mech that ignores the BTech standard..ok..does that mean it's ON TOP of that BTech Standard..or does that mean they kicked that to the curb, cause they don't give us any clue WHICH way they mean that statement. One way is very cool, imparts of depth of gameplay that MOST of us will love. The other way is LCD and very MW4'ish..and that's something I quite simply have no interest in dealing with at all, I hated MW4.

Modules are a new layer that sits on TOP of the existing BT rules. All of the familiar tonnage rules still exist and need to be managed, so fear not.

[Bryan Ekman]

Orzorn, on 04 January 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I think that the module system is for EQUIPMENT ONLY, not weapons or heatsinks. Thus, ECM, BAP, sensors, etc will all be placed in the module system, but weapons, ff armor, heatsinks, and ammo will take up criticals and the like.

Just to be clear on this. If it exists currently in the BT universe, ECM/C3/TAG/Artemis etc. MWO will use it as is, including the rules associated with how it's installed on the Mech. As always, there is a slight interpretation when converting TT rules to a live simulation.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

So it sounds like the module system will be modifiers IN ADDITION TO the current ECM/BAP/MISC. Thanks for the clarification!

[wyggles]

Bryan Ekman, on 04 January 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Modules are a new layer that sits on TOP of the existing BT rules. All of the familiar tonnage rules still exist and need to be managed, so fear not.

That's what I thought you meant, thanks for the clarification. MWO is shaping up to be awesome and today's blog has made me even more excited.

[GaussDragon]

verybad, on 04 January 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

It looks like essentually internal functions for the mech tying into training needed to use those functions.

So you are a Command Tree training warrior. You might start off able to use very little in terms of equipment. You don't know how, and you aren't high enough ranked to have access.

You learn a bit, and decide to train a UAV skill, and add that to your Atlases cockpit board.

It's great, and it's helped the Lance a lot, so you decide to train further and eventually get acess to the Regiment's Satellite network. Now you have an almost perfect view of the battlefield and other lances are working with you to get enough C3 systems to give the company a look at what's happening. Unless a scout gets close enough to cover you in an ECM bubble and disrupt the com network.

To people that are worried about it not being somethign that's already in battletech.

Have you EVER played a blindsight game? Theyr'e the most exciting, most tension filled games around. This sort of system is brilliant, and it's treating people like they're adults and can understand and appreciate a bit more complex of a game than Point. Shoot.

For those concerned about Poptarting, it's no longer a concern unless you've got a forward observer with active coms. You can kill the scout, or simply cover him in an ECM bubble, or call a support strike (likely Aerospace or Artillery) on the sniper.

It's the absolute opposite of what some people's concerns seem to be. MW4's simple, but improved detection system added some complexity to the game, this is taking it to a whole new level, and is the most exciting thing that's been released about this game to date.

In addition, if you're STILL concerned that this isn't soimething mentioned in btech core rules and so must be rubbish, there are quite a few advanced rules that cover things of this nature, including Satellite detection, other observation tech, quirks, and so fort. This allows you to make a mech truly yours, it makes firepower not the only concern. I can see enormous uses for a skilled scout, and the fact that they can advance their career through methods other than just killing mechs shows that the design team for this game is actually putting a lot of thought into gameplay, not simply cutting and pasting.

This.

SquareSphere, on 04 January 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

People have to keep in mind the module system seems like to a way to specialize a role for a mech that ties into the skill tree players will be leveling in.

If you didn't think there was going to be some sort of "leveling" then you have played any sort of F2P game before.

What they're trying to focus on is that the Leveling+Modules systems keep ALL MECHS viable at any level. Pretty ingenous way to make sure winning is tied more to pilot "skill/time invested" rather than how big the asset is.

And this.

To re-hash, I see the module system as something akin to what Tweak pointed out with EVE Online, or, if you've ever played Mass Effect 1, the mod slots on your weapon that allow you to diversify its abilities or to compound its natural advantages into a more specialized weapon. The module system is obviously distinct from the mech's actual loadout (which is great). Whether mods have stacking penalties or synergies (for specialization) or if they get bonuses when fitted to certain mechs is all speculation at this point, and if I had to extrapolate, I'd say it'll create the need to have one's mech garage more robust and diversified. Gameplay is not only more in-depth and varied, but it also means we spend more monies on mechs and equipment - win/win.

[Soturi05]

There no more reason to over react and freak out and almost have a heart attack now.

[Bryan Ekman]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 04 January 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

So it sounds like the module system will be modifiers IN ADDITION TO the current ECM/BAP/MISC. Thanks for the clarification!

Less about modifiers, more about functionality/ability/role. The QNA will help, and our Role Warfare Blog will put a nice bow on the concept of modules when we go into detail about the Pilot and Mech Trees (rest assured this tree does not determine Mech availability).

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Soturi05, on 04 January 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

There no more reason to over react and freak out and almost have a heart attack now.

With this crowd? Won't take them long to find something else

[Kristov Kerensky]

Thank you Bryan, you just made an old Mech Warrior VERY happy! Thank you so very much for that clarification, you just answered many questions with a single clear statement

And PR weasel is an old term, no disrespect is meant It's nice to know we've got a madman giving us information..but someone's been around PR weasels as much as I have

MWO just took on an entirely new dimension of cool...ok..time to start putting aside some c-bills for the joystick/hotas/throttle setup that I saw being used there at PGI by Paul...you guys should see about a package deal with those folks at LogiTech.

[UncleKulikov]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 04 January 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

I think the modules will be completely separate from the standard weapons/heat sinks/internals critical slots, more like an "accessory" system.

I'm hoping Modules are only elements placed into your mech's control computer, adjusting your HUD and the like for different capabilities. That would explain why they don't take up critical slots or take up tonnage.

[Soturi05]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 04 January 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

With this crowd? Won't take them long to find something else

Now that you mention it you are probably correct xD

[Mchawkeye]

Bryan Ekman, on 04 January 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Modules are a new layer that sits on TOP of the existing BT rules. All of the familiar tonnage rules still exist and need to be managed, so fear not.

Bryan, thanks for the clarification, but did you just suggest to us that the mechlab, in in full and total glory would be making a reappearance?

[Zyllos]

I think what is happening here is that the blog has the sentence structured awkwardly (at least from my stand point).

The module system is to provide functionality to a mech dependent on the player. The part about "...BattleMech with functionality without having to deal with the existing slots and tonnage rules." is confusing because it seems that they are doing away with tonnage/criticals. But what they are saying is the module system sits on top of the tonnage/criticals, not utilizing the tonnage/criticals needed for weapons and whatnot.

I am interested in hearing how this plays further.