38 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

IMHO... Better solution = You pay for what you get.

Base (fixed) chassis price based on weight class + variant specific equipment, engine, weapons etc.

... The beauty of menu pricing.

Edited by DaZur, 02 April 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Voted Other.

PGI should price the Hero mech in much the same way they do every other mech. Whatever the formula they use to price normal mechs, simply apply that to Hero mechs, then add a set MC surcharge for the unique skin and the +30% c-bills.

[Tennex]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 02 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Voted Other.

PGI should price the Hero mech in much the same way they do every other mech. Whatever the formula they use to price normal mechs, simply apply that to Hero mechs, then add a set MC surcharge for the unique skin and the +30% c-bills.

so based on equipment instead of tonnage. i can add it to the poll if thats what you mean.

though one problem with that is most people take equipment form their mechs. for example you buy a atlas with XL engine, chances are you are going to replace it with a standard engine. and if MC prices are inflated by equipment that would be swapped out people wouldn't like that.

Edited by Tennex, 02 April 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Tennex, on 02 April 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

thats true. but maybe they can make more money. and not trample all over the design pillar.

While I think that is true for non-hero mechs and cockpit items, I disagree with you that hero mechs are overpriced despite the fact I can't/won't afford to buy them. Basically, unless they see 3-4x as many people buying when a Hero mech goes on sale, indicating extremely high pent up demand, I doubt they'd be making more money. Another aspect to consider from a business perspective is if the prices are too high PGI can lower them and be loved, but if the prices start out lower than their actual market value then PGI can't raise them so they lose money. This is not to say that the higher prices aren't driving away potential customers but most of the low value customers (people without a lot of money) that will still spend money will use it to buy a color, an instant camo, or more mech bays since those are the best bang for buck purchases at the moment and of those mech bays is they only one to really improve the gaming experience IMO.

Of course without sales data anything we say is the idle speculation of armchair economists.

[jay35]

Khobai, on 01 April 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

All hero mechs should cost exactly the same... since according to role warfare... all mechs are equal.

What it should be is a flat fee above the c-bill equivalent of the variant build.
So if building that variant using c-bills would cost 10 million c-bills, it should cost the MC equivalent of 10m c-bills plus a flat rate on top of that, say, 2500MC, for the unique camo and 30% c-bill boost it provides.

So regardless of the mech size or class, it would scale proportionally.

[Tennex]

jay35, on 02 April 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

What it should be is a flat fee above the c-bill equivalent of the variant build.
So if building that variant using c-bills would cost 10 million c-bills, it should cost the MC equivalent of 10m c-bills plus a flat rate on top of that, say, 2500MC, for the unique camo and 30% c-bill boost it provides.

So regardless of the mech size or class, it would scale proportionally.

problem with that is you could be paying for an XL or FF armor you dont want with MC

Edited by Tennex, 02 April 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Asking someone to please accept less money for their work never goes over very well. When the work is already done and the price hasn't changed, then only threats will work. After threats don't work actions take their place.

[jay35]

@Tennex: Oh, good point.

Edited by jay35, 02 April 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Mechteric]

Wait you think a Death's Knell should be more than it currently is? That math absolutely does not add up. If anything the Death's Knell should be half of what it is, it may actually sell more that way.

[Barghest Whelp]

Prices need to go down. Th price of a mechbay is about allright. Mech prices are way over the top, and cammo prizes are also a tad bit on the pricey side for my liking.

Bear in mind that I spent a considerable amount of cash to give myself a head start in this game. I still own a Muromets, and I bought at least one phract with MC, but I'm not spending any cash becsause nothing is all that interesting to me. There is no hero better than the Illya IMO, so no need to spend. I have plenty of MC and I have my PWNsauce +30%MC mech.

Still waiting for the Orion, but I have enough bays + MC to buy all variants, so that will not make me spend more. A hero Orion would have to be P2W in order to make me buy it. Clans might make me open my wallet though. Depends on how they're implemented. But wicked sick amounts of 70 and 75 ton mechs would most certainly make me spend more cash.

Another way to make me spend more cash would be if there was a point in having more mechs. Like dropship mode, and maybe a campaign mode where it would take a certain amount of time until you could use that particular mech again. Maybe implement a way to pay to enable the mech sooner. And premium time would make it free to instarep mechs after a battle. In addition to this a way to keep costs down would be to get loads of mechbays and load them up with your favourite mechs. It would even reward players who enjoy playing different mechs.

But yeah, they way heros are priced atm they need to be P2W before I buy them. In the beginning it's always different for me. I kind of consider it to be the cost of buying the game when I start with a F2P game. Now I have everything I need. To get me to tilt over to "oh well, it's just..." the prices need some serious work.

[Tennex]

CapperDeluxe, on 02 April 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Wait you think a Death's Knell should be more than it currently is? That math absolutely does not add up. If anything the Death's Knell should be half of what it is, it may actually sell more that way.

you put a pretty baby and a death's knell together in an arena. and chances are they will be fairly even.

not to mention with the current pricing model the raven 3L would cost $13

Edited by Tennex, 02 April 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[jeffsw6]

Khobai, on 01 April 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

All hero mechs should cost exactly the same... since according to role warfare... all mechs are equal.

It's good that there are different prices. Maybe someone feels they can't justify paying 6000 MC for a mech (AWS-PB) but they are willing to spend 3000 MC (Flame, Fang.)

What hero mechs do you think are most popular? I see a lot of X5, FLAME, and ILYA. A bit less AWS-PB and fewer of the other ones.

I am not sure why people like the PB; I think Awesomes are kind of gimp! I say that not ever having played one, though. Does the high MC price make people think it is really deadly? Do players buy it and then get disappointed? I don't know.

I wish there were a lot more hero mechs. I expect there will be in the future. I'm sure PGI wants my money, and I want to give it to them, in exchange for hero mechs.

[Palmtree]

It's nearly impossible to speak to "PGI would sell more if..." without any real data to back up claims. It's one thing to base the poll on what we think as players would get US to buy more, but you can't stretch that claim across the entire player base without something substantive to back up the claim. Right now none of us have any real idea about how much PGI is making and whether moving prices would maximize revenue. I'd imagine as a for profit company they will shift around the prices based on the data they are gathering so that they are grabbing as much MC income as they can.

Basically what I'm getting at is I'd stay away from generalizations about how PGI could "make more money" with these proposed changes because there's really no way to back up that kind of statement. They may well increase units sold by lowering the hero prices according to these suggestions, but an increase in units sold does not automatically mean that PGI is making more profit if sales do not increase enough to cover the revenue lost from cutting the price. Therefore it's faulty to base an argument on that premise IMO

Edited by Palmtree, 02 April 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[Tennex]

Palmtree, on 02 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

It's nearly impossible to speak to "PGI would sell more if..." without any real data to back up claims. It's one thing to base the poll on what we think as players would get US to buy more, but you can't stretch that claim across the entire player base without something substantive to back up the claim. Right now none of us have any real idea about how much PGI is making and whether moving prices would maximize revenue. I'd imagine as a for profit company they will shift around the prices based on the data they are gathering so that they are grabbing as much MC income as they can.

Basically what I'm getting at is I'd stay away from generalizations about how PGI could "make more money" with these proposed changes because there's really no way to back up that kind of statement. They may well increase units sold by lowering the hero prices according to these suggestions, but an increase in units sold does not automatically mean that PGI is making more profit if sales do not increase enough to cover the revenue lost from cutting the price. Therefore it's faulty to base an argument on that premise IMO

i think generally cheap things sell better. but yeah theres really no way to predict these things. anyway the argument is from the perspective of role warfare.

[CaveMan]

Tennex, on 01 April 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

IDeath's Knell
old price: $10
New Price: $16

Pretty Baby
old price: $33
New Price: $25

I voted "other" because that's still more than twice what I think a virtual item is worth.

Tonnage shouldn't be the factor that sets the price. First of all, that's suspiciously like P2W, but second it's inherently making assault heroes more valuable than light and medium heroes. A YLW isn't worth more than a Death Knell.

1000 * (hero max engine / avg stock max engine) + (c-bill value/10,000) + (module slots * 250) + (150 if hardpoints modified from default, like Pretty Baby, or 300 if completely different hardpoints like Death Knell)

That prices a standard engine 100-tonner that's 5% faster than normal, and has a modified weapon layout, somewhere around 2850MC, a mech like the YLW at 2200-ish and a mech like the Death Knell at 2300-ish. Or between 8 and 12 dollars on average. That's still steep for a "micro transaction" but it's much more in line with the comparative value of hero mechs vis-a-vis regular c-bill mechs (and I have not once been killed by a hero pilot who wouldn't have killed me if he'd been in the regular version).

EDIT: and for the record, most of the people I play with are refusing to buy anything with MC given the lack of return on investment. I've bought MCs beyond my founder's pack to pay for camo colors (but only during sales) and to transfer XP, and for a few cockpit items (but the Urbie statuette is the most expensive one I'd ever buy).

Edited by CaveMan, 02 April 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Ph30nix]

Tennex, on 01 April 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

I think the current hero mech pricing of 75 x tonnage needs some work

This scale places too much emphasis on tonnage. and makes it seem as though heavier mechs are worth more. when in reality mechs of all sizes are viable. whole purpose of the role warfare design pillar was to have all mechs valuable.

It would be nice if the pricing scale were set instead by
2200MC + 30 x (tonnage) = heromech MC Price.


Death's Knell
old price: $10
New Price: $16

Pretty Baby
old price: $33
New Price: $25


The prices are now a bit closer. to reflect that both mechs are effective in battle.
The 2200 MC can be considered the price for the hero mech bonuses. Which is constant regardless of mech tonnage.

The permech basis pricing is good too. though if they didn't take the time to come up with a better price scale than 1:75, i doubt they would take the time to find out which mechs are good in the meta and should cost more. they would need to follow the meta as it changes, and adjust hero mechs prices as power levels fall and rise.

sorry im not going to pay $16 for a light mech thats inferior to almost every other light mech.... i MIGHT have paid $10 for the C-bill boost, but its hard points made me say no thank you on that one.

[Barghest Whelp]

Palmtree, on 02 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

It's nearly impossible to speak to "PGI would sell more if..." without any real data to back up claims. It's one thing to base the poll on what we think as players would get US to buy more, but you can't stretch that claim across the entire player base without something substantive to back up the claim. Right now none of us have any real idea about how much PGI is making and whether moving prices would maximize revenue. I'd imagine as a for profit company they will shift around the prices based on the data they are gathering so that they are grabbing as much MC income as they can.

Basically what I'm getting at is I'd stay away from generalizations about how PGI could "make more money" with these proposed changes because there's really no way to back up that kind of statement. They may well increase units sold by lowering the hero prices according to these suggestions, but an increase in units sold does not automatically mean that PGI is making more profit if sales do not increase enough to cover the revenue lost from cutting the price. Therefore it's faulty to base an argument on that premise IMO

I feel it would be better if we all just said what we WOULD spend money on, and at what pricetag. I'm saying at the current prices I don't really see any benefit.

The whole buy yourself a head start thing worked really well for me, but now the problem is how to make me spend more. As it stands, I can't see any justification in spending more. The reasons are explained in my previous post. All I'm saying is with lower prices I would probably find a better reason for spending more cash. Heck, if the X-5 was about 1k MC I wouold probably get bays to elite it up as well.

I really hope things will change with comunity warfare, but also in map objectives. I don't want to run lights because I don't see the challenge in a death match scenario, which is basically what we have now. If there were certain resons to run lights/mediums beyond "OMFGIPWZORZSLOL" then I would buy more bays and level up different weight classes.

Atm I'm a heavy pilot because I like it better in a DM scenario, it feels more right and challenging as well.

[Tennex]

lockwoodx, on 02 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Asking someone to please accept less money for their work never goes over very well. When the work is already done and the price hasn't changed, then only threats will work. After threats don't work actions take their place.

i dont think more work goes into making a assault mech vs. light mec

Edited by Tennex, 02 April 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Tie Ma]

prices could use a reduction. 2200 +30 x tonnage this seems like a fairly good range.

right now they seem a little extreme on the high end


and when your buying a mech its not like the 10 dollar mech is any less effective in combat.

Edited by Tie Ma, 02 April 2013 - 04:29 PM.