100 replies to this topic

[Andrew Porter]

You have to be pretty amazing with computers to get the moving stars. Only the best programmers (like they have at PGI, obviously) can do it, and it takes nearly 2 years to do it right.

[Kyrie]

Andrew Porter, on 27 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

You have to be pretty amazing with computers to get the moving stars. Only the best programmers (like they have at PGI, obviously) can do it, and it takes nearly 2 years to do it right.

[HeavyRain]

Ecliptor, on 27 September 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

i want cw now, as do the rest of you. pgi over extended themselves when they promised we would get certain things by certain times. but i'm willing to wait, as long as it takes for cw, and hope it's done properly.
heck i waited 10 yrs for a new mw game, in the mean time i played 3+expansions, 4+expansions and mechwarrrior commander and all of it's counter parts. in that time nobody released a new mw game(do not count mech assault) so if a small design studio is the only team who will give us mwo then i will support them to the best of my ability because without pgi i wouldn't have a mechwarrior game to play.
for all you rage quitters....think a bit first

So basically, "Keep paying us our salaries while we try to code something resembling a functioning game or else no more Battletech for you nerds."
I am sure the gaming industry saw the immense success of the founders program and now they KNOW how much people are willing to pay for a battletech game, they have hard proof, not assumptions. If PGI give up on it, people will be going after the IP like hungry sharks.

[Andrew Porter]

PGI have managed to harpoon more whales than Japan and Norway combined. Will it take 6 months or 18 months to finally bleed them dry? I think that is probably the real question right now.

[Kaox Veed]

He clearly states we will have these out in 6 months. Now if it does actually come out in 6 months is a different story...

[MizarPanzer]

They should be able to roll out the 1st stage of CW right after UI 2.0 as it is not much more than giving us 6 progress bars to grind with and some shop discount once a certain progress is reached.

After that, it will not suprise me if it took 18 months.

[jozkhan]

Kaox Veed, on 27 September 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

He clearly states we will have these out in 6 months. Now if it does actually come out in 6 months is a different story...

No it is not clear at all. At around the 22.45 marker he says and I quote 'It's gonna take us about 6 months to roll these phases out'

Sure that COULD translate as 6 months total

or

It COULD translate as 6 months per phase

When ppl asked for clarification in the livestream chat last night the mods couldnt answer it and told us to put it in the next AtD.

Just need some clarity here considering all the miscommunication issues that have happened.

Edited by jozkhan, 27 September 2013 - 08:22 AM.

[Syllogy]

Riptor, on 27 September 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

Thats right ladies and gentlemen.. as i effing called it. Not a single line of code has been written yet for community warfare... its all just in the Devs heads right now just like a year ago.

Bwahaha. That would be hilarious if it wasn't totally, completely wrong.

[Kyrie]

Syllogy, on 27 September 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Bwahaha. That would be hilarious if it wasn't totally, completely wrong.

[Citation needed]

[Syllogy]

Kyrie, on 27 September 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

[Citation needed]

The same could be said for the original quote.

However, there are extensive sources that state that CW has been in development since early this year.

[Kyrie]

Syllogy, on 27 September 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

The same could be said for the original quote.

However, there are extensive sources that state that CW has been in development since early this year.

"Development" encompasses everything from writing things on a napkin (more or less what we saw last night) to actual coding. They are all phases.

The very last of the phases is coding. If the preceding phases are done correctly, it is the simplest part. A precise design document (something that has not seen the light of day yet) permits programmers to go from concept to execution relatively seamlessly.

So I might grant you that napkins have been floating around PGI for years, but I do not believe that actual coding has been underway.

Edited by Kyrie, 27 September 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Syllogy]

Kyrie, on 27 September 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

"Development" encompasses everything from writing things on a napkin (more or less what we saw last night) to actual coding. They are all phases.

The very last of the phases is coding. If the preceding phases are done correctly, it is the simplest part. A precise design document (something that has not seen the light of day yet) permits programmers to go from concept to execution relatively seamlessly.

So I might grant you that napkins have been floating around PGI for years, but I do not believe that actual coding has been underway.

Just for giggles, how long do you think it would take to code a system as massive as CW?

[Kyrie]

Syllogy, on 27 September 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Just for giggles, how long do you think it would take to code a system as massive as CW?

The time to go from paper to implementation (complete with iterative cycles of Q&A and testing) can only be estimated once a final design document is prepared. Show me the document and we can try and create estimates based on not only the document itself, but the budget and resources assigned to the project.

[Syllogy]

Kyrie, on 27 September 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

The time to go from paper to implementation (complete with iterative cycles of Q&A and testing) can only be estimated once a final design document is prepared. Show me the document and we can try and create estimates based on not only the document itself, but the budget and resources assigned to the project.

Here's the video released last night. Link

Based on what you see in that video, Ballpark it.

Also, @ 22:40, quoted from Bryan "As soon as UI 2.0 is delivered, you will be getting the first phase shortly after that."

He goes on to say that UI 2.0 will be coming within the next 4 weeks.

Edited by Syllogy, 27 September 2013 - 08:46 AM.

[Tezcatli]

From my observations since Closed Beta. I really don't think you can take any time frame they give you seriously. They've shown consistently that they're unable to meet even their own delayed timelines. It feels like every time they try to implement something, there are unforeseen consequences that they are often ill equipped to handle.

While I'm not one of those people who want to ring their necks and accuse them of poor balance. I would honestly advise people not to spend a lot of money expecting it to somehow translate in a faster timeline. The best way to play this game is accept it is what it is and that some day it will be better. Spend your money accordingly.

[Kyrie]

Based on the video, no estimate can be prepared. Aside from the issue of budget (identifying staff and resources the project will require), the lack of specificity is quite obvious.

A few off the cuff examples of issues that must be clarified:

-Specify the conditions under which the fronts can be flipped. Will there be a time limit as to how frequently they can be flipped? How many planets must be conquered to achieve the flip?

-House A, warring with House B manages to flip the front and thus allows mercs in House A to attack internal planets in House B. They proceed to do so, however; before these attacks can be resolved an amazing comeback by House B flips the front again. What happens to those mercs who are attacking the interior of B?

-Exactly how many players can join a special unit like WDs? Or any faction unit for that matter. Specify structures (as below).

-How large will you allow a single merc corp to be? If unlimited, as I believe Bryan stated it, specify the structures to be iterated endlessly to allow for N members to join.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting lazy. The point I am making is that it is clear PGI does not have a final design document ready.

[Syllogy]

Kyrie, on 27 September 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Based on the video, no estimate can be prepared. Aside from the issue of budget (identifying staff and resources the project will require), the lack of specificity is quite obvious.

A few off the cuff examples of issues that must be clarified:

-Specify the conditions under which the fronts can be flipped. Will there be a time limit as to how frequently they can be flipped? How many planets must be conquered to achieve the flip?

-House A, warring with House B manages to flip the front and thus allows mercs in House A to attack internal planets in House B. They proceed to do so, however; before these attacks can be resolved an amazing comeback by House B flips the front again. What happens to those mercs who are attacking the interior of B?

-Exactly how many players can join a special unit like WDs? Or any faction unit for that matter. Specify structures (as below).

-How large will you allow a single merc corp to be? If unlimited, as I believe Bryan stated it, specify the structures to be iterated endlessly to allow for N members to join.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting lazy. The point I am making is that it is clear PGI does not have a final design document ready.

Specifying conditions, unit sizes, etc. does not affect the Ballpark Timeline for laying the foundation of the necessary code.

[Kyrie]

Syllogy, on 27 September 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Specifying conditions, unit sizes, etc. does not affect the Ballpark Timeline for laying the foundation of the necessary code.

I must beg to disagree. In terms of database design, specifying the structures of units is a key element. Attempting to do "re-do" a database to accommodate changes in design is not recommended.

However, tell me what the budget is -- how many people on staff. :-)

[Rhaythe]

Good lord, there is no pleasing some of you people.

[Syllogy]

Kyrie, on 27 September 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

I must beg to disagree. In terms of database design, specifying the structures of units is a key element. Attempting to do "re-do" a database to accommodate changes in design is not recommended.

However, tell me what the budget is -- how many people on staff. :-)

Lack of knowledge about the budget, staff, and intricate details wouldn't stop a ballpark timeframe.

Even if I provided all of those details, I'm sure I'd hear something along the lines of "But what about everybody's qualifcations? I need to know exactly how good they are at their job."

If I provided that, I'd probably hear something like "Well, how much vacation time do they have? How often do they go to the bathroom? How many times do they watch YouTube at the office? All of this is relevant to establish a timeline because I need to know how fast they complete their work."

Assume optimal variables and optimal conditions with a dedicated, adequatly trained operational staff of 30 people.

Ballpark it.