20517 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Tordin, on 27 September 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

I rather be driving a Demolisher

Oh man, getting Vehicles too would be awesome.

SRM Carrier anyone? 10xSRM-6

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 27 September 2016 - 09:47 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Juodas Varnas, on 27 September 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh man, getting Vehicles too would be awesome.

SRM Carrier anyone? 10xSRM-6

Hey! Hey!! One crusade at a time, man. Focus!

[Metus regem]

Juodas Varnas, on 27 September 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh man, getting Vehicles too would be awesome.

SRM Carrier anyone? 10xSRM-6

Both the SRM carrier and Demolisher (Tech 2 version) are in my "Top 10 city fighters) list...

Me though?

Yellow Jacket Gunship

30T with a Gauss Rifle, and can take a bunch of damage on the nose? Yes please!

[Juodas Varnas]

Pariah Devalis, on 27 September 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Hey! Hey!! One crusade at a time, man. Focus!

[Pariah Devalis]

The susceptibility of standard vehicles to through armor crits, if my memory serves, would be a cool counter to their proportionately huge amount of firepower per ton. Also make LBX a more interesting option, as well.

[Ovion]

Pariah Devalis, on 27 September 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Hey, it's about a year's worth of quad releases. Plus some early 3060 designs like the Bishamon, Blue Flame, Sirocco, and White Flame. So there is absolutely a good period of fresh income here in quad mechs alone.

The real value of quads is that they move differently. Play... differently. They can still exist in a Mechwarrior title, and technically be more mechs for the game, however they offer the players an all new gameplay experience just due to their strengths and limitations. Something new, something different, and something that absolutely exists in universe? Count me in. Could use a breath of fresh air.

Yeah, but it'd be 6-12 months of work for a sizeable team, (conservatively) cost $400,000+ to do, be more work than the clans, with less initial return and less potential return, for 3 to 9 months of releases (after the initial development outlay, depending on if they do packages or single releases).

For the same 9 to 21 month period (depending on how many mechs are completed in development, but also development + release cycle), they could just make 9 to 21 IS/Clan mechs, sell the same-ish number of packages, and make a significantly more equivalent profit per mech, as the overhead is so much lower.

I would love quads, I really would, my TT quads are a highlight of my collection, and I would love more.
But it's just not economically viable for them to bother.


(and to highlight this properly)

Spoiler

On a quick and dirty conservative estimate of costs vs risk vs reward analysis:

The 'average wage' at PGI is roughly $200+ish per day. _{(public company, you can find the pay grades with a quick google)}

To create Quads you'd need to develop a slightly different control set _{(relatively easy, strafe instead of turn on legs, turn on torso to turn mech)}, a new skeleton template _(trickier), they're bringing back kinematics anyway, and a different crit / mounting system _{(this could lead to some things get leg mounted weapons though)}, layout, and a few other bits.

Based on the size of the studio, I reckon 10-14 would likely need dedicating to it for around 6 _{(to 12)} months.

So that would be around 1,300 to 1,820 days of work _{(if 12 months, up to 3,640)}, give or take a few.
This would work out to a development cost of around $260,000 to $364,000 _{(up to $728,000 if 12 months)}.
Throw in extras, sundries, and other unforeseen overheads, that becomes an easy $300,000 to $400,000 _{(even $750,000)} in development costs.

To make this properly profitable, by usual business standards, you'd be looking at a 100% return, so a $600,000 to $800,000 minimum take _{($1,500,000 if it gets bumped to 12 months)}, which would mean a need to sell around 30,000 to 40,000 IS packages (or package levels), or 20,000 to 26,667 Clan packages (or package levels).

Lets say it'd be 2/3 IS, 1/3 Clan, that would mean needing to sell at least 20,000 IS packs (or levels of) and at least 6,667 Clan packs (or levels of) to be minimally viable.

Which means, of the core 7 (lets say they fudge it and expand to 10), they'd need to sell around at least 2,000 of each Mech to justify it. _{(If not 4,000-6,000 of each on average if it took the 12 months).}

And these are all pretty conservative numbers, running off rough averages and reasonable industry estimates - you could probably double all those numbers, certainly increase them with a proper in depth analysis.

If we then consider, in that same period (6-12 months development cycle + 3-10 months sale cycle), they need to make enough money to keep the lights on (this has been reported at over $500,000 a month to pay overheads such as wages, rent, tax, payments, etc), and still need to pump out some saleable content each month, while the huge development cost of 'quad creation' was ongoing on top of the regular costs.

So this would all be on top of the required 'average estimate sales' of around 20,000 items a month (assuming an average item sale value of $25, between IS/Clan packs, MC sales, etc), meaning to 'justify it' they would need an increase in sales of around 20-30%

If instead, they carry on as-is, they can develop other things, bug fixes, etc, and pump out mechs using existing systems, only needing to dedicated artist time and some coding - meaning you'd have a mere fraction of the cost (likely only 3-4 people per month) for the same purchase value, meaning they only need to meet the usual targets, and everything past that is straight profit.

[Ovion]

Juodas Varnas, on 27 September 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh man, getting Vehicles too would be awesome.

SRM Carrier anyone? 10xSRM-6

Vehicles would be fantastic tbh, and most of the systems should be in place from the Cryengine already, making it a FAR simpler proposal, with far fewer new code needed.

Vehicles would maybe need a new UI, but would also have new options - decals / colours shared, but camo's would need redoing and so would be extra's to get, and vehicle models are a damn sight simpler to create from scratch than mechs.



On a bit of a pipe-dream, (unlikely as a ton of extra work on top) having the option of taking a mech and vehicle in a drop (2 slot drop tech, total tonnage, pick which to start with) would give something a little interesting with minor reinforcements and different scouting / support options.
And in CW, with 6-8 slots, even more so.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 27 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Both the SRM carrier and Demolisher (Tech 2 version) are in my "Top 10 city fighters) list...

Me though?

Yellow Jacket Gunship

30T with a Gauss Rifle, and can take a bunch of damage on the nose? Yes please!

VTOLs would be invulnerable, considering how MWO's mechs can't shoot things above them (with some exceptions like the Rifleman).

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 27 September 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

VTOLs would be invulnerable, considering how MWO's mechs can't shoot things above them (with some exceptions like the Rifleman).

True, but you just limit the height that they can fly at, no higher than UAV's for simplicity's sake...

As much as I love the Yellow Jacket, she has her fair share of problems... chief among them being the I.C.E. it uses as the power plant... Still a quick change to a 180 Fusion engine (or XL) and FF armour (4t) would let you pack the Gauss Rifle with 2t of ammo and two MLas, retain the stock 104.5km/h post speed tweak... I know that doesn't sound impressive for a 30t Vee, but the movement profile would be nuts.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 27 September 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

True, but you just limit the height that they can fly at, no higher than UAV's for simplicity's sake...

As much as I love the Yellow Jacket, she has her fair share of problems... chief among them being the I.C.E. it uses as the power plant... Still a quick change to a 180 Fusion engine (or XL) and FF armour (4t) would let you pack the Gauss Rifle with 2t of ammo and two MLas, retain the stock 104.5km/h post speed tweak... I know that doesn't sound impressive for a 30t Vee, but the movement profile would be nuts.

You still could hover above a mech without it being able to shoot you.

I want vehicles in MWO more than anything, but I don't think they will work as player-controlled machines.

Edited by Odanan, 28 September 2016 - 01:35 AM.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 27 September 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

You still could hover above a mech without it being able to shoot you.

I'm want vehicles in MWO more than anything, but I don't think they will work as player-controlled machines.

VTOL's would be a problem, but tracked / wheeled tanks, Hover and WiGE would be fine. Tracked, wheeled and hover would have to be in contract with the ground, and would be limited in their ability to climb hills, WiGE would need constant forward move about 150m forward every 10-20 seconds to maintain 'flight'

[Black Lanner]

if you get WiGE, I get my LAMs...

Edited by Black Lanner, 27 September 2016 - 10:02 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

We need vehicles and infantry alone to stop those "great ideas like "we want a city map"

Uh Infernos we need Infernos.
Although why not implement base turrets as infantry pile boxes - a toned down ppc, some srm, a machine gun.
You can drop ~300 damage of antivehicle weapon fire on them or you use a flamer or machine gun for a second.

This would allow to remove awkward game mechanics like the stun effect of the flamer but keep a important role for this weapon.
Same could be said about conquest points - hit the fortifications at the edges of the station for some damage or just wash over with a flamer.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Ovion, on 27 September 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Vehicles would be fantastic tbh, and most of the systems should be in place from the Cryengine already, making it a FAR simpler proposal, with far fewer new code needed.

Vehicles would maybe need a new UI, but would also have new options - decals / colours shared, but camo's would need redoing and so would be extra's to get, and vehicle models are a damn sight simpler to create from scratch than mechs.



On a bit of a pipe-dream, (unlikely as a ton of extra work on top) having the option of taking a mech and vehicle in a drop (2 slot drop tech, total tonnage, pick which to start with) would give something a little interesting with minor reinforcements and different scouting / support options.
And in CW, with 6-8 slots, even more so.

Vehicles with the TT Rules very overpowered (no Heat),seeing Vehicles Aerospace Fighters in MWLL, dominated the Battlefield...and Citys Deathtraps for Mechs ...Infantry in buildings armed with KSR/Inferno ...Buildings crash over and under Mechs ...ok , a mech have better Chances as a Black Hawk or Humvee in a City:D

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 27 September 2016 - 10:18 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 27 September 2016 - 10:16 PM, said:

Vehicles with the TT Rules very overpowered (no Heat),seeing Vehicles Aerospace Fighters in MWLL, dominated the Battlefield...and Citys Deathtraps for Mechs ...Infantry in buildings armed with KSR/Inferno ...Buildings crash over and under Mechs ...ok , a mech have better Chances as a Black Hawk or Humvee in a City:D

You forgot their vulnerability to crits. LBX or SRMs are tank killers, also the AC2 in classic 3025 matches.
In MWLL the tanks were not vulnerable against crits. Well there are Maximum Tech CBT rules for advanced hitboxes for tanks. Use them and you are right - tanks become a pain. You hardly can stop those Regulator Hovers before they savage your units.
But with standard rules.... give me a LB10X and get done with

The tank on the ground is similar to the Mech in vacuum - only the number of hits matter - the more the batter. Damage is secondary. (so one of the best Zero-G Anti Mech and Anti Tank guns is the Clan LB2X)

As you might see - combined arms is the way to create a wider range of weapons that are useful.

Again speeking in terms of turrets and objectives. If buildings are more vulnerable to SRM and LBX fire - it might be useful to take them with you - even in a pure sniper deck

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 September 2016 - 11:08 PM.

[Uncle Totty]

Odanan, on 27 September 2016 - 04:54 AM, said:

Are you talking about the Viper?

Viper
- speed: 129.6 km/h
- pod space: 8.36
- armor: 8.5 (stock = 7)

Black Lanner
- speed: 119 km/h (without MASC activated)
- pod space: 11.5
- armor: 11.5 tons (stock = 8)

Oh wait, you are talking about the Coyotl... OK, the Coyotl has 4 more tons of podspace, pod-mounted jumpjets and it is smaller (will not count the stock armor - that means nothing in this game), BUT it is slower (no MASC), has less hardpoints, less 3 tons of max armor and no ECM. Both have high mounted hardpoints, I guess - but the Coyotl might have "super high" torso hardpoints (Ebon Jaguar style).

They look pretty balanced, to be honest. But we need to consider the Black Lanner is much more famous (MW4+ & MW:LL), while the Coyotl is an almost extinct, very obscure mech.

What would you guys bring for Scout Faction Warfare? Coyotl or Black Lanner?

Spoiler

I would pick the Black Lanner, no doubt. And if PGI makes an omni variant with jumpjets - maybe the hero -, it will be a beast.

Metus: since you like the Coyotl, a best comparison is the Shadow Cat. And maybe the Shadow Cat ends up with the advantage...

It would be really nice if they removed pod locked JJ and made them pod specific instead.

[Metus regem]

Black Lanner, on 27 September 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

if you get WiGE, I get my LAMs...

You get a like for L.A.M.s, but a thumbs down for re-seen image....

[Black Lanner]

hate the reseen all you want, I like that they got away from recycling Robotech...

[Clownwarlord]

I would like to see the Komodo

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Komodo


It also gives PGI a way to introduce new info tech warfare with 3C slave and master units. It also gives the Inner Sphere a mech similar to the nova but at a 45 ton. Would you want this mech in game?

[Odanan]

Clownwarlord, on 28 September 2016 - 05:31 AM, said:

I would like to see the Komodo

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Komodo


It also gives PGI a way to introduce new info tech warfare with 3C slave and master units. It also gives the Inner Sphere a mech similar to the nova but at a 45 ton. Would you want this mech in game?

It get points for the ECM and jumpjets, but lose with the all energy variants.

C3 can be a cool piece of equipment, but if PGI didn't even fix the Command Console until now...