89 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

Yeah, I would have upgraded my Rifleman pack if I had this option.

Seems like a winner. No loss for PGI. More Sales for PGI.

[GreyNovember]

Sagamore, on 07 March 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

Here's my major concern with this proposal:

The (S) mech being the worst mech argument can change with the drop of a hat when it comes to quirks.

I see players putting their (S) token on the best mech on paper and then the lesser variants are quirked-up and they complain that they picked the wrong mech to (S).

Edit:

For example the (R ) Black Knight wasn't the best variant until quirks gave it insane agility. On paper there are other variants with more (and better located) hardpoints.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. If you're basing your decisions on quirks, which are more subject to change than things like hitboxes and hardpoints, this sounds like bad user judgement.

[Roadkill]

Sagamore, on 07 March 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

Here's my major concern with this proposal:

The (S) mech being the worst mech argument can change with the drop of a hat when it comes to quirks.

I see players putting their (S) token on the best mech on paper and then the lesser variants are quirked-up and they complain that they picked the wrong mech to (S).

This problem already exists and this proposal does not change it.

The problem already exists: PGI can change the quirks of the (S) variant at any time. That neato (S) that you got because PGI decided it was the one that was going to be (S) might be trash, then awesome, then trash again after 3 patches in a row.

This proposal simply lets you pick the variant that gets your (S) instead of letting PGI dictate it every time. They can still change the quirks on it 3 patches in a row so that it's trash, then awesome, then trash again.

But it will be your chosen trash instead of PGI-dictated trash.

[Bishop Steiner]

sycocys, on 07 March 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

Then I'm entirely uninterested in it. Sorry.

ah. So if you can't go back to old stuff, most of which had things like custom geometry, already assigned (S) variants, etc to cause massive headaches, etc, (and sadly little financial incentive for PGI, now) the screw the future? Very short sighted, dude.

Seriously, no offense, but sometimes you have to rein in the expectations and deal with what realistically can be expected. Idealism is great, but seldom a great business model.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 07 March 2016 - 05:17 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zerberus, on 07 March 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

^^ It´s reasonable to imagine that, but it´s also still PGI, ergo I wouldn´t be entirely surprised if it´s still done on a chassis by chassis basis, first carved in stone and then translated to prehhistoric glyphs via babylonian though egyption and mandarin chinese and finally into C

But it would seem that the actual code for such a change is probably the smallest issue....

Not a programmer (heck I'm one of those guys etching hieroglyphs, lol), but did talk to several I know in the industry about it. And while like all of us, some guesses had to be made, the consensus was unless PGI was still programming in Logo (wouldn't be shocked if Russ does, lol) or the like, it should be relatively simple. So I took their word for it, lol.

GreyNovember, on 07 March 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

Because someone wants the hero skin probably. Or the solution could be. Yknow. Not make **** heroes.

Indeed, why bother with an Ember if an FS9-A Exists?

over half the heroes made are dust collectors, at best anyhow. How many Golden boys and SIBs and Loups do we see running around?

Sagamore, on 07 March 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

Here's my major concern with this proposal:

The (S) mech being the worst mech argument can change with the drop of a hat when it comes to quirks.

I see players putting their (S) token on the best mech on paper and then the lesser variants are quirked-up and they complain that they picked the wrong mech to (S).

Edit:

For example the (R ) Black Knight wasn't the best variant until quirks gave it insane agility. On paper there are other variants with more (and better located) hardpoints.

People are always going to complain no matter what. Possible complaints by a few are no reason not to benefit the many.

Roadkill, on 07 March 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

This problem already exists and this proposal does not change it.

The problem already exists: PGI can change the quirks of the (S) variant at any time. That neato (S) that you got because PGI decided it was the one that was going to be (S) might be trash, then awesome, then trash again after 3 patches in a row.

This proposal simply lets you pick the variant that gets your (S) instead of letting PGI dictate it every time. They can still change the quirks on it 3 patches in a row so that it's trash, then awesome, then trash again.

But it will be your chosen trash instead of PGI-dictated trash.

just look at the merry go round some of the Heroes have gone through.

[Cabusha]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 March 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

Don't see PGI going there because then one would have little incentive to buy actual mech packs, instead just waiting for cbill mechs then buying just the token.

I always felt a token system applyable to any mech should be something like a 10-15% boost to the mech applied. That way the 30% boost of heroes and S mechs is still incentivised, but there'd now be an in between option for a small cost (say $5). Locks to the mech applied to.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cabusha, on 07 March 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

I always felt a token system applyable to any mech should be something like a 10-15% boost to the mech applied. That way the 30% boost of heroes and S mechs is still incentivised, but there'd now be an in between option for a small cost (say $5). Locks to the mech applied to.

I can see that, though IDK if the returns would be sufficient for the effort. Might be, might not. Honestly I would like to see something differentiate Heroes from Specials, be it a small difference in rewards, something. I don't want P2W, but most heroes seem decidedly unheroic.

[Ted Wayz]

GreyNovember, on 06 March 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:

On the off chance you're actually trying to not provoke me, I'll bite. Let's drop the condescending tone, yes?

Off the top of my head, MWO right now has 15 camo patterns or so for a basic mech.

So that's about 3 days to UV map the surfaces. Actually creating the models, let's say 5 days. Give it a day for rigging.

For every texture, I'd call it another day. So let's say 15 days.

Then there's QA after it's put in. Does something look awkward? Something could be better? Give it like a day per texture. So that's 30 days all in all per texture, and 8 days for the mesh to be ready to accept them.

So about a month per mech in terms of assets.

Of course all of this is moot, because none of this has anything to do with creating a new instance of an existing variant, flag it as a CBill earner, and put it in the game. So yeah. There.

Sounds great. But there many assumptions made but not stated here. As I stated in the previous post unless you work directly for PGI you have no idea what challenges they have created for themselves by their own decision making.

If it was so easy I am sure we would have a plethora of skins available. i mean based on your assumptions they could pump out skins left and right to sell for $$$ and have a viable second source of income. But they don't which makes me question how applicable your "easy" process is.

But to your moot point, the OP forgot that the (S) variant had a unique skin when they made their proposal. So yeah. There.

But hey he talked to a couple of programmers, who also do not work at PGI and do not know the challenges that PGI has created for themselves, and they think the token would be "easy" to implement. Are you seeing the pattern yet?

So yeah. There. Again.

Just wondering va you end your post "So yeah. There." while scolding people about being condescending?

So yeah. There. Yet again.

[GreyNovember]

Ted Wayz, on 07 March 2016 - 06:05 PM, said:

Sounds great. But there many assumptions made but not stated here. As I stated in the previous post unless you work directly for PGI you have no idea what challenges they have created for themselves by their own decision making.

If it was so easy I am sure we would have a plethora of skins available. i mean based on your assumptions they could pump out skins left and right to sell for $$$ and have a viable second source of income. But they don't which makes me question how applicable your "easy" process is.

But to your moot point, the OP forgot that the (S) variant had a unique skin when they made their proposal. So yeah. There.

But hey he talked to a couple of programmers, who also do not work at PGI and do not know the challenges that PGI has created for themselves, and they think the token would be "easy" to implement. Are you seeing the pattern yet?

So yeah. There. Again.

Just wondering va you end your post "So yeah. There." while scolding people about being condescending?

So yeah. There. Yet again.

At this point it feels like you're content to dismiss me entirely based on me not being directly employed by PGI.

I mean okay, sure, I guess I can't actually speak reason with you, so there's no point in continuing this.

[Bishop Steiner]

GreyNovember, on 07 March 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

At this point it feels like you're content to dismiss me entirely based on me not being directly employed by PGI.

I mean okay, sure, I guess I can't actually speak reason with you, so there's no point in continuing this.

Eh. His issue isn't actually with you, it's just being obstructive because it's my OP. Seems to have some lost puppy issues.