2001 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

Krell Darkmoon, on 24 March 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Regional - North America + Europe + Australia/Asia
View Style - 1st Person only + 1st n 3rd Person + 3rd Person Only

So the "solution" is to divide the player base as much as possible?

NA - 1st only
NA - 3rd only
NA - 1st n 3rd
EU - 1st only
EU - 3rd only
EU - 1st n 3rd
AU - 1st only
AU - 3rd only
AU - 1st n 3rd

Won't this make it take even LONGER to find a Match

How can this possibly help New people if it takes them 30minutes to find a Match to "learn" in......

If 3rd person is supposed to help new people learn to drive their Mech, why wasn't a Tutorial thought of/made instead?

Acutaly, it'll break down like this:

NA: Assault 1PV
NA: Assault 1PV 8 Player.
NA: Conquest: 1PV
NA: Conquest: 1PV 8 Player


EU: Assault 1PV
EU: Assault 1PV 8 Player.
EU: Conquest: 1PV
EU: Conquest: 1PV 8 Player


PAC: Assault 1PV
PAC: Assault 1PV 8 Player.
PAC: Conquest: 1PV
PAC: Conquest: 1PV 8 Player


NA: Assault 3PV
NA: Assault 3PV 8 Player.
NA: Conquest: 3PV
NA: Conquest: 3PV 8 Player

EU: Assault 3PV
EU: Assault 3PV 8 Player.
EU: Conquest: 3PV
EU: Conquest: 3PV 8 Player

PAC: Assault 3PV
PAC: Assault 3PV 8 Player.
PAC: Conquest: 3PV
PAC: Conquest: 3PV 8 Player

Removing the option for "Any" as it will put them in one of the 2 previously listed queues. And assuming there are no other game modes put in.

[Roadbeer]

Afterthought...

Really, the fracturing between Assault and Conquest makes no sense for Community Warfare. So you'll probably see that option go away. With all the vitriol in this thread, I stopped looking at the forest for the trees and I'm looking at the game now, as it's being tested vs what the game will look like when all these disparite modes and functions are merged into the cohesive "final" game.

Having said that, in honesty, you can prune that list in half, probably further IF match-making eliminates group size as a factor (which currently makes NO sense other than to appease the PUGs that were getting stomped by organized groups, which a Lobby would fix, mostly, still no substitute for a good VOIP in your team).

So, take that list and segment it into Server location and 3PV.

Still against 3PV, but the over-expanded player-base segmentation is a fallacious argument.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Well I uninstalled MWO last night. I've had it with the PGI. They lied, and scammed us. I would have never been a founder if at ANY time during the sale for founders if they stated that 3rd person or consumables would have been part of this game. More over I think they knew that and held their design back knowing that the core group wouldn't support these functions. I'll be here now and again to watcht this titanic sink. I'm a huge fan of 3rd person for this game now btw. I also think they should sell clan tech and mech's for MC!

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 24 March 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 24 March 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Well I uninstalled MWO last night. I've had it with the PGI. They lied, and scammed us. I would have never been a founder if at ANY time during the sale for founders if they stated that 3rd person or consumables would have been part of this game. More over I think they knew that and held their design back knowing that the core group wouldn't support these functions. I'll be here now and again to watcht this titanic sink. I'm a huge fan of 3rd person for this game now btw. I also think they should sell clan tech and mech's for MC!

Lulz

[wolf74]

I thought of a way to give a 3rd person view of a mech without an advantage. Make it a dashboard copy of your current mech with feet on a holo base like you see for the dashboard house icons.

[JokerVictor]

What a f*cking joke. Great setup: promise us one thing. Excellent punchline: deliver something entirely different.

Sub dividing your already puny player-base into at least 4 different zones is a great idea. Of course, we know how this will turn out. The queues will be too long so 1st and 3rd will get merged.

I'm extremely tired of caring about how this game turns out. I'm tired of all of these "SURPRISE!" features no one asked for. How about you deliver the features we f*cking PAID for? I'm tired of being sh*t on as a founder. You can implement this crap without me. Toodles.

[Adrian Steel]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 24 March 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Well I uninstalled MWO last night. I've had it with the PGI. They lied, and scammed us. I would have never been a founder if at ANY time during the sale for founders if they stated that 3rd person or consumables would have been part of this game. More over I think they knew that and held their design back knowing that the core group wouldn't support these functions. I'll be here now and again to watcht this titanic sink. I'm a huge fan of 3rd person for this game now btw. I also think they should sell clan tech and mech's for MC!

Same. Also asked support to rescind and refund my Founder's Package.

I'm pretty sure they planned on making a World of Tanks clone from the start, but sold the founder's something different to get that cash infusion. Now that they have the money, they're ditching us and going for the mainstream market.

For many Founders, this will go into the annals of gaming failures up there with the likes of Star Wars Galaxies.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 24 March 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Roadbeer]

See what happens when you make announcements that are vague and unguided Bryan?

I do however have to lulz at the ragequits.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

I thought of a way to give a 3rd person view of a mech without an advantage. Make it a dashboard copy of your current mech with feet on a holo base like you see for the dashboard house icons.

That's ******* brilliant.

Hell, I'd want that just as a cool dashboard toy just so that I can see my paintjob in action.

Redmond Spiderhammer, on 24 March 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

I'm not sure why you'd advocate this. If it is balanced, provides no competitive advantage, then there really should be no concern at all. Period. Aside from the standard douchbaggery that goes on in all gaming where some players want to dictate that everyone plays the same way they do. To agitate for putting either view mode at a competitive disadvantage is well... (apologies I hate making generalizations) Its acting like a spiteful child.

If we strip all the emo out of this conversation the only rational part of the discussion remains : What is required to ensure that 3pv does not ad a competitive advantage.

Option 1: Limit what the client renders in 3pv to what would be rendered in 1pv. I'm not sure this is possible but if it is it would be the most elegant solution.

Option 2: Find a way to buff visibility and more options for 1pv such that a 1pv player has easy access to the same information as a 3pv player. I'm not sure what forms this would take exactly. They could do some sort of ghosting that would give the same info as whatever amount of peeking 3pv would gain. As far as mechs sneaking up behind each other... c'mon wtf?! Its ludicrous that we dont have access to 360 degree visual information around our mechs.. my mother has that in her car now FFS.

Option 3: Accept that 3pv adds a competitive advantage and balance that with some drawbacks to running 3pv or alternate buffs that only work in fpv

This is a quality post and I'd like to subscribe to this gentleman's newsletter. Making 3rd person view offer zero advantages would prevent any possible fracturing since it wouldn't need to be segregated.

Edited by TOGSolid, 24 March 2013 - 11:14 AM.

[Alois Hammer]

Roadbeer, on 24 March 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Acutaly, it'll break down like this:

NA: Assault 1PV
NA: Assault 1PV 8 Player.
NA: Conquest: 1PV
NA: Conquest: 1PV 8 Player


EU: Assault 1PV
EU: Assault 1PV 8 Player.
EU: Conquest: 1PV
EU: Conquest: 1PV 8 Player


PAC: Assault 1PV
PAC: Assault 1PV 8 Player.
PAC: Conquest: 1PV
PAC: Conquest: 1PV 8 Player


NA: Assault 3PV
NA: Assault 3PV 8 Player.
NA: Conquest: 3PV
NA: Conquest: 3PV 8 Player

EU: Assault 3PV
EU: Assault 3PV 8 Player.
EU: Conquest: 3PV
EU: Conquest: 3PV 8 Player

PAC: Assault 3PV
PAC: Assault 3PV 8 Player.
PAC: Conquest: 3PV
PAC: Conquest: 3PV 8 Player

Removing the option for "Any" as it will put them in one of the 2 previously listed queues. And assuming there are no other game modes put in.

Based on how "won't add Coolant Flush" went, it's more likely to break down like this:

Devs chant "1PV and 3PV won't even play together" until furor dies down and the majority drink the Kool-Aid Coolant, then we get:


NA: Assault 1PV + 3PV
NA: Assault 1PV + 3PV 8 Player.
NA: Conquest: 1PV +3PV
NA: Conquest: 1PV +3PV 8 Player


EU: Assault 1PV +3PV
EU: Assault 1PV +3PV 8 Player.
EU: Conquest: 1PV +3PV
EU: Conquest: 1PV +3PV 8 Player


PAC: Assault 1PV +3PV
PAC: Assault 1PV +3PV 8 Player.
PAC: Conquest: 1PV +3PV
PAC: Conquest: 1PV +3PV 8 Player

[Fastidious]

Only skimmed the thread, but respect for the devs for engaging in some discussion. I'm not strictly against 3rd person but if it could be implemented in a way to essentially match 1st person then I'd be OK with it and could even see it as a benefit for MWO. What I mean by that is your "information" sight is locked to 1st person view/aim in 3rd person mode. I don't know if it's possible to make it work like that but if it is, it wouldn't offer any advantages just a slightly better view without any additional info. You could even go so far as to add fog of war to cover areas of the map not seen from 1st person while in 3rd person mode. For example if you rotated the view around to look behind you could only see fog of war, not even the map unless it matched your 1st person view. However there would be a bubble around your own mech so you could see yourself (look how beautiful my pink camo is!).

Having to switch constantly between 1st and 3rd person for optimal playability would be a failure and annoying. I also don't support gimping 3rd person view with stuff like no HUD. That will just lead to people putting tape on their monitor, using external overlays or memorizing things before they go no HUD/3rd person. I also don't like punitive switch times or blurring between the view modes or silly stuff like that which is just there intentionally to punish people. I think the suggestion to offer a 3D model of your own mech in the HUD is genius and it would allow you to see camo and legs/torso in 1st person view. Dividing the player base is a big no no, you can't balance MWO for three separate view game modes(1st only, 3rd only, or mixed). If you add 3rd person it has to always be available to anyone unless it ends up being locked to newbies for the first 25 games or an unranked casual mode. I think 3rd person view should be an option first in testing grounds and spectating before it's added to the game.

Finally the whole thing reminds me a bit of what was found out in Tribes Ascend. The developers added bonus damage for newbies which went away after a while. T:A is still very niche game and this probably didn't help much, but it's the same idea, let's give newbies a crutch so they will play more. Unfortunately most people don't like hardcore FPS games which T:A and MWO are. Even if new players could master movement in 5 minutes with 3rd person they still would be clueless on every other aspect of MWO. Either you get your hard knocks, learn from it and enjoy the process or you uninstall. MWO is a tough competitive game, camera changes or Elo might make the learning curve a bit less rough but it's still there.

[ATao]

First of all it's really great to know that you understand problems you need to solve before even trying to implement 3P. Things like spreading of already not so thick playerbase, gameplay advantage, CW issues and the like.

For regular random queue allow turning 3P on and off as people prefer. Leave 8v8s 1P only. That way mass player will get an option for 3P and will have a little advantage while learning the ropes. And hardcore team pvp guys like myself will still have our balance at any 8v8.

If 3P goes live after CW then make 3P an option for all lonewolfs. Make it so that you can join\switch faction only ingame (not in forum settings). Same way as with first suggestion newbs get their easy start and mass players can fancy themselves with 3P sometimes without affecting CW-scale balance.

All official competitions should have 1P=on as one of the main requirements.

The main idea is to make 3P available as an option to new audience and keep it at basic random engagements ground. If competitive games are locked with 1P you have less balance issues there to care about. Hardcore wolfs are fed and newby sheeps are safe.



P.S.: I really hate 3P topic as I had enough of it's issues in MW3\4 online leagues already. Still you asked us to be constructive so... I tried.

P.P.S.: I'm from "non-NA community" btw. Russian to be precise. And I must say that many (if not all) competitive guys from our community really dislike 3P.

Edited by Alexander Malthus, 24 March 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[Heeden]

For me the best example of third-person vs. first-person was in Rogue Squadron on the N64 and Rogue Leader on the 'Cube. I started playing in third because it gave more awareness of my surroundings, allowing me to crash less and also pin-point enemy positions. As I improved my piloting I needed this crutch less and valued the additional accuracy first-person offered (the camera position in third-person made it difficult to accurately judge shots at longer rangers and during tight maneuvers).

The way I'd like to see it implemented is three modes;

Community Warfare - As this is the place where we'll actually be playing a mechwarrior and partaking in the meta-game, the game-play should be confined to first person mode to keep immersion and maintain first-person as a central pillar of the game (i.e. people who wanted a first-person only game will not feel pressured in using third-person to remain competitive in the meat of the game).

Simulator Mode - A place to hone your skills, allowing switching between first-person and third-person. I'd allow full (or nearly full) XP gains but little or no C-bill rewards.

Holo Display - A place to practice tactics, third-person only, little XP but full C-bills (opposite of the simulator).

[Muffinator]

Ok how about this for a practical implementation:
Camera is fixed so it can't swing around mech, so you can't look around without moving torso just like in 1pov.
Camera is reasonably low so you can't look right over hills in 3pov.
Radar is only visible in 1pov - so you get different tactical info in 1pov/3pov but neither is completely superior.

[DirePhoenix]

Biglead, on 23 March 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Why not make it an unlockable Module that can be used 2 times per match? Launch a probe, get third person. If the probe gets shot down then it's back to FPV. Just like canon?

An unlockable module would be counter to the idea that it's supposed to help new people get used to the idea of piloting 'mechs. How are new people supposed to unlock these things without being "forced" into playing 1st person?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Joseph Mallan, on 24 March 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

It seems the general consensus would be we prefer to see it implemented in a different game all together.

I am still trying to understand why we are trying to
That is quite important, if they are not playing MWO how do they know they want 3PV? Do we change the rules of Chess because Checker players don't like the rules???

To paraphrase Nick Fury:

this.

Kasechemui, on 24 March 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I'm not a fan of it but maybe you could implement it on a way, that the Information is still gathered by 1st person?
So the player gets the same battleinformation as if he plays 1st person?

I think thats the biggest point aginst 3rd person. That you will be abeled to spot targets you won't see in 1st person.

I think they've done it this way in world of tanks.

YEAH, lets put in the spotting system from WoT...
Dissapearing mechs, woo

Roadbeer, on 24 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Still against 3PV, but the over-expanded player-base segmentation is a fallacious argument.

Then why are the devs using it as the reason theyre not adding more game modes lol

Adrian Steel, on 24 March 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Same. Also asked support to rescind and refund my Founder's Package.

tell me what they say in a pm, even if its "lol, you gave us money"

Alois Hammer, on 24 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Based on how "won't add Coolant Flush" went, it's more likely to break down like this:

Devs chant "1PV and 3PV won't even play together" until furor dies down and the majority drink the Kool-Aid Coolant, then we get:

"that was our position at the time, things change"

Also, i think theyre done caring about this thread, its been a good ten pages since they mass deleted anyone's posts

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[valkyrie]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

"that was our position at the time, things change"

Whoever told that employee to say exactly that needs to go into politics.

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Then why are the devs using it as the reason theyre not adding more game modes lol

I'm just saying that the argument that it will segment the playerbase 16 ways isnt a valid one, I'm not saying that PGIs logic for not adding more game modes is any better

Edited by Roadbeer, 24 March 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[benth]

valkyrie, on 24 March 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

Whoever told that employee to say exactly that needs to go into politics.

I don't think he actually meant to say it, but it perfectly encapsulates their attitude as of late.

It's a perfect example of someone trying their hand at PR misdirection and failing miserably.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

benth, on 24 March 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

I don't think he actually meant to say it, but it perfectly encapsulates their attitude as of late.

It's a perfect example of someone trying their hand at PR misdirection and failing miserably.

You need to screenshot that post for when they tell us that about the ques being seperated in a few months