3
One thing I have noticed during the ongoing debate over the introduction of third person view (henceforth '3pv') is that many people seem to be unaware of the *reasons* why I, and others, feel that 3pv will have a negative impact on gameplay and do not wish to participate in games where this view is an option. This thread is an attempt to address that lack of communication. I do not condone attacking anyone for their opinions, and I do not agree with the sheer venom with which many are approaching this debate - there *are* some of us who are attempting to address this from a logical and reasonable point of view. I also do not wish to browbeat anyone into blindly accepting my word - I simply ask that you listen with an open mind, so that you can make your own decision with full knowledge of the reasoning on both sides.
In my opinion, the reasoning why 3pv is bad for the game can be broken down into three major steps.
1: 3pv is not a disadvantage
A common statement that has been made is that 3pv is not unbalanced because of the various disadvantages that come with it. The problem with this reasoning is that it relies on the assumption that the users of 3pv will actually have to *experience* those disadvantages, when this is not necessarily the case. The cardinal principle here is the following:
You *must* balance the game around the assumption that the player will make optimal use of the tools available to them.
In the case of 3pv, this means that a player will be gaining the advantages that 3pv offers by switching into 3pv when it is helpful to do so, and avoiding the *disadvantages* of 3pv by switching back into first person view ('1pv') in situations where those disadvantages would become relevant. This is why, for example, the difficulty that many experience with aiming in 3pv is not a factor that balances out its ability to let you look around obstacles, because that difficulty can be very simply avoided by switching back to 1pv when engaged in combat.
In particular, I would like to address one specific argument that has commonly been made - the idea that the visibility of the drone is somehow an *additional* drawback of 3pv, relative to 1pv. That is, that the drone will make it possible to see you in cases where you would not otherwise be visible. The reason that this is a misconception is that, again, the important consideration is not what happens when 3pv is used carelessly or continually, but what happens when it is used in a careful, calculated manner to derive maximum advantage compared to performing the equivalent tasks in 1pv.
The key word there is *equivalent*. For example, it is incorrect to compare 'standing behind a ridge in 1pv (invisible)' with 'standing behind a ridge in 3pv (visible)', because those are not equivalent situations from the point of view of the benefit to be gained in each situation. The first player cannot see over the ridge, while the second player can. The correct comparison is between 'peeking over the ridge in 1pv (visible)' and 'standing behind the ridge in 3pv (visible)'. We are specifically concerned with the situations where the player derives the same *benefit* (in this case, the ability to see what is over the ridge), even though they go about it in different ways.
From this point of view, it is invalid to claim that the visibility of the drone in 3pv is a drawback *relative to 1pv*, because gaining the same information in 1pv requires you to make yourself just as visible as the drone would be. Again, you must assume that the player will dynamically switch between the view modes to gain the greatest advantage possible, and from this point of view the drone peeking over an obstacle is no more or less visible than the mech would be.
The only time when a disadvantage of 3pv may validly be claimed to be a counter-balancing factor to some advantage is when the two are inextricably linked such that it is impossible to experience one without also experiencing the other. An example of this is that it is valid to claim that in 3pv, the ability to more easily see the direction from which enemy fire is striking your mech in a brawl can be balanced against the difficulty imposed on aiming, because this pair of properties both inherently apply in the situation in question - a close-range brawl. There *are* indeed such elements. However, in my opinion, the vast majority of the 'disadvantages' inherent in 3pv do not fall into this category, and especially when focusing on the advantages which lead to the greatest problem.
2: 3pv provides a situational advantage
The above is an explanation about why 3pv is, in general, not a *disadvantage*. In order to show that it is actually an *advantage*, I have created a simple pictorial representation to present the most important issue as clearly as possible. Behold my mighty mspaint skillz:
The real issue is simply the ability to gather information without putting yourself in danger. As the previous discussion (hopefully) made clear, the *visibility* of the player performing this maneuver is irrelevant, because it is the same in both cases. The difference is that in the 3pv case the player can learn what is on the other side of the obstacle *without having to risk taking damage*.
This is a clear and unambiguous advantage in a wide variety of situations. In any situation where a player must approach an obstacle without knowing what is on the other side, instead of walking around/over the obstacle and potentially getting shot, the player can simply turn on 3pv and gain that information with no risk of taking damage.
Again, there is no visibility disadvantage here relative to 1pv, because actually exposing your mech in the 1pv case would make you just as visible as the drone does. Both methods allow you to discover the fact that there were three snipers pointed at that ridge, or that five stationary enemy mechs were waiting around that corner, but the 3pv allows you to learn that *without* allowing your mech to be shot by them.
Similarly, it is an immense boon for scouts, who do not have the armor to withstand significant amounts of sniper fire if they slip up. The fact that the drone gives away their position is of minor impact - it should surprise no one to discover that a scout is watching from behind a ridge on Tourmaline or the lip of the crater on Caustic, especially compared to the benefit of seeing everything your enemy is doing without even revealing what your mech is, let alone being shot at.
3: The situational advantage provided by 3pv has a negative effect on gameplay
The ability to safely look over and around obstacles is obviously a simple tactical advantage to the player doing it, but what is more important is how this drastically changes the overall menu of optimal gameplay options - it tips the balance in favor of simple, direct tactics and devalues more complex strategies based around the concepts of misdirection, maneuver, and surprise.
Fundamentally, the effect of 3pv is to *make more information available* - to both sides. One of the most deep and engaging aspects of the type of gameplay that MWO originally espoused was the dynamic of risk vs reward in information warfare. If you can manage to conceal your actions from the enemy, it opens up a whole *host* of options for players to use clever strategies and counter-strategies to gain an advantage over their opponents. The fact that gathering information requires players to take risks is the *only* reason why this is possible, because it makes it possible to manipulate the battlefield such that the enemy is discouraged from taking the actions necessary to discover *your* actions. Allowing risk-free information gathering using 3pv is similar to playing a RTS game with no fog of war - sure, it might technically still be 'balanced', but it's a completely different game.
The fact is that 3pv allows for an advantage in certain situations. This is bad on one level in that a player who understands how to optimally use 3pv will have an advantage over a player who does not, but this, on its own, does not break the game. It represents a skill gap, and theoretically the situation would balance out once players on both sides become proficient in doing so. The real problem, the one that 'breaks the game' for so many of the players who are protesting, is that the abilities bestowed by 3pv *fundamentally change the game dynamic* in a way that they dislike. The real problem is that 3pv short-circuits much of the information warfare elements that give high-level gameplay its depth.
This is why so many people are frustrated, because it is this that PGI doesn't seem to get. The fact that PGI doesn't seem to understand how someone could flip back and forth between 1pv and 3pv to make optimal use of both would be annoying by itself, but that they also seem unable to understand how drastically this can alter the overall gameplay dynamic can be quite frustrating. This is why the specific decision to not implement a 1pv-only queue is causing so much grief - even if PGI *did* make it so that you were locked into one view for the whole match, the game with 3pv is *still* a completely different game that simply doesn't function the same as the one they signed on to play.
If you've made it to the bottom of this, thank you. I don't ask that you agree with me, simply that you understand where I, and others like me, are coming from in our objections to this issue.
Edited by MuonNeutrino, 22 August 2013 - 05:43 PM.
