849 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

If their intention is to include 3PV in the future, and they have stated this, but have also stated that they are examining (EG: They are not comfortable with it yet) it for the far future why are we lynching them for our experiences in (for example) MW4? This is the slippery slope that we've been over a few times before, and just like before it's nothing more than a fallacy.

We weren't when the official stance was "maybe far future". Now, however, the official stance is "maybe soon". The situation you posit is no longer accurate.

[Thirdstar]

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

You must be new to the gaming industry. Have you never heard of Valve Time?

That's not what Valve Time means.

[Vassago Rain]

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

I would suggest that those threads had actual discussion and were being moderated to remove the ridiculous noise, while this one is not. Again, as I said, this is a lynch mob. There is little to no actual discussion of the issues at hand, you are merely attempting to prove yourself by saying you knew better.

So what do you say when you sit down and actually think about it, hm? What evidence do you have that they're trying to **** you over? This is a business and PGI is beholden to certain parties. One of these parties is the community. Another is the pocketbook.

If their intention is to include 3PV in the future, and they have stated this, but have also stated that they are examining (EG: They are not comfortable with it yet) it for the far future why are we lynching them for our experiences in (for example) MW4? This is the slippery slope that we've been over a few times before, and just like before it's nothing more than a fallacy.

Because their reversal of 3rd person plans changed from 'never ever,' to 'we're definitely adding this,' to 'we're considering adding it!' to 'we're considering discussing adding it,' to 'we're researching considering disscusion about potentially adding it in the future,' to 'we're not gonna do this you guys, it was all a troll by Paul. Derpa herpa.'

All that happened during a single day, by the way. Now we're back to 'it has to go in because casuals.' And we all know what it leads to.

There's no faith left in PGI. That's what this thread's about, and it highlights how dysfunctional the company is. For instance, one of the first posts in here was a yellow trying to snark. Okay? That's a great idea, sir yellow.

This also happened when they were adding the completely P2W coolant, that also got changed to not quite P2W, but is still a mandatory piece of gear, much like RnR... And they said they weren't gonna add coolant ever, after they laid out reasons for why we couldn't have it.

Which was around the time they said we couldn't have 3rd person, also for reasons...

Didn't you drop with Paul in his premade back in the olden days? I think it was you.

Budor, on 21 March 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

Although i voted "no" in the original poll i am not to concerned. This is one of those things that if done right isnt to much of an advantage (disable free-look) but might pull in new players.

Why would it pull in new players? Are you talking about the totally not obvious World of tanks audience?

Edited by Vassago Rain, 21 March 2013 - 02:42 AM.

[Sifright]

You guys act like 3rd person is going to be a bad thing.

Just think now I can poptart with way more effectiveness cause i'll be able to see over hills to spot enemies with out having to expose my self first!

i'll just line up my shots jump just high enough to fire and hit and then drop behind cover.

its gunna be great!

[M4rtyr]

Mazzyplz, on 21 March 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

indeed. i was born just yesterday, in the evening in fact

Ahh, thats good.. was afraid you were texting from the womb.

[Tarman]

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

I would suggest that those threads had actual discussion and were being moderated to remove the ridiculous noise, while this one is not. Again, as I said, this is a lynch mob. There is little to no actual discussion of the issues at hand, you are merely attempting to prove yourself by saying you knew better.

So what do you say when you sit down and actually think about it, hm? What evidence do you have that they're trying to **** you over? This is a business and PGI is beholden to certain parties. One of these parties is the community. Another is the pocketbook.

If their intention is to include 3PV in the future, and they have stated this, but have also stated that they are examining it for the far future why are we lynching them for our experiences in (for example) MW4? This is the slippery slope that we've been over a few times before, and just like before it's nothing more than a fallacy.

This is much more a PR/community goodwill issue than it is a gameplay issue. You either tell your community you're changing your tune and are making a different game, or you tell your community that you hired some jackburro down in PR who is now getting his hide verbally tanned by his superior. After the uproar over Consumables 1.0, this is an extremely bad time to go stir up people you would like money from on a regular basis.

Random tweets on hotbutton issues is bad PR, truth or no. Letting some IGP guy troll the thread bringing up the comment is completely foolish. Having the lead designer roll into the thread and yet say nothing, also highly uninspiring. All Paul had to say was "Man that guy is a tool" and this thread would not exist. We'd all be waiting for the missile hotfix instead of seeing if PGI is going to roll back yet another design pillar.

[Budor]

Vassago Rain, on 21 March 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Why would it pull in new players? Are you talking about the totally not obvious World of tanks audience?

Anyone that likes to play in 3rd person mode i guess (not me). I see a lot off people play racing games solely in 3rd person for example (not me). I honestly think that its important for a lot off people (not me).

Also: Pretty robit butts.

[Wingbreaker]

Thirdstar, on 21 March 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

That's not what Valve Time means.

Soon^tm
Time^Valve

ETC. They all mean the same thing: In the future, not now. When it's ready.

Vassago Rain, on 21 March 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Because their reversal of 3rd person plans changed from 'never ever,' to 'we're definitely adding this,' to 'we're considering adding it!' to 'we're considering discussing adding it,' to 'we're researching considering disscusion about potentially adding it in the future,' to 'we're not gonna do this you guys, it was all a troll by Paul. Derpa herpa.'

All that happened during a single day, by the way. Now we're back to 'it has to go in because casuals.' And we all know what it leads to.

There's no faith left in PGI. That's what this thread's about, and it highlights how dysfunctional the company is. For instance, one of the first posts in here was a yellow trying to snark. Okay? That's a great idea, sir yellow.

This also happened when they were adding the completely P2W coolant, that also got changed to not quite P2W, but is still a mandatory piece of gear, much like RnR... And they said they weren't gonna add coolant ever, after they laid out reasons for why we couldn't have it.

Which was around the time they said we couldn't have 3rd person, also for reasons...

Didn't you drop with Paul in his premade back in the olden days? I think it was you.



Why would it pull in new players? Are you talking about the totally not obvious World of tanks audience?

So I've bolded a few points here, just to show you why you're not actually making an argument, Vassago. For your reference, these are absolute terms that you can't back up. These are not arguments, they are statements of supposed fact. "There is no faith in PGI" is a laughable phrasing even for an editorial.

I also bothered to underline the wonderful attempt you made at lumping me in with what you percieve as white knights. Unfortunately, I have no founders tag, nor have I done anything in this thread but point out flaws and make actual arguments.

If we continue down that road, of a lynch mob mentality, it will merely result in moderation. A personal attack gets no one anywhere.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 21 March 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[Zeus X]

Tarman, on 21 March 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

This is much more a PR/community goodwill issue than it is a gameplay issue. You either tell your community you're changing your tune and are making a different game, or you tell your community that you hired some jackburro down in PR who is now getting his hide verbally tanned by his superior. After the uproar over Consumables 1.0, this is an extremely bad time to go stir up people you would like money from on a regular basis.

Random tweets on hotbutton issues is bad PR, truth or no. Letting some IGP guy troll the thread bringing up the comment is completely foolish. Having the lead designer roll into the thread and yet say nothing, also highly uninspiring. All Paul had to say was "Man that guy is a tool" and this thread would not exist. We'd all be waiting for the missile hotfix instead of seeing if PGI is going to roll back yet another design pillar.

You hit that nail dead on.

Paul could have easily said ANYTHING, and this thread would have died at page 3?

[Vassago Rain]

Budor, on 21 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

Anyone that likes to play in 3rd person mode i guess (not me). I see a lot off people play racing games solely in 3rd person for example (not me). I honestly think that its important for a lot off people (not me).

Also: Pretty robit butts.

But 3rd person isn't even used in popular games today... I can list World of tanks. Coincidence, right?

You're being crazy in your post. Racing game players don't want to play robot fighting games that are based around counter-strike rules. CoD players don't want to play it, either. Are we going to attract the Hitman fans? Because Hitman is known for the elaborate multiplayer splitscreen and -oh, wait. It's a complete singleplayer game.

Gears of war? So we have the chainsaws and melee attacks they'd want, and the co-op multiplayer that's built around short stages and general interaction with the stages? We sure do.

Perhaps they want some of the fallout 3 and mass effect fans. It's good we have cover and a semi-turned based combat system...

Or they want to be more like World of tanks, for the chance at the more of that cake.

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Words.

The problem here is, you're thinking I won't outright ignore you, like I have everybody else who tries to attack me, or me highlighting issues.

Judging from how the thread's gone so far, the rest are doing the same.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 21 March 2013 - 02:55 AM.

[Haniwa]

Im pretty sure the do 3rd person only in the training grounds that were mentioned

[Menthro Kerensky]

jakucha, on 20 March 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Notice how the forum isn't inundated with posts about coolant after it's been in use for a while. There aren't even any coolant threads on the first page. Nobody's fighting it because it's not that useful. I hope you don't run out of meme pictures to use, lil' Thirdstar.

Thats because we are all posting in the coolant feedback thread friend....

[Thirdstar]

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

A personal attack gets no one anywhere.

Pointing out that you may have dropped in Paul's premade is a personal attack how?

Also, How is your reference to Valve Time in response to someone saying that they think the Devs have gone back on their word relevant?

[Wingbreaker]

Vassago Rain, on 21 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

The problem here is, you're thinking I won't outright ignore you, like I have everybody else who tries to attack me, or me highlighting issues.

Judging from how the thread's gone so far, the rest are doing the same.

Actually, the problem seems to be that I've called you out on your trolling, and your desires for attention. I've pointed out that you have no arguments that aren't based in fact, but rather are making pronouncements from "faith," and have reduced to petty name calling.

If you have an actual argument, make it.

[Budor]

Its f2p they want any and everyone to try it out, no matter what their preferred game/genre is. 3rd person is an additional option and it "looks fabulous" on screenshots/videos.

Like they allready told us some people are so dense they cant get their mind around torso twist - movement direction. 3rd person will help.

In my opinion its really comes down to how they implement it. Drawbacks to 3rd personetc.

I am not telling people not to rage! I can clearly see where the negativity is coming from.

Edited by Budor, 21 March 2013 - 03:00 AM.

[Harmin]

You realise that this was just a tongue-in-cheek wind-up by whoever was behind the MWO Twitter Account? It will never happen.

What's with all the drama all the time... sheesh. For a 95% male dominated game many of you sure are acting like orange county high school girls.

-Armin

[Zeus X]

Haniwa, on 21 March 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

Im pretty sure the do 3rd person only in the training grounds that were mentioned

I don't think 3rd person should ever see day light in MWO.

Imo teaching the "new" players 3rd person is only going to gimp them when they are have to play in 1st person.

3rd person is a horrid idea, and why brain power was even used to conjure such dribble is beyond me.

[Ilwrath]

Haniwa, on 21 March 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

Im pretty sure the do 3rd person only in the training grounds that were mentioned

That would be nice. It would be even nicer if some dev could just post that in this thread.

[Wingbreaker]

Thirdstar, on 21 March 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Pointing out that you may have dropped in Paul's premade is a personal attack how?

Also, How is your reference to Valve Time in response to someone saying that they think the Devs have gone back on their word relevant?

It wasn't, "Sir Yellow" was. He was referencing White Knighting, with an aversion to a perception of "Gold syndrome" in the MWO forums, wherein those invested in the game mindlessly defend it.

On the other hand, I was merely presenting an argument.

[M4rtyr]

Wingbreaker, on 21 March 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Actually, the problem seems to be that I've called you out on your trolling, and your desires for attention. I've pointed out that you have no arguments that aren't based in fact, but rather are making pronouncements from "faith," and have reduced to petty name calling.

If you have an actual argument, make it.

He doesn't need to... like I said this isn't a discussion this thread is more a protest against the possibility of 3rd person.

We don't want it and have expressed why tot he devs. Why does he have to present an argument with you (who's actually the one trolling and name calling).