2001 replies to this topic

[Stone Profit]

Franchi, on 27 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Actually he/she will find how you like arguing semantics, until someone points out that semantically you are wrong.

Except im not semantically wrong, im factually correct. Nice try though
Someone who is unable to string a cohesive argument together WOULD have trouble understanding that tho...

Edited by Stone Profit, 27 March 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[Heeden]

Franchi, on 27 March 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Actually I pointed out that 3rd person will be in first person only games, becasue it will likely be a simple modification to the client (something PGI doesn't check for) to turn it on once it is included in MWO and even if it is difficult to do there will be tutorials on how to up on the interwebs within 12 hours of 3rd person launch. Even if its not hacked when PGI brings Euro servers online they will likely merge the ques do to "Unforeseen population issues".

You ignored that and decided to insult me while reporting my post......

3rd person view already exists, you can see it when your mech is destroyed. Does that mean people are already using it?

[content delete because stupid]

PGI have given some good reasons why they want to implement a 3.p.v. to the game. Opponents have given some good reasons why they don't want to use or face pilots using 3.p.v. The purpose of this thread is to find a way of achieving the former whilst avoiding the latter. It is not the place for people on both sides of the debate to endlessly repeat why those reasons are/are not valid.

First Person Only Mode - Community Warfare.

We don't know what community warfare will be yet, we don't know how it will handle queuing, the meta-game, match-making or anything. We do know it will be the main focus of "progression" and I believe if in any way you are affecting the galaxy, gaining favour (or whatever mercs and lonewolves get) or somehow taking on the role of a Mechwarrior in the "near-MMO" portion of the game it should be using first-person-view only.

It would be useful if opponents to 3.p.v. could state if they agree/disagree with this and if there is anything they would like to add.

Mixed View Mode - Arcade/Training Simulator

I've mentioned this before and someone else had a similar idea - people who played the original Wing Commander will understand where the idea came from. The main point is to keep 3.p.v. away from the meta-game to maintain first-person as a main pillar whilst also making it obviously a place for newbies to practice. I'd like to see it implemented with;


Fog-of-war/LoS checks for rendering enemy (and friendly?) mechs

I would include the compass, radar and targetting pips so 3.p.v. is useful for learning how to move around.

I would leave off damage display (both you and target), weapon cool-downs and make the targetting reticules a bit awkward to encourage players to use f.p.v. for combat.

Much lower income than C.W. to keep it from being a place to farm nubs for C-Bills, still allow the Cadet Bonus.

Stock Mechs Only - This came to me last night. Stock mechs are a good thing because they give a connection to the TT, they are however awful when put up against an optomised (not necessarily min-maxed) mech with a few mil put in improvements. Making the arcade/simulator mode stock mech only gives them a place they can be useful.

New players will find themselves on a more level playing field, whilst experienced ones will still beat them easily it will not be the near-instant death whilst being useless experiences stock mechs currently suffer.

Experienced players will want to move into CW/1.p.v. in order to build and customise their own robot, but may still go back occasionally for the different experience offered playing with and against non-optimised builds.

Trial mechs for CW can all be chosen by the build-a-trial competitions and either all stock variants or at least one per chassis can be made available for Arcade/Simulator.

Only one queue - random game-type. Keeps the mixed-view players all together and makes sure learning players get experience in all modes, not just the one they find easiest or most profitable.

It would be useful if opponents to 3.p.v. could state if they agree/disagree with this and if there is anything they would like to add.

Third Person Only Mode - Holo-projector.

I'll try to find a pic of it later, but there is Battletech artwork knocking about of mechwarriors standing around what looks like a holographic version of the TT game. I think this mode should take full advantage of the difference between 1.p.v. and 3.p.v. to make a very different game style.

All HUD information, render anything in LoS of the camera, zoomed out camera to give a better view of the surroundings. All this should make for slower and more tactical game-play at the cost of immersion. Less surprises and more jostling around before shots are fired, if anything it should be a lot closer to the TT where players could always see the position of the enemy.

Again much lower income than CW and possibly no XP as it is so far from actually piloting the mech.

Only a few game-types to keep the 3.p.v.-only players together, possibly a random selection from a few types, Team Deathmatch?

It would be useful if opponents to 3.p.v. could state if they agree/disagree with this and if there is anything they would like to add.

Edited by Heeden, 27 March 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[Franchi]

Stone Profit, on 27 March 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Except im not semantically wrong, im factually correct. Nice try though
Someone who is unable to string a cohesive argument together WOULD have trouble understanding that tho...

[Stone Profit]

Franchi, on 27 March 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

I like how you avoid the topic of how it works completely differently than it does in MW4, which is what they said they wouldnt have. But of course the name is much more important than the actual mechanic when you feel it supports your argument, which it doesnt. But hey, Im going to go on thinking youre wrong, and youre gonna go on thinking im wrong. Im just glad to know I have logic on my side, and you fear it.

[Rofl]

I'm so confused... I only got through 6 pages...

Mr. Ekman, you are saying you are 100% sure about adding a feature that a small demographic has asked not be implemented in the game because a larger majority has said... nothing?

So the only thing you're GUARANTEED to do is **** off some of your core gamers in the attempt to get in some more casual people, while fragmenting the community?

I'm not sure what I missed. Glad I have other games to fall back to, and super glad I didn't put any money into the founders program.


EDIT, you said:

"[color=#959595]Try not to view this as Community Warfare vs 3rd person. They don't compete for development time. We are actively working on CW right now. 3rd person has one person assigned to it... me."[/color]

Whatever other projects you're working on, please do those instead. I don't care of it's adding a new pixel to a cockpit (which is guess wouldn't matter as much anymore...) or thinking up new bobble heads or picking the color of the toilet paper at work... all of those, especially the last, are more important than 3pv being added.

Edited by Rofl, 27 March 2013 - 09:04 AM.

[KingCobra]

First off I have to say thank you Brian and Russ and PGI for including a 3rd person view. From reading this post lets make one thing clear past PC MechWarrior games had many more options than MWO by far. They had FPV 3rd person view-respawn and many more options I would say up to 30 individual options just for game play and game modes alone . If first and 3rd views are options you can select I believe after a bit of testing they will find like past games it will become a 50/50% split of players playing both views. In past MechWarrior leagues they offered Planetary or Solaris leagues that catered to both types of view styles so I really don't see a problem there pick the box for the view your playing that league or planetary in and launch simple. It is up to PGI to decide if independent leagues will be allowed but if they are the operators im sure would include both views for game play.

[LordBraxton]

DCM Zeus, on 25 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Bryan creates thread and asks core player base how to implement 3rd person.


Bryan ignore's core player base polls with over 3000+ no's.


Bryan participate's for a few pages, then like PGI fashion, nothing.

This

This is sickening PGI you pretended to make a game for the grognards, then pulled the rug out from under us and tossed us under the bus.

GUESS WHAT, 3rd person is going to lose you as many players as it will gain you, and the ones you lose will be the obsessive paying competitive crowd, and the ones you gain will try the game once and quit because trial mechs still suck.

Rofl, on 27 March 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

I'm so confused... I only got through 6 pages...

Mr. Ekman, you are saying you are 100% sure about adding a feature that a small demographic has asked not be implemented in the game because a larger majority has said... nothing?

So the only thing you're GUARANTEED to do is **** off some of your core gamers in the attempt to get in some more casual people, while fragmenting the community?

I'm not sure what I missed. Glad I have other games to fall back to, and super glad I didn't put any money into the founders program.


EDIT, you said:

"[color=#959595]Try not to view this as Community Warfare vs 3rd person. They don't compete for development time. We are actively working on CW right now. 3rd person has one person assigned to it... me."[/color]

Whatever other projects you're working on, please do those instead. I don't care of it's adding a new pixel to a cockpit (which is guess wouldn't matter as much anymore...) or thinking up new bobble heads or picking the color of the toilet paper at work... all of those, especially the last, are more important than 3pv being added.

IT GOES MUCH FARTHER THAN THIS

The forum isn't the whole community, but when its 4000 against 300 thats the closest thing to definitive results Ive ever seen in an online poll.

THEY ARE EXPRESSLY IGNORING PLAYER WISHES IN A DESPERATE SCHEME TO MAKE MONEY OFF PAINT\CASUALS. TOO BAD ITS GOING TO FAIL.

This is the first thread Ive felt caps were necessary, as PGI is refusing to listen at all

Edited by LordBraxton, 27 March 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[KingCobra]

LordBraxton, on 27 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

This

This is sickening PGI you pretended to make a game for the grognards, then pulled the rug out from under us and tossed us under the bus.

GUESS WHAT, 3rd person is going to lose you as many players as it will gain you, and the ones you lose will be the obsessive paying competitive crowd, and the ones you gain will try the game once and quit because trial mechs still suck.



IT GOES MUCH FARTHER THAN THIS

The forum isn't the whole community, but when its 4000 against 300 thats the closest thing to definitive results Ive ever seen in an online poll.

THEY ARE EXPRESSLY IGNORING PLAYER WISHES IN A DESPERATE SCHEME TO MAKE MONEY OFF PAINT\CASUALS. TOO BAD ITS GOING TO FAIL.

This is the first thread Ive felt caps were necessary, as PGI is refusing to listen at all

DUDE just RAGE QUIT already and get over it all ITS JUST A GAME a loved game by its fan base for sure but geez. --->>> http://www.youtube.c...d&v=7Z0wV2xsx1o

Edited by KingCobra, 27 March 2013 - 09:21 AM.

[Rofl]

LordBraxton, on 27 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

THEY ARE EXPRESSLY IGNORING PLAYER WISHES IN A DESPERATE SCHEME TO MAKE MONEY OFF PAINT

That right there makes you look silly. The rest is fine. Making money off paint is fine. Even if they charged a hundred bucks for a drip of paint, it's fine. Terrible marketing, but fine. It has 0 effect on gameplay.

KingCobra, on 27 March 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

DUDE just RAGE QUIT already and get over it all ITS JUST A GAME a loved game by its fan base for sure but geez. --->>> http://www.youtube.c...d&v=7Z0wV2xsx1o

It's more of the "sky is falling" mentality, expect parts of the sky are actually hitting the ground and only 1/2 the people see it.

Edited by Rofl, 27 March 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Roadbeer]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2125687

Elephant still in the room? Poor guy looks like he could use some water.

[LordBraxton]

Rofl, on 27 March 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

That right there makes you look silly. The rest is fine. Making money off paint is fine. Even if they charged a hundred bucks for a drip of paint, it's fine. Terrible marketing, but fine. It has 0 effect on gameplay.




It's more of the "sky is falling" mentality, expect parts of the sky are actually hitting the ground and only 1/2 the people see it.

Its fine to make money off paint, my point is that they are sacrificing core gameplay elements in an effort to make MORE money off paint, dividing the community in the process.

I really don't see anything silly about it. Read between the lines please\critical thinking etc

KingCobra, on 27 March 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

DUDE just RAGE QUIT already and get over it all ITS JUST A GAME a loved game by its fan base for sure but geez. --->>> http://www.youtube.c...d&v=7Z0wV2xsx1o

3rd person isn't implemented yet so no point in quitting yet.

I don't WANT to quit I want them to RECONSIDER this stupid stupid greedy idea.

Im not raging over current game balance or some inherent flaw, they are planning to ADD a feature that will divide the community and ruin the PUG queue (ruining the game for me)

So what was the point of your comment?

Try to make a point regarding the discussion at hand next time.

Edited by LordBraxton, 27 March 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[SilentWolff]

Without going through 55 pages to see what already has been written, let me add my 2cents quickly.

Splitting the community is never a good thing. 3rd person is not wanted by the people who have supported the MW franchise for years and years. Its a crutch for bad players. I understand PGI wants to add players, but your adding people who have no loyalty to the franchise like your core base does. This core base kept MW4 alive way past its prime. They will do the same thing with this game unless you ignore their concerns.
The reasons given for adding 3rd person can be done just as well by a proper tutorial for new players. Your new player experience is dubious at best. Tighten up that and lets never speak of 3rd person again.

Edited by SilentWolff, 27 March 2013 - 09:52 AM.

[KingCobra]

LordBraxton, on 27 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Its fine to make money off paint, my point is that they are sacrificing core gameplay elements in an effort to make MORE money off paint, dividing the community in the process.

I really don't see anything silly about it. Read between the lines please\critical thinking etc



3rd person isn't implemented yet so no point in quitting yet.

I don't WANT to quit I want them to RECONSIDER this stupid stupid greedy idea.

Im not raging over current game balance or some inherent flaw, they are planning to ADD a feature that will divide the community and ruin the PUG queue (ruining the game for me)

So what was the point of your comment?

Try to make a point regarding the discussion at hand next time.

Look friend your still our MechWarrior brother and entitled to your opinions but THE SKY IS NOT FALLING GAHHHHH----->>> http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=NVPFVR Silentwolff---> 3rd person is not wanted by the people who have supported the MW franchise for years and years. Its a crutch for bad players. First your wrong past MechWarrior community members always included 3rd person views in there league because players wanted it. And if there was a SOLO 1v1 mode in MWO I would challenge you to a duel and beat you soundly in any view. You never were that good of a pilot in any view.

Edited by KingCobra, 27 March 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[LordBraxton]

KingCobra, on 27 March 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Look friend your still our MechWarrior brother and entitled to your opinions but THE SKY IS NOT FALLING GAHHHHH----->>> http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=NVPFVR

Thanks for letting me know I am entitled to my own opinions, I had no idea.

You are right again! They sky is not falling! Its blue, made of many layers, and right above me like it always it. PGI ARE ruining (the core PUG queue of) MWO however, which is what we are here to talk about.

Thanks for the condescending links as well.

Edited by LordBraxton, 27 March 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[Gallowglas]

BTW, has anyone considered that there might actually be an approach to 3PV that might not even raise any substantial balance issues? For instance, if while in mixed matches 3PV had a constricted camera mode that, in essence, gave you only the perspective as if it were placed 15-30m behind your mech, the mech moved to match perspective, and was limited to the constraints of your mech, I think it wouldn't worry me as much as it would allowing free camera movement around the mech without the mech changing position to match and the ability to see over obstacles without risk of exposure.

Edited by Gallowglas, 27 March 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Heeden]

LordBraxton, on 27 March 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

PGI ARE ruining (the core PUG queue of) MWO however, which is what we are here to talk about.

Could you please explain which part of the current plans (as detailed in the OP) are ruining the PuG queue?

[Coolant]

SilentWolff, on 27 March 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Without going through 55 pages to see what already has been written, let me add my 2cents quickly.

Splitting the community is never a good thing. 3rd person is not wanted by the people who have supported the MW franchise for years and years. Its a crutch for bad players. I understand PGI wants to add players, but your adding people who have no loyalty to the franchise like your core base does. This core base kept MW4 alive way past its prime. They will do the same thing with this game unless you ignore their concerns.
The reasons given for adding 3rd person can be done just as well by a proper tutorial for new players. Your new player experience is dubious at best. Tighten up that and lets never speak of 3rd person again.

Glad you mentioned MW4. I assume you mean Mercs? Cause if you played in the past 10 years or so then it was most likely Mercs. If you mean Vengeance/Black Knight or any other version then you haven't been supporting the community for over a decade. So, going off the assumption you are talking about supporting Mercs, you played only 1st Person right? You didn't play 3rd Person, right? Because in Mercs it was just as easy to create a 1st Person only server as it was a 3rd Person server. You were loyal to your point of view and no matter what, you stuck to your guns, despite there never being anyone in your 1st Person only server? Or maybe you had 2 or 3 players to shoot at...the same 2 or 3 players over and over because that is all there were playing 1st Person....if there were anyone playing in 1st Person only servers at all. However, I seem to recall, at least the last couple of years Mercs was running (thank you Mektek), that there were times there wasn't any 1st Person servers running at all. Hmmm. Something tells me you either quit playing (but, you said you supported MW4), or you were playing 3rd Person. You didn't break down and go against your own principles did you?

Edited by Coolant, 27 March 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Mystere]

van Uber, on 27 March 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

It's hard to argue against 3PV "if it is done properly". But so is "discard heat as a system, because it creates a threshold for a large demographic group that would otherwise spend enormous amount of money on this game".

It's a good thing then that this thread is about 3PV and not "discard heat as a system". I might be singing a different tune.

[LordBraxton]

Heeden, on 27 March 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Could you please explain which part of the current plans (as detailed in the OP) are ruining the PuG queue?

The PUG queue will become 3rd person mode

OR it will be divided into 3 separate queues, which means 2 will likely die quickly.

[Mystere]

Jestun, on 27 March 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

How disappointing, we will have the option between a smaller pool of players or playing against people with a clear advantage.

May I ask then: what clear advantage does 3PV have if it is implemented with visual and sensor parity to 1PV? I must be really missing something if people keep on saying it over and over and over again.

Edited by Mystere, 27 March 2013 - 10:30 AM.