2001 replies to this topic

[KingCobra]

LordBraxton, on 27 March 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

The PUG queue will become 3rd person mode

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

Please enlighten us again on PGI'S plans? I think your assuming to much or its your overwhelming opinion and assumption's that the 3 queues will die? Sadly I even fall into this category from time to time hahaha.--->

Edited by KingCobra, 27 March 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Fut]

DirePhoenix, on 26 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

You have a misconception of what the "entire community" is. These forums are not the "entire community".

Bad argument.

Even if the voting population is a very small chunk of the total MWO populace, some general conclusions can be made regarding the community as a whole. We're not trying to split the atom here, things don't have to be incredibly accurate - if 1000 people participated in the poll, and 501 people voted "No for 3rd person", it's a relatively safe conclusion to say that most people don't want 3rd person.

The polls should be treated like actual elections. The results of the poll are based on the votes cast, not by the phantom people who didn't show up at all.

[Stone Profit]

Fut, on 27 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Bad argument.

Even if the voting population is a very small chunk of the total MWO populace, some general conclusions can be made regarding the community as a whole. We're not trying to split the atom here, things don't have to be incredibly accurate - if 1000 people participated in the poll, and 501 people voted "No for 3rd person", it's a relatively safe conclusion to say that most people don't want 3rd person.

The polls should be treated like actual elections. The results of the poll are based on the votes cast, not by the phantom people who didn't show up at all.

1 percent of the population (which is roughly what the forum goers are) is not a big enough sample to extrapolate into what the whole community thinks. Unfortunately there isnt any way for forumgoers to know what the rest of the community thinks. However, PGI can and has done some marketing research, and their numbers tell them this is a good idea. And ya know what? Im on pgis side. If they think its best for the game, I am content to let them do it and see how it works out. Because where you and I lose a game we like, they lose their jobs, so im certain they are taking it seriously.

[Padic]

I've done some thinking and I believe I'm ready to toss my 2 MC into the ring.

I do not intend to use Third-Person and I do not want to feel like I am limiting myself by not playing in Third-Person mode. Aside from those two concerns, I believe that adding Third-Person to MWO can only possibly improve things - particularly from a new-user experience.

The problem with "not wanting to limit myself" is that it doesn't go away even if I can segregate my from other players using the Third-Person mode. If Third-Person is the superior choice to 1st person (from a "competitive play" standpoint), then it seems like the Third-Person queue will become the queue for beginners, people who want to see their pretty robot and the most competitive players. Which is, well, basically everyone. In the RPer vs Powergamer debate, I consider myself somewhat of a moderate, and as such, I'd love to be in queue with both the people who take the in-game universe seriously AND people who take the game mechanics seriously. Losing access to one group or the other would make me sad.

So, some suggestions.

1. Deliberately limit Third-Person mode relative to First-Person mode. If I hypothesize that Third-Person mode can never be "exactly" balanced with First-Person mode, then I have to assume that Third-Person mode will always be either better or worse than First-Person mode. Third-Person has a lot of advantages over First-Person. So it is going to incline towards being better. If Third-Person is intentionally made worse (perhaps by displaying less information?), then it becomes the "training wheels view". Players are welcome to learn the game with it on. Players are welcome to use it as often as they like. Players will eventually feel some pressure to ween themselves into First-Person if they want to reach the tip-top levels of play.

2. Restrict usage of Third-Person view to training modes. This gives new players the opportunity to learn the mechanics of the game in a safe place with some powerful tools at their disposal, without changing the look and feel of "real" play. Unfortunately, this creates a "Third-Person Hump" to get over extremely early in a new player's career, and that probably doesn't scream "fun".

3. I guess I only had two suggestions. I probably didn't need a list.

[Fut]

Stone Profit, on 27 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

1 percent of the population (which is roughly what the forum goers are) is not a big enough sample to extrapolate into what the whole community thinks. Unfortunately there isnt any way for forumgoers to know what the rest of the community thinks. However, PGI can and has done some marketing research, and their numbers tell them this is a good idea. And ya know what? Im on pgis side. If they think its best for the game, I am content to let them do it and see how it works out. Because where you and I lose a game we like, they lose their jobs, so im certain they are taking it seriously.

PGI doing their own research on the matter is a separate thing completely. If their research shows that everybody and their grandmother wants 3rd person view in MWO - you can't blame them for wanting to put it in the game, right? As much as I'm opposed to 3rd person, you can't blame them if that's truly what people want. I just hope that they can actually make it so 3rd person doesn't give advantages, or that the different views will not segregate the playerbase.

I was merely talking about people trying to debase polls on the forums with the whole "what about people not on the forums?" argument. That argument is a bad one. The results of the poll are based on the people who voted, nothing else. Like I said before, we can't count "What ifs" from people who aren't here.

[Stone Profit]

Fut, on 27 March 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

PGI doing their own research on the matter is a separate thing completely. If their research shows that everybody and their grandmother wants 3rd person view in MWO - you can't blame them for wanting to put it in the game, right? As much as I'm opposed to 3rd person, you can't blame them if that's truly what people want. I just hope that they can actually make it so 3rd person doesn't give advantages, or that the different views will not segregate the playerbase.

I was merely talking about people trying to debase polls on the forums with the whole "what about people not on the forums?" argument. That argument is a bad one. The results of the poll are based on the people who voted, nothing else. Like I said before, we can't count "What ifs" from people who aren't here.

Well, it is undeniable that of those people who participated in the polls, the vast majority did not want 3pv. However it must not be considered to be the entire picture and other avenues of collecting information must be explored.

[Kraven Kor]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 March 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

Well itll be fun to watch the third que die then I guess

Yeah, go back to MW:4 days where if you weren't in a pro ladder, finding a 1PV / HOLA match was next to impossible since everyone was in the stupid 3PV / NHUA matches.

[EvilCow]

Well, for sake of science would be interesting to try to understand the cause behind people liking 3PV refusing to post on forums.

Such a discrepancy cannot be just a random numbers fluctuation.

[Gallowglas]

Fut, on 27 March 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I was merely talking about people trying to debase polls on the forums with the whole "what about people not on the forums?" argument. That argument is a bad one. The results of the poll are based on the people who voted, nothing else. Like I said before, we can't count "What ifs" from people who aren't here.

As someone who conducts online research on consumer psychology, I can tell you pretty definitively that there's a massive flaw in trying to apply generalizations to the entire community based on an non-random sample (i.e. forum activity). It's called (among other things) selection bias. Mind you, I'm not a consumer psychologist, but this is something that has been beaten into our heads repeatedly when we do selections for studies.

[0X2A]

Kraven Kor, on 27 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Yeah, go back to MW:4 days where if you weren't in a pro ladder, finding a 1PV / HOLA match was next to impossible since everyone was in the stupid 3PV / NHUA matches.

Well since there seem to be so many people against 1PV, why would you care if 3PV was implemented? You guys seem like you're being forced to play 3PV. RHOD matches will probably always be in 1PV. :l Just saying.

Gallowglas, on 27 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

As someone who conducts online research on consumer psychology, I can tell you pretty definitively that there's a massive flaw in trying to apply generalizations to the entire community based on an non-random sample (i.e. forum activity). It's called (among other things) selection bias. Mind you, I'm not a consumer psychologist, but this is something that has been beaten into our heads repeatedly when we do selections for studies.

Q4T

This is drilled into you in both college level psychology, and sociology. The forums are biased if peeps haven't noticed.

Edited by 0X2A, 27 March 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[Gallowglas]

EvilCow, on 27 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Well, for sake of science would be interesting to try to understand the cause behind people liking 3PV refusing to post on forums.

Such a discrepancy cannot be just a random numbers fluctuation.

I'll give you a quick one: If you're posting, it's because you're playing what is currently a completely 1PV game. It's entirely possible that a huge segment of the gaming populace isn't currently playing because it has no 3PV mode. I'm not saying that this is absolutely the case. I'm just trying to explain how there may be unintended bias at play if you're not careful about your sample.

[Kraven Kor]

0X2A, on 27 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Well since there seem to be so many people against 1PV, why would you care if 3PV was implemented? You guys seem like you're being forced to play 3PV. RHOD matches will probably always be in 1PV. :l Just saying.

Did you play MW:4?

In MW:4, I was forced to play 3rd Person View because nobody played 1st Person View outside of the ranked ladders. And I wrote off the entire franchise after that as "Games I can't play because I'm terrible."

And I am not, was not, and never will be good enough to play "ranked matches" and not kill myself after losing thirty matches in a row.

Please, please do not add 3rd Person View. We've been there, done that, and it was awful.

Just my opinion, naturally.

[EvilCow]

Gallowglas, on 27 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'll give you a quick one: If you're posting, it's because you're playing what is currently a completely 1PV game. It's entirely possible that a huge segment of the gaming populace isn't currently playing because it has no 3PV mode. I'm not saying that this is absolutely the case. I'm just trying to explain how there may be unintended bias at play if you're not careful about your sample.

I have to agree that if I am here now it is because MWO has been advertised initially as a mechwarrior finally done right, with first person and no coolant as design pillars.

Your hypothesis has merit.

[Alienfreak]

Stone Profit, on 27 March 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

1 percent of the population (which is roughly what the forum goers are) is not a big enough sample to extrapolate into what the whole community thinks. [...]

So basically say you have no idea about statistics. Thanks for sharing, though.

Stone Profit, on 27 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

So you dont feel the need to bring evidence either? so sad. This is what the education system gives us.

The education gives us wannabe smarts as you.

MWO HAS NO ANTI CHEAT SYSTEM.
You can edit and inject anything. Change the levels around. Change their textures. Nothing prevents you from doing that.

PGI can't even punish AFKers and TKers and you really expect them to field a anti cheat system?

[Mystere]

Gallowglas, on 27 March 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

BTW, has anyone considered that there might actually be an approach to 3PV that might not even raise any substantial balance issues?

The problem is not that there isn't, because there are ways to do it. The problem is that there are people who hate the idea so moch they are resorting to trolling, ranting, raging, you name it.

Edited by Mystere, 27 March 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[0X2A]

Alienfreak, on 27 March 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

-----

YAY MATH!
What percentage of MW:O players are the forums then?
Using what little information I have, I estimated it to be around 10-15% of the total population. :l

Edit: Found the total amount of MW:O members.

I highly doubt 450,000 members all use the forums.
1,500 people voted in the 3PV poll (roughly) Making the forums roughly .03% of the MW:O population.
5,000 votes would make us 1% of the total population.

454,529 Total Members

Edited by 0X2A, 27 March 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

EvilCow, on 27 March 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I have to agree that if I am here now it is because MWO has been advertised initially as a mechwarrior finally done right, with first person and no coolant as design pillars.

Your hypothesis has merit.

To be precise, when I signed up to MWO, it was on the promise of a "Mechwarrior Game 'Done Right'" and with Community Warfare to boot. It was the chance of having a Battletech Game that was more than just random snipers trading shots.

It was not "Oh, they aren't doing 3rd Person View!" I honestly had no idea one way or the other when I plopped down the money, but when I saw them saying they wouldn't add 3PV, I was happy.

I had no idea if they would or would not add Coolant Flush, but when they mentioned they wouldn't be, I was overjoyed, having hated everything about Coolant Flush in MW:3 and MW:4.

So "I paid $120 because they promised no 3PV and No Coolant Flush" is ********.

But "I am happy they have no plans to include 3PV and Coolant Flush" changing to "They decided to do WHAT?" is a good description of how this has all come across to some of us.

[Mystere]

Kraven Kor, on 27 March 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Please, please do not add 3rd Person View. We've been there, done that, and it was awful.

MW4's implementation of 3PV may have been awful, but it does not follow that MWO's will be too.

Alienfreak, on 27 March 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

MWO HAS NO ANTI CHEAT SYSTEM AT THE MOMENT.

Fixed.

Edited by Mystere, 27 March 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Caleb Lee]

0X2A, on 27 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Well since there seem to be so many people against 1PV, why would you care if 3PV was implemented? You guys seem like you're being forced to play 3PV. RHOD matches will probably always be in 1PV. :l Just saying.

There's a good chance they will force us into 3 PV simply by mixing the two queues together. At that point, many including myself will simply stop playing. The only decent players in MW4 were those that ended up in leagues like NBT... all the kids playing no heat, no ammo and 3PV I rank at the level of hackers in a modern FPS who can't handle more than simply putting a dot on a target and squeezing the trigger. Anything else is too much for them...

Take WarThunder as an example. People fly around in 3PV all the time, why? Because you can see more and there are no blindsides which completely negate the ability to ambush your prey and it's MUCH easier for this reason alone. They recently updated the realism/flight models and oh the QQ from the arcade crowd as the planes actually had some differences for a change and you had to think ahead of time instead of simply reacting.

The masses as a whole are typically lazy and will gravitate to whatever is easy, forgetting realism in the process.

Hence the guy you quoted talking about 3PV, with no heat, no ammo.

Why most of us are upset as you implement 3PV, I bet they'll cave and add no heat no ammo as well as they've already gone back on their word at least twice now that is documented.

If I wanted an arcade, xbox game, I'd play Mech Assault or some other lame title. They toted this as a 'simulation' and are in the process of taking what realism there is and tossing it out the window.

IF I'd known this was the direction they'd have gone, I'd never have given them any money to begin with.

Once again, the only way I'll support 3PV is if they can't see anything more than they would in the cockpit. Let them see their mech, but they won't get any damage notifications if they are getting shot in the back for example. They can't see over a hill.

And PGI better implement some anti-hacking as I'm sure the clientside will be exploited soon after.

[Mechteric]

Mystere, on 27 March 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

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.

Someone in 3rd person can see over and around obstacles, which means the person with cover can have their crosshairs already on you and can see where you are without you seeing them. This is especially beneficial to jump snipers. In practice it turned Mechwarrior 4 into a jump sniping borish nightmare (I say this as someone who occasionally likes to play a jump sniper in MWO) for those of us who prefer 1st person combat.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 27 March 2013 - 12:30 PM.