Jump to content

- - - - -

3Rd Person


2001 replies to this topic

#1081 Franchi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Locationplaying something else.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:34 PM

View PostMystere, on 27 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:


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

Assuming PGI COULD implement 3rd person to not draw anything you cannot see in first person, including shots from behind you and half drawn mechs and mechs suddenly popping into view there will be much QQ and nerd rage on the forums asking why MWO has such crappy third person view, it will in fact be harder on new players than first person only would be.

Ensuing QQ on the forums yada yada yada,, and presto we get gloriously advantageous 3rd person.

#1082 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:35 PM

View PostCapperDeluxe, on 27 March 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:


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.


How do you know? Have you seen the (probably still skeletal) design specifications, the (probably still non-existent) code, or (also probably still non-existent) prototype? Or is it all just mere speculation based on prior experience with MW4 and other games with crappy 3PV implementations?


View PostFranchi, on 27 March 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Assuming PGI COULD implement 3rd person to not draw anything you cannot see in first person, including shots from behind you and half drawn mechs and mechs suddenly popping into view there will be much QQ and nerd rage on the forums asking why MWO has such crappy third person view, it will in fact be harder on new players than first person only would be.

Ensuing QQ on the forums yada yada yada,, and presto we get gloriously advantageous 3rd person.


Then complain once we have something to actually complain about. All of this present "doom and gloom" "the sky is falling" nerd rage is, how should I say it, PREMATURE.

The problem with SO MANY PEOPLE in this thread is that they are not even willing to give 3PV a chance and instead are sounding like a whole bunch of toddlers whose ice cream was taken from their hands.

Bah, I'm off to my well deserved vacation and I will just leave you folks to your miserable lives ... B)

So don't expect any more responses from me as I intend to down a whole lot of Cava while savoring my Jamon Iberico de Bellota. :P

Edited by Mystere, 27 March 2013 - 12:52 PM.


#1083 0X2A

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:40 PM

View PostMystere, on 27 March 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:


How do you know? Have you seen the (probably still skeletal) design specifications, the (probably still non-existent) code, or (also probably still non-existent) prototype? Or is it all just mere speculation based on prior experience with MW4 and other games with crappy 3PV implementations?


It's a good assumption though. what games have implemented 3PV in a way that It wouldn't have a competitive advantage over a 1PV player?

#1084 Franchi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Locationplaying something else.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:46 PM

View PostMystere, on 27 March 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:


How do you know? Have you seen the (probably still skeletal) design specifications, the (probably still non-existent) code, or (also probably still non-existent) prototype? Or is it all just mere speculation based on prior experience with MW4 and other games with crappy 3PV implementations?




Then complain once we have something to actually complain about. All of this present "doom and gloom" "the sky is falling" nerd rage is, how should I say it, PREMATURE.

The problem with SO MANY PEOPLE in this thread is that they are not even willing to give 3PV a chance and instead are sounding like a whole bunch of toddlers whose ice cream was taken from their hands.

Bah, I'm off to my well deserved vacation and I will just leave you folks to your miserable lives ... B)

If we give 3rd person a chance it will be here forever, its either raise a **** storm now or cry ourselves to sleep over a dead (to us) game latter knowing it was our own fault for not at least trying.

I chose raise **** storm now so i can laugh about it latter.

Edited by Franchi, 27 March 2013 - 12:56 PM.


#1085 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:50 PM

View Post0X2A, on 27 March 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:


It's a good assumption though. what games have implemented 3PV in a way that It wouldn't have a competitive advantage over a 1PV player?


Answer: None, because it is impossible (or, that is my take.)

WoT has something "better" than full on 3PV, but as I understand it, still sucks and is still infinitely better than 1PV.

I'm all for it if they can do it right.

I just don't see any way they can do it right.

#1086 Alienfreak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 12:52 PM

View Post0X2A, on 27 March 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

YAY MATH! B)
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






Those numbers don't matter a bit. I personaly know about 10 persons that have an account and about a buddy and me are still playing.
Those people voting on the forums did that actively. So we need a number how many of those members are active. If that are 20-30% I would be suprised.


View PostMystere, 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.


1. You can see over some obstacles.
2. You have a higher FOV.
3. You don't have the cockpit design limit your vision
4. You can see where exactly you are getting damage from and what type it is. For lasers you can just begin to turn to spread the damage for example.
5. You can see obstacles behind you
...

Edited by Alienfreak, 27 March 2013 - 12:52 PM.


#1087 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostAlienfreak, on 27 March 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

1. You can see over some obstacles.
2. You have a higher FOV.
3. You don't have the cockpit design limit your vision
4. You can see where exactly you are getting damage from and what type it is. For lasers you can just begin to turn to spread the damage for example.
5. You can see obstacles behind you
...


I guess you did not comprehend at all the visual and sensor parity part.



(This is the only exception to my "no more responses" post, I am now really off... B))

Posted Image

#1088 SouthernRex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 374 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:09 PM

LOL my post saying the game wouldn't last long got deleted. Scared?

Edited by SouthernRex, 27 March 2013 - 01:09 PM.


#1089 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:13 PM

View PostSouthernRex, on 27 March 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

LOL my post saying the game wouldn't last long got deleted. Scared?


No, because I understand how forum moderation works, and true or no? "You are not helping."

PGI / IGP have let plenty of controversial stuff stay up, so long as it isn't outright diarrhea of the mouth, filled with expletives and insults, or outright disparaging without having any kind of useful intent, purpose, or point.

If you get a post deleted, you probably deserved it. And I'm no blind supporter of PGI or IGP.

#1090 Caleb Lee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:16 PM

View PostMystere, on 27 March 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:


I guess you did not comprehend at all the visual and sensor parity part.



Lol, I guess he didn't for that matter.

Still, my question to anyone complaining about everyone else complaining regarding 3PV is this:

Do you really think PGI can pull off visual and sensor parity when they can't get ECM, weapon balance, heat and many other issues right?

Even IF they can, will they cave when people complain that 3PV isn't the same as on other games that give them all the advantages listed above? Probably, as those same people will make the same statements about money back, leaving etc... that many of us have done prior to 3PV being implemented.

It's taken them months to even recognize they totally screwed up with ECM and even after the post on how to fix it aren't exactly bending over backwards to fix a glaring issue first.

I'm properly setting my expectations low so I won't be disappointed later as I have been so much lately. I set the bar high for them in my initial excitement that MW was back. For the most part they delivered a fun game, but I still made a mistake there.

I wouldn't mind some answers on what is even 'feasible' in this game engine. Can they even achieve sensor and visual parity or will it take them more coding and resources than it's worth?

If not, I guess I'll just enjoy the game until it gets so screwed up there's nothing left to enjoy.

Edited by Caleb Lee, 27 March 2013 - 01:20 PM.


#1091 Alienfreak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:22 PM

View PostMystere, on 27 March 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:


I guess you did not comprehend at all the visual and sensor parity part.



(This is the only exception to my "no more responses" post, I am now really off... B))

Posted Image


So Mechs will just appear in the middle of the 3PV screen and disappear?
Imagine the reaction of 3PV players about how stupid it looks and plays. Especially imagine if you can only see the head of an Atlas over cover from a mech's cockpit. And now go 3PV and you have a Head hovering in the air.
Hilarious.

With sensor and whatever parity they mean that you get zoomed in once you approach an obstacle and stuff. You can still see what hits you where, can still see from a higher point, still have no cockpit limitations etc. pp.

Edited by Alienfreak, 27 March 2013 - 01:24 PM.


#1092 Kraven Kor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,434 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:34 PM

View PostAlienfreak, on 27 March 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:


So Mechs will just appear in the middle of the 3PV screen and disappear?
Imagine the reaction of 3PV players about how stupid it looks and plays. Especially imagine if you can only see the head of an Atlas over cover from a mech's cockpit. And now go 3PV and you have a Head hovering in the air.
Hilarious.

With sensor and whatever parity they mean that you get zoomed in once you approach an obstacle and stuff. You can still see what hits you where, can still see from a higher point, still have no cockpit limitations etc. pp.


And again, if nothing else, the 3PV guy can see the terrain on the other side of the hill, and know where is best to walk over. I, on the other hand, have to remember if a particular spot is a good place to pop over, or if I'm going to fall into time-out Canyon.

#1093 Pirate2Ninja

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 32 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

I really like this game you've made, and despite loud noises from some people I think you've been doing a great job adapting and balancing MW in it's new form. I like 1st person view, and if I decide to get involved in community warfare I would only want to play serious matches against other 1st person views. As long as we can keep 1st person only matches I think 3rd person options would help MWO grow and find new mech warriors. I do think however, that 3rd person matches should earn less CB and XP.

#1094 Padic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 391 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:59 PM

One additional thought...

I was introduced to MechWarrior 2 when I was ... I was probably ~10 years old. I played maybe two missions worth of the campaign. I played lots of "Quick battles", but I'm pretty sure I found a way to make myself invincible/have unlimited ammo.

I spent most of my time in Third-Person view just admiring the way my mech looked and moved, or in the MechLab, reading the lore on the various robots and studying their appearances.

I was much the same way with MechWarrior 3 and MechWarrior 4. I might have been older, but I was still in it for the visuals of these monstrous, awesome looking robots striding across the "battlefield". Diddling with loadouts and paintjobs and lance makeups was fun. Turning on invincibility and blowing away mechs that could not hope to harm me was also fun.

Today, obviously, I'm much more interested in feeding the competitive side of my gamer soul - but I still notice that one thing MWO is currently lacking is a place to just chill and admire all the mechs.

Even in the mechlab, you can only really look at mechs you already own.

Having a system in place for young and non competitive gamers to just LOOK at these awesome robots is unambiguously cool.

#1095 van Uber

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 284 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:01 PM

View PostStone Profit, on 27 March 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

Well thats on you for misunderstanding the world of businesses and the word promise. I have little sympathy for those who assumed that the business plan couldnt possibly change and those who feel they were promised when they werent. If neither one of those is your situation I have no idea why you would feel screwed over.


Because I do get the meaning of "Design Pillar" and "Sacrosanct". In the context of game design that is something that should not change over night. Over time that too could change, but I'd expect the game to leave its beta stage before design pillars begin to be uprooted.

But since that is not the case, I am worried that other design pillars cease to be sacrosanct. That's why I feel a bit screwed over. But I'm a big boy, I'll get over it.

#1096 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:13 PM

View PostDirePhoenix, on 26 March 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

[/size]

No, it is not.

Posted Image



the newspaper made a prediction based on very early returns and with much bias against Truman. Your example is a poorly researched one.

My point is still valid - a segment of a population properly polled will indicate the thoughts/wishes of the larger population with minor variance. Only someone whose point is not agreed with would dispute that. Even instances where results of polled topics are flawed or blatantly incorrect are statistically inconsequential over time.against results for other topics which are valid. (like 3% are totally hosed out of the total polls considered)

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 27 March 2013 - 02:20 PM.


#1097 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:16 PM

View PostSouthernRex, on 27 March 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Sure, you brown noser. GFY.


So, anyone who disagrees with you is a brown-noser?

Lulz... welcome to a hard life.

#1098 Fut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,969 posts
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:19 PM

View PostGallowglas, 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.



Selective Bias... Does that even apply to something like this?
What's the bias here; "people who care enough about MWO/enjoy MWO enough to browse the forums"?
I don't think this bias will affect the results of a simple forum poll, Especially when said poll is regarding an in-game feature.

If the poll was regarding MWO -vs- another game (for example), then yes, I would completely agree that the bias could ruin the results.

#1099 Alois Hammer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,296 posts
  • LocationHooterville

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostEvilCow, 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.


It's because the devs' imaginary friends don't have internet access. :)

#1100 Nathan Foxbane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,984 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:29 PM

View PostKraven Kor, on 27 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:


Answer: None, because it is impossible (or, that is my take.)

WoT has something "better" than full on 3PV, but as I understand it, still sucks and is still infinitely better than 1PV.

I'm all for it if they can do it right.

I just don't see any way they can do it right.

The WoT system is solid as a base using certain detection principles, but it has some quirks that kill some really good ambush or other close range surprise and long range sniping tactics. Like, being able to detect by sound if close enough (read hear a tank through buildings while in a tank with roaring engine), seeing what friendlies can see completely independent of LoS, and the big killer, total free-look when not using magnifaction which includes the ability to zoom out quite a bit and change your vertical view reletive to the tank that allows almost top down look ability.

To break it down: You have about 200 or so degrees of a full sphere (holes at the zenith and nadir of the sphere), centered on your gun in which you can choose to look any where the only limit on where you can look is terrain obstructions forcing the camera closer or things being outside of the FoV. When it comes to detection (read when things become visible), anything that your allies can see (if they are in radio range) within about 600 meters (I think my longest direct fire kill was at about 630 meters in that game as I think the hard cap is 700 on visual with all visual ****) or anything you can see without obstruction that is moving or firing out to your tank's maximum view range (which by the way is only historicly accurate for most Russian tanks and hard capped at 500 meters) is fair game. Anything that you can hear that is not obscured by foliage is also fair game or that is within 20-30 meters is also fair game. This is all for direct fire only as artillery plays by a different set of rules that I am very fuzzy on since I never actually played artillery. Also targets that are not moving even after they have revealed themselves by firing or moving prior vanish if given enough time and beyond a certain range. (Read tanks at a dead stop in an open field just vanish for no good reason what-so-ever) Additionally all cones of detection are drawn independent of the direction the player is currently looking in. (Read your tank commander is a mutant freak with eyes on all sides of his head)

Mind you my numbers might be off I have not had any serious time in WoT since September.

That is all the bad stuff.

The good stuff. Your personal detection is two cones a drawn directly from the barrel of the gun and your commander's viewports for things to your front. In all other directions there is a single cone of detection drawn from the commander's viewports only. If that cone is blocked for any reason other than the sound detection radius or friendly LoS the target is invisible. All cones of detection except for the two drawn off the front are excluded when aiming down the sight and the player is forced into an aiming down the scope style first person view.

How any of this could apply to MWO:

By locking the cone of detection on the pilot's natural FoV (will likely have to remove the ability to change FoV for first person if it has not be removed already) and limiting detection from free look to anything in that cone of detection not obscured by the cockpit itself and any fixed objects therein, you get a good start though some 'Mechs will end up with a larger potential area of detection than others. As far as view rendering of 'Mechs, it is full until it completely exits the pilot's FoV at which point it becomes invisible. Entering zoom other than when using the PIP module would force first person view. There would be no odd sound detection or any such. Targets that are selected, but are only targetable due to a friendly 'Mech having LoS and not the player's own will remain invisible, but have the standard targeting brackets around them for LRM functionality. Weapons fire rendering is still something I have not figured out that does not appear odd under some conditions while giving unfair advantage in the same conditions. Good suggestions for target selection and HUD functionality are already on the first page so I will not bother with something I am struggling on. Target decay for targets detected by the player is also a tough decision, either third person gets floating brackets with nothing in them or gets no targeting decay at all.

This is how I see third person working as fair. Feel free to find and point flaws in my logic in a reasonable manner and instead of a "I dun wan 3PV! ****!" way. There are other threads for that.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users