2001 replies to this topic

[Heeden]

LordBraxton wrote

My biggest fear is a PUG queue dominated by 3rd person users.

I refuse to play a match featuring third person, and I mostly play PUG casual matches.

If I can PUG all night casually with 1st person only I wouldn't rage quit etc


Your post however, as well thought out as it is, misses my biggest problem

3rd Person will Divide the community, this community isn't big enough yet to be divided in such a way.

Though they are planning on dividing it up regionally as well, another travesty in my eyes.

So divided regionally and then divided based on vision mode....

I already run into the same faces all the time and half the people I know in this game are from UK\Germany

If they implement the regional divide and the viewpoint divide this game will never grow.

My Reply

I agree with you about a divided community, and certainly the vast majority of playing should be in 1.p.v. but with low enough rewards I feel 3.p. and mixed views could find a niche for those who want to play them whilst learning or for novelty value.

-----------------

Nathan Foxbane wrote

Locking CW for only first person is a bit drastic of an incentive. There are players like myself that would like to do CW casually if at all possible and some of them might simply not want to play first person just to participate in CW. Coming from WoT I have played with people more than willing to throw money at the game so they can get into Clan Wars faster and play Clan Wars casually rather than competitively just for a different experience than they get with the usual PUGs. PGI would prefer to get that cashflow.

Personally I have always played first person as I grew up on sims including MW and third person actually makes the piloting harder for me because I need to shift my point of spacial awareness and targeting is not straight from my view. However there are people who simply do not play well in first person because it does not feel natural to them.

If, as suggested by others, parity can be acheived in what you get with both views there actually should be very little if any advantage to playing in either view. A suggestion to prevent abuse by switching between the two I posted here.

I do like the idea of incentives to move to first person and made a my suggestion here. No damage displays is definately too drastic for third person as glowing damage spots tell you are hit, but not how badly until you start loosing things and completely removes your ability to judge if you are doing damage at all as HSR works only so well.

Stock only is more of an addition to a game mode type that you would filter for more advanced play and requires a much larger player base than MWO has now or will probably have at release.

Instead of segregation I would personally like integration where it is a matter of preference rather than what gives more advantages and if the Devs want players to go first person then weight things a little more in first person view's favor. Third person is still the best training wheels I can think of for a Battlemech's rather unique torso twist mechanic.

Edited by Heeden, 28 March 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Heeden]

My Reply to Nathan Foxbane

Quote

Locking CW for only first person is a bit drastic of an incentive. There are players like myself that would like to do CW casually if at all possible and some of them might simply not want to play first person just to participate in CW.

Quote

It boils down to what your comfortable with. If, as suggested by others, parity can be acheived in what you get with both views there actually should be very little if any advantage to playing in either view. A suggestion to prevent abuse by switching between the two I posted here.

I think the problem comes from people who may perform better in 3.p.v. but prefer playing in first. These people will be forced to choose between the immersion (which is a very large part of the Mechwarrior appeal) and their performance. To avoid this I feel 3.p.v. would have to remain niche which means at the very least keeping it off the galactic map. Perhaps favour (or whatever reputation system is used) could still be earned in these modes so they still give progression.

Quote

I do like the idea of incentives to move to first person and made a my suggestion here. No damage displays is definately too drastic for third person as glowing damage spots tell you are hit, but not how badly until you start loosing things and completely removes your ability to judge if you are doing damage at all as HSR works only so well.

If mixed-view allows switching I certainly think the enemies damage indicator should be confined to 1.p.v. only, to make sure pilots are encouraged to switch to it for combat. Your own mech's damage could be fine in third.

Quote

Stock only is more of an addition to a game mode type that you would filter for more advanced play and requires a much larger player base than MWO has now or will probably have at release.

I feel it could be good to segregate the new players away in to a safer environment for learning.

--------

Another Poster wrote (I haven't received permission to quote him yet)

PGI has to learn one thing (keep it simple).

As I take note of your post over 2 years many have discussed your points of view in many topics and posts. Keeping it simple would be to just allow FPV and 3rd person view in a options box next to lock target reticule. Segregate MM into 2 modes FPV and 3rd not mixing the two together.

But PGI has over complicated many thing about MWO that never needed to be in the game (elo) past random mixed MM generators were tried as far back as MW3 for game play and they failed to hold the players no matter what view was used. A more simple ladder type bracket approach to solo or team play was more widely accepted by the masses.

1v1-12v12 open lobby launchers were the most effective type used by MechWarrior IP's and were highly successful. Read through my topics and posts for the last 2 years and im just one of many who has tried to let PGI know what worked for past MechWarrior IP'S and generated the most player base and stability.

Edited by Heeden, 28 March 2013 - 08:31 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Thontor, on 28 March 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

How can they vote for 3rd person if they don't visit the forums?

Why would they visit the forums of a game that they aren't interested in because it's first person only?

Yeah, cant have the game company putting polls in the game launcher so they can validate the want for their new feature...

Viterbi, on 28 March 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

We're looking for suggestions for ways to properly implement 3rd person view. In particular we want to know what you think about our ideas in the OP. Back on-topic please...

Dont put it in.

DCM Zeus, on 28 March 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

There has been no proof otherwise that this supposed larger population wants 3rd person.

And the Devs have stated they were not going to put it in, but then recanted asking the core population to help with way's to implement it while ignoring the core population's polls of 3000+ no's we don't want.

I think the fact that we arent worth listening to about NOT putting it in but we ARE worth listening to about HOW TO.

[FaceRipt]

Redmond Spiderhammer, on 28 March 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

I've never been clear on why people think a highly advanced 20-100 ton robot SHOULD be able to 'sneak' up on another highly advanced 20-100 ton robot. You cant even sneak up on any car built in the last 60 years unless the driver is being willfully ignorant and most current model cars offer a rear view camera... sneak up?! really?! This argument against 3pv should make people who put it forth feel dumb. I know it makes everyone else feel a little dumber for having read it.

ETA: Sorry that was needlessly mean to the poster... apologies.. but my sentiment on that as a reason not to have 3pv stands

oh it was'nt mean but your way off. you've must have never heard of flanking- In military tactics, a flanking maneuver, or flanking manoeuvre (also called a flank attack), is an attack on the sides of an opposing force. If a flanking maneuver succeeds, the opposing force would be surrounded from two or more directions, which significantly reduces the maneuverability of the outflanked force and its ability to defend itself. A psychological advantage may also be present, as flank forces usually do not expect to be attacked.so tell me again how this tatic should not apply.
.

[Heeden]

FaceRipt, on 28 March 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

oh it was'nt mean but your way off. you've must have never heard of flanking- In military tactics, a flanking maneuver, or flanking manoeuvre (also called a flank attack), is an attack on the sides of an opposing force. If a flanking maneuver succeeds, the opposing force would be surrounded from two or more directions, which significantly reduces the maneuverability of the outflanked force and its ability to defend itself. A psychological advantage may also be present, as flank forces usually do not expect to be attacked.so tell me again how this tatic should not apply.
.

As a side note flank attacks are usually best served with an enfilade.

[FaceRipt]

Heeden, on 28 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

As a side note flank attacks are usually best served with an enfilade.

precisely tactics gota use em or get stomped by them

[EvilCow]

I have to agree with some of the previous posts.

The risk is that 3PV is going to backfire regardless how it is implemented. Let me explain.

If you are going to limit the functionality of 3PV it should be because you want 1PV and 3PV players to be able to play together, I assume because you don't want to split the community and I agree on this. This solution is going to backfire because it will be seen by 3PV players as too limiting, what's the point of 3PV if I can't get the advantages it is supposed to have? 1PV players will not appreciate the single queue anyway.

If you want really to keep separate queues between 1PV and 3PV then it is going to backfire in a variety of modes, let me list some:
1) Split community, bad idea but we are already going there thanks to regional servers, it is just going the situation worse.
2) What is the point of a limited 3PV when you have separate queues? this is not a consistent plan, you either do it or not do it.
3) Hack risks. I imagine you understand that anything client side can be hacked *easily*. 3PV could be unlocked in order to make lame 3PV players contaminate the 1PV queues then I imagine somebody will add to mech models a 30 meters tall pole with a sign on top stating "3PV ***** behind this hill" (I saw this in MW4 and archives were protected there, also the code image was protected).

Stating that it will be designed to be safe makes really me laugh, I could take the challenge if I hadn't better things to do.

[Vilemind]

I was very anti the idea of 3rd person, but the ideas at the bottom of the OP are pretty good.
Essentially you get to play your "Grr I am a robot, STOMP" game with less information warfare (HUD, targeting info etc), the camera locking and pulling in etc are great suggestions to limit any advantages of it.
On the surface of it it is likely it will be good for 2 things:

1) Looking at how pretty your mech is.
2) Working out just where that light player humping your leg is - something a rear view mirror etc would allow but the engine has trouble with.

In other ways is sounds like you will lose more than you gain, as long as the shake and vision blur features from weapons impact show across the screen instead of just the cockpit.

My main concern here isn't that 3rd person is implemented - the suggestions seem to be decent as to how to balance it. It is that development and design resources will be diverted from other projects such as getting Community Warfare etc implemented.

I can see a publisher pushing for 3rd person because, well, publishers tend to panic and have feature jealousy.
If the game was porting to console this would make a lot of sense, but console vs PC is a recipe for ******** console players unless you cripple the PC controls. And we have no indications of a port here.

The question will be in return on investment. What are the projected costs vs the benefits. How many new players will be attrached/disatisfied players retained agains the cost of development and delaying other features.

TL:DR - 3rd person is a storm in a teacup and good suggestions have been made for balancing it. What is it pushing back in the development queue, and is the return worth the investment?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Vilemind, on 29 March 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

2) Working out just where that light player humping your leg is - something a rear view mirror etc would allow but the engine has trouble with.

Quote

TL:DR - 3rd person is a storm in a teacup and good suggestions have been made for balancing it.

Hey, look, an advantage that the 1st player does NOT HAVE. Good in even in that 1st person and 3rd person mixed que.and even with the limited perception suggestions.

So wheres the balance FOR that light "humping your leg" or does he not matter because you dont like his playstyle?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 29 March 2013 - 03:02 AM.

[raptorak]

If there is going to be 3RD Person View, I want a 1st Person View without the Cockpit as compensation.

[EvilCow]

raptorak, on 29 March 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

If there is going to be 3RD Person View, I want a 1st Person View without the Cockpit as compensation.

This is crazy talk, where the bobble head would go?

[Heeden]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 29 March 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

Hey, look, an advantage that the 1st player does NOT HAVE. Good in even in that 1st person and 3rd person mixed que.and even with the limited perception suggestions.

So wheres the balance FOR that light "humping your leg" or does he not matter because you dont like his playstyle?

The light humping your leg has the advantage of being able to see where he is going and what you are doing, allowing him to stick on your 6 without hitting a wall or other mech.

[Jestun]

I wonder if this would still be happening if there wasn't another more arcadey 3rd person mech game being developed at the same time by a different company?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Jestun, on 29 March 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

I wonder if this would still be happening if there wasn't another more arcadey 3rd person mech game being developed at the same time by a different company?

Yeah, GEE I WONDER

Heeden, on 29 March 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

The light humping your leg has the advantage of being able to see where he is going and what you are doing, allowing him to stick on your 6 without hitting a wall or other mech.

Yeah and the ONLY way to fix this is to introduce 3rd person, not tile the up/down of the torsos so you can shoot then yourself (and you know, shoot down hills and make gaining the high ground a BENEFIT in this game instead of a liability).
OR stand with a group so they can shoot the ******, OR stand by a wall so he CANT get behind you. But those are already in game and Im guessing youve discounted using in game tactics as per sig.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 29 March 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[EvilCow]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 29 March 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Yeah, GEE I WONDER

Me too.

I mean... not that I wonder too, it is the "me too" syndrome.

[MWHawke]

Hauser, on 28 March 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

In 3P you get to see torso and leg orientation, not just from a little arrow on the map or a hud-indicator, you see the mech stepping sideways while the torso is turned forward. You get to see the torso rotating on the legs. If you've played a few MW games you'll have internalized it. You're not even thinking about it, you just know it. A new player, he doesn't. He can understand he turns left and right when his legs turn but if he also starts looking left and right it gets complicated. Once that happens he doesn't understand why his mech is walking off in a different direction from the one he is looking.

You don't remember your first time? In spend hours in MW4 trying to master it, and that was with 3P. Only reason I picked up MWO so fast was because I'm used to the concept of having legs and a torso

- HOW do these ideas make the game less intimidating?

• Camera is locked horizontally to the torso. This is not a peek around corners mode.
  
• Camera is locked vertically to the torso, you can only look up and down as far as your torso can.
  
• When approaching cover (to rocks/building etc), the camera pulls IN so FoV is greatly reduced when standing close to something.

- If you are talking about locking the view and giving an up-close view, then the intimidated players will still be unable to see their legs to help them torso twist or whatever justification is given for 3PV.

Redmond Spiderhammer, on 28 March 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

I've never been clear on why people think a highly advanced 20-100 ton robot SHOULD be able to 'sneak' up on another highly advanced 20-100 ton robot. You cant even sneak up on any car built in the last 60 years unless the driver is being willfully ignorant and most current model cars offer a rear view camera... sneak up?! really?! This argument against 3pv should make people who put it forth feel dumb. I know it makes everyone else feel a little dumber for having read it.

ETA: Sorry that was needlessly mean to the poster... apologies.. but my sentiment on that as a reason not to have 3pv stands

You obviously know nothing about 1PV. Don't call people posting things dumb when you are ignorant. I have killed many Mechs whom did not realize they were being shot from behind.

Teralitha, on 28 March 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

One poster mentioned something that I thought was more than fair. List some of the ideas we've been toying with in order for it to work. These are just SOME of the ideas we've been discussing:

• Camera is locked horizontally to the torso. This is not a peek around corners mode.
  
• Camera is locked vertically to the torso, you can only look up and down as far as your torso can.
  
• When approaching cover (to rocks/building etc), the camera pulls IN so FoV is greatly reduced when standing close to something.
  
• HUD will be significantly reduced if not completely removed.

Again, these are a few of the ideas we're working on. Please keep that in mind when posting.







Why implement 3rd person with such strict rules? Im pretty sure thats not what your 3rd person player base really wants.

Its like your trying to halfass it. Just go all the way full 3rd person if you really want to draw them in. If you make it so strict, those players will try it out, and they will say... this is lame. Or in other words, they wont like it.

Let them have the full on look around the corner/over the wall no restrictions 3rd person view. And then let them give feedback about it, and if they want to add those restrictions, then you add them. No point in programming more things into it than is necessary for the initial implementation until you know its what players want and you can get it in the game sooner.

Wow.. I never thought I'd see a more dumb-the-game-down post...

[FaceRipt]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 29 March 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

Hey, look, an advantage that the 1st player does NOT HAVE. Good in even in that 1st person and 3rd person mixed que.and even with the limited perception suggestions.

So wheres the balance FOR that light "humping your leg" or does he not matter because you dont like his playstyle?

yup same point i was makeing earlier

[DeaconW]

First, it is true that the poll was not "scientific"...both "sides" need to get over that. But neither is "guessing what all the people who didn't vote in the poll think". Here is the truth: PGI asked the right question to the group who should be most likely to contain a large percentage of their target demographic(passionate and paying players are more likely to be forumites)....and then promptly got distracted by what they THINK "the masses" want and ignored that data. But mathematically, that data has to be, at least marginally, more useful than randomly inventing what "the masses" want based on the composition of the poll being most likely to be of people who are more likely to be passionate and paying customers. Unless "Paying Customers" are indeed, NOT, the target demographic. Which would be odd. For a business.

So I believe that I, and many others here who are passionate and paying wrt MWO, have two choices:

1. Continue to pay PGI and passionately express our view of the game and decisions PGI makes with the goal of making the best MW game possible. This way there is a chance this could be the reboot the MW franchise needs that keeps it a challenging game with respect for its history and legacy and a lore and gameplay that separates it from the COD clones and Hawken-type mechQuake games out there...

or

2. Withhold money and feedback(positive or negative), and let PGI go with their initial instincts on decisions they make for the game. After all, they own the IP right now and have a right to execute their vision of the game. The upside to this choice is that MWO will die quickly so that another company can soon pick up the IP and the passionate paying customers can work with them...

For the record, I was a diehard "1"...with this flip-flop on 3PV, combined with other interesting choices such as those concerning ECM and R&R, as well as actively trying to prevent community generated competition, I'm now on the fence on which choice to make in the future...Just like my MC balance, my "PGI goodwill" credits are pretty close to zero, and it appears unlikely either will be refilled anytime soon...

[zudukai]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

can not and will not be balanced, do not have! no!

this will mar MWO forever more, as the game dives to the depths of the loo more and more doo cover the seams.

p.s. are you F***ing insane?

[Zynk]

You will have the following options as a player:

• Play against 1st and 3rd person players.
  
• Play against 3rd person players only.
  
• Play against 1st person players only.

I'm one of the NO 3rd person people because IMO my only options to play will be choices 1 & 2 and if as I fear that will happen it will make sad & mad because I will have to find another game to play.

It comes down to perception why should I gimp myself when 3rd person gives me an advantage. It is that type of attitude which will kill the 1st person and make the game unplayable for people like me.

Edited by Zynk, 29 March 2013 - 01:02 PM.