2002 replies to this topic

[Divine Madcat]

Oy of MidWorld, on 21 March 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

That's really bad. Guess that means it'll take a long time before we get anything better than terrible basecap mode and more terrible even more bases to cap mode. Maybe i'll have to take a break. Rather ****** at the moment.

Agreed.. Want more players? Bring in more variety with mechs, modes, and CW. Bryan, your time is wasted on 3rd P.. the sole focus needs to be CW/Modes... your are losing dedicated players while this gets delayed.

[Roadbeer]

Demoned, on 21 March 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

i thought we were been civil ? lol

hell this is one of, if not the best damn topic i've seen in awhile and, lack off flaming is very refreshing
see what happens when some one answers questions, that people have been asking for a good while now.
it turns out, it doesn't turn into a troll war lol

and codo's to all so far for keeping it clean.

It's because it's in a sub-forum of General Discussion, those who "Bang the rocks together" haven't found it yet because they're used to scrolling past 37 pinned topics.

Let's keep this sub-forum our little secret shall we?

[Targetloc]

I might occasionally drop in the 3rd person queue if they implement some kind of Dance module.

[Zyllos]

If 3rd Person is optional (thus only those who want to play against 3rd person), this is going to split the community. Are you guys not afraid that splitting the community is going to lead to rifts and issues with getting games together?

***EDIT: Nevermind, already answered.***

Edited by Zyllos, 21 March 2013 - 05:46 PM.

[Tarman]

One of the biggest problems you have as a company is your public face. It's an issue beyond your technical game additions; this is about your company reputation in the long term. This title should be your breakout title, but if you continue to handle it in this fashion it will garner you plenty more bad press.

First, this should have been the post about 3PV from the beginning. If you are dead set on this addition then you should have laid it out like you have in this post instead of letting it be an accidental surprise. Letting some jackburro run his gate on Twitter, followed by trolling of a hotbutton topic by both PGI and IGP staff is an extremely poor method of information dissemination and smears your reputation on customer handling. The first clear information on this issue after it dusted up this time, was from an IGP webjockey in the process of closing the thread in which the issue appeared. This is not the first time random employees have needlessly caused an uproar. Your PR department should not be a primary source of community aggravation.

Second, you sold many people on your core design pillars, of which you seem less concerned with following the more you develop your game. Quite apart from the details of mechanical implementation you are setting yourselves up as a company that cannot deliver on much of their original plans for various reasons; and at worst, the impression that you are intentionally moving towards a simplistic-playstyle P2W revenue model due to a lack of ability to polish the actual game.

Third, if people are having trouble learning this game, it is because you have had a very poor new player experience for a long time. It has gone from abysmal to merely bad, but it is still far from acceptable. This should have been a focus from the beginning, not something you realized you should maybe work on at some point eventually. Justifying 3PV with this concept also shows that you would rather reduce the depth of the gameplay instead of improving your learning process.

Apart from game technical issues, your handling of said issues and the community has been poor overall. One step forward and three steps back. You still have the potential to make this an excellent game but you do not give the impression that you have a good plan to get to that point.

[ICEFANG13]

As many things in life, if it was purely benefit, it would be logical to do. If the benefits are greater than the detriments, then it should be looked at. I greatly oppose 3PV, however, I highly suggest, and I assume you've come to this conclusion, that you finish some sort of tutorial before finishing this. Mentioning it, and not doing it, is actually a bad thing, but putting it in, and then yonking it away (either because it only works in X or etc), is very bad. You see how players feel about their weapon systems, and how a slight change can change a lot, but doing something very heavy to it, that is dangerous, and then limiting when it can be used?

At least do tutorials first, please.

[Shakespearicles]

I don't mind third person, but please do not split the playerbase. There is no way that can go well. I feel that if you should make the 3rd person line World of Tanks, is it starts out very close and aims more downward if you zoom out to prevent using it get gain an advantage.

[Zelus]

I predict this is going to cause some interesting balance issues. When a weapon or tactic becomes too powerful/weak in third-person mode, will it be nerfed/buffed for first-person mode?

We already know that 3rd person will resurrect many of the pop-tart tactics from MW4. Large Lasers, PPC's, and generally hotter, jump jetting builds will become more common.

It is already too difficult to please the community we have. The first time you adjust the balance of something because one of the game modes is suffering expect a firestorm from the other side.

I think the community is very afraid of this. The addition of 3rd person is obviously coddling a certain segment of player-base. How far will it go? If third person is added, I see the 1st person community suffering as inevitable.

[Sybreed]

If I were a dev and I decided to put 3rd person in, here are the questions I would ask myself first:

- Do I want MWO to be a competitive game
- If MWO is a competitive game, how will 3rd person affect it?
- Is 3rd person mainly a tool to attract new players, or do I want my hardcore players to use it too?
- Is it acceptable that 3rd person gives a distinct vision advantage over 1st person?

And with these questions answered, I'd think of different ways of putting 3rd person in. I think that segregating MWO like in CS:GO is a strategy that could perhaps work:

- Add a casual play style (cannot affect CW) in which you can use 3rd person
- Add a competitive play style (basically CW) in which you CANNOT use 3rd person

For casual play style, you have the option to play against 3rd person/1st person players, 3rd only, 1st only, etc.

That's just the general idea though...

[Roadbeer]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

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.

Were you the one who tweeted and this is your punishment?

[The Cheese]

If third person could be implemented in a way that doesn't give any noticeable advantage or disadvantage to either camp, would it then be necessary or desirable to segregate the player base? Do you have any ideas that could be implemented to get this result?

Edited by The Cheese, 21 March 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

Firelizard, on 21 March 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Here's a thunk, take it or leave it...

What if the 3rd person view came in the form of a UAV following your mech? You turn on the view, the thing deploys. Turn it off, it's retrieved. Even better is it can be shot at or jammed with ECM, and having it hovering over/around your mech would certainly give you away either by being visable above terrain, or making noise.

Again, take it or leave it.

Here's another idea, sort of building on top of this one:

First, don't split the playerbase into different view modes. They're already being segregated enough by region (to reduce lag) and factions/merc corps (for teamplay) and Elo score (for balancing matches).

Now how to employ a third person view in a first-person game:

Consumable Module: External Camera (C-Bill version):

• A camera that feeds into the MechWarrior's neurohelmet is lifted into the air via balloon. The balloon is tethered to the 'mech via a cable feed, which the pilot can extend/reel-in to vary the distance the balloon floats from the 'mech by a limited degree.
  
  • This balloon can be shot down by direct weapons fire (Energy/Ballistic/SRMs), but cannot be locked on by targeting computers or missiles
    
    • 1 point of damage should be enough to disable/destroy the camera
  • The balloon is transparent (although the camera module itself and the cable are not), and presents a small target
    
  • The camera feed can be interrupted/disabled by ECM.
    
  • While the camera feed may offer a view over the player's 'mech, it doesn't necessarily offer LoS info from the player's weapons to the target. First-person view will be superior for direct-fire combat
    
    • Also, you cannot gain targeting info from targets not in your 'mech's LoS. If you wouldn't be able to target it before, you wouldn't be able to target it now, even if your camera feed can show it visually.
  • As a consumable, the module must be re-purchased if destroyed/disabled
    
    • possibly also after use, but maybe the player can "reel it back in" if they manage to keep their balloon the entire match

Consumable Module: Improved External Camera (MC version):

• Same as the C-Bill version except instead of being lifted into the air via balloon, it operates as a quad-rotor helodrone (still tethered to the 'mech).
  
• While providing an even smaller target, it still suffers the rest of the limitations of the C-Bill version

Edited by DirePhoenix, 21 March 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

"DropShip" mode has evolved into Lobby a new gamemode for CW. We're not ready to discuss details yet.

Gimme dat good stuff.

EDIT: Also, thanks for the answers. This kind of thing is great; it helps (somewhat) prevent us rabid fanbase players from formulating sky-is-falling theories as to why things are happening.

Edited by GaussDragon, 21 March 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[Zelus]

The Cheese, on 21 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

If third person could be implemented in a way that doesn't give any noticeable advantage or disadvantage to either camp, would it then be necessary to segregate the player base? Do you have any ideas that could be implemented to get this result?

To my knowledge, its never been done in the history of gaming. There have been attempts (Disabling HUD, crosshairs) but they have all been easily defeated.

[WookieeFart]

As a person that loathes 3rd person view, but really have no problem with others using it. I suggest you add a toggle key like Arm Lock so I can toggle to 3rd person view if I want. That way nobody has a clear advantage.

Done.


Mahalo!

[Critical Fumble]

I don't really see the point in third person. Yes, "When you get your own developer, you can decide what is and isn't worth developing," fine; but as a player all I had to do was decide that I had to keep thinking about where my legs were. Problem solved, at least for me - and that's with just most of Heavy Gear 2, many years ago, as background in this control style.

Now with concerns, the added MM strain has been talked to death, I'll pass over that one. I'll also pass on the, "What about all the work put into the cockpit and interior deco?" as you could easily counter that with, "What about all the work put into the mech exteriors and camo options?"

Lets start with peeking around corners. If you peek from the edge of cover, you can see anyone downrange without being seen yourself. You could, hypothetically, limit this by tightly constraining FOV, but that would counteract any benefit to new pilots. Are you planing on having the client not draw enemy mechs until they've been spotted directly, like a simplistic version of what they use in WoT?

Then there's firing issues. Shooting a friendly is common enough when you're effectively looking down the sights of your guns, in third person its even harder to tell if you have a clear shot or not. You'd also have a heck of a time leading with missiles and ballistics, if cross-hair inaccuracy in other third person games is any indication. Have you considered adding in an improvement to weapon sighting? Like a TAG graphic or something similar with shapes to indicate where your arm and torso weapons will go if you fire them at any moment (actually, I'd like that in first person too). You'd also not necessarily be able to see anyone or thing immediately in front of you, either. (All mechs have a blind spot IN FRONT of them in third person)

I would agree that you could stand to do more for new players, although I think a real hands-on tutorial would help more than third person. Have you considered things that would make it easier to learn the game in first person? Such as more obvious HUD indicators? Maybe a big, blatant, bar from top to bottom of the screen to indicate leg direction, rather than a tiny triangle? I find myself relying more on my memory than that thing. You could also have something akin to a parking-assist system. Maybe a top-down isometric wire-frame of your mech and its immediate surroundings on one of those unused monitors?

[Bubba Wilkins]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Our target demographic has always been (in very simple non-marketing terms): the male action gamer looking for a little bit more than your average shooter. You can lump in someone who likes anything from Call of Duty to Flight Sims into that bucket.

Here's your problem. That demographic doesn't exist and there is no way you are going to reach them. And as a matter of fact, you can't lump them together no matter how much you want. While the two are not mutually exclusive, there is only marginal overlap. Your research should point you more towards who you're paying customers are currently and how much revenue they have generated for you. Then you take the next step and look at player retention. He/She who pays and stays are your core demographic. People like myself did not bat an eye at hitting the founders button, nor will we hesitate to buy in at the highest levels provided the game continues to provide that which we crave. The true Mechwarrior experience which we were promised.

These new simplified systems and controls are not helping you, they are hurting the gameplay. Call of Duty is making us dumb.

Now, on topic of third person. Part of the inherent learning curve is realizing that you have to learn how big your mech is and where it will fit. I rarely walk into buildings or other obstacles unless I intend to (its a good way to hit the breaks in an Atlas.) Give the players time and they will adjust. What is really needed is a better way for people to recreate and share those visceral moments. 3rd person has a place here, but only as a spectator view. Give us a replay system where we can control the playback and camera, and you will see the net flooded with videos. Player narratives will be born, tactics will be shared, and we will be able to watch them play out. I've had a number of close rounds where I really wish I could have seen the big picture. Watched mechs crest the rise only to be ambushed from the side. Imagine a 12 on 12 match on either of the new maps where you could watch the battle unfold. It would be the ultimate expression of the battle narratives born out in the novels. Half the fun of running the Tesla pods back in the day was the play back afterwards and having the printed battle report in your hand. You give us these tools and the masses will come and sustain you.

Anyway, those are my hopes and my thoughts on the subject. You guys need to realize that what you think your target demographic is and what the demographic of your player base (and by extension the paying ones), are two very different things. There is nothing wrong with reaching for new blood, but you have to remember to feed the hounds you have first.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 21 March 2013 - 05:57 PM.

[BanditRaptor]

What I don't understand is this:

This game is not the same sort of game that the average male will not actively seek out to play. They'll have to be sold on the concept of it before wanting to play.

If they drop in, of course they're going to think the controls are hard. There's no in-game tutorial! A simple piloting tutorial like Mechwarrior 2's (Go to Navpoint Alpha, newbie! And then destroy the practice mech we've got set up there!) would probably work wonders, or even a step by step tutorial that shows you the ropes in phases (movement, heat management, light through assault, etc).

I'm absolutely certain that an in-game tutorial would achieve your stated goals far, far better than the inclusion of a third person mode.

[The Cheese]

Zelus, on 21 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

To my knowledge, its never been done in the history of gaming. There have been attempts (Disabling HUD, crosshairs) but they have all been easily defeated.

I was thinking about something like a FOV limitation for 3rd person players. Only allow them to see what the first person view can see. Probably not technically feasible, I know. Just throwing it out there.

The segregation of the player base is the biggest issue for me. I'd rather that it didn't have to happen.

[Vassago Rain]

You're making a critical mistake, both sides know this, and everybody knows why. There's no money or players to be gained from this - only a very swift death for MWO, and ridicule for the companies involved.

I don't feel this is something you can do right, but a can of worms you're bettter of avoiding completely, while focusing on making a presentable game, that can stand on its own merits. Then you can market, and players will spread the word.

Right now, this whole thing looks like a classic 'right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing.' If you want more players, the better solution is to make the game as it's intended functional. Add ways for us to 'tell a friend,' a mentor system, proper tutorial, ways for us to drop as groups against groups of our choice... Usability.

3rd person bolted onto counter-strike with robots won't impress anyone.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 21 March 2013 - 06:08 PM.