2001 replies to this topic

[Alois Hammer]

SirLANsalot, on 31 March 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

ok so I can see how people are fearing 3P from the poptarting days of MW4, and those fears are not unfounded. However you need to keep in mind, PGI KNOWS THIS. How the hell do you think 3P will be the same?

Multiple repetitions (every MW game to date) + PGI.

Quote

Poptarting WILL NEVER HAPPEN the way it was in MW4 with 3P.

Poptarting's already happening, Einstein...but feel free to tell us how adding 3rd person will discourage it.

[Alienfreak]

SirLANsalot, on 31 March 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

ok so I can see how people are fearing 3P from the poptarting days of MW4, and those fears are not unfounded. However you need to keep in mind, PGI KNOWS THIS. How the hell do you think 3P will be the same? Poptarting WILL NEVER HAPPEN the way it was in MW4 with 3P. Its been said a billion times and seems to be said again.

The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
and again
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now

For you of small mind this means if your mechs pilot DID NOT SEE IT HAPPEN, it will not show up. You can have a craziest FoV out there...but you wont see a damn thing if your pilot would not of seen it in the first place as it is now in 1P.

This will never happen.

it would mean that if you only see the Head of an Atlas that is standing behind a slope in 1PV but are in 3rd PV you would see a Head floating in the air. This will NEVER happen. This would make the game look so bad nobody would even touch it with a stick.

What PGI said is that your sensors will not pick it up. (So you can't R it into that targetty target mode)

Quote

LOS targetting is NOT affected by 3rd person. If you cannot target it from 1st person, you cannot target it in 3rd.

Nothing else.

But AFAIK the only weapons that need a lock are SSRM and LRM. And which popper uses those?

Edited by Alienfreak, 31 March 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[EvilCow]

Alienfreak, on 31 March 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

But AFAIK the only weapons that need a lock are SSRM and LRM. And which popper uses those?

Working as intended, poptarding enhance feature, because everybody like poptards.

Brings back all the old memories of poptarding MK2s with buggy hitboxes, who would not like that.

Edited by EvilCow, 31 March 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[MischiefSC]

I'm already having trouble finding matches even when I pug. You want to reduce that even more? Splitting into 3PV and 1PV servers is mostly going to mean that the lower Elo folks will likely go 3PV (since it gives an advantage) while the higher Elo folks will stay 1PV (they don't want forced into 3PV to stay competitive, if they couldn't figure out how to aim their feet they wouldn't have gotten out of the underhive to begin with).

What this means is that those of us who are midrange Elo are going to get extra-shafted since the smaller 1PV population will have to reach down further in Elo to populate higher Elo games.

I truly don't mean to offend anyone and I'm not trying to flame but let's make this perfectly crystal clear and on the table -

Adding 3PV serves only one purpose and that is to make the game simpler for people who struggle with 1st person view. It dumbs the game down in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER as removing heat or ammo restrictions. It reduces the challenge and caliber of the game.

This is a discussion about how best to add Hello Kitty to MWO. If you're a Hello Kitty fan I can see where this is exciting to you but don't pretend that 3PV is anything else, it's disingenuous and clouds an otherwise reasonable discussion.

Having an easy mode would make the game more appealing to casual players. Doing so is something PGI promised they wouldn't do early on - it's one of the things that helped build a foundation of players for a game still in Beta.

If we're going this route why are we not also offering no heat/no ammo servers? I'm not being sarcastic here. If we're at the point where we're discussing what core foundations of the game we're going to put aside in order to increase the playerbase then why are we trying to pretend that it's something other than it is? If you're going to do 3PV go all the way with it. Give it full HUD, targeting, etc. Don't pretend that you're instituting 3PV 'Oh, but it's going to be just like first person and it'll have limitations'. All you're going to do is irritate the 3PV folks since nobody in the serious 1PV camp will ever, for any reason, associate in anyway with the 3PV experience. You're putting it in for the folks who enjoy the easymode casual experience. Give them what they want.

My question for PGI and I feel everyones question for PGI should be this -

If you open up 3PV/unlimited ammo/no heat/unlimited respawn casual gamer servers to get more players how can you guarantee the quality of my experience isn't going to change since I didn't come to the game for that? I want the game to be successful. I want PGI to make money. I'm happy to support things that will make them money and make the game successful. I am not, however, in favor doing so in a way which will degrade my game experience. If someone people will only play MWO if they get easy mode that's fine. Just do it and give them full 3PV with hud, reticule and all that stuff. Don't half-a$$ it. Nobody who wants 1PV play will touch 3PV or play in those servers anyway. Give them the Barbie Mech Rescue experience for all I care.

Just tell me how you're going to institute separate easy-mode servers without it affecting my game experience because my concern is it's going to throw an already in development MM system into a tailspin.

Edited by MischiefSC, 31 March 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[EvilCow]

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Adding 3PV serves only one purpose and that is to make the game simpler for people who struggle with 1st person view. It dumbs the game down in EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER as removing heat or ammo restrictions. It reduces the challenge and caliber of the game.

Don't rush things, NH and UA have not been announced yet.

[MischiefSC]

EvilCow, on 31 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Don't rush things, NH and UA have not been announced yet.

That's my question though and I feel a legitimate one.

3PV is an easy mode way of playing the game. That's alright, some people are playing the game for fun and want easy mode. PGI recognizes that you can't mix 3PV and 1PV and that's good. So why are we playing with the pretext that 3PV isn't easy mode? Why are we trying to build all these restrictions into 3PV and pretend that somehow it's something other than it is?

If the reason they're considering breaking a promise to their consumers and backers and damaging the trust of their community is because they really want to broaden the games appeal to casual gamers I can understand that. They're in it to make money. They want to cast the net wider and feel like this might do that. So why not just do it? Full 3PV, throw in some NH/NA options, give them a couple Solaris VII arena style maps and let the kids play.

Give me some sort of assurances that it won't impact my gameplay since I and it sounds like every other 1PV player will never touch or be involved in 3PV in any way stripping all the casual players out of the game won't affect the MM or my gameplay experience and I'm all for it.

Make sure that 3PV never has any impact on CW so that you don't have competitive players getting their metagame shafted by the casual gamers.

Just quit pretending that dressing 3PV up is changing what it is. This just feels like putting lipstick on a horse to me.

Stop it. I would respectfully submit that adding a solid tutorial, adding CW and separate premade/pug queues with their respective Elos would do far more to attract new players but it's PGIs game. If PGI feels adding easy mode servers will broaden appeal than awesome, say so and look at doing so just do it honestly. This talk about adding 3PV at all is already a breech of trust. Deal with it honestly and move forward. Stop trying to pretend that 3PV with some basic restrictions isn't 3PV and isn't dumbing the game down to broaden appeal. If you have to then you have to.

Be honest with us. That's what I'm asking.

[Coolant]

IceSerpent, on 30 March 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

I think you are missing the point here - yes, there were (and are) people who want 3PV, and yes, this was never a big problem with MW4 Mercs because there was no need to put everybody into a single pool. You wanted 1PV - you played NBT, you wanted 3PV - you played MekTek, and everybody was happy. Besides, servers were run by players, so money was not a huge concern.

In MWO the situation is completely different due to all players being in a single pool by design. So, we are not talking about just adding a new "game mode", we are talking about losing customers. It's either-or scenario: if PGI keeps the game 1PV only, they won't get new players that want 3PV, but will retain the existing players that want 1PV. If PGI introduces 3PV, they'll potentially get new players who liek 3PV (assuming that those players can be convinced to switch from WoT), but will undoubtedly lose the existing players who like 1PV.

Splitting the community? According to the infamous poll, you'll have 4000ish 1PV only players - plenty of players to get a match or league play. That's what that poll showed right? To say differently would be to invalidate many of the votes. How many players that voted for 1PV will actually leave when 3rd Person is implemented? Hmmm that is up to debate. There may be players that post that they will leave, but will they really? And, those that voted but didn't post, will they leave? Hmmm...something tells me not as many will leave as you think. If even 25% flat out leave that still leaves close to 3000 of just those that voted.

So, what about units/houses that have some players that want 1PV and others 3PV. Pretty simple...when they are doing unit/house functions/matches/league play that drop in the majority, when they are playing alone they can play whatever they want. It is up to the unit/house to decide that not PGI...PGI just offers options. You want to reduce options? Then you reduce the potential player base, maybe angering (some) of the core, but growing the game in the long run; money = longevity.

CSJ Ranger, on 31 March 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

yes, on these servers then played primarily children, with unlimited ammo / Heat, their laser boats, jump sniping and all the other crap that BT makes just not why UDN veterans who may also want to pay what changed to MWLL

It doesn't matter whether the players were good, bad, ugly, pretty, red, yellow, black, white, transgendered, or aliens from outer space. 3rd Person targets a potential large influx of players and Mercs proved there is a market for 3rd Person players whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

[MischiefSC]

Coolant, on 31 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Splitting the community? According to the infamous poll, you'll have 4000ish 1PV only players - plenty of players to get a match or league play. That's what that poll showed right? To say differently would be to invalidate many of the votes. How many players that voted for 1PV will actually leave when 3rd Person is implemented? Hmmm that is up to debate. There may be players that post that they will leave, but will they really? And, those that voted but didn't post, will they leave? Hmmm...something tells me not as many will leave as you think. If even 25% flat out leave that still leaves close to 3000 of just those that voted.

So, what about units/houses that have some players that want 1PV and others 3PV. Pretty simple...when they are doing unit/house functions/matches/league play that drop in the majority, when they are playing alone they can play whatever they want. It is up to the unit/house to decide that not PGI...PGI just offers options. You want to reduce options? Then you reduce the potential player base, maybe angering (some) of the core, but growing the game in the long run; money = longevity.



It doesn't matter whether the players were good, bad, ugly, pretty, red, yellow, black, white, transgendered, or aliens from outer space. 3rd Person targets a potential large influx of players and Mercs proved there is a market for 3rd Person players whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Yes, 3PV will widen the potential player base. So would removing ammo/heat management and any number of features to cater to a wider, more casual audience.

The question is, is that what's best for the game in the long run? CoD is already there.

[Coolant]

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Yes, 3PV will widen the potential player base. So would removing ammo/heat management and any number of features to cater to a wider, more casual audience.

The question is, is that what's best for the game in the long run? CoD is already there.

I never once heard any of the previous PC Mechwarrior titles compared to CoD because of any supposed similarities despite a third-person alternate view being available in MechWarrior versions 2, 3 and 4.

http://en.wikipedia....eo_game_series)

Edited by Coolant, 31 March 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Heeden]

MWHawke, on 31 March 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

Apparently, there are people out there who need to have a hover-cam on their shoulder or they will walk into a wall cause they can't see their hips orientation.

Don't be silly, humans have proprioception so you don't need visual feed-back to know your body's orientation (although it can often help).

FaceRipt, on 31 March 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

I know right, it's sad when you think about it really. Are you that stupid you can't figure out motion, how did you ever learn to walk, you don't get to see yourself in 3pv when your a child

Embarrassingly it took me months to learn how to walk and I was still pretty clumsy for a couple of years. MW isn't quite as difficult but the principle is the same. You only need to develop muscle-memory for your hands and all the information is presented visually (no need to recognise signals from your inner-ear or the aforementioned proprioception).

However the all-visual feedback can be a double-edged sword. Transferring your attention from the 3D game world to a 2D map or compass can be jarring, especially when your mind is occupied with remembering the controls (which operate in a fairly unique way compared to other games). That's why it would be useful for beginners to have a view of their own mech to see how it is oriented.

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

3PV is an easy mode way of playing the game. That's alright, some people are playing the game for fun and want easy mode. PGI recognizes that you can't mix 3PV and 1PV and that's good. So why are we playing with the pretext that 3PV isn't easy mode? Why are we trying to build all these restrictions into 3PV and pretend that somehow it's something other than it is?

3PV isn't being added just to attract people who only want to play that way. It's also supposed to be training wheels to get people used to piloting mechs. Giving 1PV advantages over 3PV will encourage people to switch during a match until eventually they can drive competently without using 3PV. Then they will be ready to go on to community warfare (if it is kept exclusively 1PV as we both think it should be).

I also agree 3PV only mode should have all the advantages to make 3PV as "easy mode" as possible.

MischiefSC, on 31 March 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Yes, 3PV will widen the potential player base. So would removing ammo/heat management and any number of features to cater to a wider, more casual audience.

The question is, is that what's best for the game in the long run? CoD is already there.

Do you really think removing ammo and heat management would attract more player? I don't know of any popular shooter that gives infinite ammo and I think most CoD players would complain if it was added.

Also CoD is played almost exclusively first-person so I hardly think 3.p.v. would cater to people who play it. If anyone it would be the RPG players who would want such a thing.

Edited by Heeden, 31 March 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[LordBraxton]

SirLANsalot, on 31 March 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

ok so I can see how people are fearing 3P from the poptarting days of MW4, and those fears are not unfounded. However you need to keep in mind, PGI KNOWS THIS. How the hell do you think 3P will be the same? Poptarting WILL NEVER HAPPEN the way it was in MW4 with 3P. Its been said a billion times and seems to be said again.

The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now
and again
The Spotting system will stay the same in 3P as it is now

For you of small mind this means if your mechs pilot DID NOT SEE IT HAPPEN, it will not show up. You can have a craziest FoV out there...but you wont see a damn thing if your pilot would not of seen it in the first place as it is now in 1P.

This is spouted a lot by 3rd person fans but it still has tons of gaping holes in it, that even my small mind can make out.

If your ally has an enemy targeted, you will be able to see exactly what they are doing through terrain, rather than just a red box.

Unless they plan to have floating red boxes appear in your view, which is still an advantage because you can assess the battle situation much more accurately by 3rd person peaking over terrain.

Also being able to tell what kind of weapons are hitting you from behind is an invaluable advantage.

Also being able to tell exactly how much space your mech takes up is a huge advantage, as in first person this takes a lot of practice and is very rewarding once you are familiar with a chassis. (3rd person helps when taking cover\hiding)

Sorry 3rd person is easy mode, lucky for you the devs want easy mode in every way possible

There is no way to implement third person without ruining the game for first person players or splitting the community, both bad decisions.

Edited by LordBraxton, 31 March 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Coolant, on 31 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Splitting the community? According to the infamous poll, you'll have 4000ish 1PV only players - plenty of players to get a match or league play. That's what that poll showed right? To say differently would be to invalidate many of the votes.

You are still missing it...let's say 4k players are 1PV only, 2k are 3PV only, and 1k don't care either way (if you think that majority wants 3PV, assume that 4k are 3PV only and 2k are 1PV only - it makes no difference in this case). So, we will have 4k players in one queue, 2k players in the other queue, and 1k queueing for both, with me so far?
Right now all 7k players in this example are in the same pool (let's say all of them are in the pug queue for simplicity), with 3PV in game we will have two pools of players - one with 4k-5k players, and one with 2k-3k players (1k of "undecided" players is shared between the two pools).
Depending on your preferred game mode, your effective playerbase shrinks either from 7k to 5k or from 7k to 3k. If this is not a split community, I don't know what is.

Quote

How many players that voted for 1PV will actually leave when 3rd Person is implemented? Hmmm that is up to debate. There may be players that post that they will leave, but will they really? And, those that voted but didn't post, will they leave? Hmmm...something tells me not as many will leave as you think. If even 25% flat out leave that still leaves close to 3000 of just those that voted.

Most people won't leave on principle (although some probably will), they will leave because of inability to find a match. It already takes roughly 30s to a minute to find a match with everybody in one pool, very loose Elo, and virtually no weight class matching. Splitting that pool will drastically increase queue times for both new pools (more for the smaller pool, than for the larger one obviously).
Besides, losing a full quarter of one's customers is extremely bad for business, regardless of how many remain.

Quote

So, what about units/houses that have some players that want 1PV and others 3PV. Pretty simple...when they are doing unit/house functions/matches/league play that drop in the majority, when they are playing alone they can play whatever they want.

It doesn't work this way - in this particular case (1PV vs 3PV debate) minority never agreed to "drop with the majority", they have always split off and formed a new unit in the other league. There's no reason to believe that this time around things will be any different.

Quote

It is up to the unit/house to decide that not PGI...PGI just offers options. You want to reduce options? Then you reduce the potential player base, maybe angering (some) of the core, but growing the game in the long run; money = longevity.

What makes you think that there is money to be made there? You make the game more attractive to potential new players, while losing existing players. The net result is positive only if those new players stay and give you money. Given that casual crowd is not exactly famous for either of those things, this doesn't sound like a good bet.

[MWHawke]

Heeden, on 31 March 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

Don't be silly, humans have proprioception so you don't need visual feed-back to know your body's orientation (although it can often help).

Embarrassingly it took me months to learn how to walk and I was still pretty clumsy for a couple of years. MW isn't quite as difficult but the principle is the same. You only need to develop muscle-memory for your hands and all the information is presented visually (no need to recognise signals from your inner-ear or the aforementioned proprioception).

So, since that is the case, it is easy right? So, who is being silly?

Heeden, on 31 March 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

However the all-visual feedback can be a double-edged sword. Transferring your attention from the 3D game world to a 2D map or compass can be jarring, especially when your mind is occupied with remembering the controls (which operate in a fairly unique way compared to other games). That's why it would be useful for beginners to have a view of their own mech to see how it is oriented.

3PV isn't being added just to attract people who only want to play that way. It's also supposed to be training wheels to get people used to piloting mechs. Giving 1PV advantages over 3PV will encourage people to switch during a match until eventually they can drive competently without using 3PV. Then they will be ready to go on to community warfare (if it is kept exclusively 1PV as we both think it should be).

Then keep it to training ground.. but you know what? If people learn to walk in 3PV, they still will not learn how to play in 1PV now will they?

Heeden, on 31 March 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I also agree 3PV only mode should have all the advantages to make 3PV as "easy mode" as possible.

Yes, we all know how stupid you think the human population is.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

MWHawke, on 31 March 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Then keep it to training ground.. but you know what? If people learn to walk in 3PV, they still will not learn how to play in 1PV now will they?

Precisely why this is all so dumb. "we'll put in 2pv so they can learn to walk..."
IN 3pv yeah.,... A TUTORIAL would help with 1pv, not a new view.

[Heeden]

MWHawke, on 31 March 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

So, since that is the case, it is easy right? So, who is being silly?

Easy is a relative term so still you.

Quote

Then keep it to training ground.. but you know what? If people learn to walk in 3PV, they still will not learn how to play in 1PV now will they?

So like I said, if 1PV has advantages over 3PV people will be encouraged to switch between the two until they no longer need to third.

Quote

Yes, we all know how stupid you think the human population is.

It's nothing to do with intelligence, just how you take in and process information. "Stupid" people can be good at games and intelligent ones can be awful. Also my point was to make the game-play different. Giving pilots more information on their enemies location etc. would make for slower, less twitchy games.

[SirLANsalot]

LordBraxton, on 31 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

If your ally has an enemy targeted, you will be able to see exactly what they are doing through terrain, rather than just a red box.

Unless they plan to have floating red boxes appear in your view, which is still an advantage because you can assess the battle situation much more accurately by 3rd person peaking over terrain.

And you can't do that now?
This means your ally MUST be able to see the enemy mech to start with, ergo, no advantage here because someone else is taking the hits ect ect. Hell even in WoT (one would think 3p would setup ambushes better) "peeking" around the corner with your camra is hard, and silly at best. Since you can't see anything unless someone else is spotting it for you. Even then PGI could place it so you could target that red box, but would not see the mech (aka floating box) so you would have no idea which way its facing.

LordBraxton, on 31 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Also being able to tell what kind of weapons are hitting you from behind is an invaluable advantage.

Simple fix, and one that has already been stated. If your pilot did not see it happen....it doesn't render (show up), So that PPC blast to your back.. you wont see it, all you will know will be the normal HUD UI with there hit indicators as we have now.

LordBraxton, on 31 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Also being able to tell exactly how much space your mech takes up is a huge advantage, as in first person this takes a lot of practice and is very rewarding once you are familiar with a chassis. (3rd person helps when taking cover\hiding)

Sorry 3rd person is easy mode, lucky for you the devs want easy mode in every way possible

There is no way to implement third person without ruining the game for first person players or splitting the community, both bad decisions.

World of Tanks is doing just fine.....and we will still be here when [redacted] like you storm off becasue this isn't Btech anymore. Sorry bud but this game is going to be more of a Mechwarrior game then a battlletech one, I mean it IS named Mechwarrior Online, not Battletech Online.

Edited by miSs, 31 March 2013 - 04:32 PM.
ad hominem

[MWHawke]

Heeden, on 31 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Easy is a relative term so still you.

Whatever. Good going trying to sound logical by name-calling.

Heeden, on 31 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

So like I said, if 1PV has advantages over 3PV people will be encouraged to switch between the two until they no longer need to third.

Obviously you must come from an alternate reality.

Heeden, on 31 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

It's nothing to do with intelligence, just how you take in and process information. "Stupid" people can be good at games and intelligent ones can be awful. Also my point was to make the game-play different. Giving pilots more information on their enemies location etc. would make for slower, less twitchy games.

You are right. Why not raise the fog-of-war, make the whole map available with every enemy blip locatable, their load-outs available, OMG.. just make it.. HELLO KITTY ONLINE!!!!

[LordBraxton]

SirLANsalot, on 31 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

And you can't do that now?
This means your ally MUST be able to see the enemy mech to start with, ergo, no advantage here because someone else is taking the hits ect ect. Hell even in WoT (one would think 3p would setup ambushes better) "peeking" around the corner with your camra is hard, and silly at best. Since you can't see anything unless someone else is spotting it for you. Even then PGI could place it so you could target that red box, but would not see the mech (aka floating box) so you would have no idea which way its facing.


Simple fix, and one that has already been stated. If your pilot did not see it happen....it doesn't render (show up), So that PPC blast to your back.. you wont see it, all you will know will be the normal HUD UI with there hit indicators as we have now.



World of Tanks is doing just fine.....and we will still be here when [redacted] like you storm off becasue this isn't Btech anymore. Sorry bud but this game is going to be more of a Mechwarrior game then a battlletech one, I mean it IS named Mechwarrior Online, not Battletech Online.

Thanks for making personal attacks against someone you have never met! It speaks volumes really.

1st item, this idio t realizes seeing a red square and a distance in meters through hills (as we currently have in 1st person) is 100% different than seeing an empty red square occupying terrain you can clearly see, it reveals the mechs EXACT position and what terrain he is near rather than simply direction and distance and nothing else.

2nd item- hey this id iot agrees with you on something, hopefully that is how they would implement it, it would remove 1 broken element from the equation, leaving us with only several others.

3rd item- What does world of tanks have to do with this discussion at all? They are completely different games if you had not noticed, the most similar features are the pricing structure. Also I didn't bring up Battletech either.

Do you play Battletech from a first person perspective? This i diot is jealous!

Please reveal to me your ways, as I play battletech from a birds eye view, and mechwarrior from first person.

I reported you for personal attacks, but that doesn't do anything so no worries.

[Heeden]

MWHawke, on 31 March 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

You are right. Why not raise the fog-of-war, make the whole map available with every enemy blip locatable, their load-outs available, OMG.. just make it.. HELLO KITTY ONLINE!!!!

Actually dude that sounds more like an online version of Battletech, as far as I know Hello Kitty: Online doesn't have enemies or load-outs.

[MischiefSC]

If 3PV is being introduced as a 'training mode' then, again, why play around with it?

My take is that if 3PV is being introduced to simplify the game for people who prefer that then why do it half-a$$ed? Why not just give full 3PV for those servers or training experience or what have you.

Again, my question is, can it be confirmed that having 3PV servers won't in any perceivable way impact my game experience than I've got no problem with it. All for it. That's not the impression I get however. The impression being given is that there's some attempt to 'compromise' by introducing a 'limited 3PV' to attract more people and make the game more accessible. That I don't agree with as it will negatively impact my game experience by increasing queue times or forcing me to play 3PV.

3PV is an easier game mode. Just be honest with that - why water it down? There's nothing different from introducing it than no heat/no ammo modes or any other simplified play mode to make the game easier and more accessible to casual players. Just please don't pretend that it's not going back on a promise, changing a pillar upon which the game was originally presented and potentially greatly changing the games experience for everyone.

A more honest discussion would help.