2001 replies to this topic

[MentalPatient]

How about when you go into 3rd person view, the depth of field closes into about 50 meters, with everything beyond that blurred. Also no HUD, and controls are frozen. Effectively this view becomes useless but you can see your mech.

[Jestun]

tbh I think we should move away from the "but they said 1st person and 3rd person will never have to play together!" argument.

Maybe this will be the case for the matchmaker, but do you really think they will split it out in CW?

[Terran123rd]

Jestun, on 17 April 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Maybe this will be the case for the matchmaker, but do you really think they will split it out in CW?

I think they won't let 3rd person in CW at all.

[CyBerkut]

Syllogy, on 16 April 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

If I wanted tension and immersion, I would rig up a shotgun pointed at the back of my head that goes off when my mech gets blown up.

Sounds like a good idea, no?

Well sure... once.

You're not expecting those of us who favor first person view only to try and talk you out of that, are you?

OK, OK... I'll try, even if it is against my better judgement. Please don't rig up a shotgun aimed at the back of your head. After all, if IGP/PGI are banking on this 3PV scheme to get them a net positive increase in paying players, they can't afford to lose you like that.

{aside} There honey, I've done my good deed for the day. Now leave me alone so I can concentrate on this game, please! {/aside}

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Gremlich Johns, on 13 April 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Will matches in Community Warfare be 1st Person View only?

Do we have an official answer yet cause I think we need one. Hey I think Ill ask on Twitter because thats probably the only way we'll GET one

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honest answer.

The analysis on those who voted, showed that the majority of votes came from a very narrow demographic of our player base. And while they represent some of core players, they did not necessarily represent the opinion of the general user base. The majority of our players never visit, post, or read the forum content, so the poll could be considered weighted in favour of a specific demographic.

Since the majority of players who have an issue with 3rd person come generally from the core players, we elected to address this issue via this forum post to collect all of the concerns and ideas that this group faces or has with 3rd person.

This is an amazing quote given that 21 ppl "like"d the idea that they dont listen to us on the forums no matter how many replies your thread/poll gets

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

pow pow, on 15 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

Greetings,

Before adding 3pv, please consider introducing more game modes. (and i m not talking modes like assault/conquest)

when asked about playerbase fragmentation (this is germane to your point about more game modes in Bryan's reply) Byran says:

Quote

Shumabot, on 21 March 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I asked this a bit ago, but you might not have seen it. What is your plan to avoid playerbase fragmentation? Do you think that a full release population boom would be able to absorb the issue, keeping in mind that you're also planning on splitting up regional servers?

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

This is one of our largest concerns. In fact, it's one of the reasons we don't just jam in more game modes. Yes, a theoretical boom would help ease a transition, but we're not going to rely on that to solve this issue. We are still formulating a plan. I don't have a complete answer for you at this time.

[pow pow]

I am hoping they want this game to reach a large market, with esports potential and a seriously large player base akin to games like sc2, bf series, lol, wot etc.

Limiting what players can do within a game, or, telling the players 'how' to play the game can only help to narrow the player base. To me, this is one of the reasons why this game caters mostly to a niche demographic (people in love with mecha, such as myself).

Think about lol for a sec. Hardly any content (2-3 maps) apart from a massive toon selection and shoddy graphics. easy to pickup but very very hard meta. Lots of options to launch games and amazing gameplay potential. That's the kind of game I would like mwo to become. Have a place for its pros to battle it out, have an option for casuals to have fun, noobs to learn without being stomped all the time, etc...

Having said all that, I am going to carry on playing because I am a mech addict. What really upsets me though is that none of my game addict friends who are not as big mecha fans as myself, can't seem to pick this game up and play it for more than 5-10 drops.

I used to drop 20-30 times per day when I picked this up in February... now that I mastered 3 variants from 5 mechs, it gets kinda boring and i only drop 3-4 times per day if even that. The gameplay has become too samey and even though there is fun to be had dropping with a team... i am afraid I don't have many friends who are willing to put up with all the mwo quirks when playing seriously.

[Sancho Villa]

Glad I found this thread before I purchased a hero mech and more bays.

I will not be spending any more money on MC until we find out if this will only be implemented as a training tool and not have separate leagues, matches etc. dedicated to 3PV.

My suggestion? Training grounds only for 3PV.

Sidenote, add a real tutorial to the game, your data that shows people quitting in droves? Its cause they don't know how to play the fricken game.

[Barghest Whelp]

Here's a thought. What if when 3PV is active you get no HUD (or corshair) and you can't change modes during battle?

Either that or my previous idea of only allowing 3PV when the mech is fully shut down. Could even be a combination of the two. See, I think these ideas could eliminate any need for splitting the playerbase.

My point being, there's a distinct advantage to 3PV but no real drawbacks. This means that once it's available everybody is forced to use it.

Level the playingfield and we have a workable solution.

[WolvesX]

I see a hugh problem with the different quess, it splits the community, as EU only NA only servers would.

Imo a questionable idea.

I would prefere if the resources put into 3rd PV are used for something more important, like bug fixing or balancing.

[Mystere]

I think the following requires frequent repetition:

If visual and sensor parity can be achieved between first and third-person views, player segregation will not be necessary.

Anyone who still insists on player segregation, even if parity is achieved, is just exposing their personal bias.

Edited by Mystere, 18 April 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[CyBerkut]

Visual Parity between 3PV and 1PV is impossible. 3PV by definition, allows you to see things you can not see in 1PV. If it did not, it would serve no useful function to anyone, and would not be desired more than 1PV by some people.

PGI indicated that they were looking at adding 3PV to help people who were not grasping how to handle leg turning vs torso twisting. Even a very limited 3PV that still managed to provide assistance with that 'problem' would be providing visual information in 3PV that is not available in 1PV. If that were not so, there would be no point in adding in 3PV.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 18 April 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Anyone who still insists on player segregation, even if parity is achieved, is just exposing their personal bias.

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

• 
  
  
  
• Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person.

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.
  
• Players can set their preference in the options menu, or during the launch phase before matchmaking.

ah so now Paul is biased youre saying?

CyBerkut, on 18 April 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Visual Parity between 3PV and 1PV is impossible. 3PV by definition, allows you to see things you can not see in 1PV. If it did not, it would serve no useful function to anyone, and would not be desired more than 1PV by some people.

PGI indicated that they were looking at adding 3PV to help people who were not grasping how to handle leg turning vs torso twisting. Even a very limited 3PV that still managed to provide assistance with that 'problem' would be providing visual information in 3PV that is not available in 1PV. If that were not so, there would be no point in adding in 3PV.

Yeah I dont understand how 3pv driving is going to ever help ppl getting into 1st person.
Heres hoping CW is 1st person only or they do 3 whole CW games, one for each view type

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 April 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

ah so now Paul is biased youre saying?



Yeah I dont understand how 3pv driving is going to ever help ppl getting into 1st person.
Heres hoping CW is 1st person only or they do 3 whole CW games, one for each view type

It has nothing to do with helping any players but more to do with a sadly pathetic reach out to the CoD crowd that the investors are praying to pull in to move MWO from a niche game to more main stream. It wont work but it will help run this game in the ground, which when that happens I will be here to point and say ... TOLD YOU SO.

[Devil Fox]

I think the community on the forums will still be here to say "told you so"... what they won't have are the CoD crowd that they wanted to pull in initially, why because for a game that is taking well over a year to develop the metagame content (90days after Open Beta anyone?), the CoD crowd will be onto their 3rd or 4th rehash game variant and probably won't be interested in any amount of long term gameplay.

[Ilwrath]

Mr Bryan Ekman;

Do you consider adding auto-aim like they got in World of Tanks when you add 3rd person view?
All the circling strafing scouts want to know.

Maybe this has been talked about before in this thread but its so huge so I have to simply ask.

[Mystere]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 April 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

ah so now Paul is biased youre saying?

Hardly. I say he was a bit too quick in trying to appease certain people.

CyBerkut, on 18 April 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Visual Parity between 3PV and 1PV is impossible. 3PV by definition, allows you to see things you can not see in 1PV. If it did not, it would serve no useful function to anyone, and would not be desired more than 1PV by some people.

PGI indicated that they were looking at adding 3PV to help people who were not grasping how to handle leg turning vs torso twisting. Even a very limited 3PV that still managed to provide assistance with that 'problem' would be providing visual information in 3PV that is not available in 1PV. If that were not so, there would be no point in adding in 3PV.

It most certainly is not impossible. It's all mostly mathematics.

Also, people seem to always overlook the "sensor" part of my "visual and sensor parity" statement.

Here's a question: what do your sensors and other equipment tell you -- about your enemies, your team mates, your mech, and your immediate environment -- that the cockpit view cannot, especially at farther distances?

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 19 April 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Hardly. I say he was a bit too quick in trying to appease certain people.

It most certainly is not impossible. It's all mostly mathematics.

Road apples. You will be able to see things in 3PV that can not be seen in 1PV. Otherwise, there is no rational reason to have it. Visual parity is impossible.

Quote

Also, people seem to always overlook the "sensor" part of my "visual and sensor parity" statement.

Here's a question: what do your sensors and other equipment tell you -- about your enemies, your team mates, your mech, and your immediate environment -- that the cockpit view cannot, especially at farther distances?

I didn't overlook it. I simply consider it irrelevant. We've already seen what sway the whiners hold. There is no way they will settle for reduced sensor performance in exchange for the visual advantages gained. If the devs tried to pick some level of reduced sensor performance in an effort to 'balance' things, there will be plenty of people that believe it is either too much or too little.

It's supposedly moot any ways. As has already been pointed out, the devs stated that there would be separation available between POV choices. If they pull a 'coolant flush' style reversal on that decision, it would be truly regrettable.

The burning questions at this point are not whether there will be separation of POV play, but rather to what degree?

Will 3PV be allowed in Community Warfare? If so, do they realize that they will need to have a separate CW universe in order to avoid a 1PV team having to play a 3PV team for a planet, etc.?

Will 3PV stats be kept separate from 1PV stats for purposes of EOL, etc.? If not, how can EOL work properly?

Edited by CyBerkut, 19 April 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[Mystere]

CyBerkut, on 19 April 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Road apples. You will be able to see things in 3PV that can not be seen in 1PV. Otherwise, there is no rational reason to have it. Visual parity is impossible.



I didn't overlook it. I simply consider it irrelevant. We've already seen what sway the whiners hold. There is no way they will settle for reduced sensor performance in exchange for the visual advantages gained. If the devs tried to pick some level of reduced sensor performance in an effort to 'balance' things, there will be plenty of people that believe it is either too much or too little.

It's supposedly moot any ways. As has already been pointed out, the devs stated that there would be separation available between POV choices. If they pull a 'coolant flush' style reversal on that decision, it would be truly regrettable.

The burning questions at this point are not whether there will be separation of POV play, but rather to what degree?

Will 3PV be allowed in Community Warfare? If so, do they realize that they will need to have a separate CW universe in order to avoid a 1PV team having to play a 3PV team for a planet, etc.?

Will 3PV stats be kept separate from 1PV stats for purposes of EOL, etc.? If not, how can EOL work properly?

I think you are still missing my point. As such, I will just say it directly:

Render in 3PV all the information, and only the information, that both the cockpit view and sensors are saying.

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2013 - 02:39 PM.