2001 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 19 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

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

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.

Quote

its vastly easier to get the devs to break a weapon by coming here and QQing than it is to counter it in game. and they fall apart in the face of that QQing so fast people are killed by the shrapnel

this applies here too.

[Jestun]

Mystere, on 19 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

He's not missing that, you're missing that the kind of people who want 3rd person want it because it gives them an advantage. They are not going to accept a 3rd person view which provides no more info than a 1st person view.

[Mystere]

Jestun, on 20 April 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

He's not missing that, you're missing that the kind of people who want 3rd person want it because it gives them an advantage. They are not going to accept a 3rd person view which provides no more info than a 1st person view.

Darned it. Did I miss the switch from "players do not want 3PV because it provides an advantage" to "players will not want 3PV because it does not provide enough of an advantage"?

Where was the transition point?

Is this the new tactic being employed to discourage PGI from implementing 3PV? QQ is being replaced by guile?

Edited by Mystere, 20 April 2013 - 05:28 AM.

[Jestun]

Mystere, on 20 April 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Darned it. Did I miss the switch from "players do not want 3PV because it provides an advantage" to "players will not want 3PV because it does not provide enough of an advantage"?

Where was the transition point?

Is this the new tactic being employed to discourage PGI from implementing 3PV? QQ is being replaced by guile?

Look...

If they implement a 3rd person view which displays no more than 1st person view does (i.e. no legs, no terrain / allies / enemies / munitions rendered outside of cockpit line of sight, etc) then I would have no complaints with it being added or even mixed in with the 1st person players. Because 3rd person would then offer zero advantage.


But I can assure you, the 3rd person activists will not want that. It will fail to please them so it will be all that development time for nothing.

Feel free to start up a thread asking the 3rd person supporters to vote if you think I'm making it up.


:edit:

Also you seem to not know what QQ means, it does not mean that someone disagrees with you.

Edited by Jestun, 20 April 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Mystere]

Jestun, on 20 April 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

If they implement a 3rd person view which displays no more than 1st person view does (i.e. no legs, no terrain / allies / enemies / munitions rendered outside of cockpit line of sight, etc) then I would have no complaints with it being added or even mixed in with the 1st person players. Because 3rd person would then offer zero advantage.

And again, you're limiting yourself to only what can be seen from the cockpit. Sensors and other equipment actually give much more information, just not as easy to understand:

• Your min-map (if not bugged ) already indicates the angle between torso and legs, but a 3PV render of your mech showing the same thing is easier to understand.
  
• Your HUD already tells you that you are being shot in the back, but 3PV can show that better via blast animations.
  
• Your sensors tell you that the mech you have targeted, but is currently out of LOS, lost its arms. The same mech in 3PV mod will be rendered without arms.

Now, whether or not it makes it harder for the devs, CPU, and GPU to make things work smoothly remains to be seen. It really depends on how much detail they want to go with.

Jestun, on 20 April 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

Also you seem to not know what QQ means, it does not mean that someone disagrees with you.

The "QQ" part was not in reference to you or to those who disagree with me. It refers to the actual QQ posts in this thread and in the rest of the forums in general.

[Jestun]

Mystere, on 20 April 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

And again, you're limiting yourself to only what can be seen from the cockpit. Sensors and other equipment actually give much more information, just not as easy to understand:

No, I'm limiting it to what the player can see.

Quote

• Your min-map (if not bugged ) already indicates the angle between torso and legs, but a 3PV render of your mech showing the same thing is easier to understand.

So, will it not render the environment (e.g. the low-level obstacles which you cannot see in 1st person due to the cockpit being in the way and limited vertical pitce) as well, thus displaying more than someone in 1st person has? Does the minimap / compass show when a leg is going to hit an obstacle?

Quote

Your HUD already tells you that you are being shot in the back, but 3PV can show that better via blast animations.

It shows a vague direction, and gives no details on things like weapon type. I suppose it's possible they could just render generic explosions so as to not show more detail, but it's not likely they will.
e.g. getting hit in the back with lasers in 3rd person mode would be considerably easier to track back to the source than in 1st person. Because in 3rd person you'd see the beams and the angle and know what weapon it is and where it was fired from.

Quote

• Your sensors tell you that the mech you have targeted, but is currently out of LOS, lost its arms. The same mech in 3PV mod will be rendered without arms.

Not the same thing at all. Via minimap and targetting you can tell whether it has arms and what way the legs / torso / arms are pointing (whichever of those it is that the arrow on the minimap is based on), 3rd person view looking over a boulder you see all of those as well as seeing what terrain he has around him, etc. You can see when he's firing, you can see when allies are heading towards him. You can view all this data over or around the terrain which a 1st person person cannot via any amount of in-game displays or through the cockpit window (which would just display the terrain that you are behind).

Edited by Jestun, 20 April 2013 - 08:57 AM.

[Mystere]

Jestun, on 20 April 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

3rd person view looking over a boulder you see all of those as well as seeing what terrain he has around him, etc. You can see when he's firing, you can see when allies are heading towards him. You can view all this data over or around the terrain which a 1st person person cannot via any amount of in-game displays or through the cockpit window (which would just display the terrain that you are behind).
[/list]

Given that PGI has not yet shared any information beyond what is in the OP (e.g. no mention of terrain and other hidden object effects), but have already stated that they are very much aware of the balancing challenges, what are you basing your presumed 3PV feature set on, the previous MW games?

Edited by Mystere, 20 April 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Mystere]

Buddahcjcc, on 20 April 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

arent you doing the same in assuming everything will be fine?
except the part about basing that on previous games of course

Actually, I am not assuming that everything will be fine. But, I am assuming that PGI (being Mechwarrior fans themselves) really know the balance challenges they will be facing and as such my suggestions should not be anything new to them (but which I still mentioned just in case ) but which may be new to others -- especially those so traumatized by MW4.

Edited by Mystere, 20 April 2013 - 11:01 AM.

[Jestun]

Mystere, on 20 April 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

Given that PGI has not yet shared any information beyond what is in the OP (e.g. no mention of terrain and other hidden object effects), but have already stated that they are very much aware of the balancing challenges, what are you basing your presumed 3PV feature set on, the previous MW games?

Previous games in general, balanced with the fact that they are making this addition to appear to people who want a 3rd person view (obviously). So how is implementing the view with 1st person limitations going to draw in the massive crowd of "I want to play mech games, but only if it's 3rd person... and for some reason I am unaware that I could just play Hawken for my big robot arcade action" which PGI seem to think are currently sitting on the fence?


Of course, I could be wrong. But as I have said multiple times in this thread if they implement it in such a way that it has zero advantage over first person then I have no objection to it.






However, I live in a little place called "reality". Just wait and see...

Mystere, on 20 April 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Actually, I am not assuming that everything will be fine. But, I am assuming that PGI (being Mechwarrior fans themselves) really know the balance challenges they will be facing and as such my suggestions should not be anything new to them (but which I still mentioned just in case ) but which may be new to others -- especially those so traumatized by MW4.

PGI's latest statement on ECM is that it's just about where they want it.

I'm afraid faith in their ability to balance is a little low right now...

[Mystere]

Jestun, on 20 April 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

PGI's latest statement on ECM is that it's just about where they want it.

I'm afraid faith in their ability to balance is a little low right now...

But here's the rub, and you're going to dislike me (even more?) for saying so: I agree with PGI.

Edited by Mystere, 20 April 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 19 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

How could such a thing possibly be 3PV then?. You wouldn't be able to see the outside of your mech (except for whichever portions of the arms rise into view of the cockpit). So the devs are supposed to render 3PV as a set of disembodied arms (if even that) floating in space? That would be utterly ridiculous, and I don't believe that is what a single advocate of a 3PV for MWO is actually desiring.

What you are advocating for is not possible.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 20 April 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Darned it. Did I miss the switch from "players do not want 3PV because it provides an advantage" to "players will not want 3PV because it does not provide enough of an advantage"?

Where was the transition point?

Is this the new tactic being employed to discourage PGI from implementing 3PV? QQ is being replaced by guile?

Apparently you need help with this.

There are two groups of people involved here.

- "1PV only" advocates do not want 3PV players in their matches because 3PV players will have an advantage.
- "3PV" advocates will not be satisfied with some scheme that limits the information available to them to only what could be obtained in the 1PV view (if such a thing were possible, which it isn't).

Both groups are people... they aren't the same people. The 'transition point' was from one group, to the other.

[Mystere]

CyBerkut, on 21 April 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

How could such a thing possibly be 3PV then?. You wouldn't be able to see the outside of your mech (except for whichever portions of the arms rise into view of the cockpit). So the devs are supposed to render 3PV as a set of disembodied arms (if even that) floating in space? That would be utterly ridiculous, and I don't believe that is what a single advocate of a 3PV for MWO is actually desiring.

What you are advocating for is not possible.

And again another one who focuses on the "visual" part and overlooks the "sensor" part of the equation. As such, I think it's pointless to even add "interpolation", much less "extrapolation", into the discussion. I believe it will just be an exercise in futility, frustration, or both.

And with this I exile myself completely from this topic.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 21 April 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

And again another one who focuses on the "visual" part and overlooks the "sensor" part of the equation. As such, I think it's pointless to even add "interpolation", much less "extrapolation", into the discussion. I believe it will just be an exercise in futility, frustration, or both.

And with this I exile myself completely from this topic.

So you're apparently back on this imaginary concept of mixing the visual and sensor parity to arrive at a balance. That has already been addressed earlier.

Also... it isn't what you said in this post:

Mystere, on 19 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

Those positions/concepts can not be reconciled.

Bottom line: Keep 3PV players away from 1PV play. Keep them out of 1PV matches, keep them out of 1PV Community Warfare, and keep them out of 1PV ELO. They are welcome to go play with themselves.

[Avon]

Maybe you should allow 3rd person view if the player gets out of his mech and goes for a little walk? This would also give a reason to fit machine guns.

[ZedekiahCromwell]

Honestly, this game has so much that it needs to work on and so many focuses, that I really don't think devoting the time and resources to fully implementing a 3PV option is worth it.

[Syllogy]

ZedekiahCromwell, on 23 April 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Honestly, this game has so much that it needs to work on and so many focuses, that I really don't think devoting the time and resources to fully implementing a 3PV option is worth it.

Only 1 dev working on 3rd Person View, and it's not their top priority.

[grayson marik]

Syllogy, on 23 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Only 1 dev working on 3rd Person View, and it's not their top priority.

source?

[Sean von Steinike]

grayson marik, on 24 April 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

source?

Be hard to fins ANYTHING now but that was what was claimed. I remember it. But it doesn't make me feel any better about it.

[Bobzilla]

Syllogy, on 23 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Only 1 dev working on 3rd Person View, and it's not their top priority.

Pfff, look at all the current problems they already can't deal with.

No worries, 3rd person is comming for those that want it, but it will probably be a few years for those that don't.

End topic.