2002 replies to this topic

[TheSteelRhino]

Sigh..

Ok..here is a suggestion.
1) *** preferred*** Add a "viewscreen" to that is "ON" in your cockpit, It is a few from 10 meters directly above. It shows your mech...from directly above. You can see it's orientation against the terrain, and the arms should be shown as extended so you can see your frontal arc. The feet should be abit exageratted so you can see your leg orientation. You do not see the enemy.

2). 3rd person view is supplied by a drone. The drone is targetable, the drone is Launched from your mech....the drone weights 2 tons, for the drone and related equipment. The drone is detectable, meaning your mech is detectable. Thisis if it HAS to be capable of detecting enemy mechs.

3)...sorry I had to add this..but I'd really prefer you didn't add it..at all in game..>Training grounds is a GREAT idea..but in game..not so much

Edited by Rhinehardt Ritter, 21 March 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Segregation is second for me, behind the obvious tactical advantage if implemented poorly.

It comes down to, how could you implement 3rd person and NOT give them the tactical advantage without making the system next to pointless to play? And if it's pointless to play, why develop it at all?

[Josef Nader]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

This is a great observation and something we will definitely need to address. More of this kind of feedback is greatly welcomed.

You insist on adding 3rd person? Fine. Leave it out of community warfare. Give it as an option, as you have described, for random pugs. You can drop in any old game first or third person, but let those be the "unranked" games. Where it counts, in CW, have NO third person of any kind. Ranked games are done based on first person. If you want to play ranked games, you have to play first person.

There are just too many problems with 3rd person view to mix and match.

[Karyudo ds]

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.

With what, third party cheats? I think in Planetside 2 the 3rd person camera position with the lack of HUD makes guesstimation a bit difficult, particularly with the tanks. If I throw the camera off center and about level with your mechs hips and close enough it's hard to see around it that seems like short of cheating that it should be obtainable to make it difficult to get good shots off from that view.

The Cheese, on 21 March 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

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.

Very feasible really, or it should be. You can tinker with your FOV but I would expect there to be ways to override that temporarily.

The Cheese, on 21 March 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

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

I don't really see that as an issue if CW is still what they described before. I mean the idea of a 3rd person unit and a 1st person unit after the same planet is silly when you have say, only one planet able to be fought over at a time. Over dramatization of course but if the number of options at any time were scaled to the online players they should be capable of doing it. Unless there's only 50 people on or something ridiculous.

[Accident]

Brave man making this topic.

I'm pretty much going to second what a lot of others have said, although I doubt I have as strong a feelings about it as others.

First off your training tutorials are non existent. We yelled about this in closed beta when you first announced you were moving to open beta. Open beta was put off by a couple weeks, but no ingame training was added. It sounds like you are finally addressing this. I have to believe that a well thought out series of training missions would alleviate at least some of the control issues new players are having. I find your data a little suspect til you get this added in.

As to implementation of 3rd person, segmenting the player base is about as stupid an idea as I've heard. I can totally see a localized version of MWO for say Asia that has 3rd person as default if you've determined that is what the market wants, however breaking down games within a region to 3rd person, first person, 3rd and first person just seems like a huge head ache. I don't see people being super happy with the MM as it is, I find it hard to believe that this will do anything other than mess it up further.

Adding in an arcade mode and then the sim mode is also going to present problems. All the new players can play arcade mode which is 3rd person, and the CW people can play first person only, sounds like a good idea in theory. New players get the benefit of third person, vets keep first person. The problem is that at some point the new players are going to go hey whats this CW, it seems kinda neat, I want to play that too. They're going to play it, and then go why can I all of a sudden not play in third person. The game just totally changed on me. They're going to see it as a stupid, arbitrary limitation, and be mad about it. And honestly who could blame them if their gameplay very suddenty switched in a way that didn't seem to have a good reason.

As to the mechanics of 3P, I do enjoy sneaking up on mechs, I think it is an big part of light mech balance. As others have said only drawing in mechs you actually have LoS to, and putting the camera very close behind your mech could mitigate this advantage to a point. I could also see aiming in 1p being a bit more accurate, but if both views are available at all times, I suppose people will just switch to 1p when sniping.

TLDR Do whatcha gotta do. If certain markets prefer a type of control scheme, by all means do a localized client/server setup for them. I hear Chinas a big market (and a lot of people there are PC gamers). Trying to segregate gamers based on view type on the same servers seems like a whole lot of effort that won't have much of a payoff. Try and keep in some of the ability to sneak up on other mechs.

Finally thanks for the post. You're a braver man than I.

-Accident

[BIix]

I don't post a lot, but I am what you are calling a core player.

I am not in favor of added 3rd person play, as I feel that it will only segregate the population. And playing the same players over and over again isn't much fun for me.

That said, if we must have it. I would be in favor of having the Trial mechs be limited to their own queues and games. This trial or arcade as mentioned earlier in the thread by another player would open up the 3rd person options. Since it is trial mechs only it would be more tuned for the beginner and basic user experience. It would also allow for the intermediate players to still play against the higher skilled players in order to give them a challenge and help them improve their skill set.

[Zaptruder]

I think by default the camera should be quite restrictive.

Mech large on screen, not all of legs shown. This is done in order to cut down the strategic advantage that 3rd person provides, while still providing newer players with the ability to properly orientate themselves and their mechs relative to their surroundings.

Also, before you get to this point, consider redoing the torso twist indicators. As it is, they're quite lacking; the torso twist and heading bar can come down off the compass and be done in a way that is much more obvious and much more visible for the player. That in itself would probably solve a large number of problems with acclimatizing players to MWO.


On the flipside, I would be quite ok with having third person camera options restricted to a trial/stock mech queue.

Aside from allowing new players to acclimatize, it would be great fun to just have a stock mech build queue, where people can only run standard canon configs.

Edited by Zaptruder, 21 March 2013 - 06:17 PM.

[BanditRaptor]

Bubba Wilkins, on 21 March 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

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.

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.

I don't disagree with you, but I think this is going to the extreme. I don't mean this in a bad way, but hear me out.

Folks like you and me who got a founder's package on day one are big fans of mechwarrior, know what we're getting into and are interested. On the opposite end of the spectrum of us, there's the call of duty casual gamers who just log in, throw a few knives and grenades and then go bar hopping. They don't know about mechwarrior, don't know what they're getting into, and aren't interested.

PGI needs to appeal to the crowd in-between those two groups, people that are interested but don't know what they're getting into and don't know mechwarrior. They can do this by not changing the game to dumb it down or break the balance, but find ways to better inform those who are interested so they do know what they're getting into, and by the end of the tutorial, they do know about mechwarrior.

How much of the core gameplay of MWO do you think the average newbie who's never even heard of battletech will understand just looking at the website or downloading the installer? Do you think they'll understand the differences between mechs, the value of different hardpoints, the tradeoff between medium and medium pulse lasers? Do you think they'll know -anything- about ECM? Or even knowing you have to target an enemy before you can lock on?

It's PGI's job to inform new players on how to play the game they've got here. The days on reading manuals are long gone, the tutorial has to be in-game. If they don't want to divert manpower to that, maybe they can make a "coaching" matchmaking program like I believe TF2 does, where you can sign up to be a newbie or a vet and help teach new players the ropes or get help if you need it. I'm sure a lot of us here would gladly volunteer their time to do that.

Not saying they don't need to appeal to the core - focusing on what makes a good mechwarrior game will only make the game better in the long run, and this game shouldn't be anything but the best mechwarrior game it should and can be.

[roguetrdr]

Bryan,
Lobby should have been a priority over a lot of other things. We have been screaming for it for ages. But the first mention of it actually coming is in a thread about a feature that most of us don't want and buried down in page 7?
Come on do yourselves a favour and make a thread about that and let the community know how far along you are and what's holding it up. It's likely you will generate a bunch of positive PR for once and you might even restore the faith of some players in you guys.

[Harmin]

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.

How about implementing an in-game polling mechanism so you can ask the people who you think that you cannot reach via the forums. Upon login, have an in-game popup pose a question. This way you can find query the whole player base.

I'm not generally opposed to third person view. It has it's place for sure. In Mech Commander, in Mechwarrior: Tactics. But MWO? No, I don't think so.

-Armin

[Tarman]

BeakieHelmet, on 21 March 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

I don't disagree with you, but I think this is going to the extreme. I don't mean this in a bad way, but hear me out.

Folks like you and me who got a founder's package on day one are big fans of mechwarrior, know what we're getting into and are interested. On the opposite end of the spectrum of us, there's the call of duty casual gamers who just log in, throw a few knives and grenades and then go bar hopping. They don't know about mechwarrior, don't know what they're getting into, and aren't interested.

PGI needs to appeal to the crowd in-between those two groups, people that are interested but don't know what they're getting into and don't know mechwarrior. They can do this by not changing the game to dumb it down or break the balance, but find ways to better inform those who are interested so they do know what they're getting into, and by the end of the tutorial, they do know about mechwarrior.

How much of the core gameplay of MWO do you think the average newbie who's never even heard of battletech will understand just looking at the website or downloading the installer? Do you think they'll understand the differences between mechs, the value of different hardpoints, the tradeoff between medium and medium pulse lasers? Do you think they'll know -anything- about ECM? Or even knowing you have to target an enemy before you can lock on?

It's PGI's job to inform new players on how to play the game they've got here. The days on reading manuals are long gone, the tutorial has to be in-game. If they don't want to divert manpower to that, maybe they can make a "coaching" matchmaking program like I believe TF2 does, where you can sign up to be a newbie or a vet and help teach new players the ropes or get help if you need it. I'm sure a lot of us here would gladly volunteer their time to do that.

Not saying they don't need to appeal to the core - focusing on what makes a good mechwarrior game will only make the game better in the long run, and this game shouldn't be anything but the best mechwarrior game it should and can be.

A veteran/rookie training program would be a brilliant method to teach this game, especially since the game and the training would both be based on team gaming and live players. Most gamers like to help other gamers get good. Better rookies means more and better allies and enemies in the future.

Sidenote, beakie helmets are the bomb.

[Rebas Kradd]

I honestly don't see the cost-benefit ratio being in MWO's favor, and that's not just because a (very) few purists will stamp their feet and quit. I can watch them leave and wave at them gaily. I just don't think MWO is the kind of game to appeal to the broader, more accessible base that you're trying to reach. 3rd person or not, MWO is still a simulator that requires a lot of preparation, strategy, and patience. 3P alone doesn't change that.

[Windies]

This sounds like the same thing Red Orchestra 2 went through. The developer's thought they could merge the two very different main demographics of players together and build the game for that and please both sides. I'm sure their target demographic on paper was as vague and broad as the one you described earlier in the thread. The problem is that they all want different things, and if it's not close enough they just won't play it or it won't interest them. Red Orchestra 2 was a good game, that could have been really great if they had chose to focus on one demographic or the other.

Some things I don't understand about this are:

Why would you want to segregate the player base when you're trying to a get a footing in an already saturated market? You have the niche of being a Mechwarrior title, but that will only get you so far. I would say the Mechwarrior IP has played out and those who were interested in the game for that purpose have played and made their decision. You're goal shouldn't be on trying to add fluff like 3pv and consumables, but rather on beefing up and strengthening the mechanics and game modes and fixing the large list of bugs that have plagued the game for months.

Making the game better and more entertaining is what is going to attract people, not adding a 3rd person camera. All adding a 3rd person view is going to do is **** off the players that you have retained, the one's who are voicing that they honestly don't want it. This is going to cause players to leave in droves, while you're hoping that the neat 3rd person view will attract more than you will lose. Trying to go down the middle path and appease two very differing crowds is going to only lead to failure, ask Mr. Miyagi or Tripwire Interactive .

How do you plan on addressing community concerns about 3pv? Most players don't want 3pv because of how it changes the dynamics of the game. Poptarting and peeking around cover without being exposed being some of the larger issue's. World of Tanks got around that by creating their "View" system where everyone was invisible until they came into viewing parameters. Are you going to try and design a system around this? If you do design something akin to the WoT system, how will it affect mixed 1pv and 3pv games?

As I see it, by making this move you are splitting the community into 3 separate groups. 3pv/1pv mixed, 3pv only, 1pv only. How do you see factor's like ELO coupled with the segregating of players based on their view options affecting Matchmaking queue wait times? How do you see factoring ELO from 3pv to 1pv and vice versa? Will there be separate ELO ranks for the differing view options?

I can also see this creating problems with larger gaming groups. Some wanting to play 3pv, some wanting to play 1pv. Given the general feelings towards the issue, I don't see the mixed 1pv/3pv option being used much.

This is just a bad decision all around, there's nothing really positive about it. Games don't suddenly get better and have large influx's of players simply because they add a third person view. They will however start leaking players like crazy, especially given the large opposition to the idea from this community. The only positive really is that you finally grew a pair and at least officially announced it rather than letting it slip here and there while trying to cover it up or create doubt.

[Zaptruder]

The reality of development is that any developer should reserve the right to modify their development/roadmap based on new data and feedback from customers and market.

It's absurd to think that they should be beholden to the ideas they set out a couple years ago, even though new information is coming in suggesting otherwise.

Similarly; once they've implemented 3rd person, and the data shows it's a massive failure; they would do well to remove or minimize its impact. Conversely, if the data shows it to be a success, then all the doubters and naysayers have lost nothing. They may have a little egg on their face, but this game isn't their livelihood.

[lizardmech]

Could 3rd person and other features possibly be used to define the IS and Clan factions? With the battletech universe might having such a polarized playerbase be an opportunity? Perhaps you could have smaller hardcore playerbase playing as the clans or merc units with clan tech but joining any of these factions disables 3rd person view and other non-sim related things added in.

[FirestormRMA]

<S> All


Very Sad i am even readin this tread .... 3rd person in battletech ?? are you chitty me Really ??

why not add endless Respawning and hey why not throw in some power ups laying around or

even some coins we can pick up along the way to buy candy .... you add 3rd person to this game

and you killed it , end of story <S>


Firestorm RMA
RedMoon Angels/ Liao (MW4 mercs Mektek Lance Leagues)
Retired Minister Of War House Of Marik ( EA Beta tester 3025)
District Commander Oriente Military District ( Beta tested command Over 2500 planets EA 3025)
RMA OMD *FWLM* ( Beta Tester Multi Player BattleTech )

Fear This Eagle

[RabbidFerret]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

3rd person will help solve some of these issues, along with a new UI, training and testing grounds, and other features coming down the pipeline.

So why not leave 3rd person as a last resort for improving new player experience?

3rd person in this iteration is going to split the playerbase and massively complicate CW. New players learning to play the game will probably have to relearn how to play it when they want to get into "serious" drops, creating yet another barrier between the skilled and the unskilled. Its only going to solve one very minor issue (controlling a mech) compared to the hundreds of other hurdles new players have to get over (weapon types, ranges, mech hardpoints, ammo locations, crit spaces, heat management) while creating this HUGE drama among the community. Its a risky feature with very little reward.

PGI, you should stop dancing around the fact that players want some sort of integrated, guided tutorial. I imagine a player booting up MWO for the first time and the game loads immediately into Desert.

"Oh ****, this is cool" says the new player.

The mech powers up.

"This is really cool!"

Betty says something like "Welcome MechWarrior, to your CTF-1X Cataphract Heavy mech. Proceeding with diagnostic test. Range is now active."

She walks you through movement, UI elements, targeting, heat management, ammo counts, weapon groups, etc. She presents targets and asks you to engage them with a single weapon group, then points out the results of that weapon. She'll even give you an end-of-game scoreboard breakdown.

Now, in the main menu, she walks the player through the mechlab, modules, xp and all that good stuff (you definitely need to throw a social menu tutorial in there too *cough*).

Finally, the player can launch into a match with other brand new players to fight out their first 25-100 matches before they are released into the wonderful world of ELO.

You'll probably need a pretty awesome (and professional) level scripter to take on the challenge of overseeing this long-awaited feature. Let me know when that job posting goes up

[FirestormRMA]

<S> All


If you want to help the new guys out and so on GIVE THEM more money , faster Xp gain first month of play and setup a common area where people can meet . Right now you have a loner game setup and you wonder why they come and go ? House Marik has done nothing but grow at a membership of 25 new members or so a DAY wanting something more from this game and its not 3RD person view . Give them a base somewhere to call home a hangout area , Bs market whatever you want to call it ... just my thoughts <S>

Firestorm RMA
RedMoon Angels/ Liao (MW4 mercs Mektek Lance Leagues)
Retired Minister Of War House Of Marik ( EA Beta tester 3025)
District Commander Oriente Military District ( Beta tested command Over 2500 planets EA 3025)
RMA OMD *FWLM* ( Beta Tester Multi Player BattleTech )

Fear This Eagle <p class="ipsLikeBar right clearfix" id="rep_post_2104349">

[FrostCollar]

I'll look into this more later, but the first major problem that stands out to me is the alternate queue system. It just doesn't seem workable to me.

Playing in third person is easier. This is a fact. I will admit, learning how to play this game wasn't easy and there's a lot of work to be done to fix that. However, the issue I see is this: a player who learns how to play in third person has little incentive to transition over to first person.

Once you've learned to control your mech and see around corners, why would you want to voluntarily limit your field of view? If this change were to go through, I predict that a large majority of people will start using third person and stay in third person, forever. It's an easier way to play. Ultimately, however, I fear that this will depopulate the first person queue. We would now have two communities and it does not seem likely that they would work well together. All the work into designing cockpits and learning how to take advantage of different window shapes would be lost.

Whatever you do, first person needs some sort of incentive to use. Maybe you could add information on all those blank viewscreens around the cockpit. My point is, in trying to make the game easier to learn I believe this change will make it harder to master. There must be a reason for the person who started in third person to want to try the alternative. Otherwise, why have first person at all? MechWarrior 4 was my first exposure to Battletech, and I never used first person there. Why should I have to put up with looking through a little window when I can get a birds eye view outside? You must try to make sure that isn't the case here.

[Thrasymachus]

Your attempt to get a wider playerbase by introducing 3rd person for a "larger" playerbase is a poor decision.

1.) You game is extremely demanding. Most people who show interest in your internet spamming adds think WoW is graphics intensive. They can't play your game.

2.) The lurning curve is "intense" - you lose the first few days (not matches, days) while being used as a human punching bag. Although you have the "trial grounds" It still does not have a tutorial.

3.) Your game does not have any lore implimented. Seriously theres none. Nothing to read, no history on companies no idea who the hell your fighting for or why. There is nothing immersive to grab new players. The only "immersive" aspect of your game is currently 1st person, which your currently trying to dismantle (ironically).

4. There is no Social aspect of the game to keep players outside of buggy ingame chat and a friends list. Lobbies should have been introduced at open beta. The social and lore aspect of this game are solely neglected and one of the few strengths this game his to differentiate itself in the market.

I was one of the open beta testers who first arrived on the scene. I've stuck with your game but I know alot of friends who didn't. They tried your game, got a negative opinion and left. Your best bet is making this game user friendly and getting out of beta. Get a tutorial. Get a tutorial bracket. Get your game user friendly before you try to get more people.

And stop ******* off your loyal players they're the reason your currently in business. This issue had what? 100+ pages on "don't do this."

Make the game friendlier to new people and make it socially immersive and people might actually have fun and feel obligated to pay you for your hard work.