2002 replies to this topic

[rollermint]

Double post

Edited by rollermint, 28 April 2013 - 01:37 AM.

[Barghest Whelp]

Terran123rd, on 27 April 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Though I'm a full supporter of the decision to include 3rd person, I also fully agree with this. CW is the hardcore "core" if you will, and should most definitely stay that way, including a full retention of the so-called "simulator elements".

The more casual shoot-em-up side of the game that we're experiencing now (i.e., the current system of pick-up matches), however, is another matter. Forgetting about my own opinions for the second, anything that makes that experience more friendly for the casual gamer (I believe we can all agree that we/they are here to stay) can't be entirely bad. If third-person encourages a few more people buy skins and paints, the better funded PGI will be and the better the game will be because of it.

The game can, and should be able to, cater to both markets.

That's the thing. Unless we remove the mechlab, reduce armour to the point where we can kill each hother in a single alpha, allow sidestepping and generally simplify the whole game to the point where it's no longer Mechwarrior, it'll never appeal to the masses.

MS tried to do it with MW4, and the result was that we didn't get an official follow up game until 12 years later. It's based on battletech. That's a BOARD game. Mention the word board game to your average ADHD teen, and they'll respond: "bored game? Hurr hurr hurr derp." and after that you're not going to get their attention anymore.

Board games are made by and for nerds. It involves micromanagement. The general masses tend to get seizured from simply hearing those two words put together.

Besides, there are many mech based shooters that are easy to get in to out there. If you seriously think that MWO has anything to draw the general masses that those games can't offer x10 then I suggest you take a good long look at what's out there, and what those ADHD teens want in a game.

To put it in a simple way, one the best moves to make the game more commercially appealing is not to add 3PV, but rather to do that thing which PGI trolled us with on the 1st of April. I'm talking about the one where you can ice-scate around with jump jets.

That, is the sort of thing the short attention span general masses want. Hawken and Armored core already offer this feature.

[Critical Fumble]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 28 April 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

Reply number 4 in the entire thread.
Its NOT about IF, or WHETHER we want it, we're getting it, and we better like it.

So its like broccoli? Or spinach? Sans the universal value?

I'm beginning to wonder if the lack of polls from PGI about preferences and demographics is because they used some form of FB side data mining and arrived at the conclusion that more of their followers also followed third-person games than did not. In other words, WoT followers were interested in this game because its similar. Never mind that they can't know how many of those would actually play the game if there was a third person view.

What they actually need is better balance and a decent education program for new players. It doesn't matter how many people they attract with third person: if they can't retain any of them because of their falling off the learning precipice or frustrating mechanics there's no money to be had from it.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Critical Fumble, on 28 April 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

What they actually need is better balance and a decent education program for new players. It doesn't matter how many people they attract with third person: if they can't retain any of them because of their falling off the learning precipice or frustrating mechanics there's no money to be had from it.

But there IS. All the birds in thew bushes will flock to the game if they put in 3rd person

[Viperion]

I'm not entirely against the 3pv concept. however for Mwo there must be certain limitations:

- Training ground

- 3pv is allowed when your are DEAD. (however if this will be added in game, i expect Team chat will be lock so dead players and continued live players stays separated)

- 3pv is allowed for spectator for live streaming (competition related matches in LAN parties and online) and movie makings.

[DeaconW]

Barghest Whelp, on 28 April 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

Unless we remove the mechlab, reduce armour to the point where we can kill each hother in a single alpha, allow sidestepping and generally simplify the whole game to the point where it's no longer Mechwarrior, it'll never appeal to the masses.

Well said.

[Inkarnus]

purge the code with fire only thing i say

[TheSteelRhino]

Barghest Whelp, on 28 April 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

That's the thing. Unless we remove the mechlab, reduce armour to the point where we can kill each hother in a single alpha, allow sidestepping and generally simplify the whole game to the point where it's no longer Mechwarrior, it'll never appeal to the masses.

MS tried to do it with MW4, and the result was that we didn't get an official follow up game until 12 years later. It's based on battletech. That's a BOARD game. Mention the word board game to your average ADHD teen, and they'll respond: "bored game? Hurr hurr hurr derp." and after that you're not going to get their attention anymore.

Board games are made by and for nerds. It involves micromanagement. The general masses tend to get seizured from simply hearing those two words put together.

Besides, there are many mech based shooters that are easy to get in to out there. If you seriously think that MWO has anything to draw the general masses that those games can't offer x10 then I suggest you take a good long look at what's out there, and what those ADHD teens want in a game.

To put it in a simple way, one the best moves to make the game more commercially appealing is not to add 3PV, but rather to do that thing which PGI trolled us with on the 1st of April. I'm talking about the one where you can ice-scate around with jump jets.

That, is the sort of thing the short attention span general masses want. Hawken and Armored core already offer this feature.

This is silly. Of course you will never appease the masses. But this isnt solving anything either.

Makes the weapons make sense. Or at least in th bt universes definition of sense. Now state rewind is nearly complete i would bet all their previous balancing efforts were incorrect. Amazing when dmg actually hits what it does?

3rd person view ... I hate the idea... But if it has got to be there should have a disadvantage. Like 2 ton lost and a drone hovering over your mech so you cannot easily hide


Jump jets, they should throw u into the air and cause a shake.
In short a system of checks and balances.

For example: energy weapons should be hotter. Ballistics are cooler but hvy and the ammo explodes. Gauss should be high velocity projectile with big dmg. Negative heavy, big, fragile, and can explode.

The biggest problem i normally see is illogical. Angry rants that serve nothing but individual self interests.

[Barghest Whelp]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 28 April 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

This is silly. Of course you will never appease the masses. But this isnt solving anything either.

Makes the weapons make sense. Or at least in th bt universes definition of sense. Now state rewind is nearly complete i would bet all their previous balancing efforts were incorrect. Amazing when dmg actually hits what it does?

3rd person view ... I hate the idea... But if it has got to be there should have a disadvantage. Like 2 ton lost and a drone hovering over your mech so you cannot easily hide


Jump jets, they should throw u into the air and cause a shake.
In short a system of checks and balances.

For example: energy weapons should be hotter. Ballistics are cooler but hvy and the ammo explodes. Gauss should be high velocity projectile with big dmg. Negative heavy, big, fragile, and can explode.

The biggest problem i normally see is illogical. Angry rants that serve nothing but individual self interests.

Yes, that's the entire point. PGI has stated that they're adding 3PV in order to make the game appeal to the greater masses. My point is, that if the goal is to attract the general masses to the game, 3PV is NOT the way forward. Remiving everything that is remotely battletech about this game is a far more reliable way to attract the general masses to this game.

Why? Well, because as I've already mentioned, other games like Hawken and Armored core already offer a plethora of features that could only be added to this by removing the BT stamp. 3PV is certainly no where near the top of that list.

Counter strike was popular among the masses, and yet it didn't offer 3PV. There are pleny of other games that appealed to the general masses without offering 3PV. One of the main things that makes this game unattractive to the general masses is all the BT nerds (myself included) that are already playing it.

It makes them feel like they need to become a BT nerd themselves in order to be competitive, wich I know sounds daft, but nobody ever accused the general masses of having professor degrees.

[Frisk]

If 3rd person POV = Melee, then where do I sign...

[EvilCow]

Frisk, on 28 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

If 3rd person POV = Melee, then where do I sign...

Not exactly, it would just be more poptarding, MW4 edition.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

EvilCow, on 28 April 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not exactly, it would just be more poptarding, MW4 edition.

more effective poptarding in fact

[LHR Dovah]

If we can choose to play with certain users (1st or 3rd person), can we then choose to play non-ppc users, or small maps too? Because splitting a fanbase is always a good thing!

[CyBerkut]

Viperion, on 28 April 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

I'm not entirely against the 3pv concept. however for Mwo there must be certain limitations:

- Training ground

- 3pv is allowed when your are DEAD. (however if this will be added in game, i expect Team chat will be lock so dead players and continued live players stays separated)

- 3pv is allowed for spectator for live streaming (competition related matches in LAN parties and online) and movie makings.

[sigh]

If you are talking about allowing dead spectators to have 3PV in 1PV matches... then no. PGI has no feasible way to keep team players from communicating via 3rd party voice comms, such as TeamSpeak, Mumble, Ventrillo, etc.

[CyBerkut]

As we have just been reminded, this thread is not supposed to be about whether 3PV being implemented is good or bad (it's coming... someday... somehow), but rather how it should be implemented.

The devs have also indicated that if you wish to play 1PV against only other 1PV players, that it will be available. Of course, our faith in being able to rely upon such statements has been shaken by other decisions being reversed (ie. Coolant flushing).

At the risk of appearing naive, by depending upon the promise of separation from the 3PV'ers... how are the devs to implement this?

An implication of keeping the 3PV'ers separate from 1PV'ers is that they will not be forced to compete against one another in the coming Community Warfare. There are only two ways to achieve that:

1. 3PV play is not allowed in Community Warfare... or
2. 3PV players get their own Community Warfare universe.

Either one works for me, with the following caveat. Some are understandably concerned that option 2, with it's attendant split in the user base, will thin things out too much. I think that is a legitimate concern, and one that PGI would be well advised to approach carefully with due caution. I imagine PGI believes they will get such a large influx of additional players, that parallel CW universes can run, with enough players to support both... or at least their wallets are dreaming that it is possible.

In light of the above, my suggestion is as follows...

1. If 3PV implementation precedes the addition of CW, then the devs should be able to measure how many people are playing each type of POV, and be able to make an informed decision on whether to run a 3PV CW universe along with a 1PV CW universe.

2. If 3PV implementation does not happen until after CW has been rolled out... then the pre-existing CW needs to be preserved as a 1PV-only CW universe... and a new decision arises for the Devs, which is whether to implement a 3PV CW universe as well. That decision should rest upon careful examination of:

2a. How many players are using the new 3PV.
2b. How many of them are participating in the pre-existing CW, which is limited to 1PV.
2c. How many of those in 2b are likely to switch to playing only in a 3PV CW universe.
2d. Can the pre-existing 1PV CW universe withstand the subtraction of the players estimated in 2c above.

If the devs work through that process logically, and measure/estimate/choose wisely... it can all work out. 3PV is coming in some form. I think we can safely conclude that at a minimum, it will be available in the training grounds, and in 3PV-only non-CW public matches. Realistically, we have to recognize that a schema of that sort could represent some significant income to PGI, and wish them a prosperous result. I want PGI to succeed, and I hope all of you do as well.

What bothers me at this point... is that PGI hasn't laid out a thought process / plan on a scale similar to what is above. Whether it is what I laid out above, or something different... they should be telling us more by now than what we have seen.

Speaking only for myself, while I'm still playing MWO, I'm not playing it as much as I used to, in spite of the fairly steady periodic addition of new content. The 3PV issue just hanging out there as it is now, is a factor in my decision on when/whether to spend more money on MWO. I have spent nearly all of the MC that came with the Founder's program purchase, but for now, I do not plan to buy any more MC until this 3PV issue gets some more meaningful illumination. Yes, that puts a crimp in the game for me these days, but I want to be convinced that this game isn't going to be too severely borked to continue enjoying it. The wife and I work too hard for our money, to be spending it on things that ultimately end up just being annoying / frustrating.

I don't regret having spent the $120, as I have had some fun, and I wanted to see PGI succeed in this effort. I still do, but the sweet smell of the initial bloom of the rose is fading.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

CyBerkut, on 28 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

[sigh]

If you are talking about allowing dead spectators to have 3PV in 1PV matches... then no. PGI has no feasible way to keep team players from communicating via 3rd party voice comms, such as TeamSpeak, Mumble, Ventrillo, etc.

Or hell, with in game chat. I seen that enough in game as is.

[KingNobody]

I'm a little leary about 3PV in general. What with the 8-man/4-man split, the regional servers, and 1PV/3PV split, how many players will be in my PUG/NA/1PV grouping? How many in your 8-man/EU/3PV grouping? Then we have Elo, which separates the top-tier players from the bottom tier players... It's gonna be hard to find a match when all this is implemented.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask the devs not to split the community (or at least split it as little as possible), because at this fragile stage of development, the game might not survive splitting the playerbase. (And I REALLY want this game to survive)

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

KingNobody, on 28 April 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm a little leary about 3PV in general. What with the 8-man/4-man split, the regional servers, and 1PV/3PV split, how many players will be in my PUG/NA/1PV grouping? How many in your 8-man/EU/3PV grouping? Then we have Elo, which separates the top-tier players from the bottom tier players... It's gonna be hard to find a match when all this is implemented.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask the devs not to split the community (or at least split it as little as possible), because at this fragile stage of development, the game might not survive splitting the playerbase. (And I REALLY want this game to survive)

Yeah what I dont get is this IS HAPPENING, whether we want it or not, but it was commented that the reason they dont "jam in more game modes" is playerbase segregation. What do they think this is gonna do?

[Barghest Whelp]

KingNobody, on 28 April 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm a little leary about 3PV in general. What with the 8-man/4-man split, the regional servers, and 1PV/3PV split, how many players will be in my PUG/NA/1PV grouping? How many in your 8-man/EU/3PV grouping? Then we have Elo, which separates the top-tier players from the bottom tier players... It's gonna be hard to find a match when all this is implemented.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask the devs not to split the community (or at least split it as little as possible), because at this fragile stage of development, the game might not survive splitting the playerbase. (And I REALLY want this game to survive)

Exactly my thoughts as well. We're already going to get split in to different regions, and yet another split... well, it doesn't bode well.

That's why I honestly think it would be better to implement it in such a way that it doesn't offer any advantages. For instance, you can switch to 3PV while your mech is shut down, but only then. That way there is absolutely no advantage to using it, and nobody is forced to use it to remain competitive.

Another option would be to not allow any switching once the match has started, and then all the player that choose 3PV have no map, no heat monitor and no aiming reticule. This would still be useful for pure scouts, but would be such a huge disadvantage for combat that once again, nobody would be forced to use it in order to remain competitive.

One other suggestion that could work, is that 3PV would cost slots and tons, but then the question remains: how much is it worth? 2 tons is certainly not enough. I really feel that it would have to be at least 5 tons, but then some people might think that's too much. And considering that PGI considers ECM being perectly fine in it's current implementation weighing in at 1.5 tons, I don't really trust them to make a good and balanced implementation of it.

I haven't actually read the whole thread, but I'm certain other people have come up with other good suggestions on how to limit it without splitting the playerbase.

[Saxophonist]

Looks like anyone who uses this is at a disadvantage.