2002 replies to this topic

[TheSteelRhino]

I like the idea of treating 3rd pv like a drone hovering directly over head. Is not protected by ecm and can be used to target the host mech

Or. How about a simple screen in lower side corner of cockpit that has an image of your mech from directly above with its orientation, toros and arm "twist" up against terrain within 25 meters. It would help to orient a new player but wouldnt give away positions or allow additional sightlines

[Draco Harkins]

You and Russ SHOULD ready this, and its my response to why you shouldnt EVEN try to put 3PV.

"Virtual worlds are becoming diluted with poor design decisions that can’t be undone, purely because of their reliance on a newbie stream. We’re getting de-evolution, driven by newbie power; it’s survival of the not-quite-fittest.


The market for regular computer games is driven by the hard core. The hard core finishes product faster than newbies and therefore buys new product faster than newbies. The hard core understands design implications better than newbies. They won’t buy a game with features they can see are poor; they select games with good design genes. In virtual worlds, the hard core either wanders aimlessly, trying to recapture their first virtual world experience, or they never left that virtual world in the first place. Furthermore, the hard core spends the same amount of money on subscriptions as anyone else. Unlike with regular computer games, a virtual world developer won’t be rewarded for making product that appeals to the hard core. In the days of hourly charging it would have done, but from a flat-rate monthly subscription it doesn’t."

By Dr. Richard Bartle

You're doing it wrong PGI and you will pay the consequences for not listening to the hardcores and going on this power trip you're at.

http://www.mud.co.uk...therPlayers.pdf

Edited by Draco Harkins, 29 April 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Terran123rd]

I've read Bartle. I have his book. I wouldn't say he's full of ****, but he's damned close. I suggest a truck-load of salt when reading him.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Terran123rd, on 29 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I've read Bartle. I have his book. I wouldn't say he's full of ****, but he's damned close. I suggest a truck-load of salt when reading him.

What about when youre reading Bryan?
https://twitter.com/bryanekman

Quote

Testing the new UAV consumable. Very cool! Even uses the original 2009 video model! #mwo

[Terran123rd]

As much faith as I have in PGI (which I would describe as "truck-loads"), I take what any developer says with a lump or two. This is because game development is a complex and fickle thing.

But thanks for the twitter link.

Edited by Terran123rd, 29 April 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Terran123rd, on 29 April 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

As much faith as I have in PGI (which I would describe as "truck-loads"), I take what any developer says with a lump or two. This is because game development is a complex and fickle thing.

But thanks for the twitter link.

lol so no matter what anyone says you dont believe it O.o
interesting perspective

[Barghest Whelp]

Draco Harkins, on 29 April 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

You and Russ SHOULD ready this, and its my response to why you shouldnt EVEN try to put 3PV.

"Virtual worlds are becoming diluted with poor design decisions that can’t be undone, purely because of their reliance on a newbie stream. We’re getting de-evolution, driven by newbie power; it’s survival of the not-quite-fittest.


The market for regular computer games is driven by the hard core. The hard core finishes product faster than newbies and therefore buys new product faster than newbies. The hard core understands design implications better than newbies. They won’t buy a game with features they can see are poor; they select games with good design genes. In virtual worlds, the hard core either wanders aimlessly, trying to recapture their first virtual world experience, or they never left that virtual world in the first place. Furthermore, the hard core spends the same amount of money on subscriptions as anyone else. Unlike with regular computer games, a virtual world developer won’t be rewarded for making product that appeals to the hard core. In the days of hourly charging it would have done, but from a flat-rate monthly subscription it doesn’t."

By Dr. Richard Bartle

You're doing it wrong PGI and you will pay the consequences for not listening to the hardcores and going on this power trip you're at.

http://www.mud.co.uk...therPlayers.pdf

Heh, good read that. I really liked this bit personally:

THE NEWBIE INDUCTION

We now have four points that can be brought

together to discover what’s going on here:

1. Virtual worlds need a stream of newbies to

stay viable.

2. Newbies won’t play a virtual world that

has a major feature they don’t like.

3. Players judge all virtual worlds as a

reflection of the one they first got into.

4. Many players will think some poor design

choices are good.




We can now construct a line of reasoning that

explains why virtual worlds repeat the mistakes

of the past.

Under point #4, players will eventually quit a

virtual world that has poor features. Under

point #3, however, they won’t necessarily

recognize that the feature which caused them

to leave was indeed poor. Under point #2,

they won’t play those virtual worlds that lack

this feature. Under point #1, those virtual

worlds that do lack the feature – that is,

those

with the better design

– will be avoided. Any

absolute newbies, for whom this is their first

virtual world, will be educated to believe that

this is how things are meant to be, thus

starting the whole cycle again.


My first Virtual world was EVE online, so I guess I'm SOL.

[coolcook007]

I dont want third person

[Terran123rd]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 29 April 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

lol so no matter what anyone says you dont believe it O.o
interesting perspective

Less that I don't believe anything and more that I know that what a dev said one day may not be true the next, for myriad reasons. Even more so when when said devs are in the middle of developing said game in the first place.

For instance, I like the fact that third person is in, but I know that at any moment that can change. Such is the reality of game development.

[iHover]

Fact is PGI doent care what the playerbase thinks. Im a member of the biggest guild currently playing with some 800 members. Not once has the company reached out to any of the guilds to try and get any input. We are already seeing a decrease in activity due to the current state of the game and the constant buggy patching and the poor design decisions of the last three or four months. Most of the players Ive talked to in the guild have said that 3rd person will be the straw that broke the camels back, they will move on to other games.

[shotokan5]

Trying to give a realistic game model is like talking to a toad. If they don't deliver a stable and realistic promised, the game will fail and the point mute. Of all the arguments of 1st vs. 3rd person then it could be said that it would be said that they came up with the best possible I guess this is the one that might small m work. I am interested that a server in Europe you can not play in North America. It is strange that over 15 years ago you could in 3025 all over the world. Guess they were to far ahead of their time. World internet control? Hmm What do I know. The first ad to join MWO did say first person only. Don't let anyone company or not tell you otherwise.

[CutterWolf]

Just say no to 3dr person view PGI.

The vast over whelming majority of your player base has said "no" to this several time yet you clam that this "other" player base that never posts here or your FB page or your Twitter counts needs 3dr person view.

So my question is if they don't post as "you" clam how do you know that? Are you guys now mind readers or something? I mean really, if they never post how or where are you getting this from?

Also, about this "other group" of players if they indeed cared so much about the success of this game then why can they not even bother to post their concerns anywhere?

To me it sounds like you guys are betting on the wrong group of players to make your game success. We the players who do post and do care about the game and form the core of this game are the ones you should be concerned about since it is us who will make or break this game...........

[Dishevel]

iHover, on 30 April 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Fact is PGI doent care what the playerbase thinks. Im a member of the biggest guild currently playing with some 800 members. Not once has the company reached out to any of the guilds to try and get any input. We are already seeing a decrease in activity due to the current state of the game and the constant buggy patching and the poor design decisions of the last three or four months. Most of the players Ive talked to in the guild have said that 3rd person will be the straw that broke the camels back, they will move on to other games.

They do not want guilds.
They want the people who play Farmville 2. If they can get them in this will have been a success as far as they are concerned.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

coolcook007, on 30 April 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

I dont want third person

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

fourth post in the thread. does noone read anything but the OP?

also; https://twitter.com/bryanekman

Quote

Bryan Ekman ‏@bryanekman 29 Apr


Testing the new UAV consumable. Very cool! Even uses the original 2009 video model! #mwo

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 30 April 2013 - 09:17 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

CutterWolf, on 30 April 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Just say no to 3dr person view PGI.

they just dont care that ppl dont want it. the birds in the bush want it so theyre gonna cater to them. They do not care what the birds in the hand think

[Critical Fumble]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 30 April 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

they just dont care that ppl dont want it. the birds in the bush want it so theyre gonna cater to them. They do not care what the birds in the hand think

That's not a very good analogy for this, as the bird gets cooked and eaten in the end.

Although I find it odd that no-one makes sure the bird in the hand is dead first, then goes after the ones in the bush.

[Terran123rd]

The bird in the hand can only feed the man for so long, ravenous, ever-growing creature he is. Before long he must also pursue the bird in the bush if he expects to live.

An MMO, especially an F2P one, as much as it's fans may wish it to do so, cannot subsist on just a core group of dedicated fans, let alone do important things like pay its devs' bills. EVE, WoW, WoT, Vendetta Online, they all succeed because they continually work to bring in new players, even if doing so isn't especially appreciated by those they already have.

Basically, as much as it ticks you off, the devs can't afford to NOT take the chance of ticking you off if ticking you off brings in more players. It's not that we don't matter, just that we, the current players, are just one variable in the equation. If our wishes conflict with the potential growth of the game, well.......prepare to get pissed off.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Terran123rd, on 30 April 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

The bird in the hand can only feed the man for so long, ravenous, ever-growing creature he is. Before long he must also pursue the bird in the bush if he expects to live.

An MMO, especially an F2P one, as much as it's fans may wish it to do so, cannot subsist on just a core group of dedicated fans, let alone do important things like pay its devs' bills. EVE, WoW, WoT, Vendetta Online, they all succeed because they continually work to bring in new players, even if doing so isn't especially appreciated by those they already have.

Basically, as much as it ticks you off, the devs can't afford to NOT take the chance of ticking you off if ticking you off brings in more players. It's not that we don't matter, just that we, the current players, are just one variable in the equation. If our wishes conflict with the potential growth of the game, well.......prepare to get pissed off.

Right, screw the players you have now; drive them all off in hopes more will flock here.
Worked well for STO when they tried that didnt it?

er....

[Terran123rd]

No. We do matter. They don't want you to go. But if you leave, and the thing that makes you leave brings in more to replace you, then so be it. If not, they had to try anyway. Either they risk losing you, or they risk not getting the amount of new players they need to keep afloat.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Terran123rd, on 01 May 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

No. We do matter. They don't want you to go. But if you leave, and the thing that makes you leave brings in more to replace you, then so be it. If not, they had to try anyway. Either they risk losing you, or they risk not getting the amount of new players they need to keep afloat.

lol who was the guy who killed SWG with that exact idea again?
Ah there it is;

Gregory Owen, on 30 April 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

there is a name for this, it's called pulling a "Smedley"

John Smedley was head developer on Star was galaxies, he made drastic changes to the game and refused to revert them, he refused to listen to the million+ strong community and continued down the road of his "Vision" which led to it's demise.

https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=591

this is exactly what is happening with MWO, they are so confident what they are doing is correct, they will ignore the players and continue down this slope till it self-destructs.

if they want the game to be a success, they need to drop the ego's now, come talk with us,and quit dismissing us forum users as the minority.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 01 May 2013 - 12:38 AM.