2002 replies to this topic

[Accursed Richards]

Terran123rd, on 02 May 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

/me wonders if he should mention reading a dev journal that mentions expansions for Incarna...

I think the reception for Incarna would have been far better if the release hadn't been, you know, terrible. We got one room (later expanded to 4) where we couldn't interact with other players, it took ages to load, the standard hangar view was removed, and it had a bad habit of melting graphics cards. And there was a godawful real money store with bloated prices where you could buy clothes and accessories which nobody else could actually see, and which were mostly drab and grey. A lot of people who were actually looking forward to having avatars were massively underwhelmed, and the anticipation turned into hatedom almost overnight.

Gremlich Johns, on 03 May 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

UAVs make no sense unless your orbital surveillance system cannot see the ground. C'mon, 3050 for crying out loud.

I demand realism when I'm shooting lasers from my giant robot in the 31st century!

[Warge]

Accursed Richards, on 06 May 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

I demand realism when I'm shooting lasers from my giant robot in the 31st century!

I demand wizards and fireballs to shoot giant robots! In the 31st century!

Edited by Warge, 06 May 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[Void Angel]

DCM Zeus, on 21 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Feedback for 3rd person is it should not be implemented, and I just don't know how it could be without major impact on how the game is played.

To me I see 3rd person more of a crutch, just like coolant, this is causing lazyness, and is not punishing the player which is imo keeping the player base from trying to improve their game play.

Which is why they're're not mixing 1st and 3rd person players except by the players' choice. Third-person has been used for games ranging from Crash Bandicoot, to WoW, to Mass Effect. I personally won't use it in MechWarrior because I think we have vision arcs for a reason - but as long as I don't have to play with other players using 3rd-person, I have no reasonable grounds to object. Nor will I; my only caution is that if you try to please too many people you risk diluting the quality of the game.

My only question, which has already been asked, is about Community Warfare. The only two solutions to that are to segregate the vision modes or to allow both in CW matches - in the former case, there's a segmentation of the player base, and in the latter case we'll just have to use what seems most effective. Again, I'd rather see the former than the latter, but I'm not going to freak out over it.

PS: Claiming that your opinion and desires are the "recommendations" of the "community" is dishonest and pretentious in the extreme - please refrain from putting words in the mouths of myself and others. You know who you are. Quiddit.

Edited by Void Angel, 06 May 2013 - 10:46 PM.

[Chrithu]

Haven't been in this discussion for quite a while. I am happy about the planned details that Bryan and Paul posted (locked to torso, no free look, reduced HUD elements, zoom in when approaching cover) as they will negate any potential advantage of 3rd over 1st person and thus negate the necessity for a player base split over perspective. But at the same time those very details let a question arise as with those limitations the third person view will most probably be unplayable and a no brainer to not play in:

Why have it then?
For cosmetics?
To have a camera for vids?

In that case, since a way to play offline is implemented already I'd rather have them develop a proper local (clientside) match recording mechanic that records all the actions for replay. And in this replay mode give us free cameras. That would make a lot of the video making people here VERY happy.

I repeat myself but whatever arguments arise pro 3rd person are either easily countered or are truely con 3rd person because they show that the effort used to implement it would be better used elsewhere. Again I say: 3rd Person is a nice to have and not a must have feature of games. And people that prefer 3rd person only use it if it is playable and the game is properly tailored towards it.

[Rattlehead NZ]

Locked views or not, 3rd person would still have an advantage. Ever looked up a steep hill only to have your view blocked by the top of your cockpit? For 3rd person to be usable you would need the camera back far enough to see the legs of the mech, I mean isn't that the reason for having it in the first place for people not use to the FP view and so driving these big metal beasts become easier. A view further behind the mech will create a greater field of view.

I appreciate the option to not play with people using 3rd person, though i think it's a waste of resources for such a trivial option. People will either like the game or they won't, and a point of view isn't going to change that. OMG COD has 3rd Person views now im SOLD!

A battle recorder like BF2, now that's something myself and the majority would support and you would still have your 3rd person view

[Chavette]

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.

DCM Zeus, on 21 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Feedback for 3rd person is it should not be implemented.

This.

Seems like thats alot to digest for some.

Its like asking in what fashion would you like to have your limb cut off.

Hyperbole, but the dilemma is the same.

[Hawker]

As long as I can que up for 1st person only, I don't really care how they implement 3rd person, because I will never drop in that que. They can make it so you can see everyone all the time. Might as well since why limit them, they choose 3rd just for the reason that it allows them a greater field of view.

[Warge]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 07 May 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

What would happen to the 1st person que if it drops below a sustainable number of ppl playing on it?

Multiplayer games in MW4 prove the reverse.
Real fans prefer 1st pv and they are more than enough here.

[Dishevel]

Warge, on 07 May 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Multiplayer games in MW4 prove the reverse.
Real fans prefer 1st pv and they are more than enough here.

But here they are going after the Facebook, Farmville crowd. We are screwed.

[Warge]

Dishevel, on 07 May 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

But here they are going after the Facebook, Farmville crowd. We are screwed.

Maybe "yes", maybe "no". We don't know exact numbers...

[Warge]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 07 May 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

If thats the case why is it such an issue? Ive seen ppl in this thread screaming how the only leagues were in 3rd person not first, so by that standard it would seem the opposite is true

More money to give MWO long life? Long enough to see engine upgrade, as it happened with EVE. To see benefits from DX12 maybe.

Jackson Jax Teller, on 07 May 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Also if you LISTEN TO PGI the opposite is true, otherwise they wouldnt be listening to the silent majoroty over the 5000 to 100 threads here

I don't believe them since broken promises happened: "no consumables in MWO", "no 3rd pv in MWO". But! I like the way how coolant flush applied. If 3rd pv will be done as carefully... in other way we could only pray that 1st pv fans is at least half.

Edited by Warge, 07 May 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[EvilCow]

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

[Warge]

EvilCow, on 08 May 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

I am altering the deal.

What's on your mind?

[Dishevel]

Warge, on 08 May 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

What's on your mind?

The new deal is they pay us to play.
The deal is change. They will now pay us 30,000 MC per week to play.

Understand this thread is not to debate the merits of them paying us MC but of how much MC they should Pay.

Edited by Dishevel, 08 May 2013 - 11:36 AM.

[Void Angel]

Chavette, on 07 May 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

This. Seems like thats alot to digest for some. Its like asking in what fashion would you like to have your limb cut off. Hyperbole, but the dilemma is the same.

Jackson Jax Teller, on 07 May 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, they dont care your opinions, just how to do it. Funny how that works though, 236 ppl are representitive of the forums when it comes to their structure and what the mods want to hear but 5000 against isnt when its something the devs dont want to hear.

This really takes me back. Specifically, it takes me back to the World of Warcraft Shaman forums, which was once amusingly described by another poster as "a hive of angry, mentally ******** bees.[emphasis not added]" We all joined a Beta; we knew what this was. When you're still beta testing a game, things will change - and now they have. So now people put on their Indignant Player hat and start in with, "PGI lied to us! They told us they didn't have plans to would never do [insert thing I don't like] and now it's coming!11!!!" How is this the response of a reasonable person? Stamping your foot and screaming "but you said! YOU SAID, YOU SAID, YOU SAID!!!" does not cast you in the role of adult.

PGI is making a game for money. More precisely, they are making an excellent game for money; but money has to be made. If PGI is going with a 3rd person option, and most beta testers really don't want it - guess what? It's probably because of market research telling them they need 3rd person to meet revenue goals for the game. That's just a guess, but it's really immaterial why - because that's not what this thread is for.

I personally don't like the idea of 3rd person view. I think that the cockpit view has an important impact on gameplay, particularly given the directional radar tracking system used in our BattleMechs - but this is not the thread to argue that point of view. So even though I'd rather not have 3rd person in the game at all, I'm still happy to give meaningful, thoughtful feedback on how I'd like to see this implemented - rather than trying to hijack the thread to cry over spilt milk. This may be a lot for some to digest - but it's also the grownup thing to do.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 May 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Dishevel]

Void Angel, on 08 May 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I personally don't like the idea of 3rd person view. I think that the cockpit view has an important impact on gameplay, particularly given the directional radar tracking system used in our BattleMechs - but this is not the thread to argue that point of view. So even though I'd rather not have 3rd person in the game at all, I'm still happy to give meaningful, thoughtful feedback on how I'd like to see this implemented - rather than trying to hijack the thread to cry over spilt milk. This may be a lot for some to digest - but it's also the grownup thing to do.

Agreed. So where do we start a thread telling PGI not to do 3rd person without having it locked?

Because according to previous statements if we are quiet about it we agree.

[Void Angel]

Not here, that's for certain. As I said, I'm against 3rd person in general. However, while I suspect that I may have missed a debate on the subject, if the decision has already been irrevocably made, making threads to complain about it may be an excercise in echo-chamber futility. Even if the decision can be reversed, maundering on about Call of Duty and how we're all real gamers (not like those [insert pejorative description] on XBox Live) doesn't seem a productive way to achieve that end.

[Dishevel]

Void Angel, on 08 May 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Not here, that's for certain. As I said, I'm against 3rd person in general. However, while I suspect that I may have missed a debate on the subject, if the decision has already been irrevocably made, making threads to complain about it may be an excercise in echo-chamber futility. Even if the decision can be reversed, maundering on about Call of Duty and how we're all real gamers (not like those [insert pejorative description] on XBox Live) doesn't seem a productive way to achieve that end.

Agree here as well.
Now. Lets us now discuss how we can go about changing their minds.

One. We need to stay vocal. (We do not have to be idiots about it but we do need to make sure the conversation continues.)

Two, We need stay focused. (Hard to do since if we focus on removing 3rd person it is off topic and can be moderated.)

Three. We need to enable a way to communicate effectively without moderation fear. (General Discussion?)

Four. We need to be free to state what is really going on. (Think you nailed it. They want the bigger money from the non MWO types. They will **** us off to get it.)

Edited by Dishevel, 08 May 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[EvilCow]

Void Angel, on 08 May 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Not here, that's for certain. As I said, I'm against 3rd person in general. However, while I suspect that I may have missed a debate on the subject, if the decision has already been irrevocably made, making threads to complain about it may be an excercise in echo-chamber futility. Even if the decision can be reversed, maundering on about Call of Duty and how we're all real gamers (not like those [insert pejorative description] on XBox Live) doesn't seem a productive way to achieve that end.

It remains to be seen if complaining about it is really an exercise in futility. Better be heard loud and clear on important matter.

Loud and clear like: no more money from me until this thing is officially withdrawn and goodbye if it will be ever introduced. This is the new deal.

[Void Angel]

I didn't say complaining was (or was not) futile. I pointed out that complaining here is futile, because such complaints really are off-topic. Make another thread, with a constructive argument. I further pointed out that objections based on jocks-v-nerds high school pecking order games is not productive. Snide comments about Facebook, Farmvill, Call of Duty, etc. just make you look like a smug jerk trying to be a nerd-jock.

That being said, it does seem like PGI is going ahead with this, and that the time for discussion is past. Thus, it's important to ensure that the implementation we want has strong support rather than wasting time and energy trying to chase water under a bridge. It's not a huge issue anyway - the invective thrown about, and the airs of offended injury assumed, make me want to tell people to just... go outside.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 May 2013 - 01:01 PM.