2002 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

See guys, the argument the devs are making FOR 3rd person is that it's to help "the new player"

Well in order to help the new player, 3rd person would have to be enabled in a legitimate match. However enabling 3rd person in a legitimate match gives that player an edge over everyone else stuck in their cockpits.

There is no good way to go about this, frankly the "good" solution to 3rd person is simply non-implimentation.

[Coolant]

Jade Kitsune, on 29 May 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

See guys, the argument the devs are making FOR 3rd person is that it's to help "the new player"

Well in order to help the new player, 3rd person would have to be enabled in a legitimate match. However enabling 3rd person in a legitimate match gives that player an edge over everyone else stuck in their cockpits.

There is no good way to go about this, frankly the "good" solution to 3rd person is simply non-implimentation.

You are listing only one of the reasons. According to Bryan in the first post:

Why add 3rd person? Reduces friction for non-MechWarrior players, non-core players, and expands the MWO market to a broader audience.

By now, every argument under the sun has been given against 3rd person being implemented. And, yet, the broader audience is out there, and one of the reasons 3rd person is being implemented is so MWO is more accessible to that audience. The argument, "just because there is a 3rd Person view available doesn't mean it will attract that audience", can be debated, but fact is, there is market for 3rd person games and PGI would be ignorant to ignore them. All previous Mechwarrior games had 3rd Person, so if you played them you were part of that audience.

Also, the argument that PGI said there would never be 3rd Person is ignorant. It's a business and businesses adapt or they bankrupt.

I just keep getting drawn into the discussion because of the absolutely ridiculous stubborness of some that would rather keep the game limited rather than have options. Oh, and the argument that options will split the user base to the point that the matchmaker won't be able to find games for 1st person players is ridiculous seeing as how certain polls show people are so adamant to play their 1st person that there will always be available players unless that poll wasn't accurate. And, that there are 10's of thousands playing at any one time means there are plenty of players period in the player pool, according to Bryan's Reddit interview:

"Q(nickrenfo2): Approximately how many games are being played at any given moment? Which 'mech seems to be the favorite? Which 'mechs die the most? Which 'mechs do the most damage on average per match? What kind of other interesting factoids might there be that you know of?
Bryan Ekman: I don't have all the number handy, but it's thousands (games). I'll have to do another stats post.

If thousands of games are being played at any given moment x~16 players, and conservatively saying thousands as just 2, that's 36000 players at any given time.

Edited by Coolant, 29 May 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[CyBerkut]

Coolant, on 29 May 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Oh, and the argument that options will split the user base to the point that the matchmaker won't be able to find games for 1st person players is ridiculous seeing as how certain polls show people are so adamant to play their 1st person that there will always be available players unless that poll wasn't accurate. And, that there are 10's of thousands playing at any one time means there are plenty of players period in the player pool, according to Bryan's Reddit interview:

"Q(nickrenfo2): Approximately how many games are being played at any given moment? Which 'mech seems to be the favorite? Which 'mechs die the most? Which 'mechs do the most damage on average per match? What kind of other interesting factoids might there be that you know of?
Bryan Ekman: I don't have all the number handy, but it's thousands (games). I'll have to do another stats post.

If thousands of games are being played at any given moment x~16 players, and conservatively saying thousands as just 2, that's 36000 players at any given time.

Somebody please let us know in here if that stats post comes to fruition.

In the meantime, let's just accept that representation as accurate. All the more reason to give the 3PV players a separate CW universe to play in, apart from the 1PV play.

And yet... that isn't the direction indicated in the most recent post upon the subject (that I'm aware of). PGI apparently intends to put 1PV and 3PV into the same CW universe, utilizing some yet-to-be-determined process for deciding how the game will be played when a 3PV team meets a 1PV team.

[starlight2098]

I find the amount of vehemence against having a third person camera here quite surprising. This issue has been dealt with in other games.

In World of Tanks, the default view is third person. However, whilst granting far superior situational awareness with known terrain and threats, it's quite reasonable. Why? Firstly, only threats detected by yourself or your team are visible, so it doesn't give you super sight, just information that in the meta-game should be known (though tanks have radio operators and commanders for this purpose and mechs do not, the mech DOES have an advanced and networked tactical computer system.) Secondly, it gives you more of the natural peripheral vision you're missing in first person view, simply as a sad downside of a monitor's proportions.

Tanks have a useful method of granting elevated, 360 degree vision for tactical awareness. A piece of technology which is seemingly lost to the ages, called a periscope. It's made of two mirrors and some tubing chaps. I'm sure mechs can equal or better this with all of their technology and such. Seriously. Though the horrible, grainy digital zoom of the Advanced Zoom Module does give me pause there (and seriously, 2m C-Bills for a software 'upgrade?') I admit, it does seem like the Inner Sphere barely knows how the tech it does still have works, but still.

So, from that point of view, not giving mechs third person is like admitting in the meta game that mechs are blind, blundering imbeciles of a combat unit and inferior to a tank of the same technology and tonnage (which IS true, so I suppose I could live with it on those grounds.) z: D

Aside from that meta game stuff, I must say that I find it a bit of a sore point that this game has so much focus on splashing real cash on the cosmetic apperance of your mech and so little opportunity to enjoy it in motion, or indeed on the vertical axis. In fact, the only time you get to see your mech on the field is when it's dead and most of your fancy paintjob is a little bit burned. Am I seriously spending this cash just for OTHER people to enjoy? To hell with that, I want to see my mech looking awesome!

Mechwarrior 2 had a third person view. It was useless. You couldn't aim for toffee in it... but when you were just running to an objective, it provided a wonderful opportunity to switch it on and give your mech a look over, going, "Yep, still awesome. Ahhh, I love this mech. I love the way this mech looks. It's so much cooler then the other mechs that are not my mech. *BOOM* Crap, work to do, back to first person!"

That is a visual pleasure centre hit that is just entirely missing here. It's crazy. It's a pro-point in World of Tanks that you get to admire your customised tank during a lull and the customisation options in WoT are rubbish. Given how much effort has gone into making this game and its mech pretty, it's such a wasted opportunity. If I can pick the colours of my mech, I should be able to see them at other times then simply, "doing nothing," and "dead," which is also doing nothing. C'mon, where's my screenshot potential? Where's the opporunity for us video-game photographers to make ourselves a truly tremendous background picture of our custom mech advancing on the camera unloading an alpha strike (though in reality we were in the training room and alpha-ing a tree,) eh? eh? ...eh?

[Strum Wealh]

Frisk, on 28 May 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

If in order to have melee we need 3rd person... I say bring it on.

That is vary much not the case; 3rd person POV is not a necessity for the implementation of melee combat.

[Jestun]

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

I find the amount of vehemence against having a third person camera here quite surprising. This issue has been dealt with in other games.

In World of Tanks, the default view is third person. However, whilst granting far superior situational awareness with known terrain and threats, it's quite reasonable. Why?

I'll stop you there.

You can decide what is reasonable to you, you may not care that it allows people to see the terrain over boulders, lets them see into valleys which are not visible in 1st person, etc. But you don't get to decide whether that matters to other people.

As you pointed out, WoT has a clear advantage in 3rd person when it comes to situational awareness. And that is the problem.

Edited by Jestun, 01 June 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[starlight2098]

Jestun, on 01 June 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

You can decide what is reasonable to you, you may not care that it allows people to see the terrain over boulders, lets them see into valleys which are not visible in 1st person, etc. But you don't get to decide whether that matters to other people.

As you pointed out, WoT has a clear advantage in 3rd person when it comes to situational awareness. And that is the problem.

Yes I do get to decide what I consider reasonable, I don't really see your point there. Moving on.

Frankly, I don't consider a WoT level of situational awareness to be a problem, rather, I consider MWO's lack of it to be an issue. In both cases, we have a team based tactical vehicular game, but in one of them all of the players have tunnel vision - and it shows in the matches in players' cumbersome reactions to changing tactical situations. In WoT you can know what's going on around you in a second's glance and react accordingly, in MWO people don't often seem to notice what's going on until they themselves get shot in the back.

There are any number of in-universe reasons why mechwarriors should have that level of awareness. Advanced sensor equipment, precise three dimensional maps made from orbit, virtual reality visualisation equipment (and if I remember the fluff correctly, direct neural interface.) The terrain up ahead should not be a mystery. An elite warrior pilot of the 31st Century driving a very expensive vehicle should have that information at their command.

So yes I consider it reasonable that players should have this information and I think it would lead to a higher standard of play as well as a greater level of enjoyment. MWO would be a better game for it. Blindness and ignorance are not features.

[Barghest Whelp]

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Yes I do get to decide what I consider reasonable, I don't really see your point there. Moving on.

Let me just stop you right there and quote Yoda while I'm at it: "that, is why you fail".

Seriously, you even stated in your own post how 3PV has an advantage over 1PV. That IS the problem.

Coolant, on 29 May 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

All previous Mechwarrior games had 3rd Person, so if you played them you were part of that audience.

Wrong. I didn't even know they had 3PV until I read about it on these forums. I knew MW4 had it, but it was kind of hard to not notice. It's part of the reason I never liked that game.

Besides, before MW4, times were different. The people I played mechwarrior with didn't know there was a 3PV either, and we played our games on LAN. So there was no 3PV meta game abuse in my mechwarrior thank very much.

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Blindness and ignorance are not features.

It's called immersion, and this is a giant walking tank simulator, which requires immersion in order to be fun for me. Otherwise I might as well go play CoD (never played it, maybe I should give it a go). There are loads of 1st person shooters that became huge successes without any 3PV. Counter strike, Unreal tournament, Half life just to mention a few.

Trust me, 3PV is not the thing that's going to make this game attractive to the masses. It's a complete waste of dev resources and a can of worms that's best left unopened. Ice scating with jump jets and bigger head hitboxes for easier headshots and faster paced gameplay would make this game popular for the masses.

Face it, if you want to make a mechwarrior game popular, then the first thing you need to do is remove everything that even remotely resembles battletech.

[Mrllamaface]

It has been said 100 times before me and will likely be said 100 times again. I don't think it will add to the game, and I worry that dividing the player base will end up killing the game.

[starlight2098]

Barghest Whelp, on 01 June 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Let me just stop you right there and quote Yoda while I'm at it: "that, is why you fail".

Seriously, you even stated in your own post how 3PV has an advantage over 1PV. That IS the problem.

Sorry Yoda, you're speaking from a most undignified orfice. It's unbecoming of a Jedi Master.

I find the statement of your opinion that I find my own opinion reasonable is... well... spurious at best. I mean c'mon, what are you even getting at? No memes please, just your own reasoning.

An advantage shared is no unfair advantage and my point is that the game needs it. Due to the blinkers put on players, they bumble around failing to properly react and co-ordinate.

You wouldn't have it on all the time, because of the lack of precision it offers in gunnery. I could forsee it operating more like in World of Tanks, where you move about in third person until it's time to shoot, when you zoom in with the mousewheel via the cockpit (a feature this game also badly needs.)

Quote

Wrong. I didn't even know they had 3PV until I read about it on these forums. I knew MW4 had it, but it was kind of hard to not notice. It's part of the reason I never liked that game.

Besides, before MW4, times were different. The people I played mechwarrior with didn't know there was a 3PV either, and we played our games on LAN. So there was no 3PV meta game abuse in my mechwarrior thank very much.

As I said before, it was mostly useless in those games anyway. It was clumsily implemented and difficult to operate, but was nice to be able to get an external view of your mech, otherwise, what's the point of decorating it? Why should we be cut off from that aspect of visual appreciation? Especially when you pay good money for the apperance of your mech.

...and really, it sounds like the loss is your own.

Quote

It's called immersion, and this is a giant walking tank simulator, which requires immersion in order to be fun for me. Otherwise I might as well go play CoD (never played it, maybe I should give it a go). There are loads of 1st person shooters that became huge successes without any 3PV. Counter strike, Unreal tournament, Half life just to mention a few.

Immersion, whilst nice, must be tempered with Acceptable Breaks with Reality. Which I'm not even sure this qualifies, given 31st (well, 28th if you follow the fluff) century technology. A mech pilot should be able to ask their computer to show him a top-down pac man view and the computer should be able to feed it into their brain.

I'm not sure UT, Half Life and its mods are good comparisons to this game. Those are twitchy shooters with little tactics (with Counterstrike being the exception... sometimes... but usually not.) This is a tactical vehicular game requiring some co-ordination beyond, "HE'S BEHIND THAT WALL N00BZ OMGWTFBBQ"

Quote

Trust me, 3PV is not the thing that's going to make this game attractive to the masses. It's a complete waste of dev resources and a can of worms that's best left unopened. Ice scating with jump jets and bigger head hitboxes for easier headshots and faster paced gameplay would make this game popular for the masses.

Face it, if you want to make a mechwarrior game popular, then the first thing you need to do is remove everything that even remotely resembles battletech.

I rather think they were going for a niche market here, capitalising on a great deal of latent love of the Battletech franchise. Newer and less well founded IP's using big robots have not done so well without that foundation. I admire them for building a labour of love and going for the market that wants something a bit more interesting and considered then the mass of identical contemporary shooter shlock which the market is currently absolutely flooded with. I think they're walking a smart path.

I don't think improved camera tools are a divergence from that at all.

[Barghest Whelp]

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Sorry Yoda, you're speaking from a most undignified orfice. It's unbecoming of a Jedi Master.

I find the statement of your opinion that I find my own opinion reasonable is... well... spurious at best. I mean c'mon, what are you even getting at? No memes please, just your own reasoning.

An advantage shared is no unfair advantage and my point is that the game needs it. Due to the blinkers put on players, they bumble around failing to properly react and co-ordinate.

You wouldn't have it on all the time, because of the lack of precision it offers in gunnery. I could forsee it operating more like in World of Tanks, where you move about in third person until it's time to shoot, when you zoom in with the mousewheel via the cockpit (a feature this game also badly needs.)

Yes, and that's the thing I don't like about it. See, it gives an advantage there by forcing everybody to use it. And switching modes in battle doesn't make it any better. In fact, I really feel that you should have to choose one before the match starts, and have to stick with it. In 3PV no HUD, heat monitor or aiming reticule and we have a deal. No switching in game.

Either that or it's a piece of equipment that requires slots and tons, and it can disabled by shooting the little camera drone that's following you around. The slots and tonnage is for the computer controlling the little drone.

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

As I said before, it was mostly useless in those games anyway. It was clumsily implemented and difficult to operate, but was nice to be able to get an external view of your mech, otherwise, what's the point of decorating it? Why should we be cut off from that aspect of visual appreciation? Especially when you pay good money for the apperance of your mech.

...and really, it sounds like the loss is your own.

I change the appearance of my mechs for others to see. Same way I dress up to impress memebers of the opposite sex. Not in order to fall in love with myself.

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Immersion, whilst nice, must be tempered with Acceptable Breaks with Reality. Which I'm not even sure this qualifies, given 31st (well, 28th if you follow the fluff) century technology. A mech pilot should be able to ask their computer to show him a top-down pac man view and the computer should be able to feed it into their brain.

I'm not sure UT, Half Life and its mods are good comparisons to this game. Those are twitchy shooters with little tactics (with Counterstrike being the exception... sometimes... but usually not.) This is a tactical vehicular game requiring some co-ordination beyond, "HE'S BEHIND THAT WALL N00BZ OMGWTFBBQ"

First off, I guess you missed the part about humanity bombing itself back in to the stone age a few times over the centuries. That's why they call the advanced stuff we have "lostech". We lost the knowledge of how to make these things many years ago. That's why the clans have such superior tech. They didn't blast themselves back in to the stone age this time around.

And saying that Unreal tournament isn't tactical is... well I don't know what that is. In the 2004 edition when onslaught mode was added it certainly became a lot more tactical. Sure, you can win a fight without any tactics, if the opposing team is made up of noobs, but the same goes for MW:O. I've won several fights more or less by myself. Sure, they were complete noobs, but that still doesn't change the fact that I won. Besides, there are more games. Wolfenstein: ET is tactical, and that also does not offer 3PV. It was also very popular, even for a free title.

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

I rather think they were going for a niche market here, capitalising on a great deal of latent love of the Battletech franchise. Newer and less well founded IP's using big robots have not done so well without that foundation. I admire them for building a labour of love and going for the market that wants something a bit more interesting and considered then the mass of identical contemporary shooter shlock which the market is currently absolutely flooded with. I think they're walking a smart path.

I don't think improved camera tools are a divergence from that at all.

Yes, and that's exactly my point. Most of the BT neckbeards are already here and heavily invested in to the game. We've cast our votes several times. The vote is: we don't want 3PV. Niche market means there isn't a lot more to gain, and if you stray from your core product, then you lose the few that you have, and it's not going to be easy to get them back.

And yeah, I hear Hawken is doing pretty well. It has the sort of features that make it easy to get in to, and it's fast paced. PGI have stated that they're working on 3PV in order to reach out to a bigger crowd. My point is, it's a slippery slope, and it opens up a huge can of worms. If you're wondering about that can of worms you just need to read this thread.

[Coolant]

Barghest Whelp, on 01 June 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Wrong. I didn't even know they had 3PV until I read about it on these forums. I knew MW4 had it, but it was kind of hard to not notice. It's part of the reason I never liked that game.

Besides, before MW4, times were different. The people I played mechwarrior with didn't know there was a 3PV either, and we played our games on LAN. So there was no 3PV meta game abuse in my mechwarrior thank very much.

Ah ok, so you didnt support MW4 multiplayer in the ~10 years there were servers available and yet, despite not being a part of the community for the past decade, you have decided (finally) to be a part of it. You are a decade late my friend and your opinion since ur so late to the party, lacks weight...

[Gremlich Johns]

starlight2098, on 01 June 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

I find the amount of vehemence against having a third person camera here quite surprising. This issue has been dealt with in other games.

In World of Tanks, the default view is third person.

World of tanks is not a tank game, it is an imitation of a mech game on treads where one player controls the whole device. I have been a tank crewman and to operate a tank, you need a minimum of 3 crewman - the Tank commander, gunner and driver, assuming an autoloader. One could argue for two crewman if the Tank commander is also the gunner. But that would only work in platoons of tanks. Your field of view as an actual tank gunner is narrow - imagine looking through a telescope with a reticle (actually, that's exactly what one of the tank sights is, the other being a binocular periscope) 3PV is necessary in WOT because if it used 1PV, you could only see maybe 8-15 degrees of view.

The mech in Mechwarrior has one crewman (normally - see the Battlemaster), there is an autoloader for ballistics and missiles negating the need for a human to perform that duty, and the pilot is both the driver and gunner because the mech is bi-pedal - ostensibly a huge battlearmor.

The field of view in a mech is much wider and the 1PV aspect is perfect for playing the game. In my consideration, 3PV is a crutch for players unwilling to learn something new after playing so many twitch games in 3PV. I know what my mech looks like so don't start in with "I'd like to see my mech in its glorious camo in action. The mechlab is sufficient for that. I thought people wanted 3PV because the game "has a steep learning curve" (hooey, btw), not to see their mechs from all around. 3PV changes the way Mechwarrior video games are played. Advantage over conventional play upsets any game balance provided by the game developer.

I know I speak for others when I say "If I drop into a match server, expecting ONLY 1st Person View, and there are players able to and do use 3PV in the same match, I am done with MW:O".

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 01 June 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think 3rd person would bring more money into the game by increasing customer retention and appealing to a larger pool of players. Video games look cool in 3rd person. You can see more of the stuff that's happening. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it can be more appealing to many people.

Lots of people like to play games in 3rd person, and they might not pick-up playing MW:O if they don't like playing a cockpit-perspective game. It's not really prudent to say "Good Riddance!" to people who like to play in 3rd person because you think they aren't good enough of players. Selling more MC to a larger audience over the course of time will equate to a larger overhead budget and more productivity => bigger game.

The Devs have said that you'll be able to choose your opponents in terms of their 1st/3rd person perspectives.

[Barghest Whelp]

Prosperity Park, on 01 June 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think 3rd person would bring more money into the game by increasing customer retention and appealing to a larger pool of players. Video games look cool in 3rd person. You can see more of the stuff that's happening. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it can be more appealing to many people.

Lots of people like to play games in 3rd person, and they might not pick-up playing MW:O if they don't like playing a cockpit-perspective game. It's not really prudent to say "Good Riddance!" to people who like to play in 3rd person because you think they aren't good enough of players. Selling more MC to a larger audience over the course of time will equate to a larger overhead budget and more productivity => bigger game.

The Devs have said that you'll be able to choose your opponents in terms of their 1st/3rd person perspectives.

First of all, judging by the votes that have been made on these forums so far, it looks like they are guaranteed to lose a lot of customers by implementing 3PV. These are customers that have already spent money on this game. A well known fact in terms of f2p is that once a customer starts spending, he/she is much more likely to spend again, and probably larger amounts.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that they will gain any customers by implementing it. There isn't even any polls or any real figures as to how many new players will pick up this game on the basis that 3PV is implemented.

So no, it will not increase player retention. If you mean that they will retain you, then all I can say is: "well, there's no 3PV and you're still here." But by all means, please let me know when the lack of 3PV is getting so bad that you're ready to quit the game. Then you can also do a poll and see how many other players feel the same way.

[CyBerkut]

Prosperity Park, on 01 June 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think 3rd person would bring more money into the game by increasing customer retention and appealing to a larger pool of players. Video games look cool in 3rd person. You can see more of the stuff that's happening. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it can be more appealing to many people.

Lots of people like to play games in 3rd person, and they might not pick-up playing MW:O if they don't like playing a cockpit-perspective game. It's not really prudent to say "Good Riddance!" to people who like to play in 3rd person because you think they aren't good enough of players. Selling more MC to a larger audience over the course of time will equate to a larger overhead budget and more productivity => bigger game.

Then give that massive influx of new players (that need/want 3PV) their own matches, and their own Community Warfare if they actually have sufficient numbers to warrant it.

Quote

The Devs have said that you'll be able to choose your opponents in terms of their 1st/3rd person perspectives.

They have also said:

Quote

Ask the Devs #37
Gremlich Johns: When the CW mode is implemented, will it be 1st Person View only?
A: We haven’t decided on the final format. Both 3^rd and 1^st person will be available options, however we have yet to confirm how one or the other will be selected for specific scenarios, like Merc Corp vs Merc Corp.

To my knowledge, that is their most recent pronouncement upon the subject. The implications of that have already been discussed in this thread several pages back, so I'm not laying it out again in this message. To sum it up, it's not good.

[Jestun]

Prosperity Park, on 01 June 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

I think 3rd person would bring more money into the game by increasing customer retention and appealing to a larger pool of players. Video games look cool in 3rd person. You can see more of the stuff that's happening. Yes, it's unrealistic, but it can be more appealing to many people.

Lots of people like to play games in 3rd person, and they might not pick-up playing MW:O if they don't like playing a cockpit-perspective game. It's not really prudent to say "Good Riddance!" to people who like to play in 3rd person because you think they aren't good enough of players. Selling more MC to a larger audience over the course of time will equate to a larger overhead budget and more productivity => bigger game.

The Devs have said that you'll be able to choose your opponents in terms of their 1st/3rd person perspectives.

Yeah, and lots of potential players like the RNG tab-targetting system like EQ, WoW, and most other MMORPGs.

Does that mean MWO would be better if it were a WoW clone instead?


I'm sure 3rd person will bring in new people. But if you think it won't cost existing people you are fooling yourself.

[Skoaljaw]

IMHO the training ground is the best place for a 3rd person view... especially for screen shots! Thanks for going this direction PGI!

[ICEFANG13]

Come on its not like players or anyone is going to say, gee this game looks great and has 3rd person in the training grounds only, totally my style. I can beat up on other mechs.

3rd person has no value to add to anything other than a tutorial. Which is also contradiction, since its unwise to teach new players how to play, and then change it when they enter the game.

3rd person will be in the normal game, integrated with 1st is what we don't know.

[Felicitatem Parco]

"3rd person has no value to add to anything other than a tutorial."

Actually, it adds a new perspective to gameplay.​ When the Camera is positioned behind and above the Mech you're using, it greatly increases local situational awareness. It lets you see the shots that hit you, and from where. It lets you see more of the lasery explosiony-ness that's taking place. You see more of the game. Many, many people liked Mass Effect's 3rd person perspective, as an example.

__________________________________________________________


If they did implement 3rd person, it would create a situation where you'd lose the Data from your cockpit monitors. Right now they're just relegated to monitoring your heat Sink status and some ammo counts.. but once they get more usefulness, then the 3rdPerson HUD might need an additional togglable-layer, like a PiP that brings up the data currently displayed on physical monitors.

I recall form the Reboot Trailer that they tinkered with a HUD with expandable elements, like when the Pilot checks the Health of his Warhammer. That would probably be needed for 3rd person.