2002 replies to this topic

[SirLANsalot]

The suggestions I have been putting out are literally the best compromise you can come up with. Without splitting the community up into two separate camps. One will be "the elitist" camp (most likely 1P) the other will be shat on and disregarded when someone pipes up about something. That is one thing myself and many others fear and are trying to stop.

Placing 3P with 1P at the same time, together and available to everyone DURING the fight, not before, is how WoT got around it. No one can whine about someone in 3P or 1P because you both have it, at the same time. MW4 I know had the two split and you had to choose between the two prior to dropping. However that was back in 1999 tech, today computers are 10x more powerful then back then. As for what Cry Eng 3 can do? Well thats a different story....

As I said, 3P is great for brawling/moving around, gives you awareness of your enviroment and weather if you are going to run into that wall or not. 1P is great for long range shooting, and overall, gives you a far better gunnery at all ranges but your awareness about that wall next to you or your friendly, drops quite a bit.

Note: It would be perfectly fine to see friendlys in 3P even if your pilot can't (WoT dose it this way already) and you can only see enemys if someone else is spotting them, or if you own pilot sees them (like we have now).

[BigMekkUrDakka]

most hilarious post about 3pv

[Victor Morson]

Nobody wants this. Your market research guy is wrong, PGI.

The Asian market can cope without 3rd Person. They'll still play your game and if they don't, it's probably because of the horrible trial 'mech system, not your camera.

Seriously, I know the forums represent a minority - and the vocal posters are a minority of that minority - but when you get such universal hate for a feature, across all types - you know something is seriously wrong. The last poll I voted on was 160+ to 5. Seriously, if 3rd person needs to go in, it should be in Training Grounds and optional in Private Servers only, just to take videos.

If people are this united, then I think I can safely say nobody wants this. Remember, the majority may not be here, but the majority is also silent... and even if they misunderstand the real root causes of their problems and up vote this, are likely to feel the pain later on and be driven off. There is a nice cross-section of player attitudes, skills and types here and we all don't want this.

EDIT: And seriously, don't split the freaking ques based around 3rd person. Talk about a silly way to cripple Matchmaker.

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 June 2013 - 05:31 AM.

[Jungle Rhino]

Dear PGI market reserch guy.

Your game will be popular if it is not **** and actually contains content such as Community Warfare, Dropmodes, and some type of Voice Chat/Lobby (you know like you said you would)

Adding 3rd person mode (like you said you wouldn't) will just p1ss everybody else including the people who paid you money on the basis that you were not going to. Much like you said you weren't going to add coolant flush.


Anyhow here is my prediction:
3PV will be incorporated as a module - lets call it Aerial Sensor Suite.
*** will require 15,000 GXP (or some real world $$$) to unlock and the module itself will cost several million CBills (again so you have to spend real world $$$ instead of purchasing mechs with the CBills that you have to spend on the module.

Of course because we all completely trust PGI's internal testing team (who brought us LRMwarrioronline, SRMwarrioronline, LRMwarrioronline, Poptartwarrioronline, then LRMwarrioronline AGAIN) *** will be fine because "early tests are showing there is not much of an advantage".

At least we will be able to see our kewl paintjobs!!!

*golfclap*

[Yelland]

One thing they cannot do is limit 3rd person, especially if the idea is to increase playability and mainstream interest. Any restriction or UAV type of mechanism that can be destroyed, forcing you into 1st person will be seen as a severe gameplay issue with those who prefer 3rd person.

Either the game has it or not. It must be available to everyone as an absolute toggle. They can split the game into 3rd person and 1st person matches, which creates its own unique set of problems. Community segregation, elitism, etc… Interesting that 3rd person is meant to solve something.

I suspect that PGI is going round in circles, this cannot be an easy thing to work through.

The plain fact they are considering "how best" to implement the idea has me thinking: square peg round hole scenario.

It’s a sacrifice of ideals for appeal.

It's not my game and I am no analyst. If I was though - take your awesome concept art team and get them on everyone's monitor. Market the strategy aspects, the deliberate pace, advertise the customization, appeal to the gamer's search for something different.

Why don't I see MWO plastered everywhere, is it cost? Ads should be on my phone, MWO should be on Steam, in the Windows Marketplace and Win8 Store (MW is a MS IP, can you get a deal on advertising?).

How about Amazon? Get a "deal of the day" for a premium time bundle and Medium Mech with unique "Amazon" pattern to kick start new players. I would pay for a premium time bundle on Amazon too.

[Kraven Kor]

I don't care if you add 3PV.

What I care about is not having to play MWO in 3PV, nor do I want to be in FPV and playing against 3PV.

Nothing has convinced me that 3PV will not provide the tactical benefits we have feared it would add.

So now, the latest ATD says 3PV will now be "hardcore mode" and 3PV matches will have to be scheduled and, well, this won't work for me.

I don't live a life that can be scheduled.

I want to jump on MWO, when I feel like jumping on and playing, when I have the time. I am not hardcore; I do not belong in the 8v8 competitive queue, I will never be one of the best of the best.

So if I am reading this right, I will have no good choice left to me:

Play in the hardcore, FPV queue and get my *** handed to me until I'm driven to quit in shame, or play in the general queue and face others using 3PV.

This is not a good thing. Not that anyone cares, mind you, but I had to say something.

[LoveLost85]

FirestormRMA, on 21 March 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

<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

yup the speedboost damage boost pickups are next followed by 'killstreak perks'. call of mech

[Pando]

BigMekkUrDakka, on 09 June 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

so u want play 4 to 5 different games? why no? do it! hope they wont be called MWO

You are slow. This is a feedback thread. You the player or tester provide feedback. Not provide ignorant posts targeting someone else's feedback. ****

[Shae Starfyre]

I really like the idea of a 3rd person view that is dynamic to the environmental factors like panning in when getting close to objects, and the HUD disappearing when engaged. This leads to the question; If I choose to play 3rd person, and I have no HUD, I am assuming that I can pan in myself using a 'key' to bring myself back into the cockpit?

Or, to stick with the dynamic idea, is that when I target using 'R' is when I am automatically panned in, as I am basically agreeing to commit to a target, and must be engaged within the HUD to do so.

Or is it that you will be able to shoot when in third-person view? I am not actually seeing any reference as to whether this will be a fluff implementation or be used in combat?

[von Pilsner]

SirLANsalot, on 16 June 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

Placing 3P with 1P at the same time, together and available to everyone DURING the fight, not before, is how WoT got around it. No one can whine about someone in 3P or 1P because you both have it, at the same time. MW4 I know had the two split and you had to choose between the two prior to dropping. However that was back in 1999 tech, today computers are 10x more powerful then back then. As for what Cry Eng 3 can do? Well thats a different story....

Not really - in a 3pv server you could freely switch between 1st and 3rd person (great for looking over hills and jump sniping). The forced first person servers must be what you are remembering.

[Cest7]

I honestly don't think I'll ever use it unless I can peak corners while staying in cover.

[Lord Rip]

If 3PV is added it should be just like premium time (even the same price). Pay for it for a month and you can use it for a month.

[Magna Canus]

I find that an interesting issue. If you can "lock out" a particular viewpoint from battles, does that mean that if you have a 3P or 1P only team defending an area that only the same kind of team can attack it? If so, would that not be a misused tactic with CW? Were it me organizing a defense I would use this to my advantage: You want to defend a planet and know that there are few/no 3P attackers on the other side? Then make a full 3P group and your defense is secure because matching will not let you fight, right?
I do have to agree with everybody above though. There are so many other options I would prioritize over 3P. As a "new player" I got to know the MW PC games by way of MW4:Mercs, all in 1P. The 1P play style was the thing that drew me to this game in the first place. If I can keep my 1P and not be bothered by 3P players and still have enough people to match with on the field then I have no issues, BUT, the matching has increased to 12vs12, which makes it more difficult when you split the number of players you have even further.

[Kraven Kor]

Cest7, on 17 June 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

I honestly don't think I'll ever use it unless I can peak corners while staying in cover.

Which is exactly why I don't want it, period, in matches I play.

I want forced first person, in the matches I play.

I never want to play a match where Third Person View is an option, because if it is an option, it will be used, and I will have to use it to be competitive in any way.

So long as whatever they do ensures that I can jump in game, play a few matches, whether PUG or with group or whatever, and not have to deal with 3PV in any way, shape, or form, more power to them.

If, at any point, I have "no choice" but to play in the queue where 3PV is an option, I will leave. Not an ultimatum. I'm not angry, I'm not raging, I'm simply stating: Third Person View fundamentally changes the gameplay, and I do not want to play that game. I want to play this game, the ones the Devs showcased that got me to spend $120, where they specifically stated the game would be First Person View and have no Coolant Flush.

I should leave over the breaking of that latter promise; again, not that my threat to leave should mean anything or whatever, but as part of this conversation I feel it is relevant.

[SirLANsalot]

von Pilsner, on 17 June 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Not really - in a 3pv server you could freely switch between 1st and 3rd person (great for looking over hills and jump sniping). The forced first person servers must be what you are remembering.

Again, the spotting system we have now, should (and common sense says it will) be kept the same when 3P comes. What dose that mean? No effing jump sniping, besides with JJ the way they are now, its not like there going to be an issue. If I am looking at a wall, I am looking at a wall, regardless if my camera is looking OVER the wall. Now if I get targeting data from say a light on the other side of the wall, then I can pop over and take a shot. This is no different then what we do NOW.

[Evrik]

If they use all the restrictions on page one it would be harder and more confusing then first person!

[Gaan Cathal]

Magnakanus, on 18 June 2013 - 03:03 AM, said:

I find that an interesting issue. If you can "lock out" a particular viewpoint from battles, does that mean that if you have a 3P or 1P only team defending an area that only the same kind of team can attack it? If so, would that not be a misused tactic with CW? Were it me organizing a defense I would use this to my advantage: You want to defend a planet and know that there are few/no 3P attackers on the other side? Then make a full 3P group and your defense is secure because matching will not let you fight, right?

I don't think there's going to be that degree of granularity to CW. Take a look at Star Conflict for an idea of what I expect to see. #notadev

[Pericles]

My thoughts are if you want 3rd person go get an XBOX and play Mechinsult...oh...excuse me...Mechassault.

[arkani]

Since the let it slip about 3pv i have not invested a single MC to this game.
If PGIIGP does not listen to the votes/polls, then i will talk with my money.

I plead to all of you, no more MC for PGIIGP. Let our money talk.

[Gaan Cathal]

Call of Duty
Counterstrike
Battlefield
Team Fortress
Blacklight
Halo
Unreal


How many of these arena shooters (arguable in the case of BF, but close enough) allow 3PV for core gameplay?

Dubiously Battlefield, depending how 'core' you regard the vehicles. CoD:MW2/3's 3pv modes are not core. Halo has some highly situational 3PV. TF2 has a third person cheat.

Those are (with the exception of Blacklight) very bloody popular shooters.

I can't think of a single actually competitive 3PV shooter bar WoT. You could argue ME3, but that doesn't stand on it's own two legs as an actual shooter and it's secondary portion to the main game. Plus the 3PV is far more closely zoomed in that it sounds like PGI are suggesting.

Why is this assumed to be a huge draw?