2002 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Signal27, on 27 June 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

PGI said they're implementing it mainly to help new players get used to piloting their mechs around, so that they can see where their legs are taking them in relation to where their torso in pointed (since the arrow on their minimap doesn't seem to be enough). PGI has also mentioned trying to balance 3PV by limiting its FOV in various ways (such as putting the camera straight behind the mech, as opposed to slightly up in the air, and having the camera "pull in" if the mech gets closer to cover), so it could very well be the case that PGI isn't trying to attract the 3PV "see everything" crowd at all.

But that's just my optimism typing away at the keyboard. It may or may not actually turn out to be that way. I've adopted the "wait and see" approach before I actually start complaining about it just by the concept alone.

If that were actually the case, then what would be the point in making 3PV the default mode? Wouldn't limiting 3PV to the training grounds and perhaps "cadet-only" matches serve that purpose?

I am glad you are optimistic, unfortunately I cannot suspend by disbelief on this.

[Twisted Power]

You guys don't understand. Like ECM they will do what they want even if it breaks the games. Don't worry though, after a few months they will just slowly add 8 soft counters over 4-6 months to the game that temporarily messes up 3PV advantages and that will fix EVERYTHING!

Edited by Twisted Power, 27 June 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Mr Blonde]

Seriously, the best solution I can think of is already on PGI's radar. A separate server was mentioned for overseas. That is unfortunate, on capellanconfederation.com we have numerous Aussie and Asian players (also many Russian). I would miss playing with these guys. I would not miss anyone who wants to play MarioMech (3PV). Let's make that a separate server. Forget the mixed queue. I may even make an alternate account to play 3PV, just to check it out! I just don't want the real game to be infected with it. Call the two servers "MWO Actual" and "MWO Thumbsucker". Just kidding there, but the FPV server should definitely be considered the primary. Then we're not deprived of good players who happen to be in Guam or Sydney or Moscow.

[Hotthedd]

Mr Blonde, on 27 June 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Seriously, the best solution I can think of is already on PGI's radar. A separate server was mentioned for overseas. That is unfortunate, on capellanconfederation.com we have numerous Aussie and Asian players (also many Russian). I would miss playing with these guys. I would not miss anyone who wants to play MarioMech (3PV). Let's make that a separate server. Forget the mixed queue. I may even make an alternate account to play 3PV, just to check it out! I just don't want the real game to be infected with it. Call the two servers "MWO Actual" and "MWO Thumbsucker". Just kidding there, but the FPV server should definitely be considered the primary. Then we're not deprived of good players who happen to be in Guam or Sydney or Moscow.

Great solution as it would eliminate the possibility of a 3PV hack on the 1PV server.
Any 3PV advocate who would be against a separate server MUST want 3PV for the advantages they would get over 1PV players.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 27 June 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Great solution as it would eliminate the possibility of a 3PV hack on the 1PV server.
Any 3PV advocate who would be against a separate server MUST want 3PV for the advantages they would get over 1PV players.

To all hotheads ( ) out there ... don't pan something you don't know much information on. You should at least wait for the implementation details or actual test builds. Then we can all say our piece based on real evidence.

And given that I have my 3PV design ideas buried somewhere inside this morass called the MWO forums, it is safe enough for me to say that I don't want separate queues. Just do 3PV right.

[Hotthedd]

Mystere, on 27 June 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

To all hotheads ( ) out there ... don't pan something you don't know much information on. You should at least wait for the implementation details or actual test builds. Then we can all say our piece based on real evidence.

And given that I have my 3PV design ideas buried somewhere inside this morass called the MWO forums, it is safe enough for me to say that I don't want separate queues. Just do 3PV right.

Either it will be implemented like you want (ability to take screenshots) giving 3PV advantages, or it will not (eliminating the main reason you want 3PV).

If you are against a 3PV-only server and a 1PV-only server, then WHY? The only possible reason I can see is to have an advantage over 1PV players.

[Kraven Kor]

Mystere, on 27 June 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

To all hotheads ( ) out there ... don't pan something you don't know much information on. You should at least wait for the implementation details or actual test builds. Then we can all say our piece based on real evidence.

And given that I have my 3PV design ideas buried somewhere inside this morass called the MWO forums, it is safe enough for me to say that I don't want separate queues. Just do 3PV right.

It cannot be done.

I could be wrong, but I firmly feel that you cannot have 3PV without the inherent benefits it provides.

I also feel Seismic needs to be nerfed into the stone age for the same reason - magical total awareness - but would fully support a rear view camera.

[Mr Blonde]

I think the separate server would work great. The 3PV guys can have their own campaign and everything, with no fear of being called out as noobs or hackers. I'm not normally a forum poster, this is literally the only subject I've ever felt the need to post on. It truly is a game-wrecker. I earnestly hope PGI would consider this option since they plan a new server anyway. This is a better split than stripping away Europe (and probably a big chunk of Steiner and FRR).

[Solis Obscuri]

3rd-person is an abomination.

Promising not to bring in 3rd person (then doing it) and promising convergence would prevent alpha-boating (which it doesn't at all) are the two biggest disappointments I have with PGI.

Though I have to say Jesus-in-a-box ECM is up there, too.

[LogicalTightRope]

You know what I don't get? Why they're talking about 3PV like it will be good for new players who are unfamiliar with MechWarrior in order to let them get used to it. Most shooters (and ALL simulators) are in first person with no 3rd person option (except in tf2's Medieval Mode, i believe ), so 3rd person view would likely be strange and unfamiliar for new players. That is not desirable in a game that already has such a high learning curve - making 3PV the 'normal' mode, as was threatened before, may very well decrease the average casual gamer's likelihood of playing.

Furthermore, the multiple queues will split the community. I'm not 100% sure of the implications of this, but my stance is that if 3rd person must be introduced at all, PGI MUST do a dang good job on making the perspective give not 0.001 more inch of view than 1PV and introduce it with no separate queue; 1st and 3rd should play together, but things should be kept fair by a close over-the-shoulder view giving no altitude advantage and dynamic FOV/camera angle depending on where the cockpit is aiming to give no peaks around a corner. The only negative here is that the constant camera changes in fast mechs as they pass in and out of cover may get dizzying, but that's fine by me since I'll be running 1PV

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 28 June 2013 - 06:59 AM.

[Mr Blonde]

Your name betrays you sir...you are being logical. That is not permitted in this discussion, where insanity will be imposed upon you. 3PV is the Obamacare of gaming.

[ManDaisy]

So anyone remember what happened to the "other" mech game? No, not hawken, but reign of thunder by the makers of mech assault. Clearly PGI is modeling their success with third person view after this game.

Here is my assumption: IGP executives think we consumers don't know that we want, when other titles and the majority of the forum say, no we don't want it.

Edited by ManDaisy, 28 June 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[LogicalTightRope]

ManDaisy, on 28 June 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

So anyone remember what happened to the "other" mech game? No, not hawken, but reign of thunder by the makers of mech assault. Clearly PGI is modeling their success with third person view after this game.

Here is my assumption: IGP executives think we consumers don't know that we want, when other titles and the majority of the forum say, no we don't want it.

Ah, I know Reign of Thunder. That game's pretty fun for a little while, like a new MechAssault.

I believe IGP thinks we know what we want, but that they consider their target audience not to be us, but to contain us - referring to MW/BT fans - and, more importantly, the larger casual gamer category. They know what we want, but we aren't important enough in their eyes to reshape their plans on this scale.

What I think will happen is that PGI will be right (or very close to it) in saying that their method for 3rd person will give no advantage. I assume the playtests will go well except for vertigo for the light pilots (because of the necessary camera movement to keep it fair) and I think they will steamroll through with their unpopular plans to rename 1PV mode to 'Hardcore.' I think it will not help the game, even in attracting the casual gamer, because the 1st person view is more immersive and familiar, considering other modern games. The addition will shake up most hardcore MW/BT fans, and a very small number will leave the game because of it.

Overall, I preemptively give it a -1 on a -5 to 5 scale of effectiveness. It'd be much better if 3PV mode wasn't gonna be called 'normal' and 1PV mode wasn't gonna be called 'hardcore.' I don't see what's wrong with naming them 'First Person' and 'Third Person.'

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 28 June 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[Mystere]

LogicalTightRope, on 28 June 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

It'd be much better if 3PV mode wasn't gonna be called 'normal' and 1PV mode wasn't gonna be called 'hardcore.' I don't see what's wrong with naming them 'First Person' and 'Third Person.'

I think the "1PV is hardcore" idea came from a post (which I am still trying to find) made by someone who said that he wanted only 1PV because he was a "hardcore" player. As such, I think the game mode names being floated is PGI just having a bit of fun at the so-called "hardcore" players' expense.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Here's a boolean adventure for you:

Do you believe that 3PV will split the Community into 2 distinct and separate queues that will result in a problem with matchmaking?

If no - Then it's not an issue
If yes - Then you believe that a very large number of people would prefer to play 3rd person vs 3rd person than they want to play 1st vs 1st.

If you admit that much of the playerbase (current and future) would prefer to play MW:O in 3rd person instead of 1st person, then you also have to admit that you don't represent the Overwhelming Majority of players when you say that "we" don't want 3PV (because we've established that a significant fraction of the playerbase does, indeed, want it). Now, the Devs said that Mercenary Warfare will be 1PV-only, and then anyone who wants to play in the House Games in 1PV can choose between playing only with 1PV players or playing with a mixed crowd.

If you're going to assume that PGI will automatically lie about everything, including mixing perspective queues, then the conversation is effectively over. If PGI is lying about everything, then Community Warfare is a myth and the servers are all going to shut down sometime next month or in August... so there's no reason to further the conversation.

If you believe that PGI isn't out to scam us and actually intends to continue developing the game, then we can talk. There's no reason for PGI to remove 1PV or merge the 2 queues. Matchmaking balancing tolerances can be adjusted by the Devs such that separating the 3PV and the 1PV players in the House Fighting can be accomplished without hanging the Matchmaker. Your fear of the Separate Queues destroying the game aren't really founded. And there is no real reason for PGI to force 1PV players to play against 3PV players because there will always be enough players online to make some sort of ad hoc 12-mans from the random matchmaking queue of either perspective. If they have to make the matchmaker sloppier, then they can do that. It's not the end of the world.

[Kraven Kor]

Prosperity, I understand what you are saying.

Can you, at the least, look at the history here, and understand why some of us do, in fact, fear this? Fear that we are not getting the whole story or that "things will change?"

I'm not raging about this. Just being stubbornly persistent.

I do not think PGI is just out to scam us; but I know all too well how "suits" can say one thing and do another. I know PR and marketing speak.

I know you think (or some think) that I'm just some raging lunatic about this subject, and I know there are some posters who are, in fact, raging lunatics about this subject.

But can you at least see the concern? Can you at least understand why some of us... Just. Will. Not. Let. This. Go. ?

[Mystere]

Kraven Kor, on 28 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

But can you at least see the concern? Can you at least understand why some of us... Just. Will. Not. Let. This. Go. ?

And, as I keep on saying: Why not wait until PGI has something to show us, whether it be implementation details or the real deal ready for testing?

Also, if it turns out that 3PV as implemented does not have any advantages over 1PV, what then would even be the point of having separate queues?

[CyBerkut]

Prosperity Park, on 28 June 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Here's a boolean adventure for you:

Do you believe that 3PV will split the Community into 2 distinct and separate queues that will result in a problem with matchmaking?

If no - Then it's not an issue
If yes - Then you believe that a very large number of people would prefer to play 3rd person vs 3rd person than they want to play 1st vs 1st.

If you admit that much of the playerbase (current and future) would prefer to play MW:O in 3rd person instead of 1st person, then you also have to admit that you don't represent the Overwhelming Majority of players when you say that "we" don't want 3PV (because we've established that a significant fraction of the playerbase does, indeed, want it). Now, the Devs said that Mercenary Warfare will be 1PV-only, and then anyone who wants to play in the House Games in 1PV can choose between playing only with 1PV players or playing with a mixed crowd.

If you're going to assume that PGI will automatically lie about everything, including mixing perspective queues, then the conversation is effectively over. If PGI is lying about everything, then Community Warfare is a myth and the servers are all going to shut down sometime next month or in August... so there's no reason to further the conversation.

If you believe that PGI isn't out to scam us and actually intends to continue developing the game, then we can talk. There's no reason for PGI to remove 1PV or merge the 2 queues. Matchmaking balancing tolerances can be adjusted by the Devs such that separating the 3PV and the 1PV players in the House Fighting can be accomplished without hanging the Matchmaker. Your fear of the Separate Queues destroying the game aren't really founded. And there is no real reason for PGI to force 1PV players to play against 3PV players because there will always be enough players online to make some sort of ad hoc 12-mans from the random matchmaking queue of either perspective. If they have to make the matchmaker sloppier, then they can do that. It's not the end of the world.

It's not necessarily a boolean situation though.

While I have previously stated that *I'm* not concerned about the queue splitting (and remain unconcerned), there are others who do. It not just the 1PV vs 3PV aspect, but also further splitting via game types, and further yet by regional servers. I'm not worried about it for essentially the same reasons as you stated, but I can certainly understand others viewing it differently.

My concerns appear to have been pretty well addressed by what has been announced to be the path forward. If they stick to that path, I think it will work out OK.

As for

Quote

If you're going to assume that PGI will automatically lie about everything,...

I certainly make no such assumption. I am however, wary of taking them completely at their word on all things. They brought that upon themselves with well known course reversals. Trust is hard-won after being easily lost. PGI has some significant mountain climbing ahead of them before they get to where any sort of moral / ethical high ground can be claimed.

Personally, I'll chance spending some more money with them now. But I'll be watching to see how things unfold, etc. I can certainly understand some other folks waiting even longer before loosening up the purse strings again.

As for

Quote

If you're going to assume that PGI will automatically lie about everything, including mixing perspective queues, then the conversation is effectively over. If PGI is lying about everything, then Community Warfare is a myth and the servers are all going to shut down sometime next month or in August... so there's no reason to further the conversation.

Once again... I make no such assumption. I'll say that I think it's a touch absurd to treat anyone who is not completely willing to take PGI at their word on everything as automatically assuming that PGI is lying about everything. There is ground in the middle, after all, since PGI *HAS* gone back on their word on something. It's a non sequitur to conclude that people who don't trust PGI on this 3PV issue are automatically operating on the grounds that PGI is lying about everything and scamming us all.

There are some folks who have been over-the-top in how they negatively characterize PGI's decisions/behavior/motivations. Hopefully, over time, PGI's actions will give them reason to reconsider their opinions.

[Kraven Kor]

Mystere, on 28 June 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

And, as I keep on saying: Why not wait until PGI has something to show us, whether it be implementation details or the real deal ready for testing?

Also, if it turns out that 3PV as implemented does not have any advantages over 1PV, what then would even be the point of having separate queues?

Because PGI is not showing us anything... just saying "It's coming, talk about it, but it's coming. We assure you, the advantages are minimal..."

I'm going to go on a limb here for a moment.

At my job, right now, we are pushing an unpopular, clunky, buggy, bloated, and generally terrible system of "Virtual Desktops" to our users, while simultaneously having transitioned from MS Outlook to Google Mail as an enterprise solution for a multi-billion dollar company.

One of my primary directives, right now - and it is not worded so simply mind you - is to sell our users on the idea. Convince them it is better, it's OK, we'll get it working, etc.

Now, in reality, the new system is not so different from the old so far as percentage of downtime and whatnot. The aging PC's and the older systems are just as clunky, but they are the clunky people are used to.

(Edit for clarity) However, the perception is that most of the concerns IT Staff in general and those that thee users and management all had have all come true. Anyone who points this out to management is seen as a 'nay-sayer' or an obstacle and likely won't be around much longer. Tow the company line, or else.

So, PGI is welcome to SHOW ME that their 3PV implementation will not be the same as MW:4 and that everything really will be OK. I'm not going to buy any :words: saying as much, because I know exactly how this sort of thing works. Again, not accusing PGI of anything nefarious; I am accusing them of being a business and operating the same way all businesses do. And in this case, a business which has, already, kind of 'altered the deal' several times so far as promises vs. delivery.

Again, I'm not angry. I'm persistent. For all the good it does me.

Edited by Kraven Kor, 28 June 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 28 June 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

And, as I keep on saying: Why not wait until PGI has something to show us, whether it be implementation details or the real deal ready for testing?

Because, as we have already seen in the forums on other matters, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. If the squeeking stops, the guy with the responsibility for greasing can all too easily assume that the wheel in question no longer is of concern.

At this point, I'll point out that you haven't been silently waiting either. Now why would that be?

Quote

Also, if it turns out that 3PV as implemented does not have any advantages over 1PV, what then would even be the point of having separate queues?

Considering the various reasons that have been given about why people desire 3PV, there is no way that 3PV players belong in the same matches as 1PV players.

One does not have to assume it will be the same as it was in MW4 to see that it will still be problematic. 3PV advocates want to be able to see their awesome paint jobs, and watch their mechs in battle, or even make video recordings of it. When one can see that, they are seeing things that are not available to the pilot's view from in the cockpit. It's not the same game, and does not belong in the same match.

Video data presented in 3PV can not be completely limited to what is only seen via 1PV, and still remain an actual 3PV view. You can not see the outside of your mech's sides or rear from in the cockpit. If PGI somehow contrived to hide those outside portions of the mechs in 3PV, nobody would want it. It would not address the stated desires of the 3PV advocates, and it wouldn't help the noobies be able to steer their legs and maneuver around low obstacles.

Giving 3PV pilots a visual representation of what sensor data is being detected also does not belong in the same match as 1PV players. In 1PV, the pilot has to interpret the non-visual sensor data, and everyone in that match should be subjected to the same mental workload. Giving some pilots in that same match a visual shortcut on that process is inappropriate.

Edited by CyBerkut, 28 June 2013 - 03:53 PM.