2002 replies to this topic

[van Uber]

Hotthedd, on 30 June 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

3PV players do not want to progress to 1PV.

I know, not without incentive they don't. So let's give them some.

[ryoma]

"out the gate"

Gives me PTSD over

"Position at the time"

[LogicalTightRope]

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

And as for your specific question, the answer is the same as the answer to the following question:

Is there anything in your HUD that tells you there is a mech behind you?

Not always, absolutely not always. The radar will tell you if your teammates can see it, but that's not guaranteed. Besides - having something in your HUD telling you and seeing it are VERY different. By seeing it, you get a better idea of its orientation, velocity, torso twist, weapons, position in relation to you, etc. than simply by an arrow on a minimap. Please, don't pretend it's not an advantage.

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

It is the same information, whether you're in 1PV or 3PV. But by design, 3PV would be less mentally challenging than the current HUD. And that is precisely one of the reasons PGI gave for deciding to put 3PV into the game.

The fact that the information is less mentally challenging is exactly why it is unfair. It's not more information, but it is easier to understand. It requires less of a workload. Therefore, 3pv is easier. Therefore, it is superior to 1pv. Therefore, the system needs to be just as mentally challenging to make it equal. I've said this before and I will continue to say it because you fail to acknowledge any responses to your posts that you seem not to like. This information included, in the past.

On that note, would you kindly elaborate on your fair, free-cam 3pv system that you've thought of? It seems like it'd be genius if it works, I can't think of a fair way to do that.

Unless you WANT things to be unfair, this is undesirable.

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

That's fine an all, but ...

I do not appreciate being lumped into that group.

You're doing a good job of placing yourself in that group.

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 30 June 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Mystere]

LogicalTightRope, on 30 June 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Unless you WANT things to be unfair, this is undesirable.

You're doing a good job of placing yourself in that group.

And by your response I exile myself again from this topic. Discussions are pointless when you're being accused of ulterior motives. I guess we'll all just have to see what PGI has cooked up for everyone.

Adéu.

Edited by Mystere, 30 June 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[SteelWarrior]

I fail to understand how theres even an issue here. Its stated on page 1, post 1, that you can choose between First and Third person and you can toggle on/off if your cool with playing against someone who isnt using what you are.

/Thread

Perfectly acceptable by me and any other person of logic. I like my MW as a simulation but if a bunch of guys want to go rock out to 3rd person and play against other players using 3rd, doesnt affect me, so why do i care.

Bring on a wider audiance as long as it doesnt affect the "hardcore" fanbase, the casual help fun progress.

[Farix]

SteelWarrior, on 01 July 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I fail to understand how theres even an issue here. Its stated on page 1, post 1, that you can choose between First and Third person and you can toggle on/off if your cool with playing against someone who isnt using what you are.

/Thread

Because a certain segment of elite players wants to dictate how everyone else plays the game, even if the two groups will be in separate queues. They just cannot stand that there are players that prefer a different style of play (3PV) than they do.

Edited by Farix, 01 July 2013 - 02:42 AM.

[van Uber]

SteelWarrior, on 01 July 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I fail to understand how theres even an issue here. Its stated on page 1, post 1, that you can choose between First and Third person and you can toggle on/off if your cool with playing against someone who isnt using what you are.

/Thread

Perfectly acceptable by me and any other person of logic. I like my MW as a simulation but if a bunch of guys want to go rock out to 3rd person and play against other players using 3rd, doesnt affect me, so why do i care.

Bring on a wider audiance as long as it doesnt affect the "hardcore" fanbase, the casual help fun progress.

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Because a certain segment of elite players wants to dictate how everyone else plays the game, even if the two groups will be in separate queues. They just cannot stand that there are players that prefer a different style of play (3PV) than they do.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but personally it is a combination of a deviation from the initial vision for the game and a fear that separate queues will be drained of players due to too many splits. I'll quote my reply to Prosperity Park earlier in this thread:

van Uber, on 30 June 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

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

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

Yes, because PGI earlier has used this as an argument against adding certain game modes. If PGI fears that one added queue would hurt the game, then surely a split, down every single game mode, would do as well? If PGI does not fear that this, in comparison, enormous split would hurt the game, then they must feel very confident in the projected added players such a mode would bring in to the game. Why not share this overwhelming data that puts their minds at ease in this question?

Now this is what's bothering me: Considering PGIs rather outspoken attitude against 3PV early on, something has happened. There is no proof of this, but usually when designers sway from their earlier convictions like this it smells of orders from high up, marketing departments that has graphs and polls, but no understanding of gameplay. I can hear the arguments from suits and ties that question the logic of selling paintjobs to players who do not see their products in game, but no understanding of the consequences of altering design pillars.

I fear that this is a move to please the market people and that PGI is trying to do their utmost to not hurt the experience, but I don't see that happen.

[Mr Blonde]

Hotthedd, on 30 June 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Are there any 3PV advocates who would be against having 3PV and 1PV on separate servers? If so, why? The only reason I can fathom to be against this solution is the fact that 3PV must give a sensory advantage over 1PV, and 3PV advocates would want to use that advantage.

I've been asking this question for weeks. Don't expect an answer from 3PV advocates. There's no logical reason other than the advantage, so they simply don't answer it. I would love to hear that reason though.

[LogicalTightRope]

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

And by your response I exile myself again from this topic. Discussions are pointless when you're being accused of ulterior motives.

Well, you brought it upon yourself.

SteelWarrior, on 01 July 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I fail to understand how theres even an issue here. Its stated on page 1, post 1, that you can choose between First and Third person and you can toggle on/off if your cool with playing against someone who isnt using what you are.

/Thread

Perfectly acceptable by me and any other person of logic. I like my MW as a simulation but if a bunch of guys want to go rock out to 3rd person and play against other players using 3rd, doesnt affect me, so why do i care.

Bring on a wider audiance as long as it doesnt affect the "hardcore" fanbase, the casual help fun progress.

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Because a certain segment of elite players wants to dictate how everyone else plays the game, even if the two groups will be in separate queues. They just cannot stand that there are players that prefer a different style of play (3PV) than they do.

Please, don't simplify and distort people's views and words like that. Personally, I think multiple queues will damage the game. It will limit the number of gamemodes that can be added because each one must have a queue for 1pv, 3pv, and mixed. As Van Uber quoted in his post, PGI said more gamemodes would split the queue too much for their liking already. with 3pv, the problem is threefold.

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 01 July 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

Pando, on 30 June 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

You're playing a different game now. Chill out. 3pV is just as much a part of the mechwarrior complete experience as 1pv is.

I know you think I'm raging and freaking out; but I'm not. Just being persistent. And while previous MW games had 3PV, MWO had been stated as not having it - at the time I signed up - and I just want to ensure there will always be a separation. Let us sim-heads play MWO:1PV and everyone else can play MWO:3PV. Fine.

Pando, on 30 June 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

How about you toss up some quotes from the most recent ATD sessions regarding 3pv. These are more in line with what I'm referring to.

So, is it the same then.

If 3rd gives you the advantage of angle/sight.
If 1st gives you the advantage of a complete HUD, targeting the whole works....

If both view option has an advantage and a blatant disadvantage over the other, utilizing them correctly and situation-ally does make them skill-based...correct?

Don't care if it is skill based, not part of the equation.

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

It is the same information, whether you're in 1PV or 3PV. But by design, 3PV would be less mentally challenging than the current HUD. And that is precisely one of the reasons PGI gave for deciding to put 3PV into the game.

Precisely why 1PV-only advocates do not wish to be tossed into the 3PV queues.

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Hold a second. Isn't MW4 one of the reasons people are using to discredit 3PV? People can't have their cake and expect to eat it too.

Folks on both sides point to it. 3PV advocates say "MW:4 had 3PV!" and 1PV diehards say "Which is exactly why we don't want it."

SteelWarrior, on 01 July 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

I fail to understand how theres even an issue here. Its stated on page 1, post 1, that you can choose between First and Third person and you can toggle on/off if your cool with playing against someone who isnt using what you are.

/Thread

Perfectly acceptable by me and any other person of logic. I like my MW as a simulation but if a bunch of guys want to go rock out to 3rd person and play against other players using 3rd, doesnt affect me, so why do i care.

Bring on a wider audiance as long as it doesnt affect the "hardcore" fanbase, the casual help fun progress.

And I agree with this 100%, but still fear we will see this pushed to where they merge the 1PV and 3PV queue. I know they have said they will not do this, but, seriously, can you blame me given that track record?

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Because a certain segment of elite players wants to dictate how everyone else plays the game, even if the two groups will be in separate queues. They just cannot stand that there are players that prefer a different style of play (3PV) than they do.

BS. While I'm sure there are a handful of miserable cretins who push such an agenda, that is not the case for most of us pushing to keep 1PV separate and you damn well know it.

[Farix]

Kraven Kor, on 01 July 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

BS. While I'm sure there are a handful of miserable cretins who push such an agenda, that is not the case for most of us pushing to keep 1PV separate and you damn well know it.

Separate? Almost no one on the anti-3PV side have stated that they wanted to keep 1PV and 3PV players separated. No, it has always been that 3PV should never be an option because they want all players to play in 1PV.

[Kraven Kor]

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Separate? Almost no one on the anti-3PV side have stated that they wanted to keep 1PV and 3PV players separated. No, it has always been that 3PV should never be an option because they want all players to play in 1PV.

We don't care how others play, necessarily; we care about not having to play in or against 3PV players.

Plenty don't want 3PV added, at all, but NOT for the bogus reasons you claim. We are not wanting to "dictate how others play because grrr" we want to not have to play the game in 3PV and we don't want to play against others using 3PV.

We want to be stuck in the cockpit, we want this to be as much of a "light" sim as possible.

I'm sorry you can't understand that, but we (most of us) are not some horrible people trying to ruin everyone else's fun.

We are worried about losing what little bit of a sim that we have now.

Add 3PV, play 3PV, have fun.

Just don't force us into the 3PV queue. And believe me, I can smell what the chef is cooking - they are trying to push this, hard, for whatever reason.

[Farix]

LogicalTightRope, on 01 July 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

Please, don't simplify and distort people's views and words like that. Personally, I think multiple queues will damage the game. It will limit the number of gamemodes that can be added because each one must have a queue for 1pv, 3pv, and mixed. As Van Uber quoted in his post, PGI said more gamemodes would split the queue too much for their liking already. with 3pv, the problem is threefold.

This is pure speculation there will not be enough players to fill the queues. And comparing the creation of a 1PV/3PV queue along side a 1PV-only queue with the addition of multiple game modes is comparing apples to oranges. 3PV has the prospect of brining in and retaining more players. But it is contradictory to complain that there aren't enough players to split the queues but then oppose a mechanic that will attract more players to the game. No, the reasons why most oppose 3PV all boils down to self-entitlement by wanting everyone else to play in 1PV because that is the mode they like, and no one else should be allowed to play in a method they don't like.

Kraven Kor, on 01 July 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

We don't care how others play, necessarily; we care about not having to play in or against 3PV players.

Plenty don't want 3PV added, at all, but NOT for the bogus reasons you claim. We are not wanting to "dictate how others play because grrr" we want to not have to play the game in 3PV and we don't want to play against others using 3PV.

We want to be stuck in the cockpit, we want this to be as much of a "light" sim as possible.

I'm sorry you can't understand that, but we (most of us) are not some horrible people trying to ruin everyone else's fun.

We are worried about losing what little bit of a sim that we have now.

Add 3PV, play 3PV, have fun.

Just don't force us into the 3PV queue. And believe me, I can smell what the chef is cooking - they are trying to push this, hard, for whatever reason.

No one is forcing you to play 3PV as there will be a 1PV only queue. The only reason a 1PV-only queue will go the way of the dodo bird is if there isn't enough players to support the queue. But if all those who profess to want a 1PV-only matches are actually legitimate, then there should be no worries.

[Kraven Kor]

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

No one is forcing you to play 3PV as there will be a 1PV only queue. The only reason a 1PV-only queue will go the way of the dodo bird is if there isn't enough players to support the queue. But if all those who profess to want a 1PV-only matches are actually legitimate, then there should be no worries.

Will there be?

They say so now.

We shall see if that, too, will end up being altered.

[LogicalTightRope]

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

This is pure speculation there will not be enough players to fill the queues. And comparing the creation of a 1PV/3PV queue along side a 1PV-only queue with the addition of multiple game modes is comparing apples to oranges. 3PV has the prospect of brining in and retaining more players. But it is contradictory to complain that there aren't enough players to split the queues but then oppose a mechanic that will attract more players to the game. No, the reasons why most oppose 3PV all boils down to self-entitlement by wanting everyone else to play in 1PV because that is the mode they like, and no one else should be allowed to play in a method they don't like.

Yes, it IS speculation, but it's not by any means groundless. Splitting the queues was a big issue when they were talking of adding more gamemodes, so why would it not be a problem now? Magic? I'm worried it may limit the number of gamemodes in the future considering it's already been voiced as a concern BEFORE we knew they would have to split the queue into 3 separate modes. Furthermore, it's not contradictory for this to be a claim because I don't believe it will bring in as many people as you and many others do. Since most shooters are 1pv only, and 3pv will supposedly be used to attract players from outside of MechWarrior, I think it will be unfamiliar to them, not necessarily attractive. That's not to say nobody will want it or play because of it, there probably will be a decent number; but it's not going to be such a big difference, i think.

Also, if you had read any of my past posts or those of many others, you would know that it is NOT just because we don't want people to play how they like. That is a gross misrepresentation. I'm just worried that there will be equality issues in the effectiveness of 1pv and 3pv. If such a thing is the case, splitting the queue in three would be a waste because the mixed queue would be full of people playing the advantaged viewpoint anyway. Therefore, don't have the mixed option and keep them separate, but that's not ideal. What IS ideal is to have 3pv be equal to 1pv, and have BOTH available in a single queue.

Please, please PLEASE. I have to say this too many times - read people's posts and get their perspectives before you comment on them.

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 01 July 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[LogicalTightRope]

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Separate? Almost no one on the anti-3PV side have stated that they wanted to keep 1PV and 3PV players separated. No, it has always been that 3PV should never be an option because they want all players to play in 1PV.

Incorrect.

[CyBerkut]

Farix, on 01 July 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

Separate? Almost no one on the anti-3PV side have stated that they wanted to keep 1PV and 3PV players separated. No, it has always been that 3PV should never be an option because they want all players to play in 1PV.

Always? No. I have been advocating that 3PV have it's own servers for some time now.

It was one of the things that MW4 got right... an option to have 1PV only matches, which the NBT League used for all league matches.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 30 June 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

Yes, I agree. A better data visualization solution (e.g. 3PV or better HUD design) will result in reduced workload for the brain, allowing it to allocate more resources for other things like piloting and gunnery. See, it is a great solution, and finally you agree!

I will open a bottle fine wine to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Pathetic. Add all the smiley icons that you want... My intent and position on the subject was clear to anybody with a decent grasp of the english language. Attempts to misdirect with poor humor and ignoring the actual points raised is just... sad.

So, on one hand, you can recognize (and even crow about how) 3PV is easier [therefore an advantage], and yet on the other you have insisted that there can be some magical parity, and that [despite the advantage] there should be no separate queues for 1PV only.

Gee... how could someone else on here have concluded that you have ulterior motives? You painted that picture for them... and then get/act all wounded when someone calls you out on it.

[Arkblade]

don't mixed 1PV and 3PV.

and 1PV need C-bill and XP and Loyality Point big advantage.

It is necessary in order to maintain the equality of 1PV and 3PV.
This is mandatory PGI should play.

The new player does not move away from 3PV.
if lot of people play a 1PV + 3PV queue.
1PV big advantage is necessary in order for the appropriate transition.

Edited by Arkblade, 01 July 2013 - 06:09 PM.

[Elbola Ierocis]

Would adding TPV players really be adding to the player base if they are seperate from the exisiting player base? I understand it would add more revenue. More likely though, you then have to run two games instead of one. You'll need more staff to handle all the TPV game issues: Camera clipping through objects to see through things, and other general game mechanics created by the entirely different game play concept.

If you want to increase playerbase and revenue, speaking as someone who has actively tried to get more of his friends involved in the MWO world. They don't care about TPV. They have no interest in playing beyond a few weeks because the game is just a pointless grind without achievements, goals, story, ability to set up organized drops against friends, and the lack of community run events. HOPEFULLY I can rope them in with UI 2.0 and CW but you need to take a page from the longer running online communities. If the player is completely dependant upon you for new content you'll have to increase pace of release expotentially because there will always be people that power through your stuff, get bored, leave. If you enable the player base to do things, tourneys, unofficial leagues, etc. then they self generate content, kept the player base active and around, and buying nice shiney things.