2002 replies to this topic

[jakucha]

Lucian Nostra, on 04 August 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

and right now nothing forces you to fight in 3pv, and nobody WILL fight in 3pv they'll all use it for it's only true addition to the game, practically risk free recon.

I don't know anyone that wouldn't rather broadcast their position with a blinky camera drone to see if the ridge is clear instead of cresting it and taking a faceful of ppc gauss

They might up and force you to stay in 3pv once you choose it but looking at PGI's track record? I highly doubt it

You mean their track record of buffing SRMs because people wanted it to be useful, and adding reticle shake to JJ because people wanted it? There are already so many downsides to 3pv I don't think it's far fetched they'll add the final factor needed to make it "fair".

[Khobai]

I have no problem with 3rd person being in the game. But when you create a gameroom in the lobby, the host of the game needs to have the option to turn 3rd person off. MW4 also had third person, but you could turn it off at the start of the game, so no one could abuse it.

[ICEFANG13]

jakucha, on 04 August 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

You mean their track record of buffing SRMs because people wanted it to be useful, and adding reticle shake to JJ because people wanted it? There are already so many downsides to 3pv I don't think it's far fetched they'll add the final factor needed to make it "fair".

It took them 3 months to buff SRMs after everyone wanted it, and still they had to ask in a forum poll (which 75% of people voted yes).

Why do they care what that poll says, when a larger poll had 90% against 3rd person?

They first added shake to help with Jump sniping, but instead, if you are competent in it, you just shoot on the way down, as well as having no effect on actual sniping.

Still no real boating penalties, just half second alpha penalties that are convoluted and acted as a nerf to LPL, LL, ML?

Still have this insane ECM, which is negated by BAP in some mess of IW pillar that is pointless.

It took them 1.5 months to nerf seismic, probably after sales dropped for it.

Seriously? These are they guys you trust? This is the track record? PGI have done a terrible just thus far, and will make more and more dumb choices against what people want, and take forever to reach even a slight balance.

[jakucha]

ICEFANG13, on 05 August 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

It took them 3 months to buff SRMs after everyone wanted it, and still they had to ask in a forum poll (which 75% of people voted yes).

Why do they care what that poll says, when a larger poll had 90% against 3rd person?

They first added shake to help with Jump sniping, but instead, if you are competent in it, you just shoot on the way down, as well as having no effect on actual sniping.

Still no real boating penalties, just half second alpha penalties that are convoluted and acted as a nerf to LPL, LL, ML?

Still have this insane ECM, which is negated by BAP in some mess of IW pillar that is pointless.

It took them 1.5 months to nerf seismic, probably after sales dropped for it.

Seriously? These are they guys you trust? This is the track record? PGI have done a terrible just thus far, and will make more and more dumb choices against what people want, and take forever to reach even a slight balance.

SRM damage affects everyone and they have to be careful as to not cause another SRM apocalypse. (People are also forgetting they asked PGI to buff PPCs, they did it, so technically they're to blame for the current PPC meta). People also said they're fine with JJ shooting as long as it requires some skill. The change certainly decreased the poptart meta anyway. 3pv only affects the potential market who wants it (you don't have to play with it or play against anyone using it). For ECM I wish they separated it into different suites, but they had already made their decision with that long ago and showed no desire to change it right out the gate. The difference with 3pv vs ECM is they're actively making 3pv, asking for us to test it, and to give feedback while it's still in a malleable form. That didn't quite happen with ECM.

Edited by jakucha, 05 August 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[Twisted Power]

If you guys check out any of the new 3rd person vids you see the mechs blatantly looking over hills they shouldn't be able to see over. When it is implemented there is no reason to use 1st person. (link http://www.youtube.c...OULx-UTbA#at=38)

[planetarian]

Oh god. I haven't been following the community much lately, and had taken a break from MWO for work and stuff, so I just found this topic a short while ago (dunno how I missed it back when it was originally posted) and as I was reading the first few pages everything seemed mostly okay, but then I skipped to the last few and my heart sank. =(

[Hotthedd]

Thunderklaws, on 05 August 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

I posted this else where but decided to post it here as well because ther seems to be a lot of ppl that were in on the 3pv testing thing here:
For those who DID play the testing grounds - what DID happen when it got shot down? Being that the argument that it CAN be shot is the main thrust of the entire argument that 3pv is balanced after all; so what happens? And what happens if you f4 again after that?

The drone was not shootable in the test server matches.

[CyBerkut]

Thunderklaws, on 05 August 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Sorry; I signed up like three days ago or so; I dont really know their track record as to the "truth" or rather "what has changed in the design philosophy since we last made that statement"

Except theyre testing it not as a locked feature but as a "press this button to enable it", which suggests their design philosophy may have shifted away from where it was when the OP here was made (hence why I keep suggesting that the OP go edit that out)

Would that suggested editing make the OP's statement less dishonest if they changed their plans and merged the views, doing away with the 1PV queue?

Do you think that there are no screenshots captured of that posting?

Quote

Like its worked in every other MW game (hence those ppl who say "well its historicalloy IN MW so..") and destroyed or took over the multiplayer in all those games too.

The original MW was 1PV only, but I consider the previous versions largely irrelevant except for the lessons that can be learned. 3PV was indeed available in MW4, but it was also possible to select Forced First Person View in the server / lobby. 3PV did NOT take over multiplayer everywhere. The NBT league operated as 1PV only for all league matches and went along fine for years.

---------------------------------------

There is a marked difference in the nature of PGI's post back in July 2012. http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/23396-3rd-person-mwo-link-to-this-when-needed/

and the OP of this thread. http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

In the first, there are qualifiers ... "near future" and "very far off in the distance". In the second one we have a very clear, no qualifier, bolded and underlined statement...

• Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person.

If PGI goes back on that, there is no way to spin it as anything short of a flat out misrepresentation of the future of the game. The statement was made by them as an absolute, and they need to live by it. If they were not, and are not committed to that, then they should not have made such an absolute statement utilizing the word "never".

Yes, (before somebody brings it up again), things change in the business world. But business people that are to be trusted know that and remain mindful of that before making such absolute statements. They could have used qualifiers, but chose not to. So be it. Talk the talk, then walk the walk...

When this 3PV issue initially got floated out there (Russ B's interview over beers) I decided to stop spending any more money on MWO until I had a reason to believe that they would not totally muck up 1PV only play. When we finally got enough information on how there would be 1PV only (hardcore) play in scheduled Merc matches in Community Warfare... that, combined with the absolute nature of that statement in the OP of this thread convinced me that it could still work out OK, and that they were serious enough about it to warrant spending some more money with them. I have done so... for now. If the 1PV only queue goes away, I seriously doubt that I would continue to do so. I also seriously doubt that I'm the only player with that view on the subject.

3PV advocates, you're getting your 3PV option. Enjoy it. Make suggestions to PGI on how to make it's game play whatever constitutes "awesome!" in your minds. But have the decency to leave the hardcore (1PV only) queue alone and allow PGI to at least stay true to their word on this. PGI has taken enough of a self-inflicted credibility hit already. Making a habit of breaking one's word to customers is not a particularly wise business practice. The internet has a long memory... and screen capture programs.

[Butane9000]

So I've seen a couple of NGNG 3PV videos by Sean.

Specifically this Hunchback video and this Catapult video.

Honestly I see that it does in fact give you an advantage in regards to sighting the battlefield and seeing around corners just as predicted. However removing the mini-map in 3PV is definitely a step in the right direction to help balance the visual benefit. I believe removing the ability to use the map completely would probably be another good step considering Sean in the Catapult video kept spamming the button to view it.

Still think putting 3PV into this game is stupid. Yes old Mechwarrior titles had it and no, Mechwarrior Online doesn't need it. This game was marketed as the "Giant Mech Simulator" which was 1PV. We don't need it, we don't want it and the game can survive without it.

[h0wl]

3rd Person view is about the most idiotic thing I think I've heard of PGI putting in the game. PGI went to all this trouble to of designing mechs with limits to arm movement, limits to vision, varying it on a per-mech-chassis basis, unlocks to improve your turning radius, arm-twist... modeling the cockpits and portraying the game as a s i m u l a t i o n... And then they come up with a 3rd person view that's magically outside the cockpit so that people who want MechWarrior Online to be Mario Cart with frickin lasers... NICE.

PGI:

You should be working on code to allow players to rejoin if their computer crashes or they lose connection because clan play without it is absolutely useless.

You should be figuring out how to make maps with choke points in them that funnel players to key locations which have distinctly different defensive and offensive dynamics. Do your map-makers actually PLAY the game? The new map would be great if it were 64 on 64 but it's NOT, it's 8 on 8 and you've got a map bigger than NY. Why on Earth didn't you funnel the routes through that central cauldron, have the scaffolding collapse when too many large mechs are on it... have an eruption occur sending cinders out... I digress.

3rd person view - Meh.

[jakucha]

Thunderklaws, on 05 August 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Except theyre testing it not as a locked feature but as a "press this button to enable it",

That's precisely why we're giving feedback.

[DirePhoenix]

jakucha, on 04 August 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

3pv legitimately nerfs your firing precision due to the angle and that you're even further back. Your view is also blocked up close by your mech. Your zoom isn't as great in 3pv. Your reticle jitters like crazy when transitioning terrain and any object up close. That's a huge one. 1pv is better for combat period. As long as they remove the toggle or something, feel free to use 3pv to your heart's desire.

The "reticule jitter" you're talking about is not a random bounciness like the jumpjet shake. It is actually the straight-line drawn from the cockpit's view to whatever it's pointing at. basically it's whatever your reticle would be aiming at if you were in cockpit mode, except your PoV is now floating above your 'mech instead of inside your cockpit. if you take a laser pointer and hold it some point lower than your eyes and scan different leveled terrain with it you will see what I'm talking about. It "skips" because from 3pv you're looking at the ground at a different angle than your 'mech is.

ICEFANG13, on 05 August 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

It took them 3 months to buff SRMs after everyone wanted it, and still they had to ask in a forum poll (which 75% of people voted yes). Why do they care what that poll says, when a larger poll had 90% against 3rd person?

You CAN. NOT. get reliable data from an internet forum poll where the participants have an option to take part or not. And even assuming that the people participating in these forums represented anything but themselves, the '90% poll' that keeps being referred to was from ~3000 participating forum accounts, which is still less than half the accounts that bought Sarah's Jenner, and about 14,000 times less than the amount of founder's packages sold, assuming each founder bought the most expensive ($120) package, which we know they didn't.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

DirePhoenix, on 05 August 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

You CAN. NOT. get reliable data from an internet forum poll where the participants have an option to take part or not. And even assuming that the people participating in these forums represented anything but themselves, the '90% poll' that keeps being referred to was from ~3000 participating forum accounts, which is still less than half the accounts that bought Sarah's Jenner, and about 14,000 times less than the amount of founder's packages sold, assuming each founder bought the most expensive ($120) package, which we know they didn't.

About time you take some lessons in statistics.

[Hotthedd]

Thunderklaws, on 05 August 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

So in your view, anything they ever said they can never, ever, change, no matter how long it is between then and now and what different design decisions they make between then and now?

wow

you ever wonder WHY they dont tell us ****?
Because of people like you.

It is their game, of course they can change it.

That being said, we are their customers, and we can also change whether or not we continue to support their game.

If they make a change that will effect whether or not we, as the customer, will continue to support the game, isn't it better for us to let them know? I would think this is information IGP/PGI would want in order to make an informed decision.

[ICEFANG13]

DirePhoenix, on 05 August 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

The "reticule jitter" you're talking about is not a random bounciness like the jumpjet shake. It is actually the straight-line drawn from the cockpit's view to whatever it's pointing at. basically it's whatever your reticle would be aiming at if you were in cockpit mode, except your PoV is now floating above your 'mech instead of inside your cockpit. if you take a laser pointer and hold it some point lower than your eyes and scan different leveled terrain with it you will see what I'm talking about. It "skips" because from 3pv you're looking at the ground at a different angle than your 'mech is.



You CAN. NOT. get reliable data from an internet forum poll where the participants have an option to take part or not. And even assuming that the people participating in these forums represented anything but themselves, the '90% poll' that keeps being referred to was from ~3000 participating forum accounts, which is still less than half the accounts that bought Sarah's Jenner, and about 14,000 times less than the amount of founder's packages sold, assuming each founder bought the most expensive ($120) package, which we know they didn't.

Can you explain why the "Do we need to increase SRM damage from 1.5->2 a missile" poll that the devs made, had less voters and a lower ratio (it had about 75% yes votes, still high), and they listened to it, while there is a 3rd person poll that had 90% no and more votes and they ignored it?

Everything else (this is not legitimate for BS reasons) can be ignored, in two similar polls, they listened to the 75%yes-25%other with less posts over the 90%no-10%other with more?

The 3rd person poll wasn't legitimate, but the SRM one was? Get real.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 06 August 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[DirePhoenix]

ICEFANG13, on 06 August 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

Can you explain why the "Do we need to increase SRM damage from 1.5->2 a missile" poll that the devs made, had less voters and a lower ratio (it had about 75% yes votes, still high), and they listened to it, while there is a 3rd person poll that had 90% no and more votes and they ignored it?

Everything else (this is not legitimate for BS reasons) can be ignored, in two similar polls, they listened to the 75%yes-25%other with less posts over the 90%no-10%other with more?

The 3rd person poll wasn't legitimate, but the SRM one was? Get real.

Simple. All of the options they presented in the SRM poll were options that they were prepared to do (and may still change at some point) anyway*. The SRM poll didn't really matter to their long term vision and design. The 1pv-3pv thing seems more locked in to whatever design plan they're intending for MWO and not something they are willing to open debate about whether or not it's going to be a thing that exists or not. They may tweak it in the future but it's not going away.

EDIT: option 2: The winning option in the SRM poll was something they were planning to do anyway and the fact that it coincides with a poll is just something they can use to reinforce the idea that it's something the players want.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 06 August 2013 - 06:42 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

DirePhoenix, on 06 August 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Simple. All of the options they presented in the SRM poll were options that they were prepared to do (and may still change at some point) anyway*. The SRM poll didn't really matter to their long term vision and design. The 1pv-3pv thing seems more locked in to whatever design plan they're intending for MWO and not something they are willing to open debate about whether or not it's going to be a thing that exists or not. They may tweak it in the future but it's not going away.

EDIT: option 2: The winning option in the SRM poll was something they were planning to do anyway and the fact that it coincides with a poll is just something they can use to reinforce the idea that it's something the players want.

Paul suggested that people don't (vote) up the damage, because of how light mechs would take less from it and assaults would take more. All of the choices were mindlessly easy to do, and they could do any at any time.

3rd person is not as easy, they 'wasted' time on it because people said they didn't want it. They also said that MWO was 100% first person, and although they can change their minds, there is no logical reason that they would want to is there?

Game will be 100% first person.
90% of poll, 3000, said they don't want it.

Adds it in anyway?

You know how they said it wouldn't really have an advantage, and it has a huge advantage? And how its to help new players control the mechs, but you can't see the legs?

[DirePhoenix]

ICEFANG13, on 06 August 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

Paul suggested that people don't (vote) up the damage, because of how light mechs would take less from it and assaults would take more. All of the choices were mindlessly easy to do, and they could do any at any time.

3rd person is not as easy, they 'wasted' time on it because people said they didn't want it. They also said that MWO was 100% first person, and although they can change their minds, there is no logical reason that they would want to is there?

Game will be 100% first person.
90% of poll, 3000, said they don't want it.

Adds it in anyway?

You know how they said it wouldn't really have an advantage, and it has a huge advantage? And how its to help new players control the mechs, but you can't see the legs?

I'm not saying that 3PV wasn't a bad idea. I think it is a bad idea. But I'm also saying that it doesn't matter because PGI is developing their game, which may or may not coincide with the game that I or anyone else here wants MWO to be, because we all have different visions for this game. Some people seem to REALLY want an arcade shoot'emup. Some people want a deep, immersive game with tons of atmosphere and holds true to the lore. Some people want the most detailed sim possible, on par with the likes of DCS: A-10C. Others want a simulator that holds true to the original BattleTech TT experience as possible. Whatever gets made, it's not going to please everyone that wants a new MechWarrior game.

What I'm saying is that:

• Polls don't matter
  
  • especially player-created, self-selecting polls where less than 1% of the total population participates. (even if it is over 3000)
• Players don't make major game design decisions, game developers do.

[AndyHill]

PGI has basically free reign to design their game the way they want to and change their minds as much as they like to, but people who gave PGI money partly based on the information were told in no uncertain terms that the game would be one thing and it turns out to be something else also have full right to be upset. Probably not enough to warrant life in prison for fraud or anything like that, but definitely Internet rage and possibly refunds so it's actually ok, because that's pretty much exactly what's happening here.

[BRRM]

OK ive given this topic much thought. but really there is no need to add in a 3rd person. why not make a 3d cockpit item that you can toggle on and off. it will give the new starter an idea how the mechs move. which direction its facing and they can see the mech from a 3rd person view without any enhancements to the gameplay. really you already have figures and cockpit goodies of mechs. plus like many people have stated that there needs to be an ai introduction to this game if you want the "casual COD gamer" to be able to grasp it. Many games have done so. the training grounds dont do anything for you really. oh walk around and hit none moving targets. i use it to test out loadouts with heat and damage potential. to a newbie to the game its near worthless.

oh and also try and make trail mechs a little better. some of them i feel sorry for the new starters using. i reckon someone on the cadet allowance should get some more variety to the mechs they can get for trial. then once the bonus has ended take it back to standard trial mechs. let them be able to try every mech possible so they can find one that suits them. again only for cadet bonus people. that should help them find something they like instead of 1 of each weight class.

Food for thought.

BRRM