2002 replies to this topic

[DirePhoenix]

BRRM, on 06 August 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

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

CoD is played from the first person, not third person.

The major differentiator between the way MWO and CoD style games is how they handle side-stepping. In MWO, you have to turn your legs and throttle forward/back. This also requires the player to know which way their legs are facing in relation to their upper torso (and I'm really trying very hard to refrain from making off-color remarks about people who are unable to do this inherently).

In CoD and other FPS games where the player is playing from the perspective of a ground trooper instead of a vehicle, you side step by simply pointing your joystick/controller to the side (W or S if you're using a keyboard). The turning and motion are both handled in the same action. There is no throttle, the player is only stopped, moving, and possibly sprinting. When the movement controller is in a neutral state, the legs automatically align to whichever direction the upper torso is facing.

This type of control scheme would make it easier for the CoD mindset people to figure out how to drive their tank with legs, but would also make it feel less of a "mech-sim" and more like a "FPS with a mech skin". Not sure if that's what anybody really wants, but if you want to appeal to the lowest common denominator, that's probably how to do it the best.

[CyBerkut]

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.

I'll try not to let all that power go to my head!

Your characterization of my position is in error. I do not expect that everything will remain unchanged. They have announced plenty of decisions that were subject to change. Weapon balancing decisions would be an example of that. That is not the same thing as indicating that something (coolant flush) will not be in the game, and then turning around and putting it in.

Personally, I'm not all that concerned about coolant flush but it demonstrated a capacity to go back on their word. Chalk it up to being amateurish, dishonest, over-ridden by IGP, or whatever... it doesn't really matter. It raised the spectre of potentially seeing the 1PV/3PV issue get a similar treatment... and *that* did concern me (and clearly a number of other people, too).

It's their product and service... they can do what they choose to. It's my money, and I can choose to spend it on their stuff, or somebody else's.

I don't wonder why PGI doesn't tell us something. What I have wondered about is why they would publicly commit to something in absolute terms, when in reality they were not absolutely committed to it.

I've run a business before. It's important to understand the distinction between being honest, and being forthright. It's entirely possible to be 100% honest without being 100% forthright. You make sure everything you say is true, but you don't necessarily get into all details or all aspects. If you have plans that could be subject to change, then you state that up front, before taking money from customers. It's not at all unreasonable for customers to expect that.

I know there are people out there who want to be told *everything* and they want it *now*!!! Businesses that succumb to that sort of pressure to the point of making promises they are not committed to keeping, do so at their own peril. Honesty matters, and falling short of that mark sticks in people's minds. If it becomes a recurring pattern, it can kill the reputation of the business.

As I said earlier... for now their declared CW intentions and stated commitment to a 1PV only queue have given me enough reason to spend some more money with them. If they eliminate the 1PV only queue, that would be very unfortunate... quite possibly in more than one way.