2002 replies to this topic

[Zeus X]

Here is a problem I see with any view changing.

How do you get people in the same Unit to play ONLY 1st person in pug matches? or even 3rd person?

Running a 4 man anything with 2 people wanting 3rd and 2 wanting 1st is going to cause all kinds of issues.

Now this is were a lobby comes into play and the person hosting the lobby channel at that time can pick between 1st or 3rd person, or you can have a vote on what view is going to be played by the players.

THIS IS ONLY FOR PUG MATCHES ONLY AND NOT CW...

LEAVE CW ALONE WITH 1ST PERSON ONLY!!!!!!!

Edited by DCM Zeus, 21 March 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[Shumabot]

Jetfire, on 21 March 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

For one, there is the point that they need to farm casual players who haven't even tried the game yet, which is what an ARCADE mode would be good for. I am all for letting PGI collect more casual money, but keep it in an alternate mode. The content creation goes to both modes without any work anyway, so you don't really lose anything, in fact the core player base benefits long term.

They can fit this games entire "core player base" in a single subway car. They vastly overrate their contribution and worth to the community. The "core player base" wants a direct tabletop proxy and p2w content, their wants are thoroughly damaging to this game.

DCM Zeus, on 21 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

No link, so your trolling.

We're all on the same forum. If you haven't seen it then you're not going to pay attention to a link anyway. I'm not here to argue with golds about the lack of worth of golds.

[Roadbeer]

Shumabot, on 21 March 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

They can fit this games entire "core player base" in a single subway car. They vastly overrate their contribution and worth to the community. The "core player base" wants a direct tabletop proxy and p2w content, their wants are thoroughly damaging to this game.



We're all on the same forum. If you haven't seen it then you're not going to pay attention to a link anyway. I'm not here to argue with golds about the lack of worth of golds.

1. Didn't happen
2. Cranky that they couldn't get the money to buy in the Founders Program.

[korbin]

Possibility of limiting it to mechs that spend a ton or two on a Beagle Active Probe (similar to the teaser trailer)? ALso make the probe/UAV able to be shot down.

[Anastasius]

Well.... my 2 cents.

Allow 3rd person in the pug-4 man que and training grounds. Great place to have fun with it and this will be the main place newer players will be playing.

8v8 allow for 1st person vs 1st person only or 3rd person vs 3rd person only, Your 8 v 8 crowd is more the power/team gamer and will want to limit/control the view options.

Community Warfare: 1st person only. These players will be more of your older vets/powergamer teams/guilds who will tend to prefer the sim/old school aspect of 1st person.

This seems reasonable enough and will limit the nerd rage over the 3rd person option.

[Shumabot]

Roadbeer, on 21 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

1. Didn't happen
2. Cranky that they couldn't get the money to buy in the Founders Program.

http://mwomercs.com/...ary-to-compete/
First page, third thread. Proof that golds have no idea what competitive balance is, and laud pay to win content.

I can't be bothered to find a month old "charge us more for paint" thread or get the pro missile storm poll that a mod deleted earlier today. You're going to have to pay more attention yourself.

As to the founders bit, I wonder just how worth it it was to have your money siphoned to mechwarrior tactics only to get a couple of worst-in-the-game variant mechs for over 100 dollars.

Edited by Shumabot, 21 March 2013 - 04:39 PM.

[Bryan Ekman]

Roadbeer, on 21 March 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Bryan, please answer this honestly. I have seen 2 polls on this topic and they have been OVERWHELMINGLY against 3rd person. Why are you guys so stuck on this when clearly the players (by majority) don't want it?

Honest answer.

The analysis on those who voted, showed that the majority of votes came from a very narrow demographic of our player base. And while they represent some of core players, they did not necessarily represent the opinion of the general user base. The majority of our players never visit, post, or read the forum content, so the poll could be considered weighted in favour of a specific demographic.

Since the majority of players who have an issue with 3rd person come generally from the core players, we elected to address this issue via this forum post to collect all of the concerns and ideas that this group faces or has with 3rd person.

[TimTheEnchantor]

This is not a good idea, but if we have no choice whether to have 3rd person or not -

Make it available only in spectator or when the match first starts then immediately go into cockpit.

-or-

Make a real tutorial training ground with AI opponents for new players to test third-person in. You keep wanting to bring this to a wider audience but you have not implemented a proper tutorial in place. Use your developing time wisely here.

Those scenarios you put forth are not ideal and most certainly will break the 'sim-like' experience you so desire....while splitting the community in fragments who play in third person or not.

Edited by TimTheEnchantor, 21 March 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[Dawnthieve]

You want to know how to implement it? Here you go: In the proving grounds and nowhere else in PvP. Otherwise I see myself forced to say bye bye.

[QuantumButler]

The most constructive feedback I can still think to add is:

Don't add it, or only add it for the training grounds.

Almost none of the current player base wants this, but you're all hell bent on adding it anyway, why do you insist on turning this game into something it isn't to cater to a possible expanded playerbase who may not even exist instead of listening to your core users?

And additionally, how do you respond to the promsies that you made back in the day of never adding 3rd person view? Many of us feel that this is a blatant betrayal of trust and find it very hard to trust anything PGI says any longer.

Edited by QuantumButler, 21 March 2013 - 04:45 PM.

[Shumabot]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honest answer.

The analysis on those who voted, showed that the majority of votes came from a very narrow demographic of our player base. And while they represent some of core players, they did not necessarily represent the opinion of the general user base. The majority of our players never visit, post, or read the forum content, so the poll could be considered weighted in favour of a specific demographic.

Since the majority of players who have an issue with 3rd person come generally from the core players, we elected to address this issue via this forum post to collect all of the concerns and ideas that this group faces or has with 3rd person.

Paul what are your plans to avoid damaging fragmentation? If you're also planning to split between NA and Euro servers and ELO is currently tiering the community in another way, can the games current population growth rates support this? Is this a planned add after the game comes out of beta and you expect a post release surge in the size of the player base?

Edited by Shumabot, 21 March 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honest answer.

The analysis on those who voted, showed that the majority of votes came from a very narrow demographic of our player base. And while they represent some of core players, they did not necessarily represent the opinion of the general user base. The majority of our players never visit, post, or read the forum content, so the poll could be considered weighted in favour of a specific demographic.

Since the majority of players who have an issue with 3rd person come generally from the core players, we elected to address this issue via this forum post to collect all of the concerns and ideas that this group faces or has with 3rd person.

Thank you. Fair answer.

Follow up question:

If the forum and the voters represent a small portion of the player base and their opinions do not necessarily represent the player base as a whole, but a core element (something I can somewhat agree with as it seems, outside of the help, faction and suggestion sub-forums, most of the posters are just venting). Where are you getting your statistical information from that this option is desired?

Edited by Roadbeer, 21 March 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[QuantumButler]

If you really want a full, comprehensive feedback on 3rd person view: add a mandetory poll to the patcher itself that every player must vote in before they can play next patch.

Edited by QuantumButler, 21 March 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Divine Madcat]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honest answer.

The analysis on those who voted, showed that the majority of votes came from a very narrow demographic of our player base. And while they represent some of core players, they did not necessarily represent the opinion of the general user base. The majority of our players never visit, post, or read the forum content, so the poll could be considered weighted in favour of a specific demographic.

Since the majority of players who have an issue with 3rd person come generally from the core players, we elected to address this issue via this forum post to collect all of the concerns and ideas that this group faces or has with 3rd person.

But if these other users do not even participate in the forums, how can you conclude that they want this?

It is so frustrating.. because your core base doesn't agree with what you want, you just choose to ignore them and assume that the silent people somehow agree?? It makes no sense..

[Zeus X]

Divine Madcat, on 21 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

But if these other users do not even participate in the forums, how can you conclude that they want this?

It is so frustrating.. because your core base doesn't agree with what you want, you just choose to ignore them and assume that the silent people somehow agree?? It makes no sense..

Took the words right off my finger tips, and typed it faster than I could.

[Jonathan Paine]

Dear PGI:

Let the 3rd person cravers put their money where their mouths could have been. Do a "Third Person Perspective Founders Program". Let's see if they are willing to pay for what many of us considers watering down a battlemech simulator. This way you can use the resources we "grumpy old can't play video games people" put into the game for community warfare, and use the 3rd persons for, well, third person perspectives.

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 21 March 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[PainGod30]

honestly with the idea of not having to play against those who use a different view than you is just going to split the player base in general too much to implement 3pv successfully. Matches are already hard to get going with ELO, when alternate views come in it'll likely take even longer. Like the original ELO release it'll likely take close to the same amount of time (half hour for me) to get a game. I could be wrong but with a small community like ours we'll more or less be forced to play 1pv against 3pv and I'm pretty sure not a soul on this board wants to do that. Then issues of CW, units being split as to 3pv lances and 1pv lances. Not to mention unfair advantages for either 3pv or 1pv groups who have to fight the other to keep and take planets. I just see too many problems arising from attempting to create a 3pv, be it a separate lobby or mixed. So many issues of poptarting, which there is no logical way around, and corner issues. Training groups and replays should be it's limit. 3pv death screen is going to be cause a lot of 'cheating' issues as well. Thanks for hearing me out PGI, you guys have listened to us some in the past, more than most companies that's for sure, and if there was any time you guys really needed to listen to us it's now.

[Duncan Longwood]

Offers up a different style of gameplay and tactics.

So what tactics does 3rd person view add?

I know it adds pop-tarts who can check to see if the coast is clear before playing peek-a-boo.

I know it eliminates Suppressive Fire as a tactic. From Wikipedia: In military science, suppressive fire, also covering fire, is area denial fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill their mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire. With 3rd person, you can still gather intel on my position, relay that info to your team, and drop some arty on me without ever poking your mech out from cover.

I know it will allow dead ghost-riders to relay intel back to their remaining team with their vastly expanded ability to read the battlefield. It will be possible to have the first player dead take over the MechCommander role and cycle through your remaining teammates 100 degree plus viewing angle, directing the battle over comms.

Ever snuck up behind a stalker in your spider, while staying in his blind spot, as he ignores the fact you are peeling the armor off his back because every time he looks around he can't find who is shooting him? That was an awesome experience to have in my spider... after having been on the receiving end in my stalker. This won't be possible with third-person view.

Basically I love the tactics of this game and if I could see a way that 3rd person made more tactics available instead of less, it would be a much easier thing for me to support.

No sarcasm meant, but if anyone can answer I would love to hear it... What does third person add to the tactical gameplay without eliminating currently available tactics?

[Wintersdark]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Ok.

Can you propose any method whatsoever as to how you can implement a third person camera without giving players using said third person camera an unfair visibility advantage vs. those playing in first person?

[roguetrdr]

Nice to see you are deleting posts that you don't like without informing the poster.

Perhaps I wasn't constructive enough. Dividing your playerbase again is just silly. Currently you have the following divisions-
*8 man groups (and gee arnt they popular)
*ELO
*Soon to have Euro and NA division

Can the playerbase support this? I'm going to hazard a guess at a big fat no. With the recent forum meltdowns over a number of issues, including terribad patches that never should have been released, the game appears to be bleeding players at a rate of knots. In fact my corp alone has had an active nightly player reduction playing MWO of around 50% since the new year. The same numbers are online overall, just 50% have moved to regularly playing other games with occasional drops into MWO. And I know none of those players will be spending any more MC unless something drastic changes, but none of us feel that any good change is on the horizon at this point in time given your recent activity.

I personally hope you guys start listening to everyone here, because I would really love to play a good Mechwarrior game. But if you don't and you continue doing random seemingly senseless things to the game, we're going to stay away, and we'll hold on to our money.