2002 replies to this topic

[Gandalfrockman]

Syllogy, on 22 March 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Where did you get your marketing degree?

Also, where did you get your Demographic information?

I dont Have a marketing degree. HOWEVER I have worked closely with marketing departments in game development before, and had to learn the process said marketing departments follow. I have also worked with marketing dept's for insurance companies, contract IT providers, etc. No matter where you go, no matter what industry your in: Good marketing is good marketing. and bad marketing is bad marketing.

Theirs doesnt sound "bad", but it doesnt sound precise enough to be informing development decisions. If you want sales analysis and marketing to inform your design direction it has to be pretty damned precise. What worries me is that that seems to be their plan, and they don't have the requisite degree of precision on the marketing side to make it work.

I desperately want this game to succeed, with or without third person.
From a design standpoint, I don't want to see a split, I think if they have to implement (Im guessing their publisher isnt giving them any choice) Then I think it shouldn't be allowed outside of training EXCEPT in trial mechs, or with the addition of an equipped module Something like bap with no hardpoint requirements. Maybe something like bap, 2 or 3 tons and an equal number of slots. This makes it a tactical choice.

[Darklord]

Working at the VWE Battletech Center I can understand why there is a need for 3rd person view
If players can't play and lose too much they will stop playing the game.

The down side I see with the goups is players will play were there is an advantage to winning.so if there is any gains in 3rd person the player base will grow there and the "hardcore" base will shink.
So the question is how do we get players the knowlege on how to play and want to move to the "hardcore" area?
Thru training the players and giving incentives to move onto the next level.


We had an advantage at the BT center that at this point in time you do not,we had players and employees that were there to teach the players how to play as they played.

So my ideas are

1 Open up the training area to multi player mode.

This will help new players work with real people to learn how the game works and plays
We can walk our friends and new players thru the controls and tactics of playing with out them worrying about winning or losing.

2 Set up some volunteer trainers
Have some players willing to teach and set up times on the board when they will be available for training players.
You can even go as far as differnt levels of training,we use to have these and called them boot camps.

3 Have 3rd person as a tool to help not be the last step in learning.
Have the mode stay in the training area.

4 put in training missions
Make the training mission give out some rewards if they complete the missions

I understand why you are looking at this but I believe if that the current idea of different brackets of playing will cause even more problems that will require even more time to fix than it's worth.

[Esplodin]

Don't particularly like 3rd person view, but some meaningful restrictions on it's use can help dull the community pain.

1) Available on trial mechs only in matches
2) XP, CB are reduced to 10% of normal values
3) 0 GXP earned
4) Not available when in a group
5) Have it be an option in Solaris mode for any mech, restrict-able by match coordinator
6) still have it as an option on all mechs in the Training grounds - maybe those Atlas pilots will learn to not step on my light, lol.

This helps new pilots learn spatial awareness, while the cadet bonus makes up for gimped rewards.
Trial mechs are awful, and 3rd person view won't change that
Gives incentive to pilot owned mechs to start collecting cash and XP
Grouping gives advantages over pugs that would negate 3rd person view benefits.

lol - hopefully you see this after 28 pages.

[TyR]

If we really must have a 3rd person option available, consider the following. Have on account creation the option of playing in 1st or 3rd person. No switching in game, settings or on our site profiles. You pick the mode you want and stick with it on that account. If nothing else maybe capitalize on this by charging $30 or some amount that is not exactly trivial.

What really bothers me about this is that there have been comments about not adding (or at least giving a very low priority to) certain features that many of us ACTUALLY WANT such as picking our opponents because it will split the community. However with the overwhelming opinion (THE OFFICIAL 3RD PERSON VIEW FEEDBACK THREAD now removed apparently) given in the forums I really do not see there being much of a split from 3rd person because most seem to be strongly opposed to it. That said, instead of 3rd person I would rather development time be spent on just about anything else that is actually useful, e.g., private matches, new mechs, finding that good missile solution, stats API, web based mech management tools, clans, community warfare, fixing the matchmaker, etc.

Edited by TyR, 22 March 2013 - 07:50 AM.

[Praehotec8]

My thoughts:

1.) Not a fan of 3rd person for general gameplay, but sometimes would love to see my mech in the field (replays would be great!)

2.) If the purpose is to help engage new players, it ought to be feasible and not game-breaking to have a 3rd person view that is close to the mech and not player adjustable that would give new players a sense of the orientation of arms to legs without allowing significant "peeking, etc." I do question though, how much harder is MWO than your average FPS once "gas-pedal" and "arm-lock" are turned on? Seems like it would play fairly similarly to others at that point. What benefit does a 3rd person view bring then, other than personal preference?

3.) Division of community is a HUGE (the biggest) issue, and I have no suggestions for this one other than to say it had better be well thought out and tested before full implementation as if done poorly it certainly could be disastrous for the life cycle of the product.

4.) This is clearly a business move for the product. IGP and/or PGI through research must feel that they can garner more income by attracting a wider player base, and is taking steps to draw them in and retain them long enough to spend money. It would be VERY interesting (know it's not going to happen) to see a breakdown of where the public money comes from. I still have a sneaking suspicion that the largest revenue in F2P games comes from a very small crowd, likely the crowd in this forum. However, this decision makes me question my correctness...perhaps the wider audience spending a few dollars each is worth more than the core audience spending larger sums. It's very sad that due to the high cost of development that no publishers are willing to cater to niche markets anymore. The only products that get funding are those with the potential for big return on investments. Even titles typically for niche markets are being "adjusted" for "mainstream" appeal, to the dismay of the fans. Anyone that's been following the recent information on Thief 4 will have an idea of what I mean.

5.) For those that are upset about being drawn in and then "lied to", I think this highlights an interesting aspect of crowd-funding. Traditional publishers/funders certainly have clout in developing a game, but also make very significant investments in a product. Crowd-funders typically contribute a large amount through very small bits individually. However, each of those individuals is going to feel entitled to have a say in the final product. Some of the purely crowd-funded titles may have to follow player demand, but in this case, with a traditional publisher also, there's bound to be some friction between the elements, as the publisher is likely the biggest spender here. Another issue is that even among the core audience there is dispute about many aspects, with similar yet slightly different viewpoints.

6.) Finally, more than 3rd person, this game needs more tutorial and/or a manual. Whatever happened to reading the instruction manual when learning a new game. That actually used to be a favorite thing for me to do with a new game prior to playing it. I spent about 10 matches or more in this game trying to figure out how the armor and damage was represented on the paper-dolls of the enemy mechs, as this wasn't discussed anywhere. I had to go on the forums to figure out what weapon groups were and how to manage them, etc..., and I watched the training video twice! It's the sign of a good game that it has some depth and complexity, and I don't think dumbing it down is the way to go. Players need to be educated on how it works, but the actual mastery of it does and SHOULD take time. The game is entertaining enough that new players ought to enjoy playing even while losing and learning. I know I did, and I sucked for a very long time. Players that are unwilling to learn how to play are not the players that I want in the game, although again, I am guessing IGP feels that getting them to stay and spend some money is more profitable and worth making the core audience put up with them.

Edit: Just for the record, I liked MW2 back in the day, but this game has made me a mechwarrior fan. I decided to enter the founder's program for MW Tactics because of this game, and I wish I had been around to be in the founder program for this game. Therefore, I really want this game to do well and be around for a long time.

Edited by Praehotec8, 22 March 2013 - 07:55 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

If we're getting this regardless, it is probably a good idea to simply remove the reticules while in third person mode and allow players to freely switch between them in "3PV enabled" games.

Battlefield awareness aside, it might be nice to catch a glimpse of my own Mech's awesome paintjob in action from time to time.

[Xeren KelDar]

The excuse of 3rd person as a training tool really points to a lack of an understandable and accessable tutorial. 3rd person view will not solve this issue, but it will introduce more problems such as the poptarting exploiting people have mentioned. Including seperate ques for different view modes fracture the player base thus leading to a smaller community which will more then likely result in a loss of players. This could lead to a needed merging of the views into one which could fracture it further as solely 1st person view mode people will leave. This needs to be looked at very carefully as its a very hot topic and depending on the implementation 3rd person view could give significant advantages against 1st person.

Speaking of the target demographic of "shooters and flight sims" and then tying 3rd person view into that is somewhat an ignorant statement. Most of those shooters and sims ARE 1st person. These first person shooters have lateral movement in strafing so moving one way while shooting another is not a new concept. MWO admittedly does things a little differently, but offers no instruction in this. Again this points to a tutorial problem and not a view problem. Pushing 3rd person view for this reason seems to be like giving someone a rock because their gun won't fire instead of instructing them to turn the safety off.

3rd person view in the training grounds, or possibly in a tutorial that needs making, may help alleviate the initial burden of movement for new players. I believe it should be limited to there and possibly to a replay mode of the match (after everything is over so as not to add unfair advantage via ghost warriors). The view can be used as part of the training process, but it is by no means an answer to the learning curve.

Having two modes will lead to one being superior and thus shoehorning everyone into that view mode. Balancing the two equally, as I'm sure you've realized, is an extremely tricky task and one I'm not sure can be done properly. Before the Gauss Rifle nerf how many variations of ballistics did we see in the game? We saw just one as the gauss was a superior ballistic platform to the autocannons. With the views one is looking to balance approximately 180 degree vision with near 360 degree vision. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that is possible.

[Oy of MidWorld]

DevilJade, on 22 March 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

I'm just curious what type of player this addition is targeted for?

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 22 March 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[WVAnonymous]

If PGI is looking for a forum excitation metric, I suggest posts/hour for each day the thread goes unlocked.


3rd Person Module?

You get it when you sign up, but it takes a slot, and if you want to run with the big dogs, you can take it out. Rationalize it as a head mounted external camera or something similar.

Oy of MidWorld, on 22 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

That hurt to watch.

[DocBach]

If third person is enabled no HUD, no reticules, just the back of their 'Mech, maybe let them flip the camera around to look at the cool model or record stuff for fraps, but you should definitely be at a disadvantage playing the game to the point where you are more or less combat ineffective unless you are looking out your cockpit.

[zverofaust]

Mazzyplz, on 22 March 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

lol. how are you not in orbit yet, you're obviously full of hot air.

how is anyone in a forum thread dedicated to opinions of a not yet existant feature supposed to come up with any proof.

i DARE you to prove it won't affect the game. you can't.

stop wasting my time again

Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the assertion.

"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

In other words, if you are making a claim, the responsibility for proving the validity of your position lies solely with you. It is not our responsibility to disclaim your position.

Have a nice day.

[DrVulcan]

An Actual Idea =D

1) Do not split user base, please. This will set an unfortunate precedent for solving issues by splitting player base and cause stress in a single group, etc.

2) Make 3rd person a module slot (free module so starter players can use it, and have it equipped on trial mechs)

3) Make the module as follows:

a. Hovering drone - allows for view of mech from above/behind mech

b. View would be similar to mechwarrior for xbox except not as far away, think medium range mechwarrior 3 external view

c. You would have the same hud as normal in regards to heat/armor/etc

d. You would not be able to use vision modes (no zoom, no heat, no night vision)

e. Make the view itself so that you have a blind spot right infront and below you (so it is hard to hit a small mech at your feet if you are a large mech)

f. Potential things to consider (would need play testing)

i. Make view yellow blur (similar to start up yellow blur) if mech hit with ppc

ii. I think that making drone targetable is not a good idea for several reasons, however first and foremost would be the issues reguarding players who use to play with it and then have that ‘denied’ to them

iii. Module slot would mean that it is at a ‘cost’ to other modules, such as coolent / etc, so players can see it as a real cost-benefit (do I take 3rd person, or heatsyncs, or target lock, etc)

iv. You can even have it take two module slots / etc for additional balance if need be, or ‘all module slots’ which would be pretty cool.

v. The above ideas would allow for the ‘feeling’ that 1st person view was the place to be and that 3rd person was simply a view to switch to for tactical awareness

vi. I don’t think that this will be as large of an issue as most people think, as it will do the following:

1. Indirectly Nerf ECM some

2. You can see mechs on your radar now, so they shouldn’t be sneaking up on you that much where 3rd person view will effect most encounters with the eception of ecm as noted above

vii. I feel that overall this is a good middle ground.

[Gandalfrockman]

WVAnonymous, on 22 March 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

3rd Person Module?

You get it when you sign up, but it takes a slot, and if you want to run with the big dogs, you can take it out. Rationalize it as a head mounted external camera or something similar.


That hurt to watch.

I dont think it should be a module. Modules dont use tonnage or slots. Third person should use both. No module, should grant that kind of advantage.
I'm fine with third person as an option, AS LONG AS THERE IS AN EQUIVALENT TRADEOFF IN TONNAGE/SLOT USAGE.
I am on the list of people that think TT is wonderful, but that staunch adherence to it will hurt more than help.

[Randalf Yorgen]

I've said it before but it keeps getting burried so I will say it again, just faster this time.

You want to grow the game and the playerbase with 3rd PV? ok then really grow it. develope an Arena mode, tears and all for beginers through hero players. You could have 10 different Arenas (SOLARIS 7 Don'tcha Know!) and they would have cameras that would provide a fantastic 3rd pv that could be used to fight in the Arenas with.

There you go, new content to attract new players, segregated levels so noobs don't get curb stomped, 3rd pv, Elitests have a place where they can put there money down and see who's best. Can Solo or Team in the Arenas. Best part is, the rest of the content is left 1st pv and the core players who aren't showboats can go about doing what they like and enjoy the game as they like it.

[Roadbeer]

Randalf Yorgen, on 22 March 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I've said it before but it keeps getting burried so I will say it again, just faster this time.

You want to grow the game and the playerbase with 3rd PV? ok then really grow it. develope an Arena mode, tears and all for beginers through hero players. You could have 10 different Arenas (SOLARIS 7 Don'tcha Know!) and they would have cameras that would provide a fantastic 3rd pv that could be used to fight in the Arenas with.

There you go, new content to attract new players, segregated levels so noobs don't get curb stomped, 3rd pv, Elitests have a place where they can put there money down and see who's best. Can Solo or Team in the Arenas. Best part is, the rest of the content is left 1st pv and the core players who aren't showboats can go about doing what they like and enjoy the game as they like it.

Can someone in Ohio tell me how to vote twice? It worked for Obama.

Really want to be able to put multiple likes on THIS post

[xImpalerx]

I'm one of the people that do not want 3rd person at ALL in the game. However if I had to pick a way to put this in I say make a new game mode all together. Solaris 7. Arena style game play that you can go 1v1, 2v2, 4v4, whatever testing says will work. This would help solve the problem of community warfare (3rd person wouldn't be IN community warfare) while giving people a plausible reason to have 3rd person view as an optional means of viewing and playing the fight.

[Aldrenean]

Just add an animation before your mech starts up where the camera spins in to the cockpit, giving you a nice view of your mech and paint job. Third Person is not going to help new players with the leg/torso disconnect that much, having it in Training Grounds should be plenty. A proper tutorial is what the game needs, not minor QOL adjustments. The torso twist indicators on the HUD are extremely intuitive, but if they're not pointed out to you for your first 10 rounds you're gonna have a bad time.

Another option would be to make 3PV only available to trial mechs with Cadet Bonus activated. Everyone knows trials are underpowered as hell, so I don't see many if any people complaining about new players in trial mechs using 3PV. I still don't think it's a great option, it will only make the end of Cadet Bonus hit newbies harder, but it's vastly preferable to a selectable option, which will split the playerbase into "casuals" who want to stick to 3PV and the "hardcore" who want a fair game. By suggesting the options you've listed, you're admitting both the tactical advantage of 3PV and the split that you will cause if you go ahead with this plan as described.

My dream option is the implementation of custom servers with 3PV as an option, as well as 3PV in Training Grounds. No where else.

Edited by Aldrenean, 22 March 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[mariomanz28]

If "they" can get 3rd Person View then I want a rear view camera mounted onto the back of every battlemech and tied into one of the useless monitors in my cockpit. It would be only fair.

[Azze]

Honestly it is a realy realy bad idea to split the community to to 1st person and 3rd person players. There is no way a 1st person players would ever ever want to play with 3rd person players.

But this is a feedback topic on how to implement it since it is already set on stone @_@. In my opinion since you have *cough* decided to go for the 3rd person, only implement the 3rd person for training grounds if you really have to. Aldrenean gave a realy good suggestion to only restrict it to a camera that spins around the mech at the start of the match.

I don't see how the 3rd person mode is ever gonna help new players nor existing players tho. It will spoil the game for many.
Like Aldrenean said, the game could use some tutorials instead.

Just my 0.02

edit: Actually there could be one reasonable way to implement a 3rd person camera. Make it a module that allows you to launch one "flying camera probe thingy" during a match that flies a bit above the mech. Pilot could switch between 1st person and 3rd person trough a hotkey and what balances it is the fact it could be shot down relatively easy.

Edited by Azze, 22 March 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[Demos]

As long as 3rd view is restricted to a fixed forward view, positioned directly behind and slightly above your mech without the ability to look at the sides (at least no more than the restricted cockpit view) than I'd have no problem with it.
I'd also use it at the beginning of the game to admire my mech
For the battle I'd join the cockpit, of course.
Such a static camera/3rd view should also be offer no advantages to cockpit/1st view users, so a fragmentation of the player base wouldn't be necessary.

Really, to draw people into the game, 3rd view is not needed.
Give new players reasonable trial mechs (most of the canon designs sucks versus the custom builds, I say artificial low armor, low ammo) or the ability to compete in stock-mech-only games.
Put Pugs versus a reasonable competition, not versus teams.
Don't have all-or-nothing weapons like LRMs (before 21/03/2013), which PUNISHES new and inexperienced players.
More maps for variety (not river city at day or night)
Community warfare
...

Edited by Demos, 22 March 2013 - 10:31 AM.