2002 replies to this topic

[Adrian Steel]

Franchi, on 22 March 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

My constructive feedback is BE HONEST WITH US.

Time to get real buddy. That's like asking a sociopath not to run you over if it benefits him in the slightest.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

We would like to invite your constructive feedback on how you would like to see 3rd person executed.

• Standard forum rules apply, please be kind, courteous, and clearly communicated your ideas or opinions.
  
• This is not the place to say you dislike 3rd person.

This is why many posts were just deleted, if anyone wants an explanation. I'm sorry, but to come into this thread and say "PGI are liars, take away 3rd person" does not in any way respect the guidelines of this thread.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 22 March 2013 - 07:53 PM.

[Franchi]

Adrian Steel, on 22 March 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Time to get real buddy. That's like asking a sociopath not to run you over if it benefits him in the slightest.

IKR, ah there it goes looks like the cleaning crew finaly woke up.

Ok PGI I will drink the coolaid


3rd person is a GREAT idea, FULL STEAM AHEAD.

ryoma, on 22 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Paul I have a quick question directed at you.

Do you guarantee that first person players will never have to play with third person players if they choose not to? I want to see a promise from you that we wont have to play with third person players. Right now people are very suspicious that a few months down the line of 3rd person view you will merge queues to eliminate the split. What is your opinion on that view of the company?

I think it would matter very much to the community if you would make that promise.

The only guarantee that would matter is them stating they will give everyone who ask for one a full refund of founders packages and MC purchases if they merge the ques.

And yes they should do that.

No they won't do that.

Whats that tell you?

Edit: Sorry about the 50 edits drunk posting FTW.

Edited by Franchi, 22 March 2013 - 07:59 PM.

[Shively]

Is there any way we could get a dev response to the posts by SirDubDub and myself (as well as everyone else that's suggested the same thing) on this page?

I'd like to see if they'd be willing to consider such a thing - it seems like a middle-of-the-road compromise.

And, well, it'd just be damned awesome to see the in-cockpit displays actually doing something for a change. I fail to see how this wouldn't appease most everyone. Other than, you know, requiring a substantial amount of effort to actually get done.

Edited by Shively, 22 March 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

Shively, on 22 March 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

This is most likely the best option.

It provides none of the supposed advantages of 3rd-person over 1st-person.

The space to do so exists in the cockpit - every mech has blank display screens that do absolutely nothing. The displays could be placeholders for other functions? Easy solution: create a keybind to toggle each display.

There's a history for it - it existed in MW3 at the very least.

It prevents any splitting of the community and further problems with Community Warfare that would be caused by having to account for a split between view modes.

It prevents the inevitable merging of first-person and third-person players after the discovery that the game hasn't the population to support it.

Finally, it allows PGI to save face by not breaking yet another promise to their players.

It would appear that the proper implementation of a third-person view mode isn't to implement a third-person mode at all. It's to implement a third-person view by proxy of the cockpit.

Except they've already explained (if indirectly) why they can't do this. It's a limitation of the CryTek Engine.

Do you remember why we have this "not-quite-so-fabulous" 4x zoom instead of a MW3-style PIP-zoom window that follows the cursor? Because this engine can't do 3D renders on top of (or within) 3D renders.

The monitors in our cockpits would have to create a second instance of 3D rendering (within the game world that is also being rendered in 3D), which they are incapable of. All they are is geometry upon which a dynamic but 2-dimensional, flat texture is applied. Fine for displaying pre-rendered flat texture images, and maybe even having some form of "animation" by switching between different frames of 2D animation, but incapable of generating a live 3D rendering

[Adrian Steel]

Prosperity Park, on 22 March 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

This is why many posts were just deleted, if anyone wants an explanation.  I'm sorry, but to come into this thread and say "PGI are liars, take away 3rd person" does not in any way respect the guidelines of this thread.

This thread doesn't command respect, unfortunately.

~22,000 views.  14 likes for the original post.

Edited by Adrian Steel, 22 March 2013 - 08:50 PM.

[Shively]

DirePhoenix, on 22 March 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Except they've already explained (if indirectly) why they can't do this. It's a limitation of the CryTek Engine.

Do you remember why we have this "not-quite-so-fabulous" 4x zoom instead of a MW3-style PIP-zoom window that follows the cursor? Because this engine can't do 3D renders on top of (or within) 3D renders.

The monitors in our cockpits would have to create a second instance of 3D rendering (within the game world that is also being rendered in 3D), which they are incapable of. All they are is geometry upon which a dynamic but 2-dimensional, flat texture is applied. Fine for displaying pre-rendered flat texture images, and maybe even having some form of "animation" by switching between different frames of 2D animation, but incapable of generating a live 3D rendering

A game from almost two decades ago was able to pull it off, and you're telling me that the supposedly state-of-the-art CryTek engine can't handle it?

You have no idea how irate that makes me. No, really - I feel like group of programmers somewhere needs to be put before a firing squad.

[Adrian Steel]

Shively, on 22 March 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

A game from almost two decades ago was able to pull it off, and you're telling me that the supposedly state-of-the-art CryTek engine can't handle it?

You have no idea how irate that makes me. No, really - I feel like group of programmers somewhere needs to be put before a firing squad.

Cheer up buddy. The best part about MWO right now is that it'll allow the CryTek team to tweak their engine. Why is that good? Because Star Citizen is using it.

See you there!

[SirDubDub]

DirePhoenix, on 22 March 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Except they've already explained (if indirectly) why they can't do this. It's a limitation of the CryTek Engine.

Do you remember why we have this "not-quite-so-fabulous" 4x zoom instead of a MW3-style PIP-zoom window that follows the cursor? Because this engine can't do 3D renders on top of (or within) 3D renders.

The monitors in our cockpits would have to create a second instance of 3D rendering (within the game world that is also being rendered in 3D), which they are incapable of. All they are is geometry upon which a dynamic but 2-dimensional, flat texture is applied. Fine for displaying pre-rendered flat texture images, and maybe even having some form of "animation" by switching between different frames of 2D animation, but incapable of generating a live 3D rendering

Would it be possible to make this mech avatar as a hologram that floats above the physical cockpit, like the house holograms or bobble heads? Or could it be implemented as part of the HUD overlay directly? This solution does seem to have merit if it could be implemented. It would be a damned shame to see it die off due to engine limitations.

Either way. It was worth a shot proposing it.

Edited by SirDubDub, 22 March 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[Franchi]

SirDubDub, on 22 March 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Would it be possible to make this mech avatar as a hologram that floats above the physical cockpit, like the house holograms or bobble heads? Or could it be implemented as part of the HUD overlay directly? This solution does seem to have merit if it could be implemented. It would be a damned shame to see it die off due to engine limitations.

Either way. It was worth a shot proposing, I guess.

I believe the holograms and the bobble-heads are 2D renders.

[Grrzoot]

Suggestion:

Make the fov of third person be limited to what is in the current cockpit view (the entirety of it, not just when you are looking) but fix the view to just behind the shoulder.

You could also black screen border, and put the hud in, the shape of that particular mechs viewing window...i.e. the atlas would be a hexagon.

This would allow you to limit the view of the overall field, keep with the mechs basic design in 1rst. you could even fix the bottom most point to the feet of the mech. Then each would have a unique look as well of field of hud.

To look further a player would need to drag the camera back and down to behind his mech, and then scrollbar zoom in and out, all the way in being first person.

Edited by Grrzoot, 22 March 2013 - 08:25 PM.

[SirDubDub]

All right. Bear with me on this one.

It seems to me that the primary gameplay reason for new players to want or need a third person view is because of the difficulty curve of learning a mech's torso twist orientation.

If a small 3d model of the player's mech is not an option, would a top-down set of layered 2d images work?

Lets use the catapault as an example (my deepest apologies for this butchery, Alex)


Here we see the forward heading of the mech and torso






...Twisted Right...



And Left...

Would it be possible to make a display like this for the cockpit screens of the player's mechs? The images here are obviously nowhere near refined enough to be properly legible, but would a system like this work in theory?

Edited by SirDubDub, 22 March 2013 - 08:59 PM.

[Sir Fuzzy]

Rather than adding the option to only play against 1st or 3rd perspective players thus seriously limiting the match maker how about you just make it a toggle key like night vision that everyone can use?

You could "black out" the bottom corners which the pilot in the cockpit would not be able to see while in 3rd person. Basically do some side by side comparisons while programming 3rd person and alter the screen availability in 3rd person to reflect what the pilot would be able to see (aside from the mech itself obviously).

If you guys make some actually useful HUD information and use the cockpit to display something other than the pilot's legs, then take away all cockpit and HUD info while in 3rd person... I think it would balance out.

Pro's could switch between the 2 views quickly if a reason arose to do so while those who want 3rd person could use it primarily just switching to 1st for HUD info and better targeting. Either way it's available to everyone so no one has an advantage.

Edited by Sir Fuzzy, 22 March 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Roland Verliden]

Shively, on 22 March 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

This is most likely the best option.

It provides none of the supposed advantages of 3rd-person over 1st-person.

The space to do so exists in the cockpit - every mech has blank display screens that do absolutely nothing. The displays could be placeholders for other functions? Easy solution: create a keybind to toggle each display.

There's a history for it - it existed in MW3 at the very least.

It prevents any splitting of the community and further problems with Community Warfare that would be caused by having to account for a split between view modes.

It prevents the inevitable merging of first-person and third-person players after the discovery that the game hasn't the population to support it.

Finally, it allows PGI to save face by not breaking yet another promise to their players.

It would appear that the proper implementation of a third-person view mode isn't to implement a third-person mode at all. It's to implement a third-person view by proxy of the cockpit.

Using the blank screens is a good idea, actually. Hell, it could avoid the issue of having segregated queues entirely so long as 3rd-person was used only for movement purposes.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

If PvP is getting third person, make it a toggle for the search queue. Let players select either as a choice for the whole match of players, where the other is disabled(or just third person OFF in the first person queue). This is the only way you will keep everyone happy. A lot want it, a lot do not. I'm not in the narrow minded crowd that wants his own way at the cost of others(Aka I'm the minority on the forum). I actually realize that a lot of people want it, and I might even end up using it myself. But others want MW to be as immersive as possible, and that means cockpit view only. Personally, I don't know which I'd favor more in the end.

So... separate their queues, side A=yes, side B=no. If you don't want to do this, then I would say, don't do it at all. You'll do more harm than good by dropping this into the game with no option for its haters(the majority) to avoid it. I think MW should be a FP game first, and TP, if coming at all, should not disrupt that. If they don't get separate queues, then TP shouldn't come at all. You could even separate their stats, achievements, or tournaments. Let players play the one they want. But again, if they aren't being separated, it'd be better to not see third person at all.

In the end, just like having PvP+PvE in 1 game, you'll appeal to both crowds. But if you have to separate them in a logical matter. If you don't... then you're just going to make your majority unhappy.

Edited by Bluten, 22 March 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[EvilCow]

Just for information, since I will be dropping anyway the moment it is introduced, how tournaments and CW would work? enforced on or off? which part are you cutting off? the few and irrelevant core players or the vast masses just waiting 3pv to spend they money in MWO?

[DirePhoenix]

SirDubDub, on 22 March 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Would it be possible to make this mech avatar as a hologram that floats above the physical cockpit, like the house holograms or bobble heads? Or could it be implemented as part of the HUD overlay directly? This solution does seem to have merit if it could be implemented. It would be a damned shame to see it die off due to engine limitations.

Either way. It was worth a shot proposing it.

You could make a bobble head model of your 'mech to sit on your dash, but I'm not sure if you could get it to link with the animations that your mech is doing in real time. Also I'm not completely sure if it would help considering the problem is not only the perception of your 'mech's orientation between the torso and legs, but mainly the orientation of your 'mech in regards to the environment around it: spacial awareness (ex: player can't tell that the reason they're not moving is that their legs are running into the building behind them because they're not looking at the building; player can't or won't look down to see the 1-story Quik-E Mart that they're banging their shins on, etc)

Side note: these are probably also the same people that walk in front of your target, directly into your line of fire even if you've already been firing at it for the past few seconds.

SirDubDub, on 22 March 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

All right. Bear with me on this one.

It seems to me that the primary gameplay reason for new players to want or need a third person view is because of the difficulty curve of learning a mech's torso twist orientation.

If a small 3d model of the player's mech is not an option, would a top-down set of layered 2d images work?

Lets use the catapault as an example (my deepest apologies for this butchery, Alex)


Here we see the forward heading of the mech and torso






...Twisted Right...



And Left...

Would it be possible to make a display like this for the cockpit screens of the player's mechs? The images here are obviously nowhere near refined enough to be properly legible, but would a system like this work in theory?

This was some nice effort to put together a graphic, but I'm not sure how this would be any more informative than the torso/leg indicators we already have on our minimap/radar. If people won't look at their radar why would they look at one of the tiny displays off to the side of our main view? (even the displays we have with functioning information are extremely difficult to read unless I freelook to stare directly at it while my 'mech isn't bouncing around everywhere. The only display that I can get useful data from without having to focus on it is the Heat Sink display, and that's just yellow/red squares.

EDIT: To clarify, I don't think the main problem is that people can't figure out which way their legs are oriented to their body, I think the problem is spacial awareness. I'm not sure how to teach it, and I'm not sure people that don't have it will necessarily be willing to learn it because
1) They may not be aware or willing to admit that this is their real problem because it's a lot easier to just say "1st person is too hard, why can't I just have third person?", and
2) "Ermagherd, I just wanna play my robot shoot'emup wars already!".

Is there a pilot/driving instructor in the audience that could give some tips on how to teach spacial awareness? (especially if they can give them in a way that's not apparent that it's from a boring driver's ed class?)

Edited by DirePhoenix, 22 March 2013 - 11:08 PM.

[Yawarakai Te]

After reading most of the posts in this thread the consensus appears to be that,
1. There is no way to implement a 3PV, that will aid a new user, that doesn't give an unfair tactical advantage over 1PV.
2. Splitting the population is an undesirable solution.

Gunhaver07, on 22 March 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

If 3rd person is for new players then why not have it enabled just for the trial mechs or until the recruit bonus has stopped.

QuantumButler, on 22 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Make 3rd person view only useable in training grounds or on stock, unmodified, unupgraded tech level 1 mechs.

The second you change anything in the mechlab you're locked out of 3rd person view for that mech forevermore.

This would in practice mean it could only ever be used by total newbs to learn how to pilot or whatever and anyone who tried to use it in a serious match would be stuck in a mech so bad not even 3rd person view could ever salvage it, make it clear it is only a tool for learning the ropes, part of the game tutorial basically, training wheels that won't help you at all against any real opposition. Don't add seperate queues or anything, let them fight real mechs.

Of course, none of us want 3rd person, but think of this as a thought exercise, since IGP is probably forcing 3rd person view in some form.

Some iteration of the above suggestions seems the most appropriate long term solution that does not involve segregating the playerbase. Inherent is the idea that if 3PV is ever combined with 1PV then it needs to be balanced rather than nerfed out of all usefullness.
I would suggest full 3PV enabled for training grounds, trial mechs and stock mechs only, any modified mech is locked to 1PV. This would require the ability to save customisations and a revert to stock option in the mechlab. The advantage of 3PV is then balanced by the ability to field a better mech in 1PV.
The people who can already pilot get an unrestricted view at the cost of being in an unoptimized mech, new pilots get 3PV while they learn, and already are, restricted to unoptimized mechs.

Regardless of the assertions that we will NEVER be forced to play with 3PV it makes sense to expect that this might not be true in the future. A recognition at this stage that 3PV needs to be balanced against 1PV seems logical.

[Ettibber]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

devs going back on what they promised

how can i get my money back then?

Edited by Ettibber, 22 March 2013 - 11:49 PM.

[Shively]

Would a third-person view mode actually even assist spatial awareness?

Honestly, I find with third-person views, I tend to get almost a tunnel-vision effect, severely messing with my depth perception. Especially with the camera being moved to behind the 'mech - it seems like they'd still wind up stuck against whatever low-lying obstacles are in front of them, unless the camera were zoomed fairly far out. So, if it's to be of any use, it would have to be implemented in a manner that leaves it not over-the-shoulder, as some have suggested (and would appear to be what Paul's hinting at in his edit to the OP), but instead several meters behind and above, which would, of course, net advantages compared to first-person players.

The problem with spatial awareness is that it can't really be taught, it's more something that has to be learned. Regardless of how many times you instruct someone to check their corners, and attempt to drill in the concept that the 'mech may be moving another direction than it's facing, the only way for them to truly grasp the concept is to be exposed to it. The problem with adding in a third-person mode isn't that it assists with spatial awareness, it bypasses it altogether.

Allowing third-person only in trial mechs/training grounds/et cetera really isn't much of a fix either - sure, it'll help them to grasp the concepts of movement, but if you allow them to get used to it, they will nevertheless be disoriented once thrust into the cockpit. Really, the only way for them to learn is by doing.

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

• HUD will be significantly reduced if not completely removed.
  
• ONLY the targeted enemy (Press R) can be identified in 3rd person... all other HUD indicators are turned off.

Then what's even the point of having it? No crosshair, no weapon indicators, no heat indication, no map, no friendly indicators (who doesn't love friendly fire?). If your intention is to have it simply be useful only for screenshots and by no means useful for actual combat, by all means, go ahead.

I'd just rather that valuable development time not be wasted on such a thoroughly gimped feature that wouldn't even address the issue it's supposedly being implemented over. One of the reasons that the community appears to be so vehemently opposed to the implementation of a third-person view is that we can't conceive of it being implemented particularly well. Even the ideas the devs have provided seem contradictory to the concept itself.

I'm not convinced that adding in third-person mode would even grab the audience PGI/IGP seems to be moving toward - the pace of combat is already far too slow for the Call of Duty crowd, and the TTK far too high to keep their attention. Really, Armored Core 4 (okay, not that, the difficulty would be far beyond them, even though it's laughable compared to the rest of the franchise) or MechAssault (I went there. Deal with it.) would be up their alley, but never MechWarrior. Maybe IGP should acquire rights to MechAssault if they're so intent on making a third-person arcade 'mech shooter. It's not like it has a particularly great reputation for them to ruin.


The ONLY potential solution I can come up with is implementing third-person as a "locked" view mode that rides along a line connecting your 'mech and your target. Yes, that would result in a ton of circular engagements. It could even be engaged via a keybind, rather than necessitating a new lobby/queue system to cope with the split community.

I'll defer again to the posts on the last page regarding the in-cockpit monitors and a potential wire-frame representation of 'mech orientation. If there's some minute possibility that it could happen, it seems to be the most effective for both parties.

Edited by Shively, 23 March 2013 - 12:07 AM.