2002 replies to this topic

[krash27]

Bluten, on 23 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

People don't seem to realize that if 3rd is put in, they will have separate queues. If you don't want it in your games, you'll be able to play without it in matches that simply don't allow its use. You basically won't even notice it's in the game at all unless it delays the queues; which I doubt since the majority of players are against it. The people wanting 3rd will be the ones that have to wait for matches. People need to stop acting like panicking children when they've outright said it'll never be allowed in matches that are set for 1st only. If you're against it, then just set the filter to 1st only when you queue. Problem solved. You would not ever have to play in matches with or against anyone that used it. But some people would actually like third person and it would open their game for more market. It's similar to a game having PvP+PvE, rather than just 1.(Btw when are you giving us PvE/Co Op modes Piranha?)

And it doesn't seem like you read many posts, no offence intended.
People are aware that PGI has "said" that they will split the queues for 1PV and 3PV. The part you are missing is that they also said 3PV would never be in game and that MW:O is first and foremost a 1PV simulator.
The concern here is will 3PV be implemented to everyone at first and we are told that the seperate queues are coming "soon" again, or that in the very near future the get rid of the queues all together.

PGI had it right in the beggining, MW franchise is best and ment to be 1PV, they should stick with the original sales pitch that all founders invested in. Instead they are making a totally different product than originally intended. To me if 3PV comes in, it just wont feel like a mechwarriors title.

[von Pilsner]

Bluten, on 23 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

People don't seem to realize that if 3rd is put in, they will have separate queues. If you don't want it in your games, you'll be able to play without it in matches that simply don't allow its use. You basically won't even notice it's in the game at all unless it delays the queues; which I doubt since the majority of players are against it.

I disagree that it will be un-noticable...

Well, of the 5 people I usually play with 1 will go 3pv and the other 4 will stay 1pv. Guess we won't be dropping together too much once 3pv is out. This split among units will affect many, many people.

Also, when you like your own posts it makes you look narcissistic...

[Mystere]

Bluten, on 23 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

People don't seem to realize that if 3rd is put in, they will have separate queues. If you don't want it in your games, you'll be able to play without it in matches that simply don't allow its use.

Assuming 3PV is implemented properly (e.g. no inherent advantage in using either mode), this is actually my only concern about the whole thing. Why is there even a need for separate queues? I really couldn't care less what mode everyone else is using.

An explanation from PGI on this point will probably reduce much of the "gloom and doom" running around.

[Roadbeer]

Mystere, on 23 March 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

An explanation from PGI on this point will probably reduce much of the "gloom and doom" running around.

They used a tactic that is common to the White House. Make an announcement late Thursday/ early Friday and it either goes unnoticed or by the end of the weekend, the steam has died down.

Downside is, unlike reporters, we don't go home for the weekend and that's when we actually start paying attention to the forum (aside from Patch/Hotfix days).

Oops. Well, As I pointed out before, they really screwed the pooch on this announcement.

[Mystere]

Roadbeer, on 23 March 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

They used a tactic that is common to the White House. Make an announcement late Thursday/ early Friday and it either goes unnoticed or by the end of the weekend, the steam has died down.

Downside is, unlike reporters, we don't go home for the weekend and that's when we actually start paying attention to the forum (aside from Patch/Hotfix days).

Oops. Well, As I pointed out before, they really screwed the pooch on this announcement.

PGI has already given some clarifications (i.e. see updated OP). I sure hope they provide some more, especially on the player segregation front.

[Khanublikhan]

I wish to clarify:

Is it really a 3rd person point of view that folks find objectionable?
Is it a 3rd person point of view, poorly implimented, that gives a tactical advantage?
Or is it a 3rd person point of view, because it does not fit in your vision of Mechwarrior?
Or is it the miscommunication of the whole issue from the developers?

As I myself, have previously stated, I am an old school mechwarrior fan (admittedly when it was a single player game) who enjoyed switching to 3rd person view because I found it fun and visually pleasing. I would be... ...dissappointed... if a third person view was not implimented, personally speaking.

Surely you cannot be objecting to a well implimented (client side only?) 3rd person view, which I choose as my window into the game world, if that is my choice?

I think the bigger concern, which I feel is getting lost, is not 3rd person point of view itself - but playerbase fragmentation by splitting 1st and 3rd POV players apart..?

Edited by Khanublikhan, 23 March 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

I wish to clarify:

Is it really a 3rd person point of view that folks find objectionable?
Is it a 3rd person point of view, poorly implimented, that gives a tactical advantage?
Or is it a 3rd person point of view, because it does not fit in your vision of Mechwarrior?
Or is it the miscommunication of the whole issue from the developers?

As I myself, have previously stated, I am an old school mechwarrior fan (admittedly when it was a single player game) who enjoyed switching to 3rd person view because I found it fun and visually pleasing. I would be... ...dissappointed... if a third person view was not implimented, personally speaking.

Surely you cannot be objecting to a well implimented (client side only?) 3rd person view, which I choose as my window into the game world, if that is my choice?

I think the bigger concern, which I feel is getting lost, is not 3rd person point of view itself - but playerbase fragmentation by splitting 1st and 3rd POV players apart..?

I choose 2, 4 and your last sentence.

[Mystere]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

I wish to clarify:

Is it really a 3rd person point of view that folks find objectionable?
Is it a 3rd person point of view, poorly implimented, that gives a tactical advantage?
Or is it a 3rd person point of view, because it does not fit in your vision of Mechwarrior?
Or is it the miscommunication of the whole issue from the developers?

As I myself, have previously stated, I am an old school mechwarrior fan (admittedly when it was a single player game) who enjoyed switching to 3rd person view because I found it fun and visually pleasing. I would be... ...dissappointed... if a third person view was not implimented, personally speaking.

Surely you cannot be objecting to a well implimented (client side only?) 3rd person view, which I choose as my window into the game world, if that is my choice?

I think the bigger concern, which I feel is getting lost, is not 3rd person point of view itself - but playerbase fragmentation by splitting 1st and 3rd POV players apart..?

Based on the numerous threads/posts on the topic, I say all of them plus your last sentence.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

krash27, on 23 March 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

And it doesn't seem like you read many posts, no offence intended.
People are aware that PGI has "said" that they will split the queues for 1PV and 3PV. The part you are missing is that they also said 3PV would never be in game and that MW:O is first and foremost a 1PV simulator.
The concern here is will 3PV be implemented to everyone at first and we are told that the seperate queues are coming "soon" again, or that in the very near future the get rid of the queues all together.

PGI had it right in the beggining, MW franchise is best and ment to be 1PV, they should stick with the original sales pitch that all founders invested in. Instead they are making a totally different product than originally intended. To me if 3PV comes in, it just wont feel like a mechwarriors title.

I did read many posts, hence what I said about others. FYI, PGI never said 3rd person would never be in the game; they said that if it did come, it'd need to be in a way that doesn't disrupt balance. They said it wasn't in the near future and that they wanted 1st to be top priority. Doesn't mean "never". Even if they did say that... well they also said we'd have a balanced game, no P2W BS, or Premium rides like hero variants. You could make a nice long list of things they've changed their mind about(DHS?). It's childish to expect things not to change over time. But many players, including myself, actually liked MechWarrior with 3rd person. I've grown fond of 1st since MW only had it, but I might eventually switch if they introduce it. But again, if you didn't like it, you would not have to play with it. But you can't seem to even accept that it exists or that some people actually want to use it, and that includes Founders or other players that have asked for it since the start.

[von Pilsner]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

I wish to clarify:

Is it really a 3rd person point of view that folks find objectionable?
Is it a 3rd person point of view, poorly implimented, that gives a tactical advantage?
Or is it a 3rd person point of view, because it does not fit in your vision of Mechwarrior?
Or is it the miscommunication of the whole issue from the developers?

As I myself, have previously stated, I am an old school mechwarrior fan (admittedly when it was a single player game) who enjoyed switching to 3rd person view because I found it fun and visually pleasing. I would be... ...dissappointed... if a third person view was not implimented, personally speaking.

Surely you cannot be objecting to a well implimented (client side only?) 3rd person view, which I choose as my window into the game world, if that is my choice?

I think the bigger concern, which I feel is getting lost, is not 3rd person point of view itself - but playerbase fragmentation by splitting 1st and 3rd POV players apart..?

Because in earlier mech games 3pv allowed a situational advantage.
Because in earlier mech games 3pv's situational advantage made it the mode to use for competitive play.
Because in earlier mech games online competitive play was bassed on the increased SA of 3pv (pop-tart boring matches).
Because in earlier mech games 3pv's inherent advantages led to 1pv not being used by competitive players as much.

While you were blissfully playing single player some of us were already dealing with the 3pv vs 1pv in an online environment...

EDIT: Hope I do not come across pissy about it, I am not...

Edited by von Pilsner, 23 March 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Khanublikhan]

Thanks for the comment,von pilsner, it made me smile.

A question then: a constructive question.

"Do you believe it is even possible to impliment 3rd person in MWO, without it giving a tactical advantage?"
(Has it been done in any other game before?)

[Mystere]

von Pilsner, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Because in earlier mech games 3pv allowed a situational advantage.
Because in earlier mech games 3pv's situational advantage made it the mode to use for competitive play.
Because in earlier mech games online competitive play was bassed on the increased SA of 3pv (pop-tart boring matches).
Because in earlier mech games 3pv's inherent advantages led to 1pv not being used by competitive players as much.

While you were blissfully playing single player some of us were already dealing with the 3pv vs 1pv in an online environment...

EDIT: Hope I do not come across pissy about it, I am not...

Just because it happened before does not mean it will happen again.

An so again, I will say this: I will judge this game as implemented, not by what people think it might be.

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

A question then: a constructive question.

"Do you believe it is even possible to impliment 3rd person in MWO, without it giving a tactical advantage?"
(Has it been done in any other game before?)

I say yes. Technology today is much more advanced that it was over a decade ago. As such, the technical challenges faced during that time have already been overcome.

Edited by Mystere, 23 March 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Thanks for the comment,von pilsner, it made me smile.

A question then: a constructive question.

"Do you believe it is even possible to impliment 3rd person in MWO, without it giving a tactical advantage?"
(Has it been done in any other game before?)

I can't think of a single one where 3PV didn't become the preferred mode for tactical play, while 1PV was regaled down to RP/immersion only.

[von Pilsner]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Thanks for the comment,von pilsner, it made me smile.

A question then: a constructive question.

"Do you believe it is even possible to impliment 3rd person in MWO, without it giving a tactical advantage?"
(Has it been done in any other game before?)

I think that if they do not render enemies that a 1pv player can not see, have a fixed camera & do not draw enemy TAG it will be a good start. I only fear the increased Situational Awareness that 3pv can offer in a competitive game.

In MW4 we would get jump jet snipers and manipulate the free camera to look over a hill and line up the shot before jumping (radar worked differently so you often did not have a lock at all). Once you got some practice you could jump just enough to clear the hill with your weapons and fire. If you moved between each shot you would rarely get shot back...

Kind of a long waiting game...

[Ozric]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Surely you cannot be objecting to a well implimented (client side only?) 3rd person view, which I choose as my window into the game world, if that is my choice?

I think the bigger concern, which I feel is getting lost, is not 3rd person point of view itself - but playerbase fragmentation by splitting 1st and 3rd POV players apart..?

Sadly, if I was to face you and you were using 3PV, while I was using 1PV, I would feel that you had an advantage over me due to your increased visual field. However slight that advantage may end up being, and regardless of how noticeable it was in casual matches, at the top end everyone would be using 3PV, even if they didn't want to. An edge is an edge.

Which is why the classic solution has been to make mixed ques, thus splitting the player base. There are dozens of posts in this thread detailing the problems with this, including some of my own, so I will not go in to it again here. But suffice to say as much as I would hate to be forced in to 3PV, the community must come first. With CW just around the corner we need to be stronger than ever to carry it forward.

I've given the matter probably too much thought, and the only way I can really see a mixed 1PV/3PV system working fairly is a technology heavy enhanced imaging system that has it's own set of drawbacks. I first suggested the idea as a comedy, lore-friendly but still possibly workable solution, but actually it could work far better than I had first thought. Technology heavy may not be the way they intend to go, of course.


Enhanced Imaging: v2

Toggle ability, switches to fixed camera 3PV behind and above the mech. All standard controls available. Neurohelmet tech.

Terrain: The 3PV would give you increased line of sight, up to and including seeing over walls. Grid lines and range markers would be overlayed on the ground, and the further away from the mech the terrain got the more wireframe it would become. The far distance would look entirely artificial.

Targeting: Enemy mechs targeted or in LOS would be easier to see, glowing red aura perhaps, but when moving out of LOS they would blink out (would not look as bad if you knew it was an artificial image). Enemies at range would light up too, allowing for feasible sniping despite the lack of long range features and 3PV. Also, lots of numbers, rotating targets, sight lines and other SFX that make the experience feel like being plugged in to the mech.

Drawbacks: Disruption. ECM jamming or PPC fire could temporarily short out the system, either ruining your UI for a time or forcing you in to 1PV until the effect wears off. Exploitable? Perhaps, but it would encourage everyone to use both vision modes depending on the situation. Precision marksmanship would also still be easier in 1PV (but I admit that might be just me).

[Windies]

Bluten, on 23 March 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

People don't seem to realize that if 3rd is put in, they will have separate queues. If you don't want it in your games, you'll be able to play without it in matches that simply don't allow its use. You basically won't even notice it's in the game at all unless it delays the queues; which I doubt since the majority of players are against it. The people wanting 3rd will be the ones that have to wait for matches. People need to stop acting like panicking children when they've outright said it'll never be allowed in matches that are set for 1st only. If you're against it, then just set the filter to 1st only when you queue. Problem solved. You would not ever have to play in matches with or against anyone that used it. But some people would actually like third person and it would open their game for more market. It's similar to a game having PvP+PvE, rather than just 1.(Btw when are you giving us PvE/Co Op modes Piranha?)

I bolded out the part that most people see as the problem with splitting the player base, Queue times. So they are hoping to attract more people with 3pv yet you are saying that they are going to have long queue times. I'm not disagreeing with you, but they will have to alleviate that somehow. Whats the simplest way to fix it? Merge the queue's, which is what people are worried about.

[van Uber]

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

• It is possible 3rd person will be made available in other regions first. Typically 3rd person is more widely used outside of North America.

I really hope you'll go public with this before you let us do our promised one time transfer to another server.

I'm looking forward to play on a EU server for obvious reasons. I dislike high ping. But, I dislike the notion of 3rd person view entering my server and possibly split up the queues in tiny fragments a lot more than high ping. I'd take heavy lag any day of the week.

So before I make up my mind, I'd like to know where the lesser evil will reside.

I get it that a 3rd person is far from complete, but EU servers seems to be not too far off in the distant future. I would really be disappointed to move my account and end up testing MWO Arcade Edition a couple of months later.

[Mystere]

Ozric, on 23 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Sadly, if I was to face you and you were using 3PV, while I was using 1PV, I would feel that you had an advantage over me due to your increased visual field. However slight that advantage may end up being, and regardless of how noticeable it was in casual matches, at the top end everyone would be using 3PV, even if they didn't want to. An edge is an edge.

The developers have already hinted that this should not be the case.

Edited by Mystere, 23 March 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Jabilo]

After listening to the arguments and reading some of the posts about how they plan to balance third person, I am now inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Paul made a post about some of the things they had considered.

• Locking the camera to torso movement (no free look)
  
• Reducing the hud in third person mode
  
• Locking the FOV down when near terrain (to limit pop sniping).

If they introduce features like this then (on this basis):


I NOW OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THIRD PERSON

No separate queues, no nothing. Everyone plays together.

BRING IT ON!

Third person has benefits for EVERYONE, even if you do not intend to use it.

If it helps the game to succeed, that means a greater player base and more resources to create content. There's no point in staying hardcore if the game fails. On that basis we all lose and good luck seeing another BT game in the next ten years.

Third person means we can see our cammo, marvel at the graphics and animations, take screen shots and make fan movies.

Compared to consumables, third person is the least of our worries. But that is a different discussion for a different thread.

Edited by Jabilo, 23 March 2013 - 02:05 PM.

[Anton]

As for suggestions:

1. Think about close brawling between two e.g. lights. With 3P this will always end-up into circling as due to the better horizontal FOV you will always see your enemy (and he will see you), so there will be no point for complex movement patterns that makes your opponent loosing your sight.

2. 3rd person is needed in training grounds / private matches, and a tutorial (like all previous Mechwarrior games had) is needed so new players could first learn how to control mech in 3P, and then learn how to control it in 1P.

3. CW / events / ladders should only be available in 1P, so that no further fragmentation is introduced (and there will be no need to have e.g. two different ladders for that).