2002 replies to this topic

[Pando]

As a more unique idea I would like to see it as a module/consumable drone available in 1st person view que's but only as a combo-addition to the command module. It would give the commander better situational awareness IMO leading to more tactful battles. Must assume command of the battlefield for it to activate.


I would also like to see it as an addition to current game modes divided by the 3 outlined que's also available in training/testing grounds.

Edited by Pando, 24 March 2013 - 01:34 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Pando, on 24 March 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

As a more unique idea I would like to see it as a module/consumable drone available in 1st person view que's but only as a combo-addition to the command module. It would give the commander better situational awareness IMO leading to more tactful battles. Must assume command of the battlefield for it to activate.


I would also like to see it as an addition to current game modes divided by the 3 outlined que's also available in training/testing grounds.

wait, 3 ques... when was there a third added?
1st pov and 3rd pov yeah?

[Pando]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

wait, 3 ques... when was there a third added?
1st pov and 3rd pov yeah?

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

You will have the following options as a player:

• Play against 1st and 3rd person players. 1
  
• Play against 3rd person players only. 2
  
• Play against 1st person players only. 3
  
• Players can set their preference in the options menu, or during the launch phase before matchmaking.

There you go. Quoted from the OP. I took the liberty to add numbers next to bullets for you.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Pando, on 24 March 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

There you go. Quoted from the OP. I took the liberty to add numbers next to bullets for you.

huh why do I think only number one will ever be implimented?
Theyre so worried about segmenting the player base theyre going to do it three times?

[Pando]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

huh why do I think only number one will ever be implimented?
Theyre so worried about segmenting the player base theyre going to do it three times?

It is obviously not a concern, the wording suggests that much.

[Dataman]

you know devs, this is (kida) serious issue. I don't know if you can make it it right or not.

I assume by the plan you made, 3rd POV is only implemented so players could see their beautifully painted mechs.

ps: I wrote this while I'm having my beer, so I'm cool.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Im rather questioning right now as to how useful this thread even is when we forumgoers are in such the minority and they dont want our input as to wether we want this or not, because the majority has spoken. If we're such the minority here on these forums, then why are you asking us for input on HOW to impliment it? Why not ask the majority who are telling you they want it?

Pando, on 24 March 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

It is obviously not a concern, the wording suggests that much.

lol neat, guess they dont care about segmenting the playerbase anymore, then can we add a que for premades and PUGs and more game modes while youre at it (since the reasoning they gave for why they werent adding more game modes was they were worried about segmenting the playerbase)?

as he said in response to a question about segmenting the player base:

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

This is one of our largest concerns. In fact, it's one of the reasons we don't just jam in more game modes.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 02:35 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

IMO that first one, with the 1st AND 3rd pov, yeah that shouldnt exist

[Mao of DC]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:33 AM, said:

Im rather questioning right now as to how useful this thread even is when we forumgoers are in such the minority and they dont want our input as to wether we want this or not, because the majority has spoken. If we're such the minority here on these forums, then why are you asking us for input on HOW to impliment it? Why not ask the majority who are telling you they want it?

Thats not true I dont want 3rd person but I gave contructive feedback and Bryan changed his OP.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2106444

Here is the text for the lazy.

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.

Here is my constructive feedback for the 3rd person veiw issue. Mind you I don't want it in game at all. But that is my opinion not feedback.

The ONLY way for it to remain fair is to have it set up in a way that if you can't see it in 1st person you can't see it. I have some examples here.

If I am in 3rd person and parked in cover behind a hill I can't "look" over the hill and "see" the mechs moveing on the other side of the hill.

If I'm in cover behind a building I can't look around a corner and "see" if it is save to move out of cover.

If I am looking at the wonderful paint job on the front of my mech I can't "see" behind me.

Another bit of feedback IF you allow players to "see" as I have mentioned above:

Perpective changes mid-match must have a cooldown time. To prevent players from switching back and forth. Switch from 1st person to 3rd no problem you can't switch back for 5 secs and vice-versa. This goes hand and hand with my next points.

Don't allow weapon fire at all in 3rd person, or only allow an very limited range for them say 90m. Long range shots should be serverly hampered in 3rd person. If the reason you want to add 3rd person is so players can learn to pilot their mechs. Ok np now they can pilot their mech but not fight very effectively. After a while they will hopefully learn to not rely on 3rd person.

Any allowed weaopns fire should not be very accurate. In some cases this is a no brainer if you are in 3rd person and are trying to shoot at someone above you, your view gets blocked by you body.

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

One poster mentioned something that I thought was more than fair. List some of the ideas we've been toying with in order for it to work. These are just SOME of the ideas we've been discussing:

• Camera is locked horizontally to the torso. This is not a peek around corners mode.
  
• Camera is locked vertically to the torso, you can only look up and down as far as your torso can.
  
• When approaching cover (to rocks/building etc), the camera pulls IN so FoV is greatly reduced when standing close to something.
  
• 3rd Person is not a free-cam.
  
• HUD will be significantly reduced if not completely removed.
  
• LOS targetting is NOT affected by 3rd person. If you cannot target it from 1st person, you cannot target it in 3rd.
  
• ONLY the targeted enemy (Press R) can be identified in 3rd person... all other HUD indicators are turned off.

Again, these are a few of the ideas we're working on. Please keep that in mind when posting.

I guess they read and liked my feedback. This is farly close to what I had in mind.

Edited by Mao of DC, 24 March 2013 - 02:49 AM.

[Pando]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:33 AM, said:

Im rather questioning right now as to how useful this thread even is when we forumgoers are in such the minority and they dont want our input as to wether we want this or not, because the majority has spoken. If we're such the minority here on these forums, then why are you asking us for input on HOW to impliment it? Why not ask the majority who are telling you they want it?




lol neat, guess they dont care about segmenting the playerbase anymore, then can we add a que for premades and PUGs and more game modes while youre at it (since the reasoning they gave for why they werent adding more game modes was they were worried about segmenting the playerbase)?


as he said in response to a question about segmenting the player base:

Look, stop with your ********. I don't sit around and read everything the developers say. If segregation IS/WAS a concern, obviously it was dealt with on some level before this post was created. You want my answer why I think ONLY number one...back up real quick I think they will ALL be implemented. I just commented on what I want specifically. You're reading to much into what you perceive I don't want. I don't have a problem with any of it. I gave my feedback as requested by the OP.



As Mr. Ekman stated this thread is NOT to debate 3pV it's to provide "how you would like to see it implemented." If you're not contributing to that, **** of the thread.

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

You will have the following options as a player:
•Play against 1st and 3rd person players.
•Play against 3rd person players only.
•Play against 1st person players only.
•Players can set their preference in the options menu, or during the launch phase before matchmaking.

Edited by Pando, 24 March 2013 - 02:49 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mao of DC, on 24 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

Thats not true I dont want 3rd person but I gave contructive feedback and Bryan changed his OP.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2106444

OK then why are we the loud minority when it comes to this feature but we're the ones they WANT to listen to (even though we're that minority they dont want to hear when it comes to NOT putting this **** in) when it comes to HOW to put it in?
Where's their majority now?

Pando, on 24 March 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Look, stop with your ********.

Youve proven your fanboi status. You dont count as no matter what they do you will NEVER stop defending them.
So stop YOUR white knighting, and Ill stop my bitching. Deal?
and when you become a mod, you can tell me where to go till then, **** off.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[Pando]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:

IMO that first one, with the 1st AND 3rd pov, yeah that shouldnt exist

This thread is not for debating if it should exist or not. /convo

Correct me if im wrong.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

OK then why are we the loud minority when it comes to this feature but we're the ones they WANT to listen to (even though we're that minority they dont want to hear when it comes to NOT putting this **** in) when it comes to HOW to put it in?
Where's their majority now?



Youve proven your fanboi status. You dont count as no matter what they do you will NEVER stop defending them.
So stop YOUR white knighting, and Ill stop my bitching. Deal?
and when you become a mod, you can tell me where to go till then, **** off.

Read the rest of the post, you failed to read my previous ones which accounts for your ignorant status.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Pando, on 24 March 2013 - 02:52 AM, said:

This thread is not for debating if it should exist or not. /convo

Correct me if im wrong.

ok i will
This thread is not to debate whether THIRD PERSON should not exist but hot to impliment it.
Im giving feedback on how to impliment it, not saying that the entirety of third person should not exist.

YOURE WRONG

/convo right back at you

I dont see you refuting the point... I thought not, go troll elsewhere

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 02:58 AM.

[Pando]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

ok i will
This thread is not to debate whether THIRD PERSON should not exist but hot to impliment it.
Im giving feedback on how to impliment it, not saying that the entirety of third person should not exist.

YOURE WRONG

/convo right back at you

I dont see you refuting the point... I thought not, go troll elsewhere

Then provide your CONSTRUCTIVE feedback, stop picking fights with people because of their feedback and MOVE THE **** ON.

Good day sir.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Pando, on 24 March 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

Then provide your CONSTRUCTIVE feedback, stop picking fights with people because of their feedback and MOVE THE **** ON.

Good day sir.

I did
If you couldnt grasp that, I say good day to you too as I cant think sown to your level

know what? theres a forum feature for little trolls like you and I think Im gonna start using it

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 03:01 AM.

[Mao of DC]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

OK then why are we the loud minority when it comes to this feature but we're the ones they WANT to listen to (even though we're that minority they dont want to hear when it comes to NOT putting this **** in) when it comes to HOW to put it in?
Where's their majority now?

I understand your positon entrirely and agree with it. But I am hopeing we can try to get them to make 3rd person as restrictive as we can. Since it seems they are going to put it in anyway. By giveing 1st person view a tactical advangage most people will fight only in 1st person and make 3rd person usless really. If more people added actual feeback about how we can do this, and less posts that only say "I dont want 3rd person" they might listen to us. Besides there is a whole other thread for the "I don't want" posts.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Edited by Mao of DC, 24 March 2013 - 03:05 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mao of DC, on 24 March 2013 - 03:03 AM, said:

I understand your positon entrirely and agree with it. But I am hopeing we can try to get them to make 3rd person as restrictive as we can. Since it seems they are going to put it in anyway. By giveing 1st person view a tactical advangage most people will fight only in 1st person and make 3rd person usless really. If more people added actual feeback about how we can do this, and less posts that only say "I dont want 3rd person" they might listen to us. Besides there is a whole other thread for the " I don't want" posts.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Ive BEEN saying that you shouldnt see any HUD info at all in third person since youre not looking THROUGH the HUD anymore when youre in third person. Makes sense to me. And not having the first "combined" que would reduce the number theyre splitting the community BY so I dont see how thats not a constructive thought, regardless of what Pando thinks

[ryoma]

After a few days of reading this thread I have changed my mind.

I used to be 100% against 3pv and believed it diluted the experience.

Now my opinion is that depending on its implementation it could be a nice feature for new players. Not because it makes the game easier, or anything like that, but because it allows the player to SEE THE MECH THEY ARE PILOTING. I remember new players quitting because every mech felt the same. Now anyone who has played for a decent amount of time knows that statement is bull *****, but it makes sense from a new players perspective.
1. The trial mechs are **** and usually clunky with things mostly runing 64.8 KPH
2. they all die fast
3. I remember some trial mech sets being very Mlas heavy

Would they still think the trials are the same if they could at least see their own mech in 3pv and see how mech size affects things from a different view? Also if the trial mechs were at least competently built that would help.

Most of this is because of problems with the trial system, but that's for another thread. I'm sure at least some of those players wanted to play MWO because it has cool looking mechs. It must have been pretty disheartening to find out that the only mechs you would see are your enemies and that your custom colors are for your enemies eyes only.

I think 3PV has a definite place in the game for that reason. However I do not believe that place is in CW. I think that instead of separate queues PGI should make CW 1PV only and make all other game types mixed.

Make pick up games the fast and loose version of MWO while CW is the the sim aspect.

Also I'm way more worried about air strikes and artillery strikes driving away new players than 3PV. free damage on any mech and the free damage is not based on your own mech tonnage? The delays on the strike making it so that heavies and assaults will be the only mechs slow enough to actually be hit? Yeah sounds pretty bad to me.

Edited by ryoma, 24 March 2013 - 03:18 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ryoma, on 24 March 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

After a few days of reading this thread I have changed my mind.

I used to be 100% against 3pv and believed it diluted the experience.

Now my opinion is that depending on its implementation it could be a nice feature for new players. Not because it makes the game easier, or anything like that, but because it allows the player to SEE THE MECH THEY ARE PILOTING. I remember new players quitting because every mech felt the same. Now anyone who has played for a decent amount of time knows that statement is bull *****, but it makes sense from a new players perspective.
1. The trial mechs are **** and usually clunky with things mostly runing 64.8 KPH
2. they all die fast
3. I remember some trial mech sets being very Mlas heavy

Most of this is because of problems with the trial system, but that's for another thread. I'm sure at least some of those players wanted to play MWO because it has cool looking mechs. It must have been pretty disheartening to find out that the only mechs you would see are your enemies and that your custom colors are for your enemies eyes only.

I think 3PV has a definite place in the game for that reason. However I do not believe that place is in CW. I think that instead of separate queues PGI should make CW 1PV only and make all other game types mixed.

Make pick up games the fast and loose version of MWO while CW is the the sim aspect.

Also I'm way more worried about air strikes and artillery strikes driving away new players than 3PV. free damage on any mech and the free damage is not based on your own mech tonnage? The delays on the strike making it so that heavies and assaults will be the only mechs slow enough to actually be hit? Yeah sounds pretty bad to me.

Ive reached my maximum likes for the day or id like this post lol
And also; those arty strikes hitting only slow moving mechs? Like TRIAL mechs -.-

[Pando]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 24 March 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

I did
If you couldnt grasp that, I say good day to you too as I cant think sown to your level

know what? theres a forum feature for little trolls like you and I think Im gonna start using it

Go for it, I think you'll find it works both ways.