2001 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

der langsamere, on 25 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

well given that Bryan has been tasked with 3pv (he's said as much in this thread), youd think that he'd update the thread now and again, yes? Or has he gotten all the info he needs from the people that dont play?

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2125687

[Pygar]

Totally don't understand what the big drama over 3rd person mode is- it has existed in past MW games and personally I find 1st person far more useful.

Is it too late to ask for more mechs and maps b4 3rd person mode? I think more mechs, maps and possibly new modes will better for the game.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

And as I have been saying all along, this segmentation will not be necessary if 3PV is implemented correctly.

If it has any influence on gameplay it will have been introduced incorrectly.

[Mystere]

der langsamere, on 25 March 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

yet somehow just adding gameplay modes segments the playerbase more than theyre willing to do so.
Do you have any suggestions to how they could do what youre suggesting (as thats the point of this thread and all)?

Here is a suggestion from last night which you seem to have conveniently "overlooked".

I also wanted to add a drawing and better description but this darned forum software just wouldn't let me do it so I just quit.

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Pygar, on 25 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Totally don't understand what the big drama over 3rd person mode is- it has existed in past MW games and personally I find 1st person far more useful.

Is it too late to ask for more mechs and maps b4 3rd person mode? I think more mechs, maps and possibly new modes will better for the game.

Because someone using 3rd person to see over hills and around corners is a good idea?

It was terrible in those past editions and will be terrible here if people can do the same thing.

[Zeus X]

Bryan creates thread and asks core player base how to implement 3rd person.


Bryan ignore's core player base polls with over 3000+ no's.


Bryan participate's for a few pages, then like PGI fashion, nothing.

[Zeus X]

der langsamere, on 25 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

care to elaborate on that? The rest of the post was you saying you were offended another poster was calling you out on being lazy, no actual explanation on it.



I was rather curious as to why they were asking their core players what they think of how to implement exactly what they dont actually WANT. They dont care what we think about the feature COMING INTO THE GAME then they ask us how to do it when theyve told us that the silent majority is more important than we ever could be.
So ask them.

I agree, and I am so confused as why they ignore the core players, but yet post a thread asking the core players.

*PULLS HAIR OUT*

[Franck991]

A way i would like to see 3rd person view implemented is,

whatever the angle, or the line of sight you are having being in 3rd person view mode, only allow to see mechs that you would actually see from within your mech.

I think of it as if the mechwarrior piloting the mech would wear some special electronic glasses allowing him to see around himself from another point of view, close to him, but not granting him the perception of mechs that his own mech did not detect. (you could play with this idea: reproduce the mechs that are detected but are not in line of sight? reproduce only the mechs that are in the line of sight? etc)

A nice visual effect to implement could be, if liked, to further increase the sense that the view you are benefiting (3rd person) is a simulation from within the cocpit by making mechs apear and disapear, like a hologram would do, with blue colors and flash until the detected mech is fully displayed. In reverse, the mechs could disapear with the same visual effects when turning around a corner while loosing the signal of that mech.

Up to you.

This way 3rd person doesn't give such a wide tactical advantage while still giving in the benefits you are seeking. It even allows to implement a flexible and non-static 3rd person view without the risk of excessive advantages. Finally, it doesn't break the immersion one likes by introducing non-core concepts.

3rd person view could even be implemented with a module, given the technological explanation, or simply being a base technological possibility everyone has by default.

Edited by Franck991, 25 March 2013 - 02:23 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

DCM Zeus, on 25 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

I agree, and I am so confused as why they ignore the core players, but yet post a thread asking the core players.

*PULLS HAIR OUT*

They repeatedly tell us they dont care what we think then ask for advice.
Go ask your majority how to impliment it then.
(I think theyre asking us and not them BECAUSE they know how bad it could be and that those majority WOULD destroy the game with those decisions).
Maybe its cause igp IS forcing this on them and theyre asking us to try and mitigate the damage htis stupid view will cause on the game.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 25 March 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Anyone notice this little gem?

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

• Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person.

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.
  
• Play against 3rd person players only.
  
• Play against 1st person players only.

So one of the ques IS forcing players TO play together.
um...

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 25 March 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Fut, on 25 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

What's next, changing aspects of the game to make it easier for toddlers to play?

[Alois Hammer]

Fut, on 25 March 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Why does it seem like some people want this game to be a simple point-and-click FPS?

Because coding those is easy, on par with crap like Duke Nukem Forever, and in F2P format they can rake in the bucks if you cut enough corners on frills and cater to a low enough common denominator.

der langsamere, on 25 March 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Have they even replied once since Bryan went to PAX or are they now ignoring the thread?

They're giving us their standard "mushroom" treatment. Keeping us in the dark for now, and later they'll feed us some more manure.

Edited by Alois Hammer, 25 March 2013 - 02:35 PM.

[Featherwood]

I've finished reading this thread in two days and think that little could be added to what already was said, but I still would like PGI to hear my voice. I vote against 3PV, whenever you accept my cast or not, I think, 3PV is a profanation of Mechwarrior series tradition and spirit (like MW4 was, IMO).

Negative impact of 3PV on MWO and its community will be huge, 3PV will:
►split player base into unequal parts

►make matchmaking even more hard

we still have problems with only one segregation system (ELO)

►allow potential offenders to gain advantage against 1PV players

by hacking or exploiting 3PV against match limitations

►continue the PGI's trend of breaking their word, so who knows?

We have no guarantees that 3PV/1PV menu options will really work and lead to 'pure' 1PV-players vs 1PV-players matches, who knows? ECM stays broken OP for months and PGI cares little about it

►make Community Warfare a tough balance challenge

That is main problem, IMO. Brayn said:

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

• Reduces friction for non-MechWarrior players, non-core players, and expands the MWO market to a broader audience. It helps to make the game more accessible and less intimidating.
  
• Offers up a different style of gameplay and tactics.

as many people said before me, Bryan, make Community Warfare a driver of MWO, but instead you pay too much attention to fancy arcade elements. Let players to socialize effectively within rich and interesting BT universe, but instead you are making stupid FPS of MWO.
Once more: social connections in PVP game is what exactly make MMO interesting and attractive to players.

So, PGI, if you are still have intention to realize 3PV (break your word, deny MW spirit and et.c.) please be very wise. I think that 3PV could be carefully implemented without harm to MW spirit, I agree that 3PV could help new players to learn about BT universe and MWO. I have even generated some ideas, PGI you are very welcome to use it for free:

3PV as 'simulation within simulation' suggestion.

[Jetfire]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

So one of the ques IS forcing players TO play together.
um...

Which is precisely why I think the dual split ARCADE (toggle view) or MECHWARRIOR (FP only) makes much more sense. Seriously, this solves the problem and accomplishes the goal. It is simple, easy and painless.

3PV may well be a good idea to catch another type of playerbase, but keep it out of CW. War Thunder is the perfect example in terms of flight difficulty. You play arcade if you aren't ready for the hardcore flight sim but still want to go zoom zoom. Then those players can test the waters then move into the harder version later if they choose. That whole time they can still spend money. The Arcade version then does little to lower the current player base in matchmaking and helps sustain the game.

I really see no possible way to do it better if you are going to do it.

Edited by Jetfire, 25 March 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I just think its funny that in his own OP for this thread he proves himself wrong with what I hope is just a miswording and not catching him in a lie.

[Roadbeer]

The more I think about it... over 50 pages of "NO" (counting deleted and moved posts)

If I was Bryan, I wouldn't come back to it either.

[Kraven Kor]

PANZERBUNNY, on 25 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Because someone using 3rd person to see over hills and around corners is a good idea?

It was terrible in those past editions and will be terrible here if people can do the same thing.

And that is my main fear, and I just don't see a way, at all, for it to be implemented in any way that will not result in exactly that.

Even if they don't render mechs behind a hill, the guy with 3PV has an advantage even just in maneuvering - he can see the terrain on the other side of the hill, while the 1PV has to remember whether this is the right spot to go over, or if he is going to walk off a cliff into time-out canyon on Frozen City, knowudimean?

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

I just think its funny that in his own OP for this thread he proves himself wrong with what I hope is just a miswording and not catching him in a lie.

Again, never attribute to malice what could easily be explained by any more mundane failing of a random human being.

I think it might, at the least, show they haven't thought this through 100% and are not all on the same page. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing, though I'd like to think they aren't just making this up as they go along

[Jetfire]

Kraven Kor, on 25 March 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

And that is my main fear, and I just don't see a way, at all, for it to be implemented in any way that will not result in exactly that.

Even if they don't render mechs behind a hill, the guy with 3PV has an advantage even just in maneuvering - he can see the terrain on the other side of the hill, while the 1PV has to remember whether this is the right spot to go over, or if he is going to walk off a cliff into time-out canyon on Frozen City, knowudimean?

Imagine if they only rendered what you could see from inside the cockpit. Now there is something that would be perfectly balanced and incredibly useless to everyone.

Using the simplest implementations Ockhams Razor leaves 3 key choices.

The 3 paths:
No 3PV- not taken
Split 3PV/1PV - sounds like they want something more complicated
Render only 1PV content in 3PV, except the mech - Too silly

Option 2 is the only simple practical solution besides just dropping 3PV. All the options discussed on page 1 are just uneccessary complications to try and justify a poor decision. There is just no reason for it. Say you have decided you want a 3PV area, call it arcade and keep it out of CW. Simple, all goals accomplished.

The alternate would be a wireframe in the cockpit of your mech. Also feasible, but not a 3PV so to speak.

[Adrian Steel]

LordBraxton, on 25 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

LOL WHAT HAPPENED TO PAULS COMMENT IN MY SIGNATURE?

THIS IS PURE DISHONESTY TO A POINT WHERE ALL CAPS WERE REQUIRED

no respect here, I was promised a 1st person only game and thats what I payed ~$100 for

His signature: "Being the pilot is one of our key design pillars and 3rd person breaks that pillar on multiple levels as seen in many of the other 3rd Person discussions." PGI Staff

I guess being the pilot is no longer one of their key design pillars. Perhaps "MechWar Online" is a more appropriate name for this game?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Kraven Kor, on 25 March 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Again, never attribute to malice what could easily be explained by any more mundane failing of a random human being.

I think it might, at the least, show they haven't thought this through 100% and are not all on the same page. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing, though I'd like to think they aren't just making this up as they go along

hence why I said "I hope its just a miswording and NOT..."
Also; how can you not be on the same page with yourself?

Adrian Steel, on 25 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

His signature: "Being the pilot is one of our key design pillars and 3rd person breaks that pillar on multiple levels as seen in many of the other 3rd Person discussions." PGI Staff

I guess being the pilot is no longer one of their key design pillars. Perhaps "MechWar Online" is a more appropriate name for this game?

"that was our position AT THE TIME"
Bolded the key words