2001 replies to this topic

[Nathan Foxbane]

How about some player encouragement to switch to first person. I get that some people have trouble orienting to the torso twist mechanic. So how about for new players a small, but respectible C-bill incentive to play in first person that runs out after say 30-40 games so that after people get the hang of using torso twist they have good reason to switch. Or give other similar incentives to move away from the third person and into first.

[Mystere]

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

care to elaborate on that?

In the simplest of terms ...



The cone represents what your can see from your cockpit. In 1PV, only objects within the conical volume will be visible. For a proper 3PV implementation, the same objects should be the only ones also visible. Note that this is the simplest case.

In addition, objects that exist within the cone will also create their own conical volumes via projection. Objects that reside within those conical volumes will be hidden from 1PV. As such, for a proper 3PV implementation, those same objects should also be hidden.

Finally, by replacing "hidden objects" in the second paragraph with "hidden surfaces" and applying the same rules, you are now on your way to a proper 3PV implementation.

There will be issues (e.g. objects/surfaces suddenly appearing/disappearing), but that's probably a longer discussion best done on another day.

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[Alois Hammer]

Roadbeer, on 25 March 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

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

That's the way it works in nature- once most animals drop a reeking pile of manure, they move away from it and don't come back. Cats even have the decency to bury theirs instead of posting it on a forum and calling people to come look.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Also; how can you not be on the same page with yourself?

It's one of those things that's normally rather difficult, but becomes easier the more time you spend making things up on the fly.

Edited by Alois Hammer, 25 March 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

In the simplest of terms ...


The cone represents what your can see from your cockpit. In 1PV, only objects within the conical volume will be visible. For a proper 3PV implementation, the same objects should be the only ones also visible. Note that this is the simplest case.

In addition, objects that exist within the cone will also create their own conical volumes via projection. Objects that reside within those conical volumes will be hidden from 1PV. As such, for a proper 3PV implementation, those same objects should also be hidden.

so like the view mode in WoT where tanks vanish and appear?
Because as far as Ive heard in that game you only see what your turret can see

Alois Hammer, on 25 March 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

That's the way it works in nature- once most animals drop a reeking pile of manure, they move away from it and don't come back. Cats even have the decency to bury theirs instead of posting it on a forum and calling people to come look.

Id like this twice if I could

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 25 March 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[Mystere]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

so like the view mode in WoT where tanks vanish and appear?
Because as far as Ive heard in that game you only see what your turret can see.

Yes, that is the case.

I have also modified my post to reflect this (i.e. you have already responded while I was still writing it).

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Yes, that is the case.

I have also modified my post to reflect this (i.e. you have already responded while I was still writing it).

that would be horrible here given how fast lights and mechs in general move in this game. But hey, its a great way to sabotage the idea so yeah that.

[Mystere]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

that would be horrible here given how fast lights and mechs in general move in this game. But hey, its a great way to sabotage the idea so yeah that.

There are ways to mitigate this. But as I said previously, that's best left for another day (and by someone who can probably express it much better than I can).

[Heeden]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

If there is visual/sensor parity between the two modes, then I do not see any good reason for doing this. And frankly, I think anyone still complaining after a well implemented 3PV mode is made is probably just being stubborn or "difficult".

It would be almost impossible to make 3.p.v. without it having some sort of advantage against 1.p.v. I'm looking forward to trying 3.p.v. but I don't think it should have a place in Community Warfare because simply having it exist there would put immersion-breaking pressure in to a system that already requires a hefty dose of disbelief suspension.

IrrelevantFish, on 25 March 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

My apologies for my prior post, Bryan. I didn't realize until after posting that it was more strident than intended, and insisting on things you'd already promised.

I also realized I was giving "advice" while lacking sufficient information to give it, and I now have some questions about your goals/expectations/aspirations for 3PV:

• Are you expecting it to be viable clear up to the highest levels of play, or simply a tool to assist new players? (ie, the MWO equivalent of training wheels)
  
• Would you accept 3PV being equal-ish to 1PV, erring on the side of being suboptimal, or is equality between the perspectives essential?
  
• Would you consider systems with significant overhead (like a "fog-of-war" system), or is your expectation that 3PV mechanics restrict themselves to simple camera manipulation?

I know this is all still speculative, and you don't want to be locked in to anything, but I think it would help if we had an idea of what kind of criteria you're looking for right now.

I think the point of this thread is for us to brain-storm answers to those questions. There's no point them asking us for ideas if we're going to ask them what ideas they'd like.

That said I'd like to give some answers, they are good questions.

If by "highest level of play" you mean community warfare I wouldn't like to see 3.p.v. there at all, for reasons detailed above. If you mean tournaments, I think the view-mode should be optional when teams arrange to play each other, and it will be decided by the tournament community how they want to play. With enough interest there could be separate brackets for 1.p.v, 3.p.v. and mixed.

In mixed-view mode (i.e.games where players can switch between 1st and 3rd) I think 3.p.v. should have restrictions such as line-of-sight checks, no (or limited) HUD etc, as well as being awkward for aiming. This would encourage it to be an aid for mech positioning without gaining advantages so people would want to use 1.p.v. too.

In 3.p.v. only mode I'd like to go the complete opposite; full HUD, render all mechs in l.o.s. of the camera, maybe something to assist aiming and maybe even an increased zoom distance. I think this could make for a wholly different style of game reminiscent of the TT with it's "god's-eye-view".

Nathan Foxbane, on 25 March 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

How about some player encouragement to switch to first person. I get that some people have trouble orienting to the torso twist mechanic. So how about for new players a small, but respectible C-bill incentive to play in first person that runs out after say 30-40 games so that after people get the hang of using torso twist they have good reason to switch. Or give other similar incentives to move away from the third person and into first.

I'd go further than that with the 3.p.v. and mixed modes offering a lot less than 1.p.v. (assuming CW is 1.p.v. exclusively). In fact I'd have the average 3.p.v. victory pay less than the average 1.p.v. defeat for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would keep the 3.p.v. as a just-for-funsies or training-wheel mode. Secondly, I predict 3.p.v. will have less participants so the Elo range in a match would be higher, low rewards will discourage groups from abusing this to farm newbs (I would still allow the cadet bonus in 3.p.v.).

[Nathan Foxbane]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

that would be horrible here given how fast lights and mechs in general move in this game. But hey, its a great way to sabotage the idea so yeah that.

Not really that bad visually as things appear in whole if you can see them in part though that can be abused of course. No half formed buildings that you see into infinite gray nothingness or floating 'Mech parts who's insides are grey.

As long as they do not implement other features of the WoT system it is pretty solid though. Namely that if certain conditions are met you can see what your teammates see. You can also see what you can hear if you are close enough despite the fact that your crew probably cannot hear much over the sound of your own tank.

Also had another idea. If you start a game in third person you can only switch to first person, but not back or just be locked the view mode you started in. It would keep people from switching between the two for any sort of advantage gained from having both. No switching key if the latter is used. And that part of the option menu is locked in game.

[Mystere]

Heeden, on 25 March 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

It would be almost impossible to make 3.p.v. without it having some sort of advantage against 1.p.v.

It is not impossible. Look here (post is almost just right above yours ). In fact, given what I have written, some might even consider 3PV at a disadvantage.

Heeden, on 25 March 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

I don't think it should have a place in Community Warfare because simply having it exist there would put immersion-breaking pressure in to a system that already requires a hefty dose of disbelief suspension.

If you are unaware of the mode all the other players are using, how will that break your immersion?


And just to add/reiterate a few more things ...

If 3PV is implemented close to what I and others have been describing, then there really is no need to:

• separate the queues
  
• prevent in-match switching from one mode to another
  
• impose any other "restrictions" someone else may come up with

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[Mystere]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 25 March 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

When someone kills you because they saw you sneaking around a corner or poptarts you because they can see yuo on the other side of the hill. Thats how

Go read this then.

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[IrrelevantFish]

Heeden, on 25 March 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

I think the point of this thread is for us to brain-storm answers to those questions. There's no point them asking us for ideas if we're going to ask them what ideas they'd like.

There are a million different ways to implement 3PV, and we could go through all of them, sure, but why waste time on those that Bryan already thinks are out of the question? If very low overhead is a requirement, fog-of-war is out. If 3PV is supposed to be more than training wheels, all this talk about which gameplay modes should have 3PV is pointless.

More guidance means we can be more focused and waste less of everyone's time.

[Mystere]

Jackson Jax Teller, on 25 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

Go read this:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2127812
then cause I agree with him

but if youre TRYING to sabotage the idea, I support that!

To which i retort with this.

[Heeden]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

It is not impossible. Look here (post is almost just right above yours ). In fact, given what I have written, some might even consider 3PV at a disadvantage.



If you are unaware of the mode all the other players are using, how will that break your immersion?


And just to add/reiterate a few more things ...

If 3PV is implemented close to what I and others have been describing, then there really is no need to:

• separate the queues
  
• prevent in-match switching from one mode to another
  
• impose any other "restrictions" someone else may come up with

Unless fog-of-war is initiated to an extent where it neuters 3.p.v. in to oblivion there will be some differences between that and 1.p.v., and in some situations that difference will confer an advantage. Simply knowing that option is there is an immersion breaker as at some point you will be tempted to activate your invisible-fairy vision.

I'm all for 3.p.v., I think at best it will be quite interesting and at worst not interesting, but in Community Warfare we should be playing a Mechwarrior out fighting in the galaxy and this is the place that 1.p.v. is most important as a "pillar" of the MW experience.

Edited by Heeden, 25 March 2013 - 06:10 PM.

[IrrelevantFish]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Objects that reside within those conical volumes will be hidden from 1PV. As such, for a proper 3PV implementation, those same objects should also be hidden.

This is conceptually simple but computationally difficult, and might be a pain to code. It would basically require drawing all the geometry twice (once from the 3rd-person perspective and once from the 1st-person) and then testing the 1st-person geometry for occlusion. You wouldn't have to do any texturing and you could use low-detail meshes, but it would still be somewhat expensive.

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

There will be issues (e.g. objects/surfaces suddenly appearing/disappearing), but that's probably a longer discussion best done on another day.

Again, that's a conceptually simple but computationally expensive problem to solve. The most straightforward solution is to "shadow" all occluded terrain, and use translucency effects to fade-in/out mechs, projectiles, and beams.

Quite frankly, I think this is the only system that guarantees fairness for 1PV players. However, it would require significant investment, so I'm hoping 3PV is treated like training wheels. If players are expected to "graduate" to 1PV relatively early on, that level of fairness will be unnecessary and PGI will be able to spend less time on 3PV and more on other features.

[Strajen Marez]

Sad day was the day I found this thread.


Please excuse me while I step outside and proclaim the following statement.: " THERE IS NO GOD!"

Thank you and good night,

Edited by Strajen Marez, 25 March 2013 - 07:24 PM.

[Karl Marlow]

Im still thinking about the effects of having two different modes of play will have on the CW. Perhaps CW battles would be restricted to First person mode. Then allow third person for training,battle replays, and random matches.

I honestly dont care about third person and first person in random battles as long as both sides are playing by the same rules. IT just becomes alot harder to do this on one big campaign map.

Edited by ThomasMarik, 25 March 2013 - 07:18 PM.

[RocketmanZero]

I'm not confident that MWO has the player base to allow for such granularity in matches and what will eventually happen is most people will be playing against others with 3rd person because not enough people are doing 1st person only matches.

I'd personally like to see 3rd person in training grounds and when you roll pug but not in 4-man,8-man, or opt-in competitions. I think if you have the ability to get on TS and get with a group then your skilled enough to play in 1st person IMHO.
This however still means you could potentially be playing others in 3rd person which could skew things, I guess balance could be an issue if 3rd person proves to give some sort of tangible advantage but I'm really not sure.

TBH all this is rather irrelevant because if PGI really wanted to appeal to new players then they should have had the training grounds and an interactive walk-through/tutorial/obstacle course day 1 when it went open beta instead of playing games with the camera and subsequent match effects this will have on match making.

[DirePhoenix]

Roadbeer, on 25 March 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

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.

Postcount/Volume =/= community consensus.

As of this posting, 35.73% of this thread's posts come from 28 individuals. Everyone else in this thread previous has 5 posts or less.

24.13% (nearly a quarter) of the posts in this thread as of this posting come from 12 individuals who have 10 or more posts each.

​3 individuals in this thread each have over 31 posts so far, accounting for 12% of the posts in this thread alone.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 25 March 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[Roadbeer]

DirePhoenix, on 25 March 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Postcount/Volume =/= community consensus.

As of this posting, 35.73% of this thread's posts come from 28 individuals. Everyone else in this thread previous has 5 posts or less.

24.13% (nearly a quarter) of the posts in this thread as of this posting come from 12 individuals who have 10 or more posts each.

​3 individuals in this thread each have over 31 posts so far, accounting for 12% of the posts in this thread alone.

So if I'm reading that right

35.73% Hate the idea, the other 64.27% either Dislike, are apathetic, or like it.

Of that 35.73%
24.13% Despise the idea
10.40% Absolutely loath the idea.

Am I reading your data right?

Additionally, I'm not sure which is more disturbing, that 3 people count for almost 100 posts in this thread, or that you counted all 975 posts.