2002 replies to this topic

[DirePhoenix]

LordBraxton, on 26 March 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

The fact that they WONT DISCUSS this makes me sick, as the entire community has spoken out against it.

THE POLL WAS LIKE 5000 AGAINST and only ~300 FOR 3rd person.

PGI WHY YOU **** ON YOUR FANS? ME NO UNDERSTAND?

If this was IGPs doing tell us so we can hate them rightly instead of you.

You have a misconception of what the "entire community" is. These forums are not the "entire community".

And even if these forums were the "entire community" (which it is not), that poll is still not the "entire" forum.

Want to see history repeating itself?

From last year:

DirePhoenix, on 19 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Merovigian, on 19 November 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

>"Huge number of requests."
>That totally explains the 91.5% saying no to the idea.
>Immediately, people start lining up to suck **** for the 3rd person.
>First page on this thread, not the last 2 95+ page threads, will be treated as the "fans' response".
>Prove me wrong.

First the 91.5% you are getting from the opinion poll only represents 1% of the total playerbase (~4,000 inputs from a playerbase of ~400,000 registered users). So 91.5% of 1% of the playerbase has polled (this isn't a vote) with a negative opinion of third-person views in this game. 8.5% of 1% have voted otherwise, while 99% haven't voted at all. "Representative Samples" don't mean squat here. You can't even get anything close to a representative sample in a poll where people can elect to take part or not. Selective polls like the ones you see on these forums DO. NOT. represent anything other than the people that participate in them.

That being said, *I* do not want a third person combat view. However, I am not closed off to ideas on how to create solutions for the problems people seem to be having being stuck in a first-person in-cockpit view. I've already stated elsewhere a method to employ a non-combat, in-game third person optional view that would allow users to see their 'mech and get their bearings (as well as take awesome screenshots of themselves), that would not "break the game".

However, all of this is probably useless anyway, as Garth said several times already (and people keep ignoring):

Garth Erlam, on 19 November 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Q: Lately, we've been quite surprised by some decisions (DHS and 3rd Person to name just a few), so do you feel that communication is still good ? [Ezrekiel]
A: Apparently not, as we said we're looking at whether or not 3rd person would work, and people took that to mean not only had we already decided, but that we're actively adding it now. [Garth]

EDIT: As of this posting, 23% (157) of the 686 posts in this thread come from only 18 individuals. You may want to check where the posts are coming from in those other "huge" threads. Thread size and post counts do not necessarily correlate to "popular opinion", even among just the forum participants (which like I said earlier do not necessarily represent the actual community).

And then again:

DirePhoenix, on 21 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Sound Reason, on 20 November 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

You obviously haven't seen that much cited poll where over 90% of respondents voted against introducing 3rd person views. I guess only "superhardcore nerds" respond to polls?

Actually, yes. Only the "superhardcore nerds" even look at the forums, let alone post in them. Take another look at that poll: Less than 4000 people gave inputs. Look at the total amount of registered players: ~400,000. That means only 1% of the total playerbase has given an opinion on this topic. That 90% figure that you cling so desperately to is only 90% of 1%. Or rather, 0.9% of the playerbase have polled negatively against a third person view, 0.1% have polled otherwise, and 99.0% of the playerbase has not given an opinion at all.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the polls you see on these forums are absolutely useless for any type of statistics. There is no such thing as a "Representative Sample" when it comes to polls that people can choose whether or not they participate, or are even aware that they are being polled (the simple fact that they are aware that they are being polled can create bias). Let me say this another way that will hopefully be clearer:

Self-selected samples are almost inevitably biased and are, at best, a form of entertainment. They CANNOT be trusted as a source of information about the population as a whole.

And that was not even considering that not all players of MWO are showing up on the "Total Members" display. So there are more people than are even showing up in this figure that aren't even using the forums to be counted as "registered users". What does that mean? It means that the 1% of registered users even participating in that poll is actually EVEN SMALLER and LESS REPRESENTATIVE than an already non-representative poll can even show.

[Peiper]

A concern for player/guild/clan/unit/team integrity:

I (yes, even my old-school arse) support the implementation of 3rd person for training grounds/testing grounds and for Solaris/arena matches. I would like to see my joystick, along with the 'hat' fully functional (side/rear cameras), but I am in the camp that the mechwarrior/player should remain in the cockpit.

If there are ques and lobbies set up for 1st and/or 3rd person only fights, that's doesn't bother me too much either - though, agreed with the other posters, I question what would happen if the 1st person guys went up against the 3rd person teams for planetary capture in CW.

THE CRUX:

Holding my unit together despite the lack of CW/Lobbies has been a challenge since the beginning. What happens if some of my guys want to play 3rd person exclusively and others are 1st person exclusive? It's not an issue now, fortunately, but could very well become one. Also, when it comes to the longevity of my unit, if - as you say, Bryan - that it's only us old school vocal minorities who refuse to consider 3rd person, then what about new recruits? What if I need new guys to replace old guys and the new guys only know how to play 3rd person? If my unit falls too far below the numbers necessary to run teams, then my unit could die because of the 1st/3rd person split in the playerbase.

A QUESTION:

Also, I have a question: if 3rd person is implemented, then when you zoom in on a target, do you get the 1st person zoom box over the 3rd person screen? I heard the Crysis engine isn't happy with picture-in-picture options. And IF this is the case, then you KNOW everyone will use it. You get your peripheral vision AND zoom. (And actually, this was my favorite way to play in MW4 because it's like omnipotent vision! But I also LOVE the way MWO is handling things now, with detailed cockpits and a fog of war created by the very situation your mechwarrior is in: surrounded by armor, monitors, consoles, and armorglass. It FEELS real, more than ever before!)

STRESS RELIEF:

And here's my suggestion. For 3rd person to be properly implemented, I believe that mechwarriors could pilot their mechs via a wire guide. The mechwarrior could ride in a basket under a hot air balloon. It could be tied to the mech so as it moved around, it would pull the mechwarrior with. Yeah, it could get caught on trees and buildings, and tunnels would be out of the question, but it would be a way for 3rd person to be realistically implemented. (And we know where we can get enough hot air to fill the balloons should we need to keep them afloat.) If you think that's preposterous, think about the fact that in the far future, we wage wars in giant rockem-sockem robots and not with drones, nukes, planetary bombardment, and assassins.

Edited by Peiper, 26 March 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[Alois Hammer]

DirePhoenix, on 26 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

It means that the 1% of registered users even participating in that poll is actually EVEN SMALLER and LESS REPRESENTATIVE than an already non-representative poll can even show.

All of which would almost be relevant if not for the fact that the devs' imaginary friends want 3rd person, and that's all that matters anyway.

[anonymous175]

[Gremlich Johns]

Regarding whether a Poll is valid or not, taking a survey of a representative sample of a population is usually accurate with reasonable variance, even in a forum.

Scientists have been using this method for quite a long time with fairly accurate predictive results.

I would say that the people desiring 3PV are as statistically laughable as the people who want quads in the game.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 26 March 2013 - 03:27 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

I've been thinking about this.

If the issue is new players, you should take the mechwarrior 3 approach, with the 3d models in the corners. Then they can see what direction everybody's facing, and it won't give any kind of benefits, or open the can of worms.

It'd be cool to have some kind of UAV that gives an overhead view for X seconds, and you carry Y uses of, or if the BAP triggers one of the little screens to show a 3rd person view from...somewhere around your mech. Like a camera mounted in the section that has the BAP. So if the BAP's in an arm, the camera is broadcasting from the arm.

The most sensible approach, I feel, is the 3d models in the corners, instead of the paperdolls.

[LordBraxton]

DirePhoenix, on 26 March 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

You have a misconception of what the "entire community" is. These forums are not the "entire community".

And even if these forums were the "entire community" (which it is not), that poll is still not the "entire" forum.

Want to see history repeating itself?

From last year:

At the end of the day I have polls with ~5000+ votes and a community majority backing me up against the rhetoric of a few posts?

Whats your point? I know not EVERYONE is against 3rd person but when its 5000 vs 300 I think you KNOW where your community's interests lay.

so thanks for the wall of text but it really says nothing

Vassago Rain, on 26 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I've been thinking about this.

If the issue is new players, you should take the mechwarrior 3 approach, with the 3d models in the corners. Then they can see what direction everybody's facing, and it won't give any kind of benefits, or open the can of worms.

It'd be cool to have some kind of UAV that gives an overhead view for X seconds, and you carry Y uses of, or if the BAP triggers one of the little screens to show a 3rd person view from...somewhere around your mech. Like a camera mounted in the section that has the BAP. So if the BAP's in an arm, the camera is broadcasting from the arm.

The most sensible approach, I feel, is the 3d models in the corners, instead of the paperdolls.

I brought this up the first time they tried this garbage- THERES NO REASON TO ADD THIRD PERSON OTHER THAN TRYING TO SELL CAMO

Edited by LordBraxton, 26 March 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Commander Kobold]

Gremlich Johns, on 26 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Regarding whether a Poll is valid or not, taking a survey of a representative sample of a population is usually accurate with reasonable variance, even in a forum.

Scientists have been using this method for quite a long time with fairly accurate predictive results.

I would say that the people desiring 3PV are as statistically laughable as the people who want quads in the game.

this isn't about whether you want it or not,or whether it should be added or not. This thread is about how it should be added.

[Mystere]

I really hate to do this but ... Can a moderator please clean out the non-relevant posts? It's getting a bit difficult to get the relevant suggestions out of this mess.

Now, back on topic ...

If visual and sensor parity can be achieved between 1PV and 3PV, what possible objections could there still be for not segregating the population?

(Oops! I forgot the "not" part)

Edited by Mystere, 26 March 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

Gremlich Johns, on 26 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Regarding whether a Poll is valid or not, taking a survey of a representative sample of a population is usually accurate with reasonable variance, even in a forum.

No, it is not.



Forum participants are a self-selected group of individuals that have a special interest in the content here. We're here because we have an opinion that we want to express, and to see what opinions others have. Not everyone that plays MWO cares to take part in the forums. By even showing up here, you have a bias for this game and are part of a different demographic than most others playing it.

You're from the US, so I'm assuming you know who President Truman was. I'm guessing you've completed High School, since the demographic for BattleTech fans tends to run a bit older, but If you remember American History, you know what this picture represents. Polls conducted in publications such as Literary Digest* were considered "highly accurate and representative" because they took in a large amount of data from across the nation. In this particular event, they polled 10 million households. Only 24% bothered to respond, but that's still 2.4 million participants. And this was back in 1932! These polls showed that Dewey was definitely going to take the Presidential election with a solid lead, but when voting time came up, not only did Truman win, but he won by a landslide! What happened?

• Literary Digest polled their own subscribers (this would be the equivalent of MWO only polling these forums)

Ok, this part should obviously be unrepresentative of the "entire community" of voters, because it's not entirely reasonable to assume that everyone that votes subscribes to Literary Digest (although for some reason here people seem to believe that everyone that plays MWO also takes part in the forums). Literary Digest knew better and did expand their poll beyond just their subscribers though:

• They polled telephone users
  
• They polled registered automobile owners

So what's the problem? If you own a car and a telephone, you're probably old enough to vote as well, right? This is including more of the "entire community" of voters, right? Surely this is more representative of the community, especially with 2.4 million respondents!

Let's take another look:

• Literary Digest subscribers: Well-read, probably educated, can afford a periodical subscription.
  
• Telephone users: "Recent" technology, probably not an insignificant cost to the household. Must be paying for service
  
• Registered Drivers: Doing well enough to be able to afford and maintain a vehicle

Also keep in mind this was in the 1930s, in the middle of the Great Depression. Who do you think meets these demographics: Well-read, educated, enough money to be able to afford luxuries like a telephone, automobile, and periodical subscriptions... During this period, probably Republicans. Who are Republicans going to say they'll vote for? Probably the Republican candidate (Dewey). Guess who the polls said would win the 1936 election?

Guess who's not the "entire community" of voters? Republicans. Literary Digest subscribers. Automobile owners. Telephone users.

Guess who's not the "entire community" of MWO? Forum users.





*Another history lesson: Before Internet, before television, back even before radio, people turned to literary digests like these to share stories and have widespread discussions. These digests were essentially the "internet forums" of the late 19th - early 20th century.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 26 March 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[krash27]

Thontor, on 26 March 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

A poll on these forums is like taking a poll at the Republican National Convention to find out if they were going to vote Republican or Democrat for president.

Well if there are all these mystical thousands of people that want 3PV, why are they not on the forums voicing their opinions? Why are they not here lobbying for 3PV if its so important?

The fact that these other "demographics" do not come to the forums to support 3PV kind of hints at the fact that these thousands of people that want 3PV and vastly out number those of us that don't, do not realy exist. More likely is the people that don't come to the forums either don't care or are fine with just 1PV.

Its like saying that there were hundreds of thousnads of people that didn't vote in the last election but if they did, Obama would have lost so even though he won the majority of people that did vote, we are going to give it to Romney. Thats a rediculous way to run the show.

If people can't take the time to visit the forums to add their input on these discussions, then their voice (or obvious lack there of because they don't care enough about the game to come to the forums to add input) should not matter. The fact of the matter is the people that don't come to the forums probably don't care either way.

Edited by krash27, 26 March 2013 - 06:32 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

krash27, on 26 March 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

Well if there are all these mystical thousands of people that want 3PV, why are they not on the forums voicing their opinions? Why are they not here lobbying for 3PV if its so important?

The fact that these other "demographics" do not come to the forums to support 3PV kind of hints at the fact that these thousands of people that want 3PV and vastly out number those of us that don't, do not realy exist. More likely is the people that don't come to the forums either don't care or are fine with just 1PV.

Its like saying that there were hundreds of thousnads of people that didn't vote in the last election but if they did, Obama would have lost so even though he won the majority of people that did vote, we are going to give it to Romney. Thats a rediculous way to run the show.

If people can't take the time to visit the forums to add their input on these discussions, then their voice (or obvious lack there of because they don't care enough about the game to come to the forums to add input) should not matter. The fact of the matter is the people that don't come to the forums probably don't care either way.

Because the silent majority. The dark number. The sledgehammer of modern politics.

It could all be solved by adding a poll to the client at start-up, but 'we don't want to intrude on these timid players.'

[AHZeruel]

Bryan and the rest of the team:

Kudos on making a game i enjoy playing, hope my feedback helps a bit. I'm not a BT hardcore or veteran, but i like this game and while it is not perfect its very fun to play, at least for me, hope it just gets better. I dont agree with all of the decisions taken by PGI/IGP, but i think a balanced 3PV is not such a bad idea, ill keep my opinions on other matters, like ECM for when i have something valuable to say.

After reading some, not all the pages on this forum i can see that most of the concerns fall around playerbase segmentation and tactical advantages given by 3th person view. and the best solution that could come to my mind when thinking about balancing the latter was making a not-so-friendly version of 3PV, something invading that would somehow hinder the typical far back and above head 3PV. The best thing i could come up with was a tall stranger in front of me in my favourite band concert, so i made this example.




The main idea is that your mech takes up to half of the screen, but since you want to look at it in action this is more than enough, it also helps making you feel the mech is the enourmous metal killing device it actually is.

There are a few catches for this to kind of balance the advantages of 3PV

The most important is that your mech is a solid object, you cannot see, or target anything that you mech body would block. in all senses it would work like an in-game building, if you want to see what is there you have to rotate your torso and view.

Second is you can choose what side you want your 3PV to be on, but you are locked to it for the length of the match, that way you will always have a blind spot, making you vulnerable to attacks from that side. Maybe a maker can be added so you can see where another player has his 3PV camera on.

Also, the camera would be lower than the cockpit and locked to your torso, very much like having a side camera mounted to your mech, If you want a higher point of view you have First Person and should have chosen it before the match.

Third is a Hud info reduction, you can view all the red triangles, your crosshairs, anymy info and your own paperdoll, but you can't see the minigrid, you have to press b and tab out of combat while you do. you might also lose graphical warnings from incoming missiles, critical damage and base capture. You would also lose the red flash damage that marks the direction of attacks, you should be able to see the lasers,missiles and rounds hitting you anyways, except from the front.

Sound outside should be louder and it should shakes should be more dramatic (increased tilt) since your Point of view is further away from the center, it should also move with a slight delay from the torso, making it block your view sometimes while you walk , and view is also blocked from other mechs close to you (if you have another atlas on left on the example above you wouldn't see a thing)

This option, to me, doesn't seem to give advantages, or not that many, and might prevent playerbase segmentation

That is my contribution, and while i know it is not perfect, hopefully it would be the base for a balanced 3PV.

Greetings.

Edited by AHZeruel, 26 March 2013 - 06:53 PM.

[Soy]

Vassago Rain, on 26 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I've been thinking about this.

If the issue is new players, you should take the mechwarrior 3 approach, with the 3d models in the corners. Then they can see what direction everybody's facing, and it won't give any kind of benefits, or open the can of worms.

It'd be cool to have some kind of UAV that gives an overhead view for X seconds, and you carry Y uses of, or if the BAP triggers one of the little screens to show a 3rd person view from...somewhere around your mech. Like a camera mounted in the section that has the BAP. So if the BAP's in an arm, the camera is broadcasting from the arm.

The most sensible approach, I feel, is the 3d models in the corners, instead of the paperdolls.

This is the exact same suggestion a lot of people pushed like, 6 months ago.

It's obviously the best and most practical way to implement the feature without destroying other mechanics.

[mekabuser]

see, now you who live outside the usa know what is was like arguing against the rush to war in iraq 10 years ago..

Reason, critical thinking, polls etc are constantly smashed down with "you are not everyone!" and my favorite, posts like the one Dire Phoenix made.

these types of posts need to be examined.. A cursory examination of this post reveals.. THE MOST AMAZING THING>>>
Its almost too funny to type..
literary digest,.. great depression.. .. truman. LMAO>>
oh and btw.. we arent talking a few percentage points here.. we are talking those who WANT 3pv are almost off the radar completely..
Your logic, your post.. everything.. its all malarkey.. The worst type to boot.. Ze wall of text that confuses many , but is .. ahem.. still wrong.

Oh , the great truman.. he led us through those trying times in the great depression and WW2..

[Redmond Spiderhammer]

I wonder when this thing is going to get locked...

You could read the first ten pages and any one or two of the next 40 and get anything actually useful that this train wreck has to offer. Put it out of its misery already.

[Strajen Marez]

mekabuser, on 26 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

see, now you who live outside the usa know what is was like arguing against the rush to war in iraq 10 years ago..

Reason, critical thinking, polls etc are constantly smashed down with "you are not everyone!" and my favorite, posts like the one Dire Phoenix made.

these types of posts need to be examined.. A cursory examination of this post reveals.. THE MOST AMAZING THING>>>
Its almost too funny to type..
literary digest,.. great depression.. .. truman. LMAO>>
oh and btw.. we arent talking a few percentage points here.. we are talking those who WANT 3pv are almost off the radar completely..
Your logic, your post.. everything.. its all malarkey.. The worst type to boot.. Ze wall of text that confuses many , but is .. ahem.. still wrong.

Oh , the great truman.. he led us through those trying times in the great depression and WW2..

Yes.
Dear PGI:
Is there is or is there ain't intelligence reports pertaining to the 3rd person requirement from yonder mysterious noob?

There is not a whole lot of rage on these forums that I agree with but the decision to go ahead with 3rd person is nuts to me. Is this a publisher's push on you to do this? One need only cite the train-wreck that was Star Wars Galaxies for an argument against publisher influence. I'm sure there isn't anything you can do if the publisher really is pushing this but you could perhaps at least tell us if this is the case.
This is the internet, grow a thick skin please. Is 3rd person in response to getting your feelings hurt? A revenge of sorts? I understand the unlikelihood of this actually being the case but you can see how one might become confused after PGI initially says that the game will only be in first person. This is not to say become jaded but to handle forum rage in stride.

3rd person is hardly requested. At best you have people saying "ehh I suppose itll be cool"- that's hardly a huge endorsement.
It's IGP isn't it?
Christ.

Dear IGP:
Please leave PGI alone. Your capitalist greed is going to tank the game for short term profits when you could make more money over a longer term if you allow the game to remain as it was intended. This is a basic logic problem many people fail at and you now know how to NOT fail at it! Huzzah! Thank you.
P.s.
IGP, your other game in the works "Mechwarrior Tactics" is in much worse shape. Go ruin that one first. They are *gasp!* basing their game around a boring turn based mechanic that is unintuitive and generally not fun to play.
p.p.s. PGI: you're welcome.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Gremlich Johns, on 26 March 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Regarding whether a Poll is valid or not, taking a survey of a representative sample of a population is usually accurate with reasonable variance, even in a forum.

Scientists have been using this method for quite a long time with fairly accurate predictive results.

I would say that the people desiring 3PV are as statistically laughable as the people who want quads in the game.

Polls are not valid. They tell us that on like page 3 I think

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Honest answer.

The analysis on those who voted, showed that the majority of votes came from a very narrow demographic of our player base. And while they represent some of core players, they did not necessarily represent the opinion of the general user base. The majority of our players never visit, post, or read the forum content, so the poll could be considered weighted in favour of a specific demographic.

Since the majority of players who have an issue with 3rd person come generally from the core players, we elected to address this issue via this forum post to collect all of the concerns and ideas that this group faces or has with 3rd person.

Roadbeer, on 26 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Been 5 days.
This thread has been abandoned by OP, Jettison it.

wonder how long till it gets locked

Mystere, on 26 March 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I really hate to do this but ... Can a moderator please clean out the non-relevant posts? It's getting a bit difficult to get the relevant suggestions out of this mess.

They USED to delete anything they didnt want to hear here. I think they gave up

[Heeden]

[post edited to remove some stupid]

AHZeruel, on 26 March 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Bryan and the rest of the team:

Kudos on making a game i enjoy playing, hope my feedback helps a bit. I'm not a BT hardcore or veteran, but i like this game and while it is not perfect its very fun to play, at least for me, hope it just gets better. I dont agree with all of the decisions taken by PGI/IGP, but i think a balanced 3PV is not such a bad idea, ill keep my opinions on other matters, like ECM for when i have something valuable to say.

After reading some, not all the pages on this forum i can see that most of the concerns fall around playerbase segmentation and tactical advantages given by 3th person view. and the best solution that could come to my mind when thinking about balancing the latter was making a not-so-friendly version of 3PV, something invading that would somehow hinder the typical far back and above head 3PV. The best thing i could come up with was a tall stranger in front of me in my favourite band concert, so i made this example.

Some good ideas (particularly your mech being an obstruction although I don't think it should block targeting, and be a little less extreme) but I would prefer 3.p.v. only view to allow more vision and all the HUD bells and whistles.

As for segmentation, I still think it should be avoided by making the 3.p.v. game-modes niche through lower earnings and keeping them separate from C.W.

Edited by Heeden, 26 March 2013 - 09:53 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

krash27, on 26 March 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

Well if there are all these mystical thousands of people that want 3PV, why are they not on the forums voicing their opinions? Why are they not here lobbying for 3PV if its so important?

Why arent they asking THEM for "how to implement it" and instead asking us, who are the minority that they dont care that we dont want the feature?