2002 replies to this topic

[BanditRaptor]

Chavette, on 21 March 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

The problem in player retention lies in the fact that mw games require a ton of background knowledge, and no-one ever teaches that to players.

What you do need is:
- Tips on loading screen to get them familiar with all the bits and pieces
- Tutorial mission with optional 3rd person, so they get to see how their mech works, maybe leave it as an option for the duration of cadet matches. This way you reap the benefits of the camera mode in teaching new players, but save yourself from dealing with it in the long run.
- Get rid of the abysmal trial mechs, have them all player designed(important)

I have a huge list of tips compiled in the suggestions section.

Thank me later.

Tips on the loading screen work wonderfully in games like Stalker and the Elder Scrolls franchise.

I wholeheartedly support tips on the loading screens. Just make sure they are actually useful for gameplay and not just "Did you know you can buy PREMIUM TIME to earn c-bills faster!?"

[mekabuser]

Id say one newbie who gets it eventually ffp is worth 20 casual average gamers 3rd. FFP mech combat is unique. It sinks its claws into you once you learn how to wield the power. You are NEVER going to have that same visceral feel in 3rd person as you do in first.. That sense of apprehension about your surroundings limited by your cockpit window etc. .
I

I find it utterly preposterous that their "data" suggested that people couldnt drive their mechs.. Mechs are walking tanks with two sets of guns that follow each other.. That is it.. I mean , it implies the gamer they are targeting cant walk and chew gum.
I honestly think its a bit of bs.. I would love to know when this data was gathered.. See, the thing is that everyone forgets that this game ran like a wooden cart with square wheels for a long time.. IIRC right through OB launch.

The performance issues with this game were RAGE INDUCING to me,an AVID MW fan<its all i play> and to many others.

They were looking for WOT numbers but WOT can run on the most basic PC with a minimal gpu . THis game barely ran for me with super low end user configs for months.. Im talking 5-25 fps.
Now it runs pretty much pegged at 60fps on a 75 usd OC dual core thats i think 4 years old..

I propose.. The reason people came and tried the game and LEFT was because the game ran like a POS and they said wtf is this and LEFT>.
I propose the data they saw about people not being able to drive their mech was their screens fluttering all over the place, lag, slideshows and boom your dead. At least some of it. IIRC this was the state of the game for OB launch...

I propose if they had OB launch tomorrow, there would have been serious.. and I mean serious buzz about the game.
Hey... NOT TO MENTION.. a little PR helps... Banner adds gone... I see Hawken on new egg.? Seriously? Hawken is in an unbiased way a terrible game compared to mechwarrior..

Make a real tut vid.. WIth split screen interior cockpit/exterior explaining a mech.. The combat in game is very well done..
It seems to me 3rd is folly.. Its the equivalent of"hey you like my new car, everybody must be looking at my new car.. see, it has new features.. !"
They dont care.

[Roadbeer]

BeakieHelmet, on 21 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Tips on the loading screen work wonderfully in games like Stalker and the Elder Scrolls franchise.

I wholeheartedly support tips on the loading screens. Just make sure they are actually useful for gameplay and not just "Did you know you can buy PREMIUM TIME to earn c-bills faster!?"

As has also been stated, there is a historical learning curve to the game.
In addition to tips, put in factoids and "On this day" messages in the loading screen as well

[Jetfire]

BeakieHelmet, on 21 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Tips on the loading screen work wonderfully in games like Stalker and the Elder Scrolls franchise.

I wholeheartedly support tips on the loading screens. Just make sure they are actually useful for gameplay and not just "Did you know you can buy PREMIUM TIME to earn c-bills faster!?"

I think it is easy to agree that creating a new player experience in the first place is something that should take a back seat to nothing aside from maybe CW. That said it may still take longer to get underway, but if they "launch" without it that will be a serious error that will cost them a lot of business.

[BanditRaptor]

Jetfire, on 21 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

I think it is easy to agree that creating a new player experience in the first place is something that should take a back seat to nothing aside from maybe CW. That said it may still take longer to get underway, but if they "launch" without it that will be a serious error that will cost them a lot of business.

Going OPEN BETA without it has been a serious error, in my opinion.

[Trik Kastral]

I am one of the silent majority members that doesn't generally post anything on the forum because of a variety of reasons. However after being made aware of the idea via twitter I felt motivated to respond to this thread and give the opinion of somebody who doesn't spend alot of time here. Your casual base if you will.

To be completely frank I do not like it. As I read over the other posts in this thread I can honestly say that the concerns I have match up almost identically with people who have near a thousand posts on the forum. Adding a third person viewpoint destroys the tactics that exist within the current metagame and will create balance issues. I don't know much about how the player base is split already(I assume between premades and LW or something like that) but adding another tier to that fragmentation doesn't seem productive either. I also am very interested in possibly furthering my commitment to the game community once community warfare starts, but if it isn't balanced because of different viewpoints I'm not sure it would be worth the timesink.

Overall I am very skeptical of third person view, but even more so I am concerned over your admittance that you take so little stock in the opinion of your core users upon this forum. I don't necessarily equate the two games, but this would seem akin to Blizzard trying to change Starcraft 2 without using any of the data from the established esports community. In other words it's ignoring the people who put the most time into playing the game.

I hope that this opinion is helpful to whatever discussion you are having behind closed doors and that you figure out a way to balance the community's concerns with the company's desires.

[Jacmac]

Lord Banshee, on 21 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Third-Person-View relegates you to the All-River-City-All-The-Time servers.
FPV people play on servers without RCN.
Seems fair to me.

OMG just spit coffee all over the screen! LOLOL

[Tekadept]

Remember this topic is only on how to discuss How 3rd person should be implemented not about learning curves or why. create a new thread for any other new issue that has arisen because of this post.

[Sol Reapr]

der langsamere, on 21 March 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

have fun playing on empty servers bub

The same could be said straight back to all the hard-core fans who are so dead set against 3rd person view (or any change really). There is no indication that MWO can be sustained or grow based on the income from hard-core players alone. If the hard-core fan base are the only ones left, I doubt that they will generate enough income to allow PGI to continue to run the servers, let alone expand the game. Eventually the game will shut down entirely due to lack of player base.

I'm a hard-core fan as much as any one else, and I wouldn't use 3rd person view, but lets face reality, the game can't be sustained on our "hard-coreness". Our devotion to the table top rules doesn't feed the developers. Like it or not MWO has to grow and evolve, or it won't be there for ANY of us to play.

[Tarman]

Jetfire, on 21 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

I think it is easy to agree that creating a new player experience in the first place is something that should take a back seat to nothing aside from maybe CW. That said it may still take longer to get underway, but if they "launch" without it that will be a serious error that will cost them a lot of business.

This needed to be a priority from day one if they were serious about playerbase maintenance. The consistent lack of a good rookie experience has been a detriment to this game for a long time.

[Jetfire]

der langsamere, on 21 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Reminds me of the WiS vs FiS debacle in EVE a while back
The people who wanted walking in stations (avatars instead of just ships) and CCP pulled people from working on the Flying spaceships part of the game (or as we knew it then, the entire game) and the development on the game flatlined for a year and a half I think it was.
Where are you going to get your dev cycles for the 3pv stuff and how will that not divert devs from the 1pv stuff?

There has got to be a serious distinction between the manpower needed to get 3rd person online and WiS type stuff online. I mean CryEngine will let them turn it on with almost no effort in all likelihood, no new content needs to be made. A resource hog, this is unlikely to be. The concerns are more, how and where the view mode is enabled.

BeakieHelmet, on 21 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Going OPEN BETA without it has been a serious error, in my opinion.

Agreed, but not going open beta may have been the death of the game... Without a revenue stream this had to have been a tenuous project, even with the founders lump sum.

[Killashnikov]

I suspect from Bryan's statement that he has been assigned to develop the 3rd person view implementation - and this is his approach - to ask us how to do it. Not whether to do it but how. This is standard in project implementation - focus on how not if you should- that can be discussed with a fully thought out design.
Lets be honest - Id love to be able to film the mechs in action. From a 3rd person view given all the lovely graphics it would be awesome.
I do however acknowlege there is a problem with information warfare if you can see more than others.
ECM has proven that.
So what does that mean? 3rd person just has to be as limited as 1st person.
That would mean a fog-of-war limitation. Grey-out what cannot be seen from the cockpit. Show the explosions of weapons striking the mech, just without the flightpath.
Allow the 1st person view an MFD view of the 3rd person view so they can have the same information feedback.
If we provide the reight design cues there is no reason 3rd person has to unbalance the game.
Most importantly I believe we need to encourage Brian in this PGI first - he has come to US to ask what to do BEFORE even forming a team to start work let alone F****** it up.

[Peace Possum]

Roadbeer, on 21 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

As has also been stated, there is a historical learning curve to the game.
In addition to tips, put in factoids and "On this day" messages in the loading screen as well

Not just loading screens, put them in spectator mode and match beginning and end screens. If you integrate fluff with factoid, it'll feel much more polished and give seasoned players even more of a reason to want it for minimal effort(Sarna can easily give you so many factoids that you can fill every day of the year with at LEAST one factoid, even if it's not relevant to 3050. (ON [x month] yTH, 3003, CERES METALS BEGINS PRODUCTION OF [mech part, vehicle, mech variant or line) (ON JUNE [date], 3050, CLANS SMASH PLANET RASALHAGUE DEFENSIVE, NARROWLY MISSING DECAPITATING LEADERSHIP)
Put insignia next to factoids and question marks next to game tips. (TIP: Weapons listed in yellow on your loadout can still hit enemies, but not for full damage at that range!)

[DirePhoenix]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 21 March 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

so no dropship mode now?

If it's what I'm thinking (from various snippets I've heard on podcasts and around the forums), this "Lobby Mode" for CW may work something like this:

• You join a match in a Lobby where you can chat and possibly see the map where you're going to drop
  
• You can select from the 4 "Ready" 'mechs in your "Dropship" (and can discuss with your team about which 'mechs to use)
  
• When everyone is ready, the match begins (there may or may not be some sort of timer to select your 'mech or one will be chosen for you)
  
• If you die or when the match is over, you will see the next map in the series and can vote for a different map.
  
• There may be multiple matches per "campaign" for a planet (alternatively, the rounds could be continuous, with new people jumping in to fill vacant spots as other people bow out).
  
• Destroyed 'mechs may or may not be available for use in later rounds, limiting the number of deaths you can sustain per "campaign" to 4 (unless they make it so we can get "bigger dropships" that can support more "Ready" 'mechs at some point in the future).

Edited by DirePhoenix, 21 March 2013 - 09:05 PM.

[Dran]

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

we elected to address this issue via this forum post

Please tell me you can see how... short sighted that decision is? I am all for you guys and building your game but this is just.. Feh. Cant even begin to explain the Bioware esq logical fallacy that you have just created with that post. You have had two separate polls that have given you two definitive answers on the subject, you also had a post in the BEGINNING stating that 3rd person is not something that you would be implementing, add something to the in game launcher asking for peoples feedback on a poll on the forums if you are afraid that only a "select minority" voted in the previous two polls.

Highly disappointed doesn't even come close to how I feel.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

DirePhoenix, on 21 March 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

[/size]

• There may be multiple matches per "campaign" for a planet (alternatively, the rounds could be continuous, with new people jumping in to fill vacant spots as other people bow out).

If their campign for planets is the same as it was before, they were aiming for one fight to take over one planet

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 21 March 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[Brilig]

If this is really going to happen, then I would also like to add that it be kept to training ground. Live fire type training matches would be ok too. Outside of that however the tactical advantage that 3rd person view offers will fundamentally change how the game is played. (Yay for poptarts.)

I also have misgivings about splitting the player base not only between multiple game modes, but now a series of 1st/3rd options. I think it would be best to try and keep as many people playing in the same pool as possible.

[Blood Crow]

Acid Phase, on 21 March 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

The fact that you're willing to go ahead and ignore our plead to avoid 3PV is flat out lack of customer service. We are the ones willing to pay you the money you need to keep the game within it's true essence.

To add to this, you're taking a huge leap of faith by alienating so much of your current loyal customer base to reach for a different market, and for what? We're already here, we're already paying you. There's no reason to cast us aside and try to replace us with a brand-new playerbase that may not even be interested in spending money on the game.

Hell, consider the playerbase you'd be trying to attract by adding 3pv, simplifying the learning curve and making MWO feel less like a simulator and more like an arcade game. If those people weren't very interested in the game without 3pv because it took time to learn and master, a point can be made about their patience. I'd wager them to be the ones more likely to play the game for a few hours to a few days before moving on to something else, never having spent a dime.

And with regards to that poll, many active players with Founders accounts visit these forums, which makes the poll representative of the views of current customers who have already demonstrated a willingness to spend money on this game.

[LockeJaw]

All I've got left is this:

You had better have something VERY SHINY at Pax Bryan. Very, very shiny. Like a gold plated apology as well as some new mechs.

[M4rtyr]

Sol Reapr, on 21 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

The same could be said straight back to all the hard-core fans who are so dead set against 3rd person view (or any change really). There is no indication that MWO can be sustained or grow based on the income from hard-core players alone.

Well maybe if that had more then 6 maps, deathmatch with and without cap option, and the community warfare they hyped up then maybe they wouldn't have to rely on hard-core fans alone. If you think 3rd person is better than more maps -OR- more game modes -OR- CW individually then you have no idea what people want.

They want content, another view point isn't content.

Edited by M4rtyr, 21 March 2013 - 09:11 PM.