2002 replies to this topic

[RagenBull]

I love 3rd person views. In every game i play where its an option i pick it. I love to see my char and paints i have put on. That being said in this game its opening up a mojor can or worms. I think this is a mistake and should not be part of this game.

[Mystere]

RagenBull, on 23 March 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

... in this game its opening up a mojor can or worms. I think this is a mistake and should not be part of this game.

Why?

[wanderer]

Khanublikhan, on 23 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Surely you cannot be objecting to a well implimented (client side only?) 3rd person view, which I choose as my window into the game world, if that is my choice?

Yes. Actually, yes I do. I find it degrades gameplay by providing a visual advantage to the player vs. 1st-person view.

Thus, "best play" becomes "play in third person", if it exists. This eats the playerbase away from playing the game I was promised (a 1st-person one) and sticks them into a POV that I find appropriate for single-player but damaging for multiplayer gaming.

Yes, I object. I object strongly.

[Mystere]

wanderer, on 23 March 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yes. Actually, yes I do. I find it degrades gameplay by providing a visual advantage to the player vs. 1st-person view.

What advantage? Do you have information on any implementation details other than what PGI has given? Or is this just based on speculation on your part?

[Motown Jones]

Mystere, on 23 March 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

What advantage? Do you have information on any implementation details other than what PGI has given? Or is this just based on speculation on your part?

Have you ever played a third-person shooter? The camera will have to be brought out either up or to the side to allow for aiming from that perspective. This will give players one maybe two angles from which they can peer around cover with the camera while not having to expose themselves. This is not good.

I have no doubt that new players are finding the movement in this game difficult. It is certainly different to what a lot of players are used to. However the problems here have nothing to do with the camera but with miscommunication between the game and the new players themselves. Frankly you could just whip up a quick obstacle course with a series of waypoints/markers and you could easily communicate to players how movement works in this game. That said, I think implementing a third-person camera is just a waste of manpower and time at PGI, plain and simple.

[Fenix0742]

Mystere, on 23 March 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

What advantage? Do you have information on any implementation details other than what PGI has given? Or is this just based on speculation on your part?

It's not based on speculation. 3rd person moves the camera behind the player, allowing him or her to see more.

Imagine the white square is a player mech and the yellow square is an enemy. The green triangle represents a first person point of view; he cannot see the enemy. The red triangle represents the 3rd person perspective that has the camera moved to a position behind the player mech; now he can see the enemy. Third person not only allows you to see your own mech, but you gain increased situational awareness as to what's beside your mech. The increased awareness is a combat advantage, and the reason why many people don't want 3rd person to be allowed: first person players would be at a disadvantage.

[Lonestar1771]

PGI, why do you guys only talk about future stuff we as a community DO NOT WANT, but are completely unwilling to talk about future features that we as a community DO WANT, (CW, Clans, etc.)?

[Mystere]

Mowtown Jones, on 23 March 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Have you ever played a third-person shooter? The camera will have to be brought out either up or to the side to allow for aiming from that perspective. This will give players one maybe two angles from which they can peer around cover with the camera while not having to expose themselves. This is not good ...

Fenix0742, on 23 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

It's not based on speculation. 3rd person moves the camera behind the player, allowing him or her to see more.

That will not be the case if 3PV vision is limited to what 1PV can see. I can foresee some annoying behavior, like things appearing suddenly, Camouflaged items might also be tricky. But, that's probably be it.

Edited by Mystere, 23 March 2013 - 04:33 PM.

[valkyrie]

Lonestar1771, on 23 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

PGI, why do you guys only talk about future stuff we as a community DO NOT WANT, but are completely unwilling to talk about future features that we as a community DO WANT, (CW, Clans, etc.)?

Because that's where their priorities are, which is completely backwards.

There's a thread going on here where a new player is finding himself completely overwhelmed and unable to function in this game. He would not be helped much if at all by third person. Know what would help him? A proper tutorial and some Trial 'Mechs that don't overheat when you fart in them/explode when hit by a spitball.

[Fenix0742]

Mystere, on 23 March 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

That will not be the case if 3PV vision is limited to what 1PV can see. I can foresee some annoying behavior, like things appearing suddenly, Camouflaged items might also be tricky. But, that's probably be it.

If you get the viewpoint that 1pv sees, then it's still 1pv. Unless you're saying that mechs to the side would be totally invisible? I don't know if that's technically possible. I mean, they're still trying to find a solution for the PIP zoom module, which is the same thing but in reverse.

[RedDragon]

Heeden, on 23 March 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

We know that the forum has 450,000 members, so even if 4,000 peeps voted against 3PV that's still less than 1%.

Well, of those 450.000, how many are dead and duplicate accounts? And even if we only have 1%, that's 1% more than I can believe PGI have asked whether they really want 3rd-person. How would they have gotten any feedback? Have you seen any poll or questionnaire anywhere? Has anyone on this forums received an email asking about it? If they had really done any research into this field with a representative group of players, I'm sure we would have seen anything of it.
We have 4500 mostly paying customers, the most loyal fans and most likely those who pay the most money for this game. You don't just ignore such a player base.

Heeden, on 23 March 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

I played MW:2 for a while and some of my work-mates keep up with the latest CoDs. 3rd person game modes have always been considered inferior to the 1st person ones and only done for novelty value or gaining certain achievements.

You didn't play MW4, did you?

[valkyrie]

RedDragon, on 23 March 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Well, of those 450.000, how many are dead and duplicate accounts?

This, so hard. I remember a lot of people making tons of accounts in Closed Beta in hopes of improving their chances for an invite.

[Lonestar1771]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

Apparently you missed the part where everyone except Bryan is working on Community Warfare

How does your response have anything to do with people WORKING on CW? I asked why they don't TALK about it, as in explaining what their current vision is, or where they stand on development.

Try reading and NOT making yourself appear s t u p i d before trying to do the same to other people.

[Corvus Antaka]

1. PGI OBVIOUSLY has data that 3rd person is vital to getting this game more players. That data appears hidden to us, presumably because it involves a portion of the playerbase that never visits forums but emails support in desperation, telling them how they need 3rd person to play this game.

My wife loves 3rd person, she cant handle any FPS game. So while I think 1st person 100%, I can see PGI's stance, even if I think 3rd person is dumb (insert expletives here)

2. This is nice. However, it does little to improve the new user experience, and while PGI may feel this is important, and may well be right - I worry more about other things.

a) no stock game mode. Trial mechs or no, I gaurentee you, I f I gave my wife MWO as is with trial mechs she would walk away, there is 0% chance after 50 games of this with the crappy trial mechs that she would stick around. I can hardly blame her here, the grind is brutal. So brutal infact that richer players bought atlasd with MC just to sell for cbills so they didnt have to grind in crap during the first few weeks.

the entire trial mech system is stupid primarily because it makes for a horrid new player experience. However, again, it must be working for PGI, since they have stuck by their guns, and you only do that when stuffs working for your business.

So long as 1st & 3rd are seperated, I could care less, my only sadness here is that 3rd person aparently is important, but a stock mech only gamemode (Which would solve trial mech balance issues AND make a lot of hardcore guys happy) is still not in game nor mentioned as a future possibility, but 3rd person is, and I find this odd because as noted I think balanced mechs would improve the user experience a lot more than 3rd person ever will.

[valkyrie]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 23 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

1. PGI OBVIOUSLY has data that 3rd person is vital to getting this game more players. That data appears hidden to us, presumably because it involves a portion of the playerbase that never visits forums but emails support in desperation, telling them how they need 3rd person to play this game.

No, they don't. All we've seen as far as "obvious" data was one Twitter post from some random guy.

If PGI wants us to believe them when they say "3rd person won't split the community, in fact it'll help it grow!" then we need to see some proof of that. I want to see the data myself - until then, I'm not going to be convinced, and neither will an awful lot of people. Releasing that data and telling us how it was gathered will go a long way towards rebuilding the consumer trust that's pretty blatantly been shattered in the last week. They can tell us where and how they're gathering this data without compromising the privacy of the people asking without too much trouble, so why don't they?

Likely answer - because their support team is probably not being asked that.

Edited by valkyrie, 23 March 2013 - 05:12 PM.

[Mystere]

Fenix0742, on 23 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

If you get the viewpoint that 1pv sees, then it's still 1pv. Unless you're saying that mechs to the side would be totally invisible? I don't know if that's technically possible. I mean, they're still trying to find a solution for the PIP zoom module, which is the same thing but in reverse.

That's precisely what I am saying. And it is most certainly possible given that it's all geometry. Of course, I am assuming there is nothing in the CryENGINE that prevents it from being done.

As for the PIP zoom module, from what I have read, it is due to a limitation(?) of the game engine.

[Corvus Antaka]

you know 1 question I always wonder

if the game had even the most basic radar like previous mech games so you could see guys at 50m behind you to 200 without locking them first (no more of this thief type sneaking around) if that would alleviate the 3rd person desire, but right now with 3rd person itll give a huge advantage just because radar isnt covering you hardly.

[valkyrie]

Heeden, on 23 March 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Is that relevant to the post I quoted (i.e. is it another example of a game where 3.p.v. was considered inferior to 1.p.v.)?

Inferior? Hardly. This is what MW4 "high level" gameplay eventually devolved into. Look familiar?

[Mystere]

valkyrie, on 23 March 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Inferior? Hardly. This is what MW4 "high level" gameplay eventually devolved into. Look familiar?

I call that a simplistic implementation of 3rd person view (i.e. really bad).

Edited by Mystere, 23 March 2013 - 05:42 PM.

[Von Falkenstein]

Great example of what we're actually talking here, valkyrie. It's a no brainer to implement this crap in another MW title. Enough with the 180s on behalf of the Devs. Main Design Pillars are the last line in the sand.

Edited by Von Falkenstein, 23 March 2013 - 05:42 PM.