2001 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

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

Why add 3rd person?

• 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.

Honestly, if you want to accomplish those goals... how about looking at the completely broken, newbie-destroying new game experience that is "No tutorial and uncustomizable, terrible trial 'mechs to die in for hours." There's tons of threads about it and literally NOBODY argues that point. When pretty much everyone on the forums from every single level of play is saying something, that indicates a serious issue.

Heck, go watch a MW:O video review and tell me if ANY of the reviewers are having fun until they get past the trial system, if they last that long?

But no. Don't code pop-up information and tutorial information to help new players learn the game, or get rid of a system that makes them play with two hands behind their back and half the game missing (mechlab) for their initial impressions of MW:O. Spend time programming a 3rd person camera that literally everyone says they don't want.

Honestly whoever is making these calls needs to take a week or two vacation because I think it's clear they've lost their priorities and understanding of what people really need to get hooked.

TL/DR: Why are you absolutely wasting your programmers time making features that are overwhelmingly despised while supporting others that seem designed exclusively to drive off players and leaving still more in limbo? I guarantee whatever time was wasted coding 3rd Person could have been used for Tutorial pop-ups at the very least, if not a tutorial mission. They'd probably even had time to redo the Trial 'mech system into something less new-customer hating, like allowing the choice of a free 'mech that doesn't gain XP or only has basic efficiencies or something.

Wait, I forgot. These new players quit because there's no 3rd person camera. How was I so blind?

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 March 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Thursday Afternoon:

Bryan: "Hey guys.... um, excuse me.... yeah, let me get around you there.... OK, so, I'm going to just leave this elephant here... yeah, can you step... OH, he stepped right on your toes didn't he? Sorry, just rub some dirt on it.... OK, so yeah, there's this elephant here... Alright, off to PAX East, see you soon"

Bryan to Paul by the snack machine: "Hey Paul, I left an elephant in that room over there, can you check on it while I'm away?"
Paul: "Sure, no problem, have a great time at PAX"
Bryan: "Will do"

Friday: "Hey guys, yeah, let me just squeeze in here. Bryan wanted me to check in on the elephant, so I brought these peanuts here... ROADBEER, THOSE AREN'T FOR YOU! Ok... that should do it, I'll be back later"

Monday by the coffee maker:

Paul: "Hey Bryan, how was PAX?"
Bryan: "Good, had a great time. How's that elephant?"
Paul: "I gave him a bag of peanuts on Friday"
Bryan: "Should be fine then"

[Fut]

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

As for non-3PV improvements, having a 3D rendition of the mech in one of the cockpit monitors just might work. My only issue with this is that the player will have to switch his vision at all times between the cockpit view and the monitor display (same as with the mini-map). Not all people can do that well. Having 3PV might just remove such visual switching for many people.

No offence, but this is pretty lame.
Everybody playing this game should already be shifting their focus around their screen. If you're not, you're playing with blinders on and you're not going to get any better at this game. I mean, aren't you already looking at your paper-doll to see your damage, looking at your ammo reserves, your heat, your enemy's paper-doll, the mini-map...etc..etc.


Why does it seem like some people want this game to be a simple point-and-click FPS?
The appeal of this game, for myself and I can only assume many others, is that you had to manage a few different things at once - including all of the information being displayed across your screen.

As for the topic at hand. I think 3PV is a bad idea, even if it's completely segregated from the 1PV people - it'll cut the playerbase into chunks.

[Dataman]

PANZERBUNNY, on 25 March 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

The only reason I can imagine 3rd person benig put in is so people can look at their pretty camo. That's the only non game effecting reason I can think of. Any other possibility means 3PV is a detriment to the style of play we've been told this game would be.

this also the only think I could assume when they said 3rd PoV. So people could see their beautifully painted mechs.

Oh you know, the narcism also exist in 31st century.

[Mystere]

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

No offence, but this is pretty lame.
Everybody playing this game should already be shifting their focus around their screen. If you're not, you're playing with blinders on and you're not going to get any better at this game. I mean, aren't you already looking at your paper-doll to see your damage, looking at your ammo reserves, your heat, your enemy's paper-doll, the mini-map...etc..etc.

On one hand, I agree (somewhat) with you that it is lame (although I think the word is far too strong). But on the other, the HUD as is leaves a lot to be desired. It gets more difficult to process all the information displayed as the combat gets more intense. I have read one forum poster say as much (although I unfortunately cannot find that post at the moment).

The operative phrase is "not all people can do that well".

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[Esk]

Well I think everything I would have said on the subject has at least been mentions (a lot).

I do understand why the current generation of players struggle, we've not really had any games remotely complex for a while.
And as much as I do not want 3rd person adding, it will probably get a lot of people to play that might not otherwise.
(I might even occasionally for s***'s and giggles)

I would however prefer the option to totally turn on/off fighting 3rd person rather then do it per game.
(which is how it sounds unless iI' misreading that part).

[Victor Morson]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

On one hand, I agree (somewhat) with you that it is lame (although I think the word is far too strong). But on the other, the HUD as is leaves a lot to be desired. It gets more difficult to process all the information displayed as the combat gets more intense. I have read one forum poster say as much (although I unfortunately cannot find that post at the moment).

The operative phrase is "not all people can do that well".

As far as HUD modes go, I'd rather have '360 degree view' - which is possible (check out some Quake youtube videos) on a monitor or something. It'd be cannon and useful.

A very low priority feature though, if it'd even be possible on mid spec.

[Dikaiosyne26]

I'm really torn in-between decrying this and thinking its appropriate given the lore.

Your not just a guy in a cockpit, your a guy with Neurohelmet and should be 360 degree screen in his Robot of Destruction. Having a limited view out of glass isn't exactly giving you all of the senses that one would have in that situation. I can see 3rd Person being a compromise to giving you that kind of battle view, like adventure games give you 3rd person for stuff like melee combat and jumping puzzles.

Still, I don't think that the cockpit only camera is really a broken game mode, and if people are quitting because they cannot control their battlemechs when you make NO EFFORT to teach them IN GAME, I don't see this helping any. That speaks to the need for a tutorial on what you already have, not more new features. There is no promise that such easily discouraged people will even find 3rd person camera before they quit.

But what do I know, I post on the forums...

[Fut]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

On one hand, I agree (somewhat) with you that it is lame (although I think the word is far too strong). But on the other, the HUD as is leaves a lot to be desired. It gets more difficult to process all the information displayed as the combat gets more intense. I have read one forum poster say as much (although I unfortunately cannot find that post at the moment).

The operative phrase is "not all people can do that well".

That's a part of life, Man.
Not everybody can be good at everything instantly. Some people are naturals and pick things up quickly, other people struggle and need to work at it. Changing the game to cater to the lazy people who are unwilling to practice will not make this a better or even a popular game.

[Mystere]

Fut, on 25 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Changing the game to cater to the lazy people who are unwilling to practice will not make this a better or even a popular game.

Don't be too harsh and pass judgement on people. Many times it's not because of laziness but rather because of perception.

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

[Fut]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Unfortunately, many times it's not because of laziness but rather because of perception.

So now we should change the game to cater to those with physical limitations that cause them to have trouble seeing/comprehending what's going on during the game?

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

[wolf74]

The way to get a 3rd person view of the mech without removing the pilot view from the cockpit IS a dash board item. Aka a mini-me-mech that gives the player a 3rd person view of their mech. So they can see the leg walk to the left vs the torso twisting to the right. It give the feed back without giving the player an extra view of the field due to the fact it only shows there mech.

[IrrelevantFish]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

We did some market research, looked at the target demographic that we engaged initially but did not retain (played a few matches and left), and found that many players were not able to easily grasp the concepts of their `Mech, especially movement. 3rd person will help solve some of these issues, along with a new UI, training and testing grounds, and other features coming down the pipeline.

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.

[Ihasa]

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

Here are the facts.

• Yes we are currently working on a 3rd person option for MWO.
  
  
  
  
• There is no ETA for when 3rd person will be available.
  
  
  
  
• Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person.

Why add 3rd person?

• 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.

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.
  
• Players can set their preference in the options menu, or during the launch phase before matchmaking.

General Information

• We have not decided on the final implementation of what third person will look like yet.
  
• We are very aware of the design and balancing challenges faced by adding a 3rd person option and will address these through exhaustive private and public testing before pushing any 3rd person features live.
  
• It is possible 3rd person will be made available in other regions first. Typically 3rd person is more widely used outside of North America.
  
• We understand players may be concerned about matchmaking and further segmenting the player base. So are we. Before going live with a 3rd person option, we plan to investigate and solve any potential issues further fragmentation may cause.

We would like to invite your constructive feedback on how you would like to see 3rd person executed.

• Standard forum rules apply, please be kind, courteous, and clearly communicated your ideas or opinions.
  
• This is not the place to say you dislike 3rd person.

When we get closer to launching 3rd person, expect an official Command Chair post detailing our planned 3rd person feature set.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


One poster mentioned something that I thought was more than fair. List some of the ideas we've been toying with in order for it to work. These are just SOME of the ideas we've been discussing:

• Camera is locked horizontally to the torso. This is not a peek around corners mode.
  
• Camera is locked vertically to the torso, you can only look up and down as far as your torso can.
  
• When approaching cover (to rocks/building etc), the camera pulls IN so FoV is greatly reduced when standing close to something.
  
• 3rd Person is not a free-cam.
  
• HUD will be significantly reduced if not completely removed.
  
• LOS targetting is NOT affected by 3rd person. If you cannot target it from 1st person, you cannot target it in 3rd.
  
• ONLY the targeted enemy (Press R) can be identified in 3rd person... all other HUD indicators are turned off.

Again, these are a few of the ideas we're working on. Please keep that in mind when posting.

Love the additions to this initial post. Sounds much more balanced and less "wild weasel development".

But I still wonder, where is stuff you said was coming that is way past due? And I don't just mean community warfare. What about 12v12? Other game modes? Still coming? Being re-worked? Stalled in design? Canned altogether? You guys have much anticipated to deliver by your own admissions, that current paying customers are waiting for them to happen soon. They ahve been talked to death since before the founders program closed. To think that you are gambling some future possible paying player base on some future project that is getting this much attention from you guys feels way off.

[Mystere]

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

So now we should change the game to cater to those with physical limitations that cause them to have trouble seeing/comprehending what's going on during the game?

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

And again you judge people too harshly. Perception is not just about "physical limitations":

Perception is the organization, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment.

Edited by Mystere, 25 March 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[van Uber]

Mystere, on 25 March 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

It already is (e.g. existing "radar" map). But, it seems that there are people who are unable to "process" the information provided by existing functionality.

I am not really surprised though, People do not have the exact same level of spatial recognition. Not all people react in exactly the same way to the very exact same visual stimulus.

That is kind of my point, the information is already there inside the Mech, but it is perhaps presented poorly. Should that not be the focus instead of moving the camera outside, to create better features relaying the vital information?

That in it self does not answer the question of the enigmatic demographic that is drawn to the 3PV itself. Mass Effect gamers?

[Karl Marlow]

I am thinking more long term here. WE have precious little data on CW. However with this 3rd person vision mode you are further segmenting the community between those who want 3rd person and those that want 1st person.

Once CW goes live are we going to end up wiht a 4rd person campaign map and a 1st person campaign map? If not What are those players supposed to do when their planets are being attacked or defended by players using an alternate vision mode? You have stated teh goal of not wanting to force players to play against each other if thy did not want to . Does that apply to the CW as well?

IMO A third person mode should only be implemented in the training grounds and as a option for a post battle replay like what World of Tanks has.

[Mystere]

ThomasMarik, on 25 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

I am thinking more long term here. WE have precious little data on CW. However with this 3rd person vision mode you are further segmenting the community between those who want 3rd person and those that want 1st person.

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

[Eddrick]

ThomasMarik, on 25 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

post battle replay like what World of Tanks has.

Free moving camera replay please.

[Pando]

der langsamere, on 25 March 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

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

They're developing the game. I'm glad they're doing that. They'll probably lock the thread eventually and gather the data they want.