2002 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

So, my wife of all people came up with this idea, which may have already been presented in the thread:

Since 1st person view does not add any bonuses to play, but 3rd person does include situational-awareness bonuses, then we can say that games should be divided into 2 categories -> 1st person only, and 1st/3rd person mixed games; there is no need to create a 3rd-person-only gametype (nobody should complain about 1st-person-players crashing their 3rd-person-party, so there is no need for a 3rd-person-only environment at all).

The Mercenary side of combat can be handled as follows: If a Mercenary Company already controls a planet, then the Current Planet Holders can decide if any challenging invaders will have to play as either 1st person, or mixed 1st/3rd person. That way, if a Group of Sim-fans want their 1st-person-only gametype, then they can enforce it as long as they can hold their territory, and anyone who wants to attack that particular planet will have to play in 1st person. If a planetary Holder wants to play in 3rd person, then they can force the invaders to abide by a mixed 3rd/1st person gametype. I call it the "Home Team Decision."

I don't know enough about the way House/Faction Warfare will be handled to comment on it, though.

[Tekadept]

[Randalf Yorgen]

Prosperity Park, on 04 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

So, my wife of all people came up with this idea, which may have already been presented in the thread:

Since 1st person view does not add any bonuses to play, but 3rd person does include situational-awareness bonuses, then we can say that games should be divided into 2 categories -> 1st person only, and 1st/3rd person mixed games; there is no need to create a 3rd-person-only gametype (nobody should complain about 1st-person-players crashing their 3rd-person-party, so there is no need for a 3rd-person-only environment at all).

The Mercenary side of combat can be handled as follows: If a Mercenary Company already controls a planet, then the Current Planet Holders can decide if any challenging invaders will have to play as either 1st person, or mixed 1st/3rd person. That way, if a Group of Sim-fans want their 1st-person-only gametype, then they can enforce it as long as they can hold their territory, and anyone who wants to attack that particular planet will have to play in 1st person. If a planetary Holder wants to play in 3rd person, then they can force the invaders to abide by a mixed 3rd/1st person gametype. I call it the "Home Team Decision."

I don't know enough about the way House/Faction Warfare will be handled to comment on it, though.

First, thank you for taking notice of the suggestions made earlier in the thread, it does help to know that someone is at the least reading what we type. The recent lack of feedback which is a very sharp change from when we were in closed beta is quite concerning as in the trend in releasing game information on twitter/FB only. I don't have a twitter account so I don't get those updates but from what I can tell there has been a couple of little gems dropped there that haven't been posted here on the main forums.... I have to ask why is that? this should be the primary info location for the game with twitter and FB suggesting people come here to see what's up.

As for the third person view, it has to be implemented in a way that makes sense. Some suggestions that make sense are the Destroiable UAV that simply gives you a limited time peak around your local area and is a consumable (trying to make you guys some money with that one), The Arena, look at NFL games today int he us with the camera on cables following the plays down the field for an example of how that could work. A Camera on a post or periscope on the shoulder of the mech, lets you look around a little but your control of the mech and it's weapons become greatly re-tard-ed. (for those about to grief the word re-tard-ed please look up its definition in the dictonary) Those are at least believable and could be accepted by the majority of players. Other suggestions where it is 3o feet above and 10 feet back of your mech with the ability to fly around your mech, with or without combat data or with areas simply blanked out are simply unrealistic and are what the heart of the players that are complaining are complaining about as they would still provide an unfair advantage to 3PV players.

As for the idea of mixing the two play styles, good suggestion however I cannot see how the 3pv players still will simply not hold the advantage and therefore how everyone will not be forced into having to play in 3pv just to keep one side from having a huge advantage over the other. Simply put 3pv will kill 1pv and become the mainstay of the game and there are a lot of paying people who don't want that, sure you could still play in 1pv but with 3pv getting such a huge advantage why would you be so foolish.

In BT lore there was always a clear divide between Solaris 7 champion pilots and the mud sluggers who were defending along a boarder. While the champions excelled in the arena very very few of them could do well in actual combat because it was a completely different situation they found themselves in. 3pv in the arena and not in CW would be a fantastic way to empathise this divide. like I said in my suggestion, I would expect 3pv in the arenas, with ladder leagues, rankings, 1,2,4,8 man matches, championship battles, side betting.... the list is long but you get my point I hope. 3pv has already spooked the playerbase, not being very careful and really smart with how it's going to be implemented will cause many of them to fly away.

One way to defeat an enemy is to divide his forces and his attentions and then take him out one little chunk at a time, another way is to bleed him out by giving him 1000 papercuts. This issue is both dividing the playerbase and leaving cuts all over the place. It's not a huge leap to see the playerbase die from these wounds.

Edited by Randalf Yorgen, 04 June 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

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

Here are the facts.

• 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.

sorry to say this but u cant call so arguable things "facts"

Quote

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.

u still have bigger fov than 1pv player and u can twist u torso a bit to look around the corner

Quote

Camera is locked vertically to the torso, you can only look up and down as far as your torso can.

bigger fov! u still see more no matter how much u "lock" camera

Quote

When approaching cover (to rocks/building etc), the camera pulls IN so FoV is greatly reduced when standing close to something.

people wont get close to obstacles that obscures theirs HUGE fov unless they forced too

Quote

3rd Person is not a free-cam.

ofc its not

Quote

HUD will be significantly reduced if not completely removed.

only thing that u need in HUD is "minimap" anything else isn't essential

Quote

ONLY the targeted enemy (Press R) can be identified in 3rd person... all other HUD indicators are turned off.

might work, but again HUGE FOV u can see almost everything u need and even more without HUD

[MeatForBrains]

If MWO only has 10,000-50,000 active players, and we can't even get 8 man premade matchups, how is implementing 3rd person view going to help when all it does is fracture the player base even further?

[Jestun]

MeatForBrains, on 05 June 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

If MWO only has 10,000-50,000 active players, and we can't even get 8 man premade matchups, how is implementing 3rd person view going to help when all it does is fracture the player base even further?

Didn't you know? Big shooty 1st person robot games are niche but if they change it into a big shooty 3rd person robot game it will magically become mainstream, millions more players will join and the queues will be fine!

Edited by Jestun, 05 June 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Niko Snow, on 02 June 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

As has already been noted by several devs: 3PV is only going to be implemented on an optional basis. Players will not be forced or expected to join mixed games or 3PV only games. While we appreciate the concerns players have raised and factored these into how we will approach 3PV; As had already been stated: This is not a debate on the merits for those who already have no intention of playing 3PV but rather a discussion on how you feel it should look and work if you do intend to play some 3PV or Mixed matches. Please keep your discussion on topic to that regard.

Yeah, at this time the thread isn't really for stating bleakly that 3PV will kill the game, the purpose of the thread is to discuss implementation ideas. Implementation ideas would be gladly appreciated.. and please don't suggest that 3PV be implemented in the trash, as that's not really going to help.

[Armageddon]

I think people are having a hard time understanding that 3rd Person is coming, nothing is going to stop that... So they've asked we come up with constructive ideas for its implementation. Make no mistake, 3rd person mode is coming no matter what and I can't wait!

[Coolant]

Does it split the player base, prolly, but according to Bryan's April Reddit (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2284308):

Q(nickrenfo2): Approximately how many games are being played at any given moment? Which 'mech seems to be the favorite? Which 'mechs die the most? Which 'mechs do the most damage on average per match? What kind of other interesting factoids might there be that you know of?
Bryan Ekman: I don't have all the number handy, but it's thousands (games). I'll have to do another stats post.

Bryan specifically make a point to put it in parenthesis that there are thousands of games at any given moment. I've already shown the math in another post, but for those that continue to rage without even bother to listen to anyone that doesn't have your point of view...2 thousand (minimum because games is plural) X 16 players in a game ~ 32,000 at any one moment. That is being conservative. That's 32,000 at any given moment and NOT player base.

So, all of you mass hoardes of 1st Person sim people that continue to press the point that some poll or # of posts proves you are a swarm will have plenty of other pilots to shoot at. While us in the supposed minority will still have plenty of pilots to shoot at because there is....~32,000+ playing at any one time.

I like the idea that Prosperity Park gave above (more accurately his wife), but that is just one way that could work for CW and still have 3rd Person and 1st Person. I'm sure there are many other suggestions about how CW could work in the thread, and I just bet that PGI has some ideas as well.

Btw, I have tried to look at the other side, from 1st Person player only perspective. I just don't see valid arguments. If they have said a 3rd Person player will not play against 1st Person (unless agreed such as defending a planet as Prosperity's post suggest - let the defender decide), and that business's adapt to survive (argument that they said it would be 1st person only), or that Mechwarrior should be a sim (again if you play 1st Person you will only play against 1st Person unless agreed and preserve your precious sim). Also, 1st Person only playing against 1st Person also eliminates the whole peeking over hills, terrain advantage whatever. Am I missing any arguments?

Edited by Coolant, 05 June 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Writer]

So glad to have PGI listen to the community. ohwaiththeyfuckinghateus.jpg

They want the "twitter audience". They'd rather bait and switch us, and then dumb down the game and replace us with a new audience.

Edited by Rhenis, 05 June 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[MadMike82508]

The fact is they want MONEY and feel that they will gain more people by having 3rd person view than the amount who are pissed and leave cause they lied and said they would never do it.
At the end of the day they lied or changed their minds big shocker right?

Like a lot of other COMPANIES they were more interested in money rather than core game play mechanics. So at the end of the day it just says that they don't really care about the community wants, yes another big shocker. So why give feedback if they will just do whatever fattens their wallet? Well that's up to the INDIVIDUAL, try and give feedback hoping they might listen or just play the game hoping they don't cave in on other aspects of the game.

Love the game however this reminds me the whole Sony star wars galaxy thing for jedi's, yes I know its not as big but I mean the whole idea " NO we won't do that" then turn around and do it for money reasons.

[CyBerkut]

Prosperity Park, on 04 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

So, my wife of all people came up with this idea, which may have already been presented in the thread:

Since 1st person view does not add any bonuses to play, but 3rd person does include situational-awareness bonuses, then we can say that games should be divided into 2 categories -> 1st person only, and 1st/3rd person mixed games; there is no need to create a 3rd-person-only gametype (nobody should complain about 1st-person-players crashing their 3rd-person-party, so there is no need for a 3rd-person-only environment at all).

The Mercenary side of combat can be handled as follows: If a Mercenary Company already controls a planet, then the Current Planet Holders can decide if any challenging invaders will have to play as either 1st person, or mixed 1st/3rd person. That way, if a Group of Sim-fans want their 1st-person-only gametype, then they can enforce it as long as they can hold their territory, and anyone who wants to attack that particular planet will have to play in 1st person. If a planetary Holder wants to play in 3rd person, then they can force the invaders to abide by a mixed 3rd/1st person gametype. I call it the "Home Team Decision."

I don't know enough about the way House/Faction Warfare will be handled to comment on it, though.

That will get used against 1PV playing teams. A faction that doesn't want to defend versus a 1PV playing attacker will ensure a 3PV playing team is on the planet to make the defense. That would not be a good thing for Community Warfare.

[Noesis]

Don't like the idea of 3PV, much prefer 1PV for immersion. Not happy that even if equality is the aim in providing alternative view choices as being important that efforts to maintain balance to effectiveness is also then not also viewed as important from an equality standpoint.

After all has anyone considered the implications of receiving overall better meta rewards over time if the use of 3 PV provides better performance for some roles as a better comparison then the 1PV equivalent, this even if everyone is forced to use the same game mode as the same time, but utilise a preference as it is beneficial to gaining benefits for that role or style of game play?

In effect it creates an inequality that may enforce biased use of viewing modes that some may not want to have to be encouraged to maintain a peer equivalence? This more so if tactical alignment of roles then give a distinct advantage to the voting process or "home" team as a result of the applied benefits 3PV may give to certain Meta in any voting system.

[Grimmnyr]

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Make is a separate game mode like Assault or Conquest.

[Belisarius1]

Home team advantage is not a useful solution.

Simple scenario: as an ffp player and/or team, you capture/own a planet. You set the world's defence to ffp, as God intended. It is captured by a team which can play both modes and wins in ffp. That team, knowing you are ffp, changes the planet to 3pv. You are now totally unable to contest it without playing a mode that is "optional", which you declined.

Yes, you have the "option" to not contest the planet. I also have the "option" to use nothing but narc beacons. That doesn't make it a viable one.

---

I'm also worried by talk about, for example, removing the HUD from 3pv to balance it. That is a fool's errand, because it does not address the problem.

The intention should not be to nerf 3pv or otherwise constrain it so that FFP and 3pv can coexist.Even if successful, the result would be an asymmetric balance where each mode is useful in different situations. This is not desirable, because the best tactic would then be to switch between 1pv and 3pv depending on what suited you at the time (eg. "Do i want a hud or a wider fov in this fight?"). This means players willing to use 3pv, or both, retain a situational advantage over players who use 1pv exclusively.

---

There is an underlying trend here which you should be able to see in both situations. Whenever 3pv and 1pv coexist - whether in a single game or in a single metagame - the players and teams which use both will have an advantage over players who use solely 1pv. That is almost axiomatic.

The problem is that the bulk of the FFP players want nothing to do with 3pv, at all. They want to be able to play the game solely in FFP without ever being disadvantaged by that choice. Bryan understands this, because he reassures us that, "Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd-person."

Unfortunately, that situation is impossible unless the modes are totally separated and never interact, directly or indirectly. This is an all-or-nothing. It always has been.

---

Edited by Belisarius1, 05 June 2013 - 07:58 PM.

[Myssi]

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

Here are the facts

• Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person.

Maybe it's just my memory failing but I remember there being something similar said about 3rd person it self and how it would not be included in the game in the first place.
If my memory is correct after all, why should I believe you on this?

[Agent Cooper]

Without having to go back and read thru 88 pages of threads I dont know if this has been covered so Ill just say my piece.
Mechwarrior is 1st person.

MechAssault was 3rd person.

What killed the franchise for 12 years?


Im not interested in 3rd person as it gives an unfair advantage to the pilot being able to see around his mech from the outside. The pilot will be able to see enemies closing from the sides. This is something you cant do in 1st and is integral to the flavor of the game.

If people want this feature let them go play Hawken or whatever else is out there.

[Yelland]

As others have stated 3rd person is treating the symptom. The disease is still there under the pain meds.

If the issue is learning curve - build a better training program.

What if this effort went into teaching new players why MWO is different and how to navigate and utilize the games features?

And no, 2-3 minute YouTube tutorials is not teaching them. That is popcorn information. Everyone these days thinks "oh just put a video on YouTube". Well count me out when we start having Doctors certified from the Google Online Visual Doctorate program.

If you have something worth learning, you need to instruct the user in a full featured environment. Make it fun, interesting, informative. Employ teaching mechanisms, not showing.

I suppose since the game is built on PvP there is no AI? Meaning bots are probably out for teaching mechanics. How about a series of weekly training classes?

New users sign up, PGI folks use group mechanics voice/chat and spend 30 minutes with an 8 on 8 class of new players. Talk to them about lance functions, navigation, weapon groups, location targeting, etc.

Have a class on weapon types, how to use LRM vs. Streak, Lasers and Pulse. Why use ballistics? There are endless scenarios you could cover. PGI could offer something few if any other shooters offer – a way to progress through structure not just experience. New players can ask questions and talk in a safe environment.

Make it like a Challenge after you complete the training series you get a dashboard item?

Not saying this would be easy, it would take effort and probably feel like herding cats at times. Probably easier than diverting developers to coding AI and tutorials though.

I got over being dropped in on my head because I like MechWarrior and come from "that" generation. I bet many new players do not get over it, so of course they cannot feel competitive or confident.

MWO offers a meaty experience in online shooters. The OOBE is painful - 3rd person won't fix that.

You will still have to address the learning curve. 3rd person will alienate people who like the first person mechanics offered by MWO. There may be users who will like 1st person but don’t know how to because they are intimidated.

[Tvae]

The only way I would be okay with Third Person mode:

As an option that has to be specifically turned on in a custom match from the lobby (or in the testing grounds).

Reasons:
1.) This way it doesn't have any effect on Community Warfare or any matches that really matter.

2.) The only people who will experience the 3rd person mode will be those who specifically opted to use it.

3.) We get a lobby. (Seriously, a lobby system will improve the game so much.)

4.) Still allows for 3rd person camera work for Machinama and other user videos (or just testing what paint jobs look like in game), without resulting in 3rd person actually negatively effecting the game (splitting the player base, providing unfair advantage, or the hundreds of other negative effects it could potentially have depending on how it's implemented).

Of course, this entire concept is redundant unless we get a lobby system, so unless they're planning on sneaking that in within the next two months, 3rd person is not really needed.

Edited by Tvae, 07 June 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[RocketmanZero]

I think mech warrior could seriously benefit from some gamification of learning its mechanics and its becoming more apparent that this is where the ball was dropped when it went to open beta.

if we have to live with 3rd person I'd rather see it as a piece of mounted equipment that works in conjunction with the UAV consumable. That way you have to work towards it to get the tactical advantage it gives you and other players can disable it by shooting down your UAV. That way we wont have to segregate the matchmaking based on 3rd vs 1st person games.