2002 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

CyBerkut, on 28 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

At this point, I'll point out that you haven't been silently waiting either.  Now why would that be?

The huge difference is that I have been presenting ideas on how things can be done, instead of endlessly panning 3PV ad infinitum. And at the same time, I have been calling for people to wait and see what PGI has to show us.

CyBerkut, on 28 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Considering the various reasons that have been given about why people desire 3PV, there is no way that 3PV players belong in the same matches as 1PV players.

And many, if not most, of those reasons I attribute to the severe TRAUMA ( ) MW4 seems to have inflicted on people, not logic.

CyBerkut, on 28 June 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Giving 3PV pilots a visual representation of what sensor data is being detected also does not belong in the same match as 1PV players.  In 1PV, the pilot has to interpret the non-visual sensor data, and everyone in that match should be subjected to the same mental workload.  Giving some pilots in that same match a visual shortcut on that process is inappropriate.

And this is where we will always disagree on. To me, doing so is no big deal at all. If presenting the exact same information in an easier-to-understand visual representation will help people better appreciate the game, then I am all for it. It most certainly does not affect me at all, and it should not affect anyone choosing to play in "hardcore" ( ) mode. Just role play it as if the neurohelmet is presenting information in 3D. The game is situated during the 31st Century after all.

Edited by Mystere, 28 June 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[Mystere]

Kraven Kor, on 28 June 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Because PGI is not showing us anything... just saying "It's coming, talk about it, but it's coming. We assure you, the advantages are minimal..."

I seem to recall PGI saying that they will have people take a crack at it before final release. If that is indeed the case, and they don't do it at all, then rant all you want.

Kraven Kor, on 28 June 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

At my job, right now, we are pushing an unpopular, clunky, buggy, bloated, and generally terrible system of "Virtual Desktops" to our users, while simultaneously having transitioned from MS Outlook to Google Mail as an enterprise solution for a multi-billion dollar company ...

I know exactly how that feels. As such, I offer my deepest condolences.

[Coolant]

Kraven Kor, on 25 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

THIS POST EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHY WE HATE 3PV.

BECAUSE IT RUINED MW:4 MULTIPLAYER, WHOLLY, FOR MANY OF US.

THIS IS WHY WE RAGE

ok, I get it, it ruined it for...4 of you that liked the post. Who is the many of us? Wasn't for me, or any of the units I was in. In fact, I don't remember anyone ever in any of the units I was in (RGMU, Black Scorpions, United Knights) complain or leave of 3rd Person. In fact, even several years after Mercs had been out, there were still plenty of players and they played 3rd Person mainly as evidenced by the majority of players in 3rd Person servers. Since it was just as easy to make a 1st Person only server as a 3rd Person mixed, why didn't you make 1st Person servers and fill them? If 3rd Person really was the reason you left, wouldn't have it just been easier to start up a 1st Person only server? Then you and your sim-lovers could have loads of fun in the PoV you love. I've made this point before, but if there wasn't a market for 3rd Person players, then the majority of players would've been playing in 1st Person only servers...they weren't.

Edited by Coolant, 28 June 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[Jestun]

Prosperity Park, on 28 June 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

we've established that a significant fraction of the playerbase does, indeed, want it

No, we have not.

We have been told that they apparently do but no mention has been made of how this assumption was made.

You may choose to believe them, that's your choice. But it is in no way established as anything other than a claim with nothing provided to back it up.

:edit:

Quote

If you're going to assume that PGI will automatically lie about everything, including mixing perspective queues, then the conversation is effectively over.

The same applies if you assume the opposite, plus you are left with no way to explain the U-turns that have been made.

Regardless, past experience is going to affect how much faith you have in PGI's statements.


:one last edit...:

I assume the matchmaker is broken atm?

Because right now MWO is completely failing to provide any sembelence of balance in the matches, and that's before adding queue splitting between region, CW vs. instant battle, or 3rd person vs. first person.

If you don't see that going from 2 queues (pug & premade) to roughly 6 per region (pug - 1st - instant, pre-made - 1st - instant, pug - 3rd - instant, pre-made - 3rd - instant, CW - 3rd, CW - 1st) with at least 2 regions (EU & US), likely more (one for Asia / Pacific Rim / Aussie?) will make a difference to the queues then I'm really not sure what to say...

Edited by Jestun, 29 June 2013 - 01:37 AM.

[Mr Blonde]

We are often told that "the majority" supports something, when the reality is they either don't, or don't care until it affects them, at which point it's too late to pay attention. That's the majority. I think it would be easy enough to have polled all the current players by having it pop up when they log in, one time only, to vote their preference. Even then it's easy enough to manipulate that with the way the question is worded. In any case the reason it's hard to trust their word is because it was so obviously broken on this issue. I still advocate simply separating into two servers: 1PV and 3PV. What could be the harm in that? Obviously 3PV is going to be put in regardless of players' opinions. This at least would assure that we don't need all kinds of complex rules and coding to eliminate the obvious advantage the 3PV players will be given.

[Hotthedd]

Mr Blonde, on 29 June 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

We are often told that "the majority" supports something, when the reality is they either don't, or don't care until it affects them, at which point it's too late to pay attention. That's the majority. I think it would be easy enough to have polled all the current players by having it pop up when they log in, one time only, to vote their preference. Even then it's easy enough to manipulate that with the way the question is worded. In any case the reason it's hard to trust their word is because it was so obviously broken on this issue. I still advocate simply separating into two servers: 1PV and 3PV. What could be the harm in that? Obviously 3PV is going to be put in regardless of players' opinions. This at least would assure that we don't need all kinds of complex rules and coding to eliminate the obvious advantage the 3PV players will be given.

There is one problem with your solution.

You see, the pro-3PV crowd SAYS they want it to take screenshots and attract new players, but the REALITY is that they prefer the arcade-type game, and want to have an advantage over 1PV players. If the servers are split, they will lose their advantage.

The fact that pro-3PV players have come out against the idea of separate servers leads me to this obvious conclusion.

[LogicalTightRope]

Mystere, on 28 June 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

And many, if not most, of those reasons I attribute to the severe TRAUMA ( ) MW4 seems to have inflicted on people, not logic.

You misread. He is talking about the reason people WANT 3PV, not the reason people don't. People say they want it to see their rad paintjobs and awesome mechs, but that would imply a behind viewpoint with enough space, which would give an advantage - most obviously, the ability to see mechs directly behind you (which IS a concrete advantage, especially in a brawl).

Also, ragging on people presenting valid concerns of how 3PV has been done in the past and how it shouldn't be done in the future is un-called for. People don't want it for a reason. Wrap your mind around the fact that just because people hold different opinions than you doesn't mean they don't use logic. I agree that we should see how it turns out before making any final arguments, but there is no harm in presenting arguments now - the more feedback, whether preemptive or not, the better the system will likely be.

Mystere, on 28 June 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

And this is where we will always disagree on. To me, doing so is no big deal at all. If presenting the exact same information in an easier-to-understand visual representation will help people better appreciate the game, then I am all for it. It most certainly does not affect me at all, and it should not affect anyone choosing to play in "hardcore" ( ) mode. Just role play it as if the neurohelmet is presenting information in 3D. The game is situated during the 31st Century after all.

So you accept the blatant advantage of easier-to-read information? If it's ONLY on separate servers, that's fine, but it will be a waste of resources to have a both viewpoints server for each region if there is an obvious advantage.

Furthermore, you will not be able to see your awesome paintjob very well if there is to be no advantage; that implies a view with plenty of room to see your mech. However, this would allow one to see the area directly behind you aswell, since you'd be able to see the back of your mech. Over-the-shoulder is the ONLY way to go, and you won't be able to see very much of your mech, sadly.

Edited by LogicalTightRope, 29 June 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[Mystere]

LogicalTightRope, on 29 June 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

You misread ...

Oops! Too much wine does that to me.

But in any case, my point on the source of many people's opposition to 3PV still stands.

LogicalTightRope, on 29 June 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

So you accept the blatant advantage of easier-to-read information? If it's ONLY on separate servers, that's fine, but it will be a waste of resources to have a both viewpoints server for each region if there is an obvious advantage.

Not at all. I see it as means of helping people better understand the game, not as a blatant advantage.

And who knows, some people may not be too good at mentally integrating multiple sensor readings but may at the same time be awesome at piloting and gunnery.

In fact, a much better designed HUD, with 3D visualization capabilities (e.g. 3D tactical map instead of the 2D one we have now), can also accomplish much of what 3PV is supposed to achieve. But, this thread is not about that, and that is also not what PGI is soliciting ideas for.

LogicalTightRope, on 29 June 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Furthermore, you will not be able to see your awesome paintjob very well if there is to be no advantage; that implies a view with plenty of room to see your mech. However, this would allow one to see the area directly behind you aswell, since you'd be able to see the back of your mech. Over-the-shoulder is the ONLY way to go, and you won't be able to see very much of your mech, sadly.

The ideas/techniques I have presented in a number of posts would even allow for a limited free-floating camera and still present the same information found in 1PV.

Edited by Mystere, 29 June 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Mr Blonde]

Mystere, on 29 June 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Oops! Too much wine does that to me.

But in any case, my point on the source of many people's opposition to 3PV still stands.




Not at all. I see it as means of helping people better understand the game, not as a blatant advantage.

And who knows, some people may not be too good at mentally integrating multiple sensor readings but may at the same time be awesome at piloting and gunnery.

In fact, a much better designed HUD, with 3D visualization capabilities (e.g. 3D tactical map instead of the 2D one we have now), can also accomplish much of what 3PV is supposed to achieve. But, this thread is not about that, and that is also not what PGI is soliciting ideas for.




The ideas/techniques I have presented in a number of posts would even allow for a limited free-floating camera and still present the same information found in 1PV.

That will be a coding nightmare. Wouldn't separate servers for the two views be much easier? Then you don't have to go on responding to all these anti- 3PV posts, because I at least would be satisfied with that compromise. It's the only way the sim doesn't get infected and ruined by 3PV, and those who prefer that mode will be able to use all the 3PV advantages without anyone to criticize them, because we simply won't care what happens on that server. That will be Bryan Ekman's headache, since he's in charge of it.

[Mystere]

Mr Blonde, on 29 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

That will be a coding nightmare. Wouldn't separate servers for the two views be much easier?

What makes you even think MWO will have separate code bases for 1PV and 3PV implementations of MWO? 1PV and 3PV and just "views", if you know what I mean.

Mr Blonde, on 29 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Then you don't have to go on responding to all these anti- 3PV posts ...

I only respond selectively and only when I feel like it or feel a need to.

Mr Blonde, on 29 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

It's the only way the sim doesn't get infected and ruined by 3PV, and those who prefer that mode will be able to use all the 3PV advantages without anyone to criticize them, because we simply won't care what happens on that server. That will be Bryan Ekman's headache, since he's in charge of it.

I don't want the player base diluted because I believe it doesn't have to be.

[LogicalTightRope]

Mystere, on 29 June 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Not at all. I see it as means of helping people better understand the game, not as a blatant advantage.

And who knows, some people may not be too good at mentally integrating multiple sensor readings but may at the same time be awesome at piloting and gunnery.

It IS an advantage, it stops one from having to mentally integrate multiple sensor readings while trying to be awesome at piloting and gunnery. The fact that the information is 'easier-to-understand,' as you said, proves that. That is an advantage over 1PV because 1PV players have to deal with all of that mentally. If I want to play 1PV on the mixed server, why should I have to deal with a disadvantage like that? Why should I be pushed to play 3PV by such an advantage? Of course, this is not a problem in the dedicated 1PV and 3PV servers.

Mystere, on 29 June 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

The ideas/techniques I have presented in a number of posts would even allow for a limited free-floating camera and still present the same information found in 1PV.

I still don't understand how you can see a large portion of your mech clearly without allowing one to see the area between the camera and the mech. The only solution, I think, is to have a close camera. I have seen one example you gave but it did not convince me. Now, looking a few pages back, I simply cannot find the three links you gave me; the post seems to not be there as I remembered. I looked on your profile to no avail. I hate to bother you too much but would you mind explaining your in-mind methods for our perusal? It's as if the post was deleted.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 28 June 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

The huge difference is that I have been presenting ideas on how things can be done, instead of endlessly panning 3PV ad infinitum. And at the same time, I have been calling for people to wait and see what PGI has to show us.

There's no huge difference there from what I've been doing. I stopped opposing 3PV outright, some time ago. "I have been presenting ideas on how" 3PV doesn't belong in the same matches as 1PV because it is fundamentally different, resulting in a different game. And while you are "calling for people to wait and see what PGI has to show us", you continue to advocate for something different than what they have announced as their intentions... namely having separate queues for 1PV and 3PV.
You don't get to set an example of agitating for something different than what has been announced and also get to expect other people to just shut up and wait. That would be a rather hypocritical expectation.

Quote

And many, if not most, of those reasons I attribute to the severe TRAUMA ( ) MW4 seems to have inflicted on people, not logic.

Yes, we have seen your straw man before. The post you replied to specifically stated, "One does not have to assume it will be the same as it was in MW4 to see that it will still be problematic. 3PV advocates want to be able to see their awesome paint jobs, and watch their mechs in battle, or even make video recordings of it. When one can see that, they are seeing things that are not available to the pilot's view from in the cockpit. It's not the same game, and does not belong in the same match.

Video data presented in 3PV can not be completely limited to what is only seen via 1PV, and still remain an actual 3PV view. You can not see the outside of your mech's sides or rear from in the cockpit. If PGI somehow contrived to hide those outside portions of the mechs in 3PV, nobody would want it. It would not address the stated desires of the 3PV advocates, and it wouldn't help the noobies be able to steer their legs and maneuver around low obstacles."

So, you can attempt to divert away from that, but those points remain.

Quote

And this is where we will always disagree on. To me, doing so is no big deal at all. If presenting the exact same information in an easier-to-understand visual representation will help people better appreciate the game, then I am all for it. It most certainly does not affect me at all, and it should not affect anyone choosing to play in "hardcore" ( ) mode. Just role play it as if the neurohelmet is presenting information in 3D. The game is situated during the 31st Century after all.

That is an illogical assertion. "presenting the exact same information in an easier-to-understand visual representation." An easier to understand visual representation is not the exact same information.

Role play it any way you want on your segregated 3PV servers.

[Mystere]

CyBerkut, on 29 June 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

That is an illogical assertion. "presenting the exact same information in an easier-to-understand visual representation." An easier to understand visual representation is not the exact same information.

I have two words for you: data visualization.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 29 June 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

I have two words for you: data visualization.

Two back atcha: Reduced workload

[Jestun]

Mystere, on 29 June 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

The ideas/techniques I have presented in a number of posts would even allow for a limited free-floating camera and still present the same information found in 1PV.

The only part of my mech which is visible in 1st person is the cockpit and perhaps a tiny bit of the exterior around the cockpit.

If your free-floating cam offers "the same information found in 1PV" then you would not be able to see any more than that. You would not be able to see the rest of your mech.


This is why it has been pointed out repeatedly that 3PV people want the advantage. Because even when they are claiming it will show no more than 1PV they actually mean much more.

[Mr Blonde]

Jestun, on 30 June 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

The only part of my mech which is visible in 1st person is the cockpit and perhaps a tiny bit of the exterior around the cockpit.

If your free-floating cam offers "the same information found in 1PV" then you would not be able to see any more than that. You would not be able to see the rest of your mech.


This is why it has been pointed out repeatedly that 3PV people want the advantage. Because even when they are claiming it will show no more than 1PV they actually mean much more.

you have to read those posts as if they are government types...the true intent is always behind the veil, and probably the opposite of what you think they're saying. You cannot have a mixed server without a 3pv unfair advantage. It cannot and will not happen. anyone who says it will be even is trying to either fool you or themselves, or both.

[Otto Cannon]

I'm fine with splitting 1PV and 3PV. But does the fact that they're doing that open the way for a separate stock mech game, since splitting the playerbase was the objection to it? Perhaps also a solo-only queue while we're at it?

[van Uber]

Prosperity Park, on 28 June 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Do you believe that 3PV will split the Community into 2 distinct and separate queues that will result in a problem with matchmaking?

Yes, because PGI earlier has used this as an argument against adding certain game modes. If PGI fears that one added queue would hurt the game, then surely a split, down every single game mode, would do as well? If PGI does not fear that this, in comparison, enormous split would hurt the game, then they must feel very confident in the projected added players such a mode would bring in to the game. Why not share this overwhelming data that puts their minds at ease in this question?

Now this is what's bothering me: Considering PGIs rather outspoken attitude against 3PV early on, something has happened. There is no proof of this, but usually when designers sway from their earlier convictions like this it smells of orders from high up, marketing departments that has graphs and polls, but no understanding of gameplay. I can hear the arguments from suits and ties that question the logic of selling paintjobs to players who do not see their products in game, but no understanding of the consequences of altering design pillars.

I fear that this is a move to please the market people and that PGI is trying to do their utmost to not hurt the experience, but I don't see that happen.

[LogicalTightRope]

Well, Mystere, I don't buy that you have any magic solution or free-floating camera idea that will produce no advantage because you did not explain it (or at least, try as I might, I could not find any post explaining it) and you did not elaborate any meaningful amount. I still have absolutely no idea what method you are referring to, so I have to assume there is none until proven otherwise. Third person done in a way that would allow one to see a significant amount of the exterior of their mech will, invariably, allow at least a small amount of vision of areas not seen by 1st person. No matter the FOV. There is no magic, free-camera solution. So, again, I ask you: Elaborate.

[Pando]

Kraven Kor, on 25 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

THIS POST EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHY WE HATE 3PV.

BECAUSE IT RUINED MW:4 MULTIPLAYER, WHOLLY, FOR MANY OF US.

THIS IS WHY WE RAGE

You're playing a different game now. Chill out. 3pV is just as much a part of the mechwarrior complete experience as 1pv is.