114 replies to this topic

[AlmightyAeng]

PGI announced their intention MONTHS ago that they were doing this because they want to potentially increase their playerbase.

They accompanied it with the sidenote of it being OPTIONAL. Check a box, and suddenly 3PV players disappear from your match search queue.

So, other than potentially screwing up matchmaking (because it's so perfect already) what's the big deal?

If you don't want to, you'll never have to play in 3PV or play against people using it.

[Hammertrial]

[Suko]

Your argument uses logic and reasoning. G-T-F-O!

Edited by ShadowVFX, 06 June 2013 - 10:51 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Hammertrial, on 06 June 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

is that Buttered?

[w0rm]

This going to be epic

[IceSerpent]

Ghost Badger, on 06 June 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

They accompanied it with the sidenote of it being OPTIONAL. Check a box, and suddenly 3PV players disappear from your match search queue.

Given that PGI is very fond of pulling "it was our position at the time" stunts, what do you think are the chances of that statement above actually being true?

[Hammertrial]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 June 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

is that Buttered?

Only slightly. Don't want to gain 5 tons and become a medium.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

My biggest issue is it splinters the game if we have 3PV and 1PV separately.

And IF 3PV gives an advantage, you will see people drift towards it just like Poptarts, and PPC stalkers.

And if 3PV becomes the dominant version of this game, it will probably kill it in the long run. Because all those people who voted against it are the people who spend money regularly and are hardcore battletech players.

It wasn't like 50/50, it was like 90% of the player base on the forums not wanting it.

[Livewyr]

IceSerpent, on 06 June 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Given that PGI is very fond of pulling "it was our position at the time" stunts, what do you think are the chances of that statement above actually being true?

Bingo.

Likely scenario:
"We tried split queues for players wanting to play with 3PV and players that don't and found that the wait times for both queues were unacceptable, we've decided to combine the queues in order to make the wait times shorter."

[AlmightyAeng]

The bowl of popcorn next to me aside...

It isn't trolling if the question makes sense, is it?

I can't see PGI NOT making it optional. They know it's a huge hot-button issue with their community.

Making it optional will mean the 1PV players will swallow it without leaving. Forcing it on 1PV players will likely negate any new membership they bring in from the 3PV crowd, and membership means money. And we know how PGI loves money.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Livewyr, on 06 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Bingo.

Likely scenario:
"We tried split queues for players wanting to play with 3PV and players that don't and found that the wait times for both queues were unacceptable, we've decided to combine the queues in order to make the wait times shorter."

This really scares me.

[FupDup]

Something I'm going to comment on is how 3PV worked in MW3 and MW4. In those games, using first person gave you an utterly ridiculous level of cockpit shake when hit. MW3 had it particularly bad, as your whole torso could pitch something like 40 degrees upwards and to the side when hit with ballistics. MW4 was pretty annoying if you got hit by pulse lasers, Ultra/Rotary Autocannons, or MekTek's Rocket Launchers (RL's made aim nearly impossible due to massive effect and very fast RoF).

Even without shaking factored in, the cockpits in those earlier games were fugly. MW4 is especially guilty. I could vomit on a blank canvas and it would end up more attractive looking than those cockpits.

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

MWO, however, is the opposite in those cases. Cockpit shake is kept at very sane levels. The cockpit interiors and beautifully designed with a great level of attention to detail (such as the Blackjack's exposed wires). In those previous games, staying in the cockpit was an ugly and dizzying experience (when shot at by heavy weapons), and thus taking the camera out of the cockpit in MW3 and MW4 was almost a necessity (at least to a spoiled SOB like me). MWO, conversely, was built from the ground up to make the cockpit an enjoyable and amazing place to be sitting in.

MWO also has cockpit items for MC that wouldn't have much of a use to 3PV players...

Edited by FupDup, 06 June 2013 - 11:14 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ghost Badger, on 06 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

And we know how PGI loves money.

Bryan likes to be right more than he loves money.

He will force it instead of changing his approach.

[NRP]

As long as I am not forced to use it, or forced to play against others who use it, I simply do not care. At all.

[Loc Nar]

Quote

Likely scenario:
"We tried split queues for players wanting to play with 3PV and players that don't and found that the wait times for both queues were unacceptable, we've decided to combine the queues in order to make the wait times shorter."

Sorry, but twitter only supports 140 characters. Here's a handy guide with tips on shortening a message.

[Lord Jay]

Optional 3PV is not compatible with Community Warfare.

How do you reconcile a team that plays in 3PV attacking a planet being defended by a team that only plays in 1PV?

[zraven7]

Alright, I'll assume this is NOT a troll question.

The big issue right now is that this came up early on in game development, and they said, repeatedly, that they would absolutely not be implementing 3rd person viewpoint at that time. They said that they felt that it broke the immersion and illusion of being the pilot.

A lot of the people who tossed in cash for founders packages did so knowing this had been said, so they kinda feel lied to. Thing is, we don't know why 3rd person is being pushed like it is, and we may never. The devs might be against it, but are getting pushed by their bosses. Maybe player-base numbers are below a certain thresh hold, and they are grasping at straws. there could be any number of reasons, and we just don't know.

Point is, a lot of founders were told one thing, then given another. It upsets people.

The other thing is, as stated above, the fear that it could seriously fracture the community, or that 3rd person users wouldn't be split from first person, giving them an unfair advantage. And yes, it was stated that they would always be split, but some people feel like they were already lied to once.

It's a little heated right now, is what I'm saying.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Lord Jay, on 06 June 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Optional 3PV is not compatible with Community Warfare.

How do you reconcile a team that plays in 3PV attacking a planet being defended by a team that only plays in 1PV?

Another good point.

Probably the biggest.

Especially since I think every ATD since they announced working on 3PV I think someone has tried to ask how they are going to handle this without a real answer.

[IceSerpent]

Ghost Badger, on 06 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I can't see PGI NOT making it optional. They know it's a huge hot-button issue with their community.

They also knew that coolant flush was a hot issue with the community, they also knew that weapon balance was a hot issue with the community, they also knew that proper matchmaker was a hot issue with the community...see the pattern?

[zraven7]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 June 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Another good point.

Probably the biggest.

Especially since I think every ATD since they announced working on 3PV I think someone has tried to ask how they are going to handle this without a real answer.

Alternate universe theory. See, there is this universe, and there is the 3rdPV universe. In that universe, humans eyes work on a somewhat odd quantum-tachyon principal, which places the point of human vision a good distance behind and above the person in question.

It's a weird place. Lots of clear walls, and TVs have to be 10ft across, and mounted on the roof.

Edited by zraven7, 06 June 2013 - 11:48 AM.