114 replies to this topic

[armyof1]

Anyone who thinks that the separate queues won't be made into one as soon as they'll notice the 3pv queue has too few players are just kidding themselves.

[Hammertrial]

zraven7, on 06 June 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Ok, I know I should go dig up and link the proof, but I just really don't feel like digging through the dev releases. I'm sorry.

I can't remember who, but someone something to the effect of "being the pilot is a pillar of the game, and a 3rd person viewpoint would break that on every level."

If someone has this queued up, would you please link?

I'll give you a hint, that quote you just said about being a pillar of the game, my quote is the following two sentences, which is pretty much the most baffling part of the whole ordeal. It's not like my quote is buried somewhere else. ANYONE who mentions the "pillar" comment has to be WILLFULLY ignoring THE REST OF THE POST in order to argue a "promise" being broken.

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__587016

Edited by Hammertrial, 06 June 2013 - 12:35 PM.

[zraven7]

Hammertrial, on 06 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'll give you a hint, that quote you just said about being a pillar of the game, my quote is the following two sentences.

...alright, flush beats straight. You win. :-P

Edited by zraven7, 06 June 2013 - 12:33 PM.

[Kaldor]

I really dont care to be honest. As long as you cannot use 3PV to look "around" or "over" things, I I dont care. They should exactly the same view as the 1PV players. Is this possible, probably not. But what the hell, I can always hope right?

And yeah, Im an avid anti 3PV player when it can be exploited.

Edited by Kaldor, 06 June 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[zraven7]

Kaldor, on 06 June 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

I really dont care to be honest. As long as you cannot use 3PV to look "around" or "over" things, I I dont care. They should exactly the same view as the 1PV players. Is this possible, probably not. But what the hell, I can always hope right?

And yeah, Im an avid anti 3PV player when it can be exploited.

Only way this could be possible is to give 3pv players a cone of vision, like a flashlight in a pitch-black room. This would look extremely silly, and I can't imagine it would be great on the graphics engine.

[Hammertrial]

zraven7, on 06 June 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

...alright, flush beats straight. You win. :-P

Congrats on being the first person to admit that =P. I updated the post with the actual link.

zraven7, on 06 June 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Only way this could be possible is to give 3pv players a cone of vision, like a flashlight in a pitch-black room. This would look extremely silly, and I can't imagine it would be great on the graphics engine.

I don't know. They mentioned reduced HUD and fixed camera locations, so while you might be able to get more information for the direct surroundings around your mech, it wouldn't allow for over the hill spotting like an adjustable camera would.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the implementation (I expect massive bugs from it on release), but I don't think it'll be too gamebreaking.


Also, cryengine does scopes, so wouldn't the flashlight analogy just work like that?

Edited by Hammertrial, 06 June 2013 - 12:42 PM.

[Kaldor]

zraven7, on 06 June 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Only way this could be possible is to give 3pv players a cone of vision, like a flashlight in a pitch-black room. This would look extremely silly, and I can't imagine it would be great on the graphics engine.

Yep, pretty tough to pull off but Im betting there are a few people around here that can tell us if the CryEngine can handle it.

[Lord Jay]

Kaldor, on 06 June 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

As long as you cannot use 3PV to look "around" or "over" things, I dont care. They should exactly the same view as the 1PV players.

This is not possible or at least not practical.

There are several approaches to implementing this idea however they all would look extremely silly. Involving cones of vision, targets just popping into view and free floating disembodied mech parts.

Also I suspect there would be increased load on the servers as they would need to calculate what each 3PV person could see as a 1PV at every instant and then tell the client to render only that portion. Remember this would need to be server side authoritative to minimize exploits.

Additionally The whole idea of limiting 3PV to only what you can see in 1PV is sort of oxymoronic. In 1PV you cannot see your own mech. If you limit 3PV so that you cannot see your own mech is it even 3PV anymore?

[jakucha]

As far as I know they've only confirmed 3pv for training grounds, and not in regular games.

[AlmightyAeng]

Neverfar, on 06 June 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

So you use a tired boring meme to title your thread.

And you use a tired boring non-argument to try to justify your opinion. "If u dont like X don't do X". When in the history of the internet has that ever been useful non-condescending advice? It's a hurf-blurf statement with zero value.

To justify my opinion? I posed a question asking why people were so concerned in other forum postings I've seen, because as far as I could tell, adding in 3PV wouldn't effect the game at all unless you chose to use it. Someone brought up reconciling 1PV and 3PV for CW, which I hadn't considered.

Would you care to add something constructive to the conversation?

Edited by Ghost Badger, 06 June 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[Shakespeare]

It would also affect the aiming dynamic in favor of 3pv vs 1pv. The further back the camera is, the more visual information while shooting is available. In mw4, it also made it easier to keep crosshairs on target, because the camera was pivoting around the much, instead of an eyepoint like in 1pv. Basically, when two options are available, and one of them is demonstrably easier, that will become the more competitive option. Having both modes available allows players to 'opt out' of dealing with the complexities of a cockpit view, Including :Struts, cockpit shake, view obstructions (especially things like missile smoke, or impact across cockpit), as well as very likely altering the aim sensitivity relative to the player and available field of view.

Those of us against the idea aren't out to ruin people's fun, we're against it because being in the cockpit has become part of the challenge, including changes to balance over time, and adding an option to ignore cockpit view is the same as removing it, for the purposes of competition: No team is going to 'gimp' themselves, make the game harder for themselves, by staying in cockpit view if they don't have to.

Hence, the concession to 'never have to play against 3pv if you don't want to', but there's little evidence to suggest that the queue could tolerate another split in userbase. And, of course. There's CW to consider. Is this really a value worth managing, trying to find a middle ground where both types of views can be played under certain conditions but not others? Is the goal of mwo to include more players by adding 3rd person, or to teach players who want to learn how to play in an environment where the cockpit is part of the game?

There are plenty of other games where the limited view is part of the challenge. I just don't understand why its unreasonable to play a game that requires you to stay in 1pv, with all the challenge that comes with it.

(edited for readability)

Edited by Shakespeare, 06 June 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[skullman86]

armyof1, on 06 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks that the separate queues won't be made into one as soon as they'll notice the 3pv queue has too few players are just kidding themselves.

Sadly, I have a feeling it's going to be the other way around (regardless what the forum majority stance is/was). 3PV is going to make the game more accessible to lower skill players as well as people who have no interest in "simulator" style combat. New players are going to flock to 3PV mode along with the existing players that don't have a preference and the 1PV bracket is going to be the low pop. group that gets assimilated because of queue times.

Edited by skullman86, 06 June 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[armyof1]

skullman86, on 06 June 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Sadly, I have a feeling it's going to be the other way around (regardless what the forum majority stance is/was). 3PV is going to make the game more accessible to lower skill players as well as people who have no interest in "simulator" style combat. New players are going to flock to 3PV mode along with the exiting players that don't have a preference and the 1PV bracket is going to be the low pop. group that gets assimilated because of queue times.

I really don't think MWO is going to translate well into a 3pv for casual gamers because of the whole pace of the game is rather slow for an FPS. It's mostly for enthusiasts that really enjoy the gameplay where doing quite a bit of research on how to build good mechs and look up data on mechs to see when and where you should fire to destroy the enemy mech fastest is a big part of the game. There are just so many better casual games out there I think it's clearly the wrong thing to focus on, MWO is more of a niche FPS and that's really the selling point that it's a bit different. By forcibly trying make it more like other games out there will just ruin what was special about the game in the first place.

[Waking One]

armyof1, on 06 June 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

I really don't think MWO is going to translate well into a 3pv for casual gamers because of the whole pace of the game is rather slow for an FPS. It's mostly for enthusiasts that really enjoy the gameplay where doing quite a bit of research on how to build good mechs and look up data on mechs to see when and where you should fire to destroy the enemy mech fastest is a big part of the game. There are just so many better casual games out there I think it's clearly the wrong thing to focus on, MWO is more of a niche FPS and that's really the selling point that it's a bit different. By forcibly trying make it more like other games out there will just ruin what was special about the game in the first place.

Whenever i read a post like that i can't help but translate it to: "it's my special game and i want it to be exactly the way i want it, what are these other people thinking. i don't want them to enjoy it too, i won't have any compromise in MY game!"

Edited by Waking One, 06 June 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[armyof1]

Waking One, on 06 June 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Whenever i read a post like that i can't help but translate it to: "it's my special game and i want it to be exactly the way i want it, what are these other people thinking. i don't want them to enjoy it too, i won't have any compromise in MY game!"

I guess you need to work on your reading comprehension then.

[King Arthur IV]

as long as it stays separate im cool. i want the game to be successful, so i kind of want them to take players from star conflict, world of tanks, war thunder etc. and bring them all here. if that doesnt cut it for you, well i want to keep the world safe. people that cant drive in frist person shouldnt be driving at all, know-what-im-sayn?
this is one way to keep those people in doors.

Edited by King Arthur IV, 06 June 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Because with 3PV you can view above obstacles and around corners while behind cover.

Because cockpit items wont ever be bought again and thus kill a part of the economy.

Because it will split the already REALLY SMALL community in half.

Because seeing that they will force FPS to play with 3PV and thats unacceptable for me.

Because its a ******* bad idea.

[El Bandito]

Is there a word opposite of immersion?

Cause that's what 3rd person is to MWO.

I funded a mech sim, not Gears of War.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 June 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 06 June 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Is there a word opposite of immersion?

Cause that's what 3rd person is.

Disinterment.

http://dictionary.re...se/disinterment (antonym of immersion)

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 06 June 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Disinterment. http://dictionary.re...se/disinterment (antonym of immersion)

Nope. Immersion in this case talks about deep mental involvement, not burying someone.

Distraction is closer to being an antonym.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 June 2013 - 06:00 PM.