659 replies to this topic

[Stormwolf]

Quote

Viper69 : If we are going to be able to choose to play against people using 3PV or not to, how are you going to address the then fractured and smaller groups that then have to wait in queue for a match that meets their perimeters?
A: There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. 3PV will be going onto test servers in the next 60 days and we’ll see how it goes from there.

FPV as hardcore? Seriously? Why not simply rename them Mechassault and Mechwarrior respectively?

Quote

Vegalas: Will there ever be a game mode featuring repair bays?
A: Maybe. We’re looking at several ways to do respawns.

Please don't.

Quote

Will9761: Do you have plans to modify base objects into something more worthwhile of capturing like hangars, prisons, factories, cargo containers, power generators, etc?
A: With a different mode, yes.

This atleast sounds somewhat hopeful.

[Bagheera]

Some good stuff in there.

Even if they do have to mix views in CW, it won't matter. The reason they are saying the 3PV camera doesn't confer an advantage is because the players that will use it are already playing with enough of a handicap (golf usage) that the benefit is more than nullified.

3PV won't save them, they will still have to l2p. Put it in, go ahead, in fact I dare you to mix the views in CW. The noobs you draw by having 3pv won't stick around as they will still be little more than StompyRobotSacrifices to the GodsOfTeamWorkAndCommunication.

-- note to self, when I do actually have time to play again, I should pug less, lol --

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Kmieciu: PGI did a great job balancing LRMs in the recent patches. Gradual increase in damage (0.7->0.9->1.1) is the right way to balance things. How about applying the same rule to balancing SRMs, LBX and Machine guns? Maybe a 20% boost in DPS in the next patch?
A: Paul has outlined a series of incoming changes to SRMs. Check out the Command Chair for the latest weapon tuning information.

<<Insert FALSE meme here>>

Weaselball, on 14 June 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Paul has not mentioned Short Range Missiles at all in that post, Brian. He talked about STREAKS though, which are not the same, and are not what the question was referring to.

This. Command chair addresses streaks, which is all well and good, but does nothing for standard SRMs. Which, by the way, are crap. No one wants the broken OP crap we had before, but please either give them the gentle tuning till fix, or change them into something else (no splash, stream instead of shotgun, whatever) and start over.

Edited by Bagheera, 16 June 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[hammerreborn]

Stormwolf, on 16 June 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

FPV as hardcore? Seriously? Why not simply rename them Mechassault and Mechwarrior respectively?

Because mechwarrior has never had 3rd person view before amiright?

Quote

Please don't.

You'll get over it.

[DirePhoenix]

3PV

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Viper69 : If we are going to be able to choose to play against people using 3PV or not to, how are you going to address the then fractured and smaller groups that then have to wait in queue for a match that meets their perimeters?
A: There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. 3PV will be going onto test servers in the next 60 days and we’ll see how it goes from there.

Wait. So they acknowledge that they're splitting the playerbase AND that most people are going to be using the third-person mode, leaving the first-person only mode as a deserted wasteland for "those wanting a challenge"?!? How is that supposed to be a positive change?

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

aniviron: You've stated in the past that you don't want to give players using third person view a competitive advantage by being able to see around corners, behind them, or in their far periphery. Do you have any concrete plans for how to do this? It seems like this will be an unavoidable side effect of having the camera located behind the mech, and it is the main reason that almost the entire forum is against having it in the game. You could assuage a lot of upset on the forums if you detailed how you are going to do this.
A: Once players get their hands on 3PV, I think most people will be pleasantly surprised how little the camera impacts gameplay. Early tests are showing that there is not much of an advantage. That being said, until we get this viewmode in the hands of 1000s of players, we’re not going to see how it fully gets used.

I've been on both sides of the 3PV debate. On the one hand, I want to be able to take screenshots/video of my 'mech (in action if possible), on the other hand, I don't want to actually play from a third-person view (or be stuck in a battle with people making use of the inherent advantages just b/c I want to get some screenshots).

Can't there be a way to record the movements/actions during a match, and then replay that back after the match, like in HALO 3's multiplayer, where you can move the camera freely, take screenshots, and make video/machinima after the battle, where it doesn't effect the actual gameplay? (never got around to picking up HALO 4, not sure if they still have that feature).

Star Trek Online even has a "demorecord" feature where you can record a length of gameplay, and play it back later with a free-moving camera (not attached to your character) so you can re-watch certain moments from a different perspective or get screencaps from an angle that wouldn't normally be available to you in-game.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Warge: Are any plans to encourage future 3PV players to use 1PV? Maybe slight XP or/and CB boost, that sort of things...
A: Probably not, however we’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use if you are a true sim-head.

???
They said above that Merc Corps would be "Hardcore Mode" only, and House Units would be "Softcore/Hardcore". If players want to play as a Merc Corps, apparently they need to be "Hardcore", so I guess playing with friends/guildies is the "encouragement" to play "Hardcore"


UI 2.0

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Azshal: The Atlas D-DC has 3 missile hardpoints in the LT, but each hardpoint seems to have a different number of tubes. In UI2.0, will there be the ability to choose exactly which hardpoint an LRM/SRM goes into, and the abilty to see how many tubes are in each hardpoint?
A: Right now there a no plans to allow players to pick which hardpoint items are equipped to.

I would like to see mechs with multiple hardpoints in the same location (For example: YLW's triple ballistic arm, HBK's triple ballistic shoulder, SDR-5D's double energy arm, etc) be modified to actually show multiple weapons when more than one is mounted in that location instead of having all the weapons being crammed into the same barrel.


Community Warfare/Clans

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

irony1999: Currently it seems that CW Phase 1 is primarily delivering features for the "clan" (Merc corp) experience, from the current reveals. Will there be any enhancements for Faction members, or will that be delivered in Phase 2? Can you discuss these faction member enhancements?
A: Phase 1 will be the meta game (levels, ranks, loyalty points etc). Phase 2 will encompass association (being a part of a faction, whether a merc unit or house).

What purpose do loyalty points serve if we have to wait for another phase to be part of a faction? Should "Lone Wolves" or people planning to be in Merc Corps select a faction now so they have some "loyalty points" to play with whenever Phase 2 starts (so they can grab what they can with whatever they earned in Phase 1 and then drop that faction to join their Merc Corps whenever it has some actual functionality)?

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Trufast: I was wondering how merc corp sizes would matter in community warfare. I understand that you guys can't reveal too much about that stuff yet, but I was wondering if a merc corp of say 20 members would be at a disadvantage compared to the 2-300 member corps. Is there a minimum requirement to be able to function as a merc corp? (more than twelve active members that is)
A: The minimum requirement will be 12. We don’t want size to play a major role in the CW meta game. Zerging the universe with masses is not really what we are trying to achieve. More details will follow when we outline CW to the public.

Hrm... I guess I need to start recruiting. I had wanted to start a Merc Corps whenever being in a Merc Corps actually got some meaning, but I've only got 6 people interested so far. If we have to pick factions (and I'm not sure why anyone would pick being a lone wolf over a faction unless they're really not interested in the game as anything more than a "robot shoot-em-up"), we're split between FedSuns, Lyran Commonwealth, Free Rasalhague, and I think we've got a Drac too, so being a Merc Corps was going to be the way we could all play together.

I guess I'm also concerned that it sounds like Merc play means that you have to have at least 12 players online at the same time to play together in a way that matters, or has any impact at all toward CW. What happens if you have less than 12 players online? Does that mean you just play as a lone wolf? Can you switch back to a faction and gain some loyalty points until the rest of your team comes online? What if your merc unit has a company (12 players) already engaged in a battle and you have an odd amount of players left over? Do you just sit and wait for an opening to become available?

I was thinking that the way CW (for Mercs anyway) was going to work was this:

• You select a contract.
  
  • This will determine your pay and "reputation/loyalty points" for the faction that your fighting for during the next match.
    
  • This also selects which planet your victory/loss effects on the Inner Sphere map.
• You drop into a match.
  
  • The matches work pretty much like they do now. If you're in a group, you drop with a group and the rest of the players on your team fill in with:
    
    • Mercs fighting under contracts with the same House
      
    • Faction players matching the contract holder's House
      
    • Lone Wolves
  • Meanwhile the opposing team fills in with:
    
    • Mercs allied with the House that you're fighting against
      
    • Faction players allied with the House that you're fighting against
      
    • Lone Wolves

This way, each player is fighting for the world they selected the contract for, they don't need a full company of players online to play as a Merc Corps, and Merc Corps as a whole can work for several employers if they want (although reputation progress would go a lot faster if they concentrate on one faction at a time). Also, they wouldn't need to separate out Merc and Faction players, which would increase the pool of available players and cut down on wait times for matches). Yes, this means that not everyone on the same map is fighting for the same world, but unless PGI makes over 2000 maps to represent a portion of each inhabited planet, each map is already going to represent a tiny area on one of hundreds of planets anyway.


`Mech's and Mechbay

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

MrTarget: Why ditch the Orion from June's update?
A: We wanted to offer a mech with a slightly different meta game.

Just a quick question: What does "meta" game mean for people? For me, the "meta game" has always been "Community Warfare", or the part of the game that is not the actual "shooting people in the face" game. The game that happens around the actual game.

I keep seeing "meta game" being used in reference to what I observe as "Flavor of the Week/Patch" build/'mech discussions or arguing about weapon stats... which I don't consider game-like or even part of the game at all.

(...more commentary to be continued)

Edited by DirePhoenix, 16 June 2013 - 12:35 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

Graphics:

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Banditman: In the current build, when you set your advanced options to low, you gain a significant tactical advantage over those who set them to maximum, outside of the FPS increase at lower settings. To wit: with lower settings, you can see opposing mechs at much greater distances due to the way your CryEngine implementation chooses to cull distant assets.
This seems completely contrary to common sense. It seems to me that greater image fidelity should yield a tactical advantage if anything does. As it stands now, you are encouraging your most competitive players to lower their image fidelity in order to maintain equal footing with their opponents.
What does PGI intend to do to address this issue?
A: I’ll have to ask Matt to do a write up.

I don't think the issue is the "most competitive players to lower their image fidelity in order to maintain equal footing with their opponents". I think the most competitive players are lowering their image fidelity in order to gain an advantage over their opponents. Players that are running lower-spec machines at lower graphics settings don't have an advantage over players with high-end machines for the simple reason that their machines themselves are not "competitive". It won't matter how easily someone can see the 'mech over the hill poking their gun barrels through the grass if their machine is still only putting out 30 fps. "Competitive" players are using "competitive" machines. They may be capable of higher graphic fidelity, but they know they can get away with lowering it to squeeze out some extra framerate. Their concern is performance, not graphics, and if they could squeeze out a humanly imperceptible but numerically superior performance boost by lowering down to 8-bit graphics, they would.


Gameplay/Game modes/Meta

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Hammerfinn: Have you thought about individualizing the "Pilot efficiencies" for each mech? IE: having a different bonus for mechs without arm-mounted weapons? If so, what were your ideas, with no pressure on actualization?
A: The core mech

IMO the pilot skill system could use a major overhaul from the current "fill the bucket" system. I have ideas but they may take a little time to hammer out. (A paid telecommuting job offer might speed up the process )

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

DocBach: Now that firing while jumping incurs a randomized accuracy penalty, is there any idea to incur penalties for accuracy while moving at a full run to simulate a running 'Mech being an unstable firing platform?
A: It’s not on the table right now.

This should be on the table, as well as the missing effects for actuator/engine/gyro/cockpit/life support/sensor critical hits.

If the current amount of "JJ shake" could be used to represent a "+3 to-hit", running at full speed could be 2/3 of that, moving at cruising/walking speed (0.75 Max Speed) could be 1/3 of JJ shake, and stationary 'mechs should have pinpoint accuracy (if they're not suffering something else that would make things harder to hit, such as high heat)

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Vegalas: Will there ever be a game mode featuring repair bays?
A: Maybe. We’re looking at several ways to do respawns.

OH COME ON!!! What's next?!? Power-ups that we can walk across to get a "instant ammo reload"? How about a Super Mario Invlunerability Star? The only way respawns would've been acceptable is the "Dropship mode" where you cycle through a predetermined set of 'mechs.


Cockpit, HUD & Customizations

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

SUBZERO8K: Are you guys considering changing patterns/skins to be a universal system like the paint colors, rather than on a per Mech basis?
A: No.

Having to buy patterns on a per Mech basis is annoying. I would be more inclined to buy patterns, even for a higher price, if I could buy them for all 'mechs at once.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

*Bonus: Follow up from ATD-39

Sentinel373: What i meant was:
When we first spot an enemy mech it is given a letter designation, Alpha Bravo, Charlie etc. most of us that play with friends via teamspeak or other voice chat programs never look at the players name during the match. we refer to the enemy mech as Alpha Cataphract or Bravo Cicada. and when an enemy player gets killed we often call out which letter is destroyed but sometimes this gets confusing when multiple mechs die right after the other and we dont know which mechs had gotten killed. Can we see this designation next to the player name when he/she gets killed in the kill message. That way at the end of the match we'll know who is still standing and its easier to remember what mech he/she is in.
A: Ah! Ok, I’ll ask the team and see what they think. Thanks for the clarification.

I had a plan to make a "How to revamp the Battlegrid" thread a while back, but then they implemented "Battlegrid 2.0" with the lance functionality which solved several of the major issues the original Battlegrid had, so I backed off from it. However, this is still something I'd like to see, so I'll spill a little bit of it here:

• When getting ready to drop (as in the UI 2.0 lobby), there is a randomly generated (preferrably one-word) operation name that will be essentially the player's "team name" for the match. This can be changed by the team leader before the drop.
  
• There is a "short designation" for each player on the team in the form of <lance number> - <unit number>. So the first unit in Lance One would be "1-1", the fourth unit in Lance Three would be "3-4". (If the operation name is "Metal", units could be referred to as "Metal 1-1")
  
• These names only persist for the match, and can change by rearranging the order in which players are organized in the drop. (IE moving a player from Lance 2 to Lance 3 will change the first digit, etc.)
  
• On the battlegrid, the numbers take far less space than full names, so you can display "1-1", "2-4", "3-2" on the grid map to identify players without it being nearly disruptive as "xXxLordFunckenWagn4LLdElUxExXx". Additionally, you can still display the players full names (with unit designation/'mech/status) in the pull-out menu on the left.

Miscenalleous (kek spellczech)

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Forum/Website/Sales, Events and Tournaments:
ThePieMaker: I heard that either Garth or Bryan said they wanted to make MWO into a E-sport.
Has any progress been made on this? Do they still want to make it a E-sport?
What's the news concerning this?
A: It’s an ongoing progression. We have to get some core feature out before turning to an e-sport concept.

E-Sport would be ideal for something like a Solaris VII Arena setting. However I really DO. NOT. WANT. E-sport affecting Community Warfare.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

MrDoggss: Would there be a possibility of offering premium time in an play-time based form? A lot of players would be more willing to purchase MC/Premium time knowing that it won't just evaporate when we're not able to play. Instead of 3 days, maybe 12 hours?
A: We do not have any plans to make tweaks yet. The implementation is widely accepted and PT sales are incredibly strong. Before changing time slices, we plan to add more benefits as the game evolves.

I know that the "constantly ticking down as soon as you activate it" is the main reason I still have not purchased Premium TIme or even used any of my Premium Time that came with my Founder's package. Unless I can actually manage to plan on spending 3 days (72 hours) in-game straight I see even the 3-day purchase as a waste of money. Any time I have bought and not actively using is money being wasted. This is why I don't pay subs for video games anymore. If I paid for hours and there was a timer that counted down as long as I was actively using those hours (not while I was sleeping, working, or otherwise away from the game), that would be of more value to me.

[Lonestar1771]

Scarcer, on 16 June 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Where have I used hyperbole?

All you're doing is taking a word or two and turning it back on me without anything tangible.

You still lack reading comprehension; stop skimming through the posts.

Again, I'm not denying what they have done; but I'm scrutinizing you for the conclusions you draw from it.
I've made my point and you've failed to understand the big picture; so figure it out for yourself. I'm broadly addressing the approach thought process for silly exaggerations so you can see yourself.

Here are some things I shouldn't even have to specifically address at this point:

Underlined words are fact, Underlined Italic words are semi-true, Bold Words are hyperbole/opinion.



Really? I'm just going to skip this one; it's entirely an emotional response to drive opinion.



They reversed on issues; **** happens, I'm not mad, they fullfilled on their promise to keep the game free to play, and not pay to win. Though I personally think coolant could of been implemented better, 'coolant shots?'

Who knows when clans will come out; they have 6 months to do that, and even then we should still be 2-3 months into community warfare according to current information we have. **** gets delayed, it happens; do you have any experience programming? A good portion of people would prefer that the content is done right, rather than release broken content (because the community called for it); than receive further complaints from the same amount of people saying 'PGI sucks, fix this now.'

Pilot trees are personal opinion. Personally I could of gone without the entire system; none of it is realistic; so point is moot.



More personal opinion. How ever they do have a lot of balancing to do; but I think it fails to support the outlandish arguments you are making.

A few disappointments and you're angry now We Get It.

PGI's record speaks for itself. If it has taken this long to balance IS weapons and gear, how do you expect them to design, implement and balance Clan mechs, weapons and gear in 90 days or less after release? In my experience, companies who are known for mediocrity typically stay the same or get worse, and PGI hasn't shown anything to buck that trend.

Edited by Lonestar1771, 16 June 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[Stormwolf]

hammerreborn, on 16 June 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Because mechwarrior has never had 3rd person view before amiright?

Now would be the best time to ditch 3rd person.

Quote

You'll get over it.

I quit playing some time ago, this rubbish will only prevent me from returning.

[CHH Badkarma]

Makes me wonder if 3pv is testing the waters for/gearing up for a console release.

[irony1999]

Wieland, on 15 June 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Interesting, Phase 1 will introduce stuff that is useless until Phase 2 is introduced.

I think he has it reversed. They've been saying until now that association will come first, then the rewards. Doesn't make much sense otherwise, and I think he pretty much just confirmed what I thought (Phase 1 is for the merc corps, Phase 2 will give something for faction players to do).

[Terran123rd]

Jason Radick, on 16 June 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Makes me wonder if 3pv is testing the waters for/gearing up for a console release.

I would shove money down PGI's collective throat if that were the case. Would even give me a reason to renew my xbox live. MWO, so far the only f2p game I can like, let alone tolerate, on a platform where I don't have to worry about things like specs? Please, thanks, goodbye.

[Scarcer]

Lonestar1771, on 16 June 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

PGI's record speaks for itself. If it has taken this long to balance IS weapons and gear, how do you expect them to design, implement and balance Clan mechs, weapons and gear in 90 days or less after release? In my experience, companies who are known for mediocrity typically stay the same or get worse, and PGI hasn't shown anything to buck that trend.

Well finally I was able to get a bare-bone response out of you.

I don't see how the lack of balance is a measure of their success; but I'm willing to watch and wait for launch to see what happens. Can you name any successful ongoing games with 1-3 million regularly active players that isn't constantly making balance changes?

They have fixed some things like LRM flight path's;
PPC Heat management has been handled arguably poor;
HSR has fixed the majority of issues with ballistic/low exposure weapons.
In the passed two months there were a lot of complaints about PGI introducing content before fixing existing issues; and now they are doing that to some extent.

And YES; PGI is a mediocre company, poorly managed, and started this project off with a lot of issues. So we agree on that. But I have faith that this project is giving their team the experience to do better and I believe I am seeing that happen in real time.

Criticize & scrutinize them, it helps people see their flaws; but some comments just take things too far and are deconstructive.

I personally would like them to hire the team from MW:LL, their 'mech models were a little too sci-fi and boring, but they were a lot better at creating a battlefield experience and displayed superb development skills and PGI could learn from that; then it would be fair for PGI to copy the MW:LL experience and make it even better. (Though I have yet to see any evidence that they have actually hired anyone yet.)

EDIT: Looks like Alex worked on MW:LL before getting hired for MWO

Edited by Scarcer, 16 June 2013 - 05:17 PM.

[White Bear 84]

I really wish i asked about hit detection for low ping players.. ..really gone to ground since the last patch. Only last night i shot an atlas directly in the torso as it was moving and got the graphics and everything, but for some reason i only hit its arm!

[Lord Rip]

DeathofSelf, on 15 June 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

L.O. F-ing L.... If I didn't laugh I'd cry.


AHAHAHAHA! Holy crap

"Vegalas: Will there ever be a game mode featuring repair bays?
A: Maybe. We’re looking at several ways to do respawns."

Any of you closed beta people remember saying this would NEVER happen either?

Yep.

[hammerreborn]

Stormwolf, on 16 June 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Now would be the best time to ditch 3rd person.

Ya, who wants to have a successful game like mechwarriors 2-4.

Quote

I quit playing some time ago, this rubbish will only prevent me from returning.

Oh, so who gives a damn about your opinion.

I'm never coming back PGI, why won't you cater to me!!!!

White Bear 84, on 16 June 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

I really wish i asked about hit detection for low ping players.. ..really gone to ground since the last patch. Only last night i shot an atlas directly in the torso as it was moving and got the graphics and everything, but for some reason i only hit its arm!

Uh, maybe someone can be more helpful with an actual link/quote, but a developer posted a good writeup about issues with lost packets screwing with hit detection (basically if your ping varies wildly even hsr can't keep up). It's being worked on in the upcoming patch as far as I'm aware

Edited by hammerreborn, 16 June 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

hammerreborn, on 16 June 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Ya, who wants to have a successful game like mechwarriors 2-4.



Oh, so who gives a damn about your opinion.

I'm never coming back PGI, why won't you cater to me!!!!



Uh, maybe someone can be more helpful with an actual link/quote, but a developer posted a good writeup about issues with lost packets screwing with hit detection (basically if your ping varies wildly even hsr can't keep up). It's being worked on in the upcoming patch as far as I'm aware

So you're saying that mech warrior 2-4 was good only because of 3rd person? Or that no mech game would be good without it?

[Lord Rip]

Mike Getsome, on 16 June 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

[DELETED CONTENT]

But they look cool, just wait till you can actually see them in 3PV. There will probably be a couple players every match that get killed still in their starting positions because they are busy checking out their mechs.

Edited by Destined, 17 June 2013 - 01:39 PM.
Quote clean up

[hammerreborn]

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

So you're saying that mech warrior 2-4 was good only because of 3rd person? Or that no mech game would be good without it?

I'm saying, arguing that mechwarrior isn't a 3rd person game is ********, when nearly every variation has had 3rd person play.

In fact, id argue that 1st person only is actually not mechwarrior since more games supported 3rd than 1st (mech assaults are third only right? Not to mention the mech commanders that are all 3rd person)

[ICEFANG13]

hammerreborn, on 16 June 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

I'm saying, arguing that mechwarrior isn't a 3rd person game is ********, when nearly every variation has had 3rd person play.

In fact, id argue that 1st person only is actually not mechwarrior since more games supported 3rd than 1st (mech assaults are third only right? Not to mention the mech commanders that are all 3rd person)

Yeah but this game, MechWarrior Online was supposed to be a purely 1st person experience. Except for special game settings, which "normal" mode kinda invalidates that doesn't it?

[Lord Rip]

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Jesus christ. People actually think 3PV is going to be the default in normal mode.

/wrists

Jesus Christ. There are still people who haven't realized that is what they (IGP) think it will be and are developing it in that direction? Whether it is from desperation or desire I have no idea, nor do I know if it will actually go that way. What I DO KNOW is if it does it will do so without me or my money!

[hammerreborn]

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Yeah but this game, MechWarrior Online was supposed to be a purely 1st person experience. Except for special game settings, which &quot;normal&quot; mode kinda invalidates that doesn't it?

How is a completely separate mode that can't be used in CW to progress in any way (merc v merc wise) not a special mode?

Special only means distinct, and as normal and hardcore modes have different rules, different functions, and one can't be used for certain meta playstyles, fits the very definition of special.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that special 3rd person modes were always on the table though.