659 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

DeathofSelf, on 15 June 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

I am referring to the repair bays... I didn't mind the dropship mode idea, just the repair bays, which they gave a very stern response of NEVER! (Much like 3pv)

I'm thinking the repair bays are more in the lines of stage props. We've been asking for a mobile field base as a base, or repair bays, or something with some sort of logic. It could stand to reason that 3 mobile field bases (repair bays) could 'open up' to reveal you after you spawn in with your new mech. I'd prefer a visual dropship, but that gives people much more time to stage and blast you as you come down. They're wanting an easy way out for spawning your new mech. An opening repair bay would be the simplest way to do it short of "a wild mech appears!"

[Shiro Matsumoto]

Genewen, on 14 June 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Very disappointed about you trying to marginalize 1PV as hardcore sim-nerd mode.

Actually that the only thing that i feel bad about in Dev40.... why not Name 1PV "Normal" (as ist the only Campaign mode anyway) and 3PV "Beginner"-Mode?

[Farpenoodle]

I didn't say they don't want you to use 3PV. I said that they're encouraging people to use 1PV. Big difference.

[armyof1]

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I didn't say they don't want you to use 3PV. I said that they're encouraging people to use 1PV. Big difference.

If you encourage someone to do one thing then you are of course indirectly discouraging them from doing the other when two things are mutually exclusive. That is not a big difference, that is pretty much the same thing.

[ICEFANG13]

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I didn't say they don't want you to use 3PV. I said that they're encouraging people to use 1PV. Big difference.

Based off we know:

1person is hardcore and sim head, 3person is normal, it is "normal".

1person is harder than 3person, even with a small advantage, you can always tell when you are getting damaged from behind, 3person is better.

If there was a desire to have 1person and 3person players, there would be 2 or 3 splits (1st, 3rd, and, or not 3rd+1st). People in the 3+1 will be using 3 to be competitive.

They said, themselves, they expect more people will use it, why try to force it?

[Farpenoodle]

armyof1, on 16 June 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

If you encourage someone to do one thing then you are of course indirectly discouraging them from doing the other when two things are mutually exclusive. That is not a big difference, that is pretty much the same thing.

Are they mutually exclusive? It's not possible to enjoy the game playing in 3PV occasionally or just using it to look at your mech even if I'm a 1PV player? Of course they want people to use it. They want people to use it to enhance their experience. There may well be people who want to play in 3PV only but if they want to look at their shiny cockpit items or take part in uber top tier high level CW matches™ they're going to have to learn how to pilot 1PV.

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

They said, themselves, they expect more people will use it, why try to force it?

Here's the direct quote.

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

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.

"We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge." - Bolded and underlined for emphasis.

Mode != 3PV

Not that it makes a difference but I thought I should correct you.

[ICEFANG13]

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Are they mutually exclusive? It's not possible to enjoy the game playing in 3PV occasionally or just using it to look at your mech even if I'm a 1PV player? Of course they want people to use it. They want people to use it to enhance their experience. There may well be people who want to play in 3PV only but if they want to look at their shiny cockpit items or take part in uber top tier high level CW matches™ they're going to have to learn how to pilot 1PV.


Here's the direct quote.

"We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge." - Bolded and underlined for emphasis.

Mode != 3PV

Not that it makes a difference but I thought I should correct you.

That agrees exactly what I said.

First mode...
First mode listed: normal (3rd and 1st).

Then it says, "leaving the hardcore mode".

So yeah, I don't think you're reading that correctly, let me simplify it for you.

There will be 2 modes, (1st and 3rd, normal) and (1st only, hardcore). We anticipate most players will play the first mode (1st and 3rd, normal) leaving the (1st only, hardcore) mode for those wanting a challenge.

[armyof1]

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Are they mutually exclusive? It's not possible to enjoy the game playing in 3PV occasionally or just using it to look at your mech even if I'm a 1PV player? Of course they want people to use it. They want people to use it to enhance their experience. There may well be people who want to play in 3PV only but if they want to look at their shiny cockpit items or take part in uber top tier high level CW matches™ they're going to have to learn how to pilot 1PV.

When 3pv is in the game, please show me a video where you'll be playing one mech in 1st person and 3rd person at the same time. If you do that I'll believe they're not mutually exclusive. Until then I have nothing more to add to this except a useful link: http://en.wikipedia....xclusive_events

Edited by armyof1, 16 June 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[Wieland]

Yeah, never thought about that.
Why buy cockpit items in 3PV?

[Felbombling]

I'm all for 3rd person if it brings in new players that can keep the game alive and thriving, but I would suggest greater rewards be given to the players partaking in 1st person view matches. I almost feel weird saying that, because I was against improved incentive for 8 vs 8 players, but have changed my mind on that. If it is indeed the hardcore mode, the rewards should reflect that and act as an incentive for 3rd person view players to make the step up in competition. Sadly, many people are correct when they point out the inevitable. At some point in time the pressure will be put on PGI to make the same rewards available to 3rd person players as the 1st person players get.

[Corvus Antaka]

MoonUnitBeta, on 16 June 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I was thinking that very recently too. They're catering heavily towards lower end spec systems and it's really disappointing for someone with a higher end computer. Especially for someone who bought new components specifically to enjoy this games fidelity. Seeing that "loyalty" (lack of a better word) to be slowly reduced down to cater to the Future shop HP desktop mini computers that are running on-board Intel HD graphics is disappointing to see. Mechs feet not aligning to the ground, less smoke, less particles, standardized damage textures, laser burn accuracy thrown out the window. It's sad to see, but my hope is that all that will return once they start ramping up the graphics once they have a solid grasp on the min spec optimization... but that doesn't mean I'm not worried...

CryEngine, to me, has always been the epitome of the highest fidelity, top of the line graphics, with beautiful environments and ornate detail. Lately it seems that it's just turned out to be a complex engine that PGI is having too many difficulties with.

Sorry but your wrong here. The market is flooded with dual cores and older quad cores, and crysis 2 will run great on those machines where MWO makes them struggle. PGI is smart to first stabilize the game and have a package that goes low to high end and scales well, adding in future ultra end graphics that only high end users can take advantage of is the correct way to go. The game looks great with my ultra high custom user.cfg files and easily compares to crysis though we certainly could use ultra high end effects and textures to fluff it up, something DX11 will surely start to give us.

[Farpenoodle]

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

That agrees exactly what I said.

First mode...
First mode listed: normal (3rd and 1st).

Then it says, "leaving the hardcore mode".

So yeah, I don't think you're reading that correctly, let me simplify it for you.

There will be 2 modes, (1st and 3rd, normal) and (1st only, hardcore). We anticipate most players will play the first mode (1st and 3rd, normal) leaving the (1st only, hardcore) mode for those wanting a challenge.

You're phrasing it as if they expect everyone to be using 3PV. And reading the quote again, I can kinda sorta maybe see why you would read that into it. But it's such a stretch that assigning that meaning to it is questionable at best.

You'd have to assume that 3PV gives such a huge advantage that nobody would ever play in 1PV unless they only want to lose ever. And then you'd also have to assume that PGI doesn't want to make money off cockpit items ever again.

armyof1, on 16 June 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

When 3pv is in the game, please show me a video where you'll be playing one mech in 1st person and 3rd person at the same time. If you do that I'll believe they're not mutually exclusive. Until then I have nothing more to add to this except a useful link: http://en.wikipedia....xclusive_events

We're clearly not on the same page. I'm talking about how it's possible to use both while still preferring one or the other. You're talking about an arbitrary technicality as if that means PGI preferring people to use one means they don't want someone to use the other.

Edited by Farpenoodle, 16 June 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Lonestar1771]

Scarcer, on 16 June 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

I used the term a few times because it fits exactly how half the people on here are communicating; so addressing my use of a single word doesn't legitimize your argument against it; it's like trying to punch water. A dozen individuals complaining on the forums do not represent the majority of the games community. How about you go into a match and bring it up; really I have, almost no one cares.

It screams self entitlement; while simultaneously ignoring the fact PGI has IGP's hand and Microsoft up their ***.

Sure, it's silly that they are using resources for 3PV when they already have their team divided up working on Community Warfare, Clan Content, having to rebuild half an engine, and they have little more to show then a game with amazing models but less content when compared to MW:LL...

But all-in-all I'm not defending every action PGI makes; but the amount of impatience and lack of forethought is shallow.

Sure, criticize PGI, criticize them a lot, because they have responded as many times as they haven't (more communication with community, reversing changes, hot-fixes, discussing U.I. 2.0 in great detail etc etc; all because that's what people wanted); but don't be quivering ******, and the exaggerations need to stop. If half of the people here communicated like this in higher-education they would fail miserably and for good reason.

Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to tell people to stop using hyperbole all the while using hyperbole to do the same? I asked you to prove the factual information wrong; so when are you going to do that? At this point you have done nothing but use your own hyperbole and assumptions to quantify your argument.

Also why would you say "I'm not defending every action PGI makes" and then go on and defend just about everything they've done? Circles always come back to the same place.

[ICEFANG13]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 June 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Sorry but your wrong here. The market is flooded with dual cores and older quad cores, and crysis 2 will run great on those machines where MWO makes them struggle. PGI is smart to first stabilize the game and have a package that goes low to high end and scales well, adding in future ultra end graphics that only high end users can take advantage of is the correct way to go. The game looks great with my ultra high custom user.cfg files and easily compares to crysis though we certainly could use ultra high end effects and textures to fluff it up, something DX11 will surely start to give us.

Oh yeah DX11, wasn't that supposed to be done by now?

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

You're phrasing it as if they expect everyone to be using 3PV. And reading the quote again, I can kinda sorta maybe see why you would read that into it. But it's such a stretch that assigning that meaning to it is questionable at best.

You'd have to assume that 3PV gives such a huge advantage that nobody would ever play in 1PV unless they only want to lose ever. And then you'd also have to assume that PGI doesn't want to make money off cockpit items ever again.

We're clearly not on the same page. I'm talking about how it's possible to use both while still preferring one or the other. You're talking about an arbitrary technicality as if that means PGI preferring people to use one means they don't want someone to use the other.

I'm not phrasing it in any way that is different than what is said. Looking at the sentence directly, it says it right there. We expect more people will play the first mode, first mode listed, normal 1st+3rd person mode. I'm not phrasing, I'm directly quoting what is said. I don't see how you get anything else out of that?

3rd person will always give an advantage, players will use those advantages to win, at the cost of immersion.

I don't think more people will use 3rd person, all evidence to support that (there are no, 0, threads that support 3rd person), PGI does because of what they said directly.

[Farpenoodle]

And you can't read that they expect 3PV to be the more popular view because they said they expect most people to play normal mode unless you conflate normal mode with being mostly 3PV. Again, MW2/MW3 weren't played in 3PV despite having it. 2 examples within the same series. You can't assume yet that it'll necessarily be much better than 1PV.

They said one thing. You have to assume a lot to get another other meaning out of it.

We're going in circles at this point and it's getting late. This thread has already sucked away way too much of my productivity. So I'm going to request we agree to disagree and I'll not post in it anymore.

[ICEFANG13]

Farpenoodle, on 16 June 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

And you can't read that they expect 3PV to be the more popular view because they said they expect most people to play normal mode unless you conflate normal mode with being mostly 3PV. Again, MW2/MW3 weren't played in 3PV despite having it. 2 examples within the same series. You can't assume yet that it'll necessarily be much better than 1PV.

They said one thing. You have to assume a lot to get another other meaning out of it.

We're going in circles at this point and it's getting late. This thread has already sucked away way too much of my productivity. So I'm going to request we agree to disagree and I'll not post in it anymore.

Yeah they also said that, normal is 3rd person and/or 1st person, hardcore is only 1st person. It says it right there.

[hammerreborn]

3rd person criers and doomsayers are hilarious.

[-Muta-]

Take my money!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sasha Volkova]

Dev Q&A uses ¨Taunt¨ on the community - It is super effective!

Edited by 0okami, 16 June 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Scarcer]

Lonestar1771, on 16 June 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to tell people to stop using hyperbole all the while using hyperbole to do the same? I asked you to prove the factual information wrong; so when are you going to do that? At this point you have done nothing but use your own hyperbole and assumptions to quantify your argument.

Also why would you say "I'm not defending every action PGI makes" and then go on and defend just about everything they've done? Circles always come back to the same place.

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.

Quote

Heads up; the game is in trouble whether you want to realize it or not. Game developers don't make sweeping changes unless something isn't working. The only thing that has actually made it from the dev blogs to in-game, are the mechs.

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

Quote

They reneged on the coolant issue and 3pv. They haven't made a single major deadline. Still nothing to show for CW. Clans will be six months at the earliest after the final phase of CW (sure they said 90 days after but when have they ever made any self imposed deadline). They totally ruined any kind of pilot progression by ditching the trees and making lazy cookie-cutter pilot efficiencies where some don't even work properly.

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.

Quote

They blamed closed beta testers for going open beta sooner. Beta fatigue my ***, could have just said they were out of money. Role warfare is non existent. Info warfare has so many band-**** they might as well just rip it out and start over. They have yet to get missiles of any variety working correctly. Don't even get me started on pilot modules.

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.

Edited by Scarcer, 16 June 2013 - 11:19 AM.