175 replies to this topic

[Corvus Antaka]

I am just so excited to see those big player increases and numbers when 3rd person hits. I hope PGI makes a bunch of money off this and shows us the huge 3rd person playerbase that gets sucked in because of this addition.

[aniviron]

The reason I asked my ATD question the way I did was because there is a lot of variance in how 3pv cameras are treated. It will almost certainly be an advantage in one way or another, but let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose the camera were to be implemented like this:



There is a fairly generous periphery there, as well as more than enough space behind the player model for them to see approaching players; most specifically, this would be a benefit to the atlas trying to catch a glimpse of the jenner hugging his butt, and would enable him to see if the jenner were going to keep circling or change course.

The other option is something more along these lines:



Because the FOV is so narrow and the camera is offset, the player does get a little bit more periphery, but at the expense of being able to see behind himself so well. Furthermore, it is both closer in and zoomed, which will make it harder to look around corners in cramped conditions.

I would expect PGI to go with something closer to the first image, if only because they said one of their goals is to let people see their mech, and the second image does a worse job of displaying the character. That said, for the sake of aiming I would assume there is at least some offset, but in order to pull off an offset and still be able to see the character, you have to have a much wider FOV, which leads to better corner peeking. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the FOV is editable in the user.cfg, and I can guarantee you players will modify that to gain an advantage.

I had been hoping that my question would yield a screenshot or some concrete answers; I suppose knowing that they at least think it was a valid concern means they are looking into it. Personally, it is currently looking like I will be sticking to the 1pv gamemode only, but if there are not enough players there, well, we will see what happens.

PEEFsmash, on 14 June 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

I would trust something that PGI had to say about balance if they had any top competitive players on their balance team but they don't. Brian Buckton is probably the best player they have, and would probably get by as a competitive player, but he isn't even a weapon balancer as far as I know. PGI needs to get the feedback of the competitive community before they start saying what is and what isn't "advantageous." Otherwise, they should say "not much of an advantage at our low-level of play."

When I asked, Brian said he does gameplay programming. I would not be surprised if he has at least a little input on what goes on, but since he is programming it is not his main job.

[PEEFsmash]

mania3c, on 15 June 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Even Blizzard admitted that balancing video game..even starcraft around high level play is something what is not that certain.. Balancing around competitive level is only good if it wont affect other players. If direct buff/nerf would affect casuals, they have to take different approach ..even if this easy change would fix major problem in competitive games... in fact..competitive games are good indicators, where game is broken and unbalanced..but balancing has to be done around casual play.

They even said that if they would have more casual game..not super e-sport like Starcraft..they wouldn't even balance it around competitive players.. just saying..

This post doesn't make too much sense, but my best response is that MW:O can be a "super e-sport" (or at least a good one).

Edited by PEEFsmash, 15 June 2013 - 12:28 AM.

[mania3c]

PEEFsmash, on 15 June 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

This post doesn't make too much sense, but my best response is that MW:O can be a "super e-sport" (or at least a good one).

Okey, here is a example.. Keep in mind I am playing SC2 very lightly. not very often so my terms could be used wrong..anyway..things i remember from official SC2 forum ..

it's few months ago where there was tactics in SC2 (not sure which one but it's not important).. this tactics, if was executed flawlessly, didn't have any good counter.. but skill needed to perform these action was just very very high..

However, it caused major issues in competitive games because these top players have skill needed to execute this tactics in way, it can't be countered. Basically, it was OP and of course..nerf was incoming .. it was just some numerical changes and on test server, it fixed every problem with this tacitcs..it was still usable but not overpowered.. But ..this strategy was also very popular among casual players..and in this level of play..this tactic was perfectly balanced.. most casuals don't have skill needed to perform it perfectly and was very easy to make mistakes and this nerf ruined it for casuals. It brought it in line on competitive level but basically removed fun strategy from casuals..

So they reverted this nerf and spend several weeks for looking for another options. In the end, instead nerfing "OP" tactics, they buffed counters in way, it needs high skill cap to defend against it.. it was much more complex solution but whole change, while was affecting mostly competitive play, was made around casual players.

So..you see..even super E-sport...like SC2 is balanced with casuals in mind.. and I believe this right way to do things.. because while competitive players are important, casuals are majority..and always will be..

[Soy]

[JeepStuff]

PEEFsmash, on 14 June 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

This attitude change would let PGI make a great competitive game instead of catering balance to the whining of low and mid-level gamers who don't want to improve their own play, but want balance to be based on their own poor aim, poor positioning, and poor situational awareness.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are FAR more low and mid-level gamers in the world than hard-core gamers. I think it goes without saying that PGI can't alienate those players and still have a successful title. I think you understand this and probably agree. My impression is that you think most players want to get better, that they would enjoy the game more if they improved, and that they SHOULD take the time to improve. If they don't take the time to improve, then it's their fault and they don't belong here.

I strongly disagree.

In my case, I'm just looking to have a good time with this game. I work hard (and think hard) all day. I don't come here to work. I come here to play. I come here to unwind. I am interested in some level of improvement, but I'm not interested in putting a lot of time and energy into this game because, quite frankly, there are more important things to put my time and energy into than a video game. If this is the most important thing you have going on in your life and if you want to work hard to reach the top of it, then knock yourself out. The world is a big place and there's room for everybody. I'm not judging. But I think when most players fill out their new years resolutions, I'm guessing "Be a Better Mechwarrior" doesn't make their top ten.

In order for this game to be successful (and we both want it to be successful) PGI needs to find a reliable player base. In my opinion, catering to the "top level" players is not the way to grow the player base. Catering to the masses isn't the answer either. While people might think catering to the masses brings in the biggest crowd, it's not true. If you create another mindless shooter, then your title gets lost in the vast sea of mindless shooters and you're just another "me-too" clone in a tough market. None of us (including PGI) wants MWO to compete in that market.

No, I think PGI is aiming for a sweet spot where the game is more challenging than a mindless shooter while still being approachable to casual players, and where there is some room to grow for people who are serious about it. In my opinion, you can't achieve all that with tunnel vision on only the top level of play. You also can't have tunnel vision on the cries of the masses. It's all more complicated than that.

The devs are trying to build something that appeals to a wide range of players, and I for one like where they are headed and I hope they succeed.

[Victor Morson]

"Great news guys! The feature literally nobody wants, not even the nebulous "Asian Market", is going well in development!"

Honestly I almost 100% bet you this is IGP forcing PGI to add it. This smacks of the kind of thing you'd want to add based on some marketing guy's pie chart of averages, because otherwise I think we could safely label this under a "huge waste of programming resources."

The same people spending time messing with camera code could be doing quite a bit to other systems that need things.

[Rippthrough]

Almost no advantage eh?
Well, that's okay then. I mean, who wouldn't take the word of PGI's internal testing team at face value?

[Zylo]

I refuse to spend any more money on MWO if 3rd person view is added and I encourage others to do the same.

Say NO to 3rd person views.

[Zylo]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 June 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

I am just so excited to see those big player increases and numbers when 3rd person hits. I hope PGI makes a bunch of money off this and shows us the huge 3rd person playerbase that gets sucked in because of this addition.

I suspect PGI will attract no more than a few thousand players with 3rd person views with very few spending any money on the game.

Those players will leave after a week or 2 of trying to play the unbalanced broken game MWO has become.

The end result will be a net loss of players due to the new players not sticking around and those of us who are against 3rd person view leaving this game.


At this point I almost want to see MWO die so another developer can get the license to produce the game the right way. Most of the dev work from PGI seems good but the decisions from the top are not.

[Sephlock]

Think "armored core". They want to appeal to a wider audience with 3PV, after all...

[Xeno Phalcon]

Zylo, on 15 June 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

At this point I almost want to see MWO die so another developer can get the license to produce the game the right way. Most of the dev work from PGI seems good but the decisions from the top are not.

The way some of our players talk many won't survive another ten year wait: old age, boredom and natural selection will claim many while others would undergo a mid life crisis that would likely result in a gender change or a sports car they can't really afford.

I mean what would kon do with his youtube channel and all those screenshots if MWO died!?!

[Waking One]

While i'd prefer to stay in first person, it will definitely make the game more attractive to more people so i support it, as much as it pains me. :/ Game needs lots more players to stay healthy.

And for the implementation, i wish they did the MW3/4 low side close to mech views. Wouldn't really give any advantage to players, actually make it worse probably, but it would achieve people seeing their mechs fight and make torso twisting clearer.

[Mycrus]

I have triple screens - that's 5760x1080 native res...

It sure is well OP in single player games like AC series where peeking beside walls is a mainstay of the game.

Its sure will be OP when 3PV is introduced into mwo.

Any who cares - I'm just about bored with this game...

[Revorn]

Because PIG dont see the impact on Gamebalance wit 3rdP, dont means that there isnt a Impact. It clearly makes alpha Weaponsystems stonger and gives them an advantages over DPS or Lock on weapons. I Wonder why PGI dont see this.

[Adridos]

aniviron, on 15 June 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

This one won't be in the game, that's for sure.

Creating a 3PV like that is the most challenging viewport you can choose. FPV, god perspective or anything else doesn't even come close and I heavily doubt they have the skill needed to make this version work.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

[qu

Zylo, on 15 June 2013 - 03:07 AM, said:

At this point I almost want to see MWO die so another developer can get the license to produce the game the right way. Most of the dev work from PGI seems good but the decisions from the top are not.

Sad thing is, more people are starting to think this way.

But it's doubtful another dev team would pick it up anytime soon, the latest rendition a failure just proves what publishers like EA said at the start, there is not a substantial enough market for this game, and is why we ended up here in the F2P market with a dev team still cutting their cloth having not done any major releases previously.

Fishing games, do not count.

[sj mausgmr]

Some clueless igp QA who plays MWO once a week and is more used to testing fishing simulators instead of complex first person shooters is going to have little to no understanding of what impacts gameplay and what doesn't .

PGI, why do you think blizzard and the other producers of competitive games balance their games around their hardcore competitive player base? Why do you think you consistently fail to balance this game patch after patch? It's because you're relying on the opinions of those who likely, have little passion or understanding of the product. That's why once again, you will fail.

[Sephlock]

Funny, people keep saying this is a beta, and we're testers, etc... so why aren't we the ones testing this stuff, hmm ?

[Demuder]

Sephlock, on 14 June 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Is it really an advantage if everyone has it? (I'm not referring to mixed playlists, but theoretical split playlists, with strict segregation between first person and third person players).

The problem with that is that if it offers even a small advantage, everyone will be "forced" to use it, even if they don't want to.

BigMekkUrDakka, on 14 June 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

because competitive play is that what makes games live long and happy life free of p2w thats why

Rich and diverse gameplay is what makes games live long and happy lives. Competitive gameplay orientation gives you a steady playerbase (steady, not large, since it only attracts epeen egoists) until the next competitive game comes up.

That being said, 3pv doesn't necessarily have anything to do with competitiveness. Since if it gives any advantage all the competitive players will use it. Since they don't care about the gameplay, they only care about their performance.