78 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Lord Rip, on 16 June 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

That is fine for A ballistic weapon, but when you strap six of them together they should not all hit exactly the same location.

Neither should lasers or missiles.

[DirePhoenix]

Zerberus, on 15 June 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

TT armor values were tried in CB. Today`s cap rushes yield longer matches.

I kiind of agree on teh rest, but can do without the obvious P2W mechanic that R&R was.

The only reason that TT armor values didn't work is that they did not use tabletop values for anything else. How are tabletop armor values supposed to hold up when you can fire a PPC every 4 seconds?

Edited by DirePhoenix, 16 June 2013 - 02:17 PM.

[Lord Rip]

Hotthedd, on 16 June 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Neither should lasers or missiles.

Agreed, for the record I have never been able to get a laser to hit a single location on a mech that was moving and not with missles since they introduced the SSRM spread. The only thing that does now is grouped balistics or PPCs.

[Zerberus]

pesco, on 16 June 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

And once again, i call BS on this. Yeah, they "tried" the numbers, while the rest of the game works nothing like TT. So saying TT was tried and didn't work is like saying you tried to swim in an empty pool and it didn't work.

DirePhoenix, on 16 June 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

The only reason that TT armor values didn't work is that they did not use tabletop values for anything else. How are tabletop armor values supposed to hold up when you can fire a PPC every 4 seconds?

So you`re both essentially saying that you would prefer to fire (with a significant RNG factor added that makes skill irrelevant, regardless of how perfectly aimed your shot was), wait 10 seconds and then fire again? TT armor AND weapon values is essentially what you`re asking for, isn`t it? If I`m misunderstanding this, please correct me.

But tbh, it sounds to me like watching pasta boil would be a more exciting FPS-type game.

The fact of the matter is that adamant adherence to TT values have not worked in any MW game, ever. Even those that were highly acclaimed for using TT values have actually had internal mechanics that tossed TT completely out the window... It was just internally calculated in a a way that Players w/o in-depth klnowledge of programming, compiling /decompiling and C++ would never find out. that allowed the game to perpetuate the facade of being "ture to TT" while in fact being significantly closer to MWO than either the devs of those games or the players would like to admit, even today. After all, not everybody dissects every program they install all the way down to it`s uncompiled source code. As a matter of fact, most do not, because having fun playing is generally regarded as more important than knowing WHY it`s fun.

Edited by Zerberus, 16 June 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

stjobe, on 16 June 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

How about we call it what it is ? Stupid mode.

It describes fully both what the idea behind the mode is, and what the devs think of their player base. Face it, if you can't fathom that your legs can steer independently of your torso, you're stupid.

So yeah, Normal and Stupid mode.

Thank you, this made my day.

[slide]

@ stjobe

Stupid mode just about covers it. Made my day.

[Dexion]

Could the TT values arguement go somewhere else? It doesn't realy fit in this thread, and I would like to keep away from starting some type of troll war here.

It would be nice to get a Dev response to this concern; Anyone have a twitter account and willing to to link this thread to Bryan so he gets a chance to answer? What I'm most afraid of, is that "Normal" (3pv and 1pv) will get a large amount of traffic from "casual" players (Because, after all, its Normal mode, as opposed to scary Hardcore mode), and that will in turn be used as justification for 3pv "See! More people play normal mode, clearly this was the right choice".

BTW, I avoided calling it Easy Mode to avoid having it sound negitive, which is why I went with "Training".

Can you earn the "Posting with Gloves" achievement twice?

[LordBraxton]

OPs idea is a decent compromise

an olive branch to the fans that they are about to **** off

PGI havent gotten a dime from me since they started confirming this 3rd person BS

slide, on 16 June 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

@ stjobe

Stupid mode just about covers it. Made my day.

agreed I might buy some MC if they call it stupid mode, or handicap mode or something

[pesco]

Zerberus, on 16 June 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

So you`re both essentially saying that you would prefer to fire (with a significant RNG factor added that makes skill irrelevant, regardless of how perfectly aimed your shot was), wait 10 seconds and then fire again?

No.

Quote

TT armor AND weapon values is essentially what you`re asking for, isn`t it?

Yes.

Quote

If I`m misunderstanding this, please correct me.

You think that "using TT weapon values" means you have a table in the game where there are numbers that are equal to the numbers in a rulebook. And that one round of firing as you do in the tabletop means one shot of the weapon. Both are wrong, as countless people have pointed out a million times, so I'm just going to stop here and let you figure it out yourself.

PGI fell into the same thought trap, because apparently they suck at basic math.

The rest of your post can be safely ignored because it is based on flawed assumptions.

Edited by pesco, 17 June 2013 - 01:42 AM.

[pow pow]

normal and absurd {Noble MechWarrior} mode sounds good to me.

[Dude42]

I'm all for calling 3PV "Rookie", "Training" or even "Practice" mode. Give them a "Practice" CW universe too.


Steering Wheel Under-hive Mode

[BlackIronTarkus]

Dexion, on 15 June 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

First, let me say im on a phone, typing with gloves on, so please forgive my formating.

So, we are getting 3PV... I dont like it, and many others dont as well, but thats not what this post is about.

I strongly object to the idea of naming the 1st person only view "Hardcore", and the mixxed lobby mode "normal". This will, by default, make the 1st person que much smaller with regaurds to new/average players, who will avoid "Hardcore" mode dew to the name.

Instead, I propose that the 1st person que be labled as "Normal" and the 3rd person mixxed que as "Training".

This will make it clear that the game is meant to be played in 1st person, and the 3rd person mode is a training aid for new players.

I totally agree and you are correct that this is exactly what it will trigger in the brain of new player, because thats what I would have done.

Edit: Or they can call 1PV normal while 3PV could be SOFTCORE! Why is it 1PV that have to be shafted, it was there long before 3PV... DOWN WITH 3PV!

Edited by BlackIronTarkus, 17 June 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Gelion]

Motroid, on 16 June 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Adding 3PV is a simple business dicision. The same goes for removing knock-downs.

Knockdowns is a completely different bowl of fish, with the reintroduction if it furthermore decreasing the diversity of mechs on the battlefield and increasing the number of assault, until Weight Limits and such are introduced. Also, it is off topic.

3rd Person mode still has so much vagueness about it despite them saying it will be implemented in the next 60 days *cough*. I think people should reserve judgement until they see what happens, but I do wonder as to why manpower is being put into something that may, or may not yield a greater playerbase when focussing upon such aspects as smoothness and reliability would most definitely increase player retention and play time per person. I for one get fps drops after about 2-3 games, and then need to constantly relog in so as to not have the problem. That would be far more frustrating to new players than getting confused about torso alignment. Finally, I believe most of the community did not mind having 3rd person view introduced into training grounds so as to acclimatise new players while also keeping it out of PvP, while also allowing experienced players the ability to find problems with it. PGI's option appears to be the less optimal and has angered their core playerbase, who, if this turns into anything like COD in terms of community or playstyle, will leave you in the grave of your own digging.

[James DeGriz]

Pando, on 16 June 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

That is not the reasoning behind adding the view. If you believe that you're really uninformed.

That's the reason we were given when the devs were first considering 3PV.

If it isn't, what is then?

[mekabuser]

agreed OP
Just look at what warthunder did in 1.31 for a perfect example of catering to the "supposed" masses
F
A
I
L!!!!

[Prezimonto]

I don't mind the idea of two modes if they're seperate, or if they're well integrated.

Since they're adding ranks to the game, I could see 3PV being the default game mode that you have to play in during training matches, until near the end. You start with a ranking of Recruit until you finish those matches. Then you graduate to Mechwarrior once you've purchased your own mech and 1PV opens up. 1PV being the realm of the hardened mercenary players who can play for personal (guild) territory control. 3PV remains for PUG drops and perhaps factions(more story based play). In other words, don't treat 1PV as Hardcore, treat it as a reward and unlock. Something you must be privileged to play, and people will come.

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind seeing 3PV integrated in a manner similar to what Darkfall Online did. You were in a 1PV view until going for melee and then the camera would pull back into a very tight 3PV view. If this type of view was toggle-able and was the only way to enable melee strikes and disabled your cross hair(which they say should be coming after the reintroduction of collisions), I could see it as a decent balance to build in melee in mechs... you can use it, you get a little more situation awareness(but not much), at the expense of your aiming cross hair.

[Selfish]

James DeGriz, on 18 June 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

That's the reason we were given when the devs were first considering 3PV.

If it isn't, what is then?

IIRC the first mention of it was as a game mode. I believe it was announced/discussed at a gaming conference during the later bits of Closed Beta. The forum blew up and they responded with an announcement that it was just going to be used for training purposes via specialized tutorial, or something. They released the testing grounds later without 3PV or the tutorial/training--you'd think the latter would be the proper approach to new player integration. They publicly went back to 3PV as a gameplay mode about 3 months ago.

So it's not a far out assumption that it's always been a gameplay mode, as its been eating employee resources/time for the past 3-6 months.

[bucurmish]

Hotthedd, on 16 June 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

I propose that the third-person view be far enough behind the mech that you can see the training wheels.

Best comment ever. You win the internet.

I really don't know what the devs are thinking. First they remove collisions , than R&R and they will add 3pv. Not only is it a fact that they are really dumbing down this game (not that it was complicated in the first place), but i don't think this is a great bussiness decision for them : how are they gonna sell cockpit items if they nobody is using cockpit view.

[Dexion]

bucurmish, on 18 June 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

how are they gonna sell cockpit items if they nobody is using cockpit view.

They make up for it by selling paint man!

[Kraven Kor]

Dexion, on 15 June 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Lol, yea... But gloves beat bloody cut up fingers.

Seriously though.... Anyone want to bet "Hardcore" mode becomes a ghost town like the 8 man que? It wont even be because people dont want it.... Whatever mode is the "default" option will be the one that gets used most. How many "fail to find match" or mismatched team sizes will it take before everyone is forced into the mix que.

No, not at all what happened in MW:4 or anything.

"My kingdom for a Heat On, Limited Ammo match!"
"NO. YOU WILL PLAY NO HEAT, UNLIMITED AMMO, AND LIKE IT."