78 replies to this topic

[James DeGriz]

Selfish, on 18 June 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

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.

Aah ok, I had a break between November and Feb / March time, so I may have missed that initial announcement. It's a little odd though isn't it, they start off with "3PV Goes Against What MechWarrior Is All About", then say "Ah.. we might have it as a game mode". Then say, "We Want It To Help New Players". Then say "We Want It To Make It More Appealing to A Broader Audience".

Am I the only one that smells a big steaming pile of bovine excrement in there? Almost like they changed their minds and are trying to come up with ways that'll make it more palatable to the fanbase, especially when the so called "Feedback Thread" has "You're getting it, just tell us how we should implement it. And be nice while you're at it, because we know you hate it" in the introductory text.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[pow pow]

well they are a business and can only exist through profits.

I don't blame them, they are not some sort of battletech charity, catering to the needs of a niche mech fanbase.

and the point is (i don't care if you don't like what I am saying but it is a sad truth) the niche battletech base are locked in. With IPs already at hand, PGI/IGP can do what they like and you still wouldn't have any other online battletech-resempling-game to play.

So, as they have you locked-in to their model, it's only natural for them to look on the outside, general fps audience for more profits.

Also about the founders, it is my view that when someone buys into an unfinished product, he effectively becomes an investor.
and much like in any business model, investments involve risks and (unfulfilled) expectations based on early propositions.

Most people confuse themselves thinking they are a consumer of a finished product that doesn't conform to what is written on the label.

Also regarding the slow pace of development, If I understand the various dev posts correctly, they went out of their way to build this game with cry engine 3, which is not a small feat. The game looks amazing by all means, but the devs are having a hard time to code, almost teaching themselves cry3 along the way.

in a nutshell, amazing potential but poor execution. whining about it will get you nowhere, just keep submitting them bugs and suggestions and hope for a return on your investment.

[Takony]

Behemothk, on 16 June 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

Maybe better call 3PV "Babies", when 1PV "Steel GUTS"? Sure most players will play 1PV in that case

I'd go further, calling 3PV "Double Chin Jelly Balls" and 1PV "Hardened Titanium Nuts Riding a Bear Shooting Lazor Beams", people _might_ get the idea which one to play .
Also: .

[Hotthedd]

pow pow, on 19 June 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

well they are a business and can only exist through profits.

I don't blame them, they are not some sort of battletech charity, catering to the needs of a niche mech fanbase.

and the point is (i don't care if you don't like what I am saying but it is a sad truth) the niche battletech base are locked in. With IPs already at hand, PGI/IGP can do what they like and you still wouldn't have any other online battletech-resempling-game to play.

So, as they have you locked-in to their model, it's only natural for them to look on the outside, general fps audience for more profits.

Also about the founders, it is my view that when someone buys into an unfinished product, he effectively becomes an investor.
and much like in any business model, investments involve risks and (unfulfilled) expectations based on early propositions.

Most people confuse themselves thinking they are a consumer of a finished product that doesn't conform to what is written on the label.

Also regarding the slow pace of development, If I understand the various dev posts correctly, they went out of their way to build this game with cry engine 3, which is not a small feat. The game looks amazing by all means, but the devs are having a hard time to code, almost teaching themselves cry3 along the way.

in a nutshell, amazing potential but poor execution. whining about it will get you nowhere, just keep submitting them bugs and suggestions and hope for a return on your investment.

I like your argument. It is well thought out and explains things from PGI's standpoint without resorting to baseless conjecture or being condescending to those that feel taken advantage of.

I would have to disagree however, that the hardcore BT players are "locked in". Many have stopped playing, and many of the rest can stop as well. (And eventually WILL if the game drifts too far away from what they were promised.

Niche games CAN do very well. They benefit from the lack of direct competition. Small companies that want to compete with the big boys have the burden of having to have a better product with less funding.

[stjobe]

pow pow, on 19 June 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

Also about the founders, it is my view that when someone buys into an unfinished product, he effectively becomes an investor.
and much like in any business model, investments involve risks and (unfulfilled) expectations based on early propositions.

Sure, that's a given. But I invested my money based on dev blogs outlining what kind of game they wanted to do: A first-person, as-close-as-possible implementation of the BattleTech rules, almost-sim, with interesting pilot and chassis skill trees.

I'm not very happy with them going back on so many of the ideas that made me want to invest in the development of such a game - and I'm not sure that I would have invested in what we have currently, or where I see it heading.

I'd like them to go back to the dev blogs and try to implement *that* game, because that's the game I wanted to give them money for.

Edited by stjobe, 19 June 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Masterrix]

agree with the opening post!

"Hardcore" sounds like "pros only club"
"Normal" sounds like "mainstream club"

this gives 3PV a player boost against 1PV,

especially "new players" will always choose the "Normal" button

[Nicholas Carlyle]

stjobe, on 19 June 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Sure, that's a given. But I invested my money based on dev blogs outlining what kind of game they wanted to do: A first-person, as-close-as-possible implementation of the BattleTech rules, almost-sim, with interesting pilot and chassis skill trees.

I'm not very happy with them going back on so many of the ideas that made me want to invest in the development of such a game - and I'm not sure that I would have invested in what we have currently, or where I see it heading.

I'd like them to go back to the dev blogs and try to implement *that* game, because that's the game I wanted to give them money for.

This is where a lot of the issues stem from.

If they hadn't done a founders program, I doubt we'd see most of the complaints we see now.

But when you promise the world, and take money to help fund your game...then fail to deliver on that promise?

You are going to have a lot of bitter people clamoring for what they were promised.

[stjobe]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 June 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

But when you promise the world, and take money to help fund your game...then fail to deliver on that promise?

You are going to have a lot of bitter people clamoring for what they were promised.

Just wanted to clarify that I'm not bitter - yet. I still hold on to the (perhaps vain) hope that they'll somehow manage to swing this around - but they'll need to make some tough decisions and do some really hard and unpopular changes for that to be the case.

There's a good (perhaps even great) core game somewhere down in between all the half-implemented features, cash shop items, and balancing issues. I believe they can still rescue that, but they'll have to step things up a notch or nine if that's to happen.

[Zerberus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 June 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

This is where a lot of the issues stem from.

If they hadn't done a founders program, I doubt we'd see most of the complaints we see now.

Or a game at all for that matter

It`s not that I don`t understand why people are complaining, in very many cases I do. And that`s why I think most of it is, well, unfounded.

Look at how often the devs get flamed for not including something in a patch that they never said was going in it to begin with
Look at all the "Clans will never Come" vitriol, even though there are very reasonable gameplay reasons not to put them in yet, aside from the basic game itself still needing work.
Look at all the "PGI never does anything right hate", completely disregarding things like the massive month long combing of the engine to find and eliminate teh source of the HUD bugs. Which we have not really seen in any significant capacity for what, a month now? Sounds like something they did very right, just took forever and a day to figure out WTF was going on.
Look at all the people constantly complaining about mechanic or weapon system X that clearly have no idea how they are supposed to work.
Look at how much hate they get for posting purely theoretical threads such as the heat penalty one.. people continue to qq as if they had already implemented it exactly as posted, which they specifically said was not the case.
Look at all the people that openly admit to not having played in months, but still think they`re qualified to comment on the current meta as if they played 5 matches /day....

The list goes on and on and on and on

So basically, how are we that still have hope or PGI themselves supposed to take anything on these forums seriously, much less all the "OMFG YOU SUCK SO HARD AND I'M QUITTING FOREVER BECAUSE (X)" threads?

Edited by Zerberus, 19 June 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[pow pow]

it's easy for a developer to promise rainbows and unicorns at the start of a project in order to get the starting funds to buy sdks and hardware... and I hear the cry3 sdk is quite expensive?? anyway, I am not saying you guys don't have a point (being lied to at the start)

I ve been lied to thousands of times by game developers... buy into a game, spend money and play hardcore for 3-4 months then no content, whine and bore yourself to death because no other game can give you your fix... eventually friends quit, feel lonely... your love for the game stretches ... thoughts about uninstalling until something else grabs your attention and you actually do it. It's very rare for a game dev to actually admit that they screwed over their fanbase and try to rebuild the game (they suddenly need to hire more people, throw more money in etc.... )

I know one game that did that.. Final Fantasy Xiv. huge fan of the series... and so dissapointed after 2-3 months from the initial launch. a year later the japanese came out and said we made a mistake and we are rebuilding. 3 years on, they are launching it anew... it's almost the same content mind you but reworked so much that it's night and day if you compare the two versions.

[Lima Zulu]

pow pow, on 19 June 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

and so dissapointed after 2-3 months from the initial launch. a year later the japanese came out and said we made a mistake and we are rebuilding. 3 years on, they are launching it anew... it's almost the same content mind you but reworked so much that it's night and day if you compare the two versions.

That's worthy of respect.

[TexAce]

Simulator for 1PV
Arcade für 3PV

or Pilot Mode for 1PV
and Spectator Mode for 3PV

Anyway, when MWO starts to support the Oculus Rift, only one mode will be played anyway for all times to come.

Edited by TexAss, 20 June 2013 - 02:54 AM.

[Lima Zulu]

TexAss, on 20 June 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

when MWO starts to support the Oculus Rift

Was there any official information that we have even a chance to have occulus rift support? AFAIK it was hawken.

[Adridos]

Lima Zulu, on 20 June 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

[/size]
Was there any official information that we have even a chance to have occulus rift support? AFAIK it was hawken.

There was no announcement, but they had tweeted and such that certain members of the developer team had "great time" on it's presentations when the were with MW:O on a certain convention.

[DYSEQTA]

Dexion, on 18 June 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

They make up for it by selling paint man!

I really don't want to be pessimistic, but considering the majority of paints are priced well above cockpit items, this being the motivation for adding in 3PV isn't so much of a stretch of the imagination.

[Jestun]

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

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

Unless R&R was only available via MC this will not be the case.

I agree with the OP, 1st should be normal and 3rd should be "kiddie gloves training mode".

[TexAce]

Lima Zulu, on 20 June 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

[/size]
Was there any official information that we have even a chance to have occulus rift support? AFAIK it was hawken.

They once tweeted they have one dev kit inhouse. So it means they are at least trying it out.

[Uh you havent met Stabem]

Dracol, on 15 June 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

I would put forth "arcade mode" and "sim mode" but I don't feel it would do much help.

Normal and training modes sound like the right track.

Or at the least easy mode for 3p and normal mode for 1p. With easy mode it allows new players to get into the game but would encourage them to go to normal mode when they feel confident in their piloting skills.

Putting limitations like that would be better WarThunder is a good example of how it's done!! As 1st and 3rd person view go. If we want to forge a good game and keep good game experience we need it.

Personally the whole 3th person view is a bad unnecessary joke. And would handicap the game experience. Its all very well to want to widen the playerbase by making the game more attractive but, there other better ways to achieve that. They got a good thing going and the whole community finds it a bad idea. Yet they want to push it onward.

Edited by hellhoundlover, 20 June 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Fut]

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

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.

Kibble, on 15 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

I like the idea of a hardcore mode but in that mode needs to be more than just 1pv. There needs to be R&R, dropped armor values, battle value and other things that go back to tt values.

Can't argue with any of this.
PGI - Make it so!