78 replies to this topic

[Pando]

stjobe, on 16 June 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

IIRC, it was tried in-house, before CB started.

But yeah, having triple the fire rate, the same heat and heat dissipation, and the same armour values as TT isn't going to work. That's a no-brainer.

If you triple fire rates, you need to also cut heat and damage values to a third - then you can have TT armour values.

But doing it the way the PGI crew did - well, we can all see the result, can't we? Band-aid after band-aid instead of going back and fixing the root cause; the fact that they chose to implement Solaris instead of BattleTech rules.

All is not lost, however. I do believe they can salvage this, but they *need* to rework the heat system, and they *need* to reimplement ballistics as burst-fire.

And of course, they need to let 3PV go. Nobody wants it.

I want it. I know over 200 other players not playing MWO because it lacks 3rd.

[Kenyon Burguess]

keep it hardcore and give us double rewards, the kitten club 3pv can get normal rewards.

[Pando]

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.

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

[Nehkrosis]

totally agree.

im worried now that people are going to just leave it on, and as previously mentioned, our standard que becomes a ghost town.

[jakucha]

A mode that made battles last as long as this would be pretty funny:



Would probably only be very playable in dropship mode or something different, otherwise games would be incredibly short.

[Adridos]

stjobe, on 16 June 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

.... and they *need* to reimplement ballistics as burst-fire.

And why on Earth should they do that?

[stjobe]

Adridos, on 16 June 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

And why on Earth should they do that?

Because pin-point damage is a problem in a system never designed for it, and the only weapons that actually do pin-point damage are ballistics and PPC. So make them burst-fire and most of the pin-point problem goes away.

Two other ways to solve the problem would be by adding cone of fire or slowing down convergence, but those two seem to upset a lot of people.

So to put it simply:
* Lasers spread their damage through their beam duration
* Missiles spread their damage through individual missile spread
* Ballistics and PPC don't spread their damage
* Therefore, ballistics and PPCs should burst-fire to spread their damage too

Or even simpler:
Make ballistics go "boom-boom-boom-boom" instead of "boom".

[Morang]

stjobe, on 16 June 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Because pin-point damage is a problem in a system never designed for it, and the only weapons that actually do pin-point damage are ballistics and PPC. So make them burst-fire and most of the pin-point problem goes away.

Two other ways to solve the problem would be by adding cone of fire or slowing down convergence, but those two seem to upset a lot of people.

So to put it simply:
* Lasers spread their damage through their beam duration
* Missiles spread their damage through individual missile spread
* Ballistics and PPC don't spread their damage
* Therefore, ballistics and PPCs should burst-fire to spread their damage too

Or even simpler:
Make ballistics go "boom-boom-boom-boom" instead of "boom".

NO.

Ballistic weapons were specifically designed from the start to be an alternative to lasers in how they do damage.

Laser benefit from speed of light to connect with their target without any lead correction. But they do damage over time, so it's hard to make them do all damage to the same spot if both target and attacker are moving. Ballistic weapons and PPCs provide alternative by doing their whole damage to the same spot but having finite projectile speed, making it harder to hit. Shoud stay that way. Want to nerf ballistics - nerf projectile speed or weapon convergence.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

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

I know over 200 other players not playing MWO because it lacks 3rd.

Liar. Straight up. The above quote is a pull it out of your *** lie.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

they should name 3pv "lame" mode
and 1pv "core" mode
thats my suggestion
anyway +1 to OP

[Hotthedd]

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

[BigMekkUrDakka]

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.

rofl

[Motroid]

Adding 3PV is a simple business dicision. The same goes for removing knock-downs.
It's all a matter of mass appeal. They are running some serious free to play stuff here.
The lack of vehicle combat simulation aspects in favor of increasing arcade style elements is really upsetting me too!

But lets face it: We had to endure a near to never ending phase of having no to no-state-of-the-art Mechwarrior at all.
The franchise was basicly dead. Once vivid and vibrant in an era ruled by flight-, chopper-, tank- etc. simulations on PCs a lot of things have changed since then. Last Mechwarrior 4 gave a glimpse of what has changed since the glory days of simulators already including 3rd person combat. And failed in the long run.
Nowadays, with MW:O they are trying to resurrect a whole genre using a franchise having seen more popular days and for sure we will have to suffer some trade-offs with adapting it to present gamerbase being not familiar with the more like simulation aspects of the game like 1st person view.
Business is business. They could surly skip 3PV roughly cutting half-life of the games lifecycle by a few years until they lack funds and/or profit. I go even further, stating that implementing 3PV asap(!) was a necessary decision of existence.
To get this clear: I hate 3rd person view and will NEVER use it. I am just trying to understand decisions bein' made.

We have a saying here that goes something like this: No food is being eaten as hot as it is being cooked. (Mayb some1 help with the correct english idiom 4 that german saying)

[BigMekkUrDakka]

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

Adding 3PV is a simple business dicision. The same goes for removing knock-downs.
It's all a matter of mass appeal. They are running some serious free to play stuff here.

ill rather see MW:O bankrupt and dead, than i see it as BS cardboard pew pew zap zap desecration of once great franchise
let dead RIP

[Dexion]

Haradim, on 15 June 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

Where is it mentioned that they are named this way?

From the Focus Group thread, these are just configuration settings that are used to put you in a certain queue. As such, they should be labeled as clearly as possible: "1st Person Only", "Mixed Perspective", "3rd Person Only".

Trying to trick people into picking a certain one by putting bias into the name is a bit silly, and won't actually work.

Its in the ATD 40 Answers... First Question.

If you don't understand the fact that naming mixed perspective "Normal" mode and 1st person only mode "HardCore" will "Trick" people into playing the mode that the vast majority of people don't want, then I'm not sure what to say.

[Lima Zulu]

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

TT armor values were tried in CB.

Were they? AFAIK, they always were doubled.

Edited by Lima Zulu, 16 June 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[stjobe]

Lima Zulu, on 16 June 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Were they? AFAIK, they always were doubled.

As I said above, they tried it in-house before CB opened. Nobody outside PGI has played with TT armour - or 2.0 DHS for that matter.

Edited by stjobe, 16 June 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Hobo Dan]

Totally agree, we need to make this name change happen...

[Lord Rip]

Morang, on 16 June 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

NO.

Ballistic weapons were specifically designed from the start to be an alternative to lasers in how they do damage.

Laser benefit from speed of light to connect with their target without any lead correction. But they do damage over time, so it's hard to make them do all damage to the same spot if both target and attacker are moving. Ballistic weapons and PPCs provide alternative by doing their whole damage to the same spot but having finite projectile speed, making it harder to hit. Shoud stay that way. Want to nerf ballistics - nerf projectile speed or weapon convergence.

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

[Stormwolf]

Just call 1st person "Mechwarrior mode" and 3rd person "Mechassault mode".

Problem solved.