270 replies to this topic

[DirePhoenix]

CapperDeluxe, on 01 July 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Also look at it this way, people complain about how many low Elo players are messing up their games, well maybe once those players have their 3rd person then what remains in the force first person queue will be generally the higher Elo players only. Does that not sound like it could be a potential benefit of this?

How are low-Elo players affecting other (presumably non-low-Elo) players? Shouldn't low-Elo players only being matched up with other low-Elo players?

[SVK Puskin]

BlacKcuD, on 29 June 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Work faster! Need more features/content and my CW!

Work under pressure is not good, be patient! The game will be bad becuase of players like you!

[Vasces Diablo]

James DeGriz, on 01 July 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

This really does sound like the wicked witch from Snow White saying, "G'waan take a bite of this lovely juicy apple. You'll like it. Honest."

Completely missed the point of the question there Bryan. Some of us who are essentially against 3PV, are at least willing to try it from a balance point of view. I get some people prefer that view, even though it's not my preferred style of play.

The real problem I and many others have though, is nothing to do with its balance and everything to do with the way you appear to be marketing it. MechWarrior is and always has been primarily an FPV pseudo sim. Yes, have 3PV as an option for a "well rounded experience", but for the love of everything don't send out the message that it's the "normal" setting and that 1PV is only really for "simheads", like they're some oddball weirdos who like to intentionally gimp themselves for that "extra challenge".

THAT is why people will assume "3PV = MechAssault" and THAT is why you will get an awful lot of flack from the people who thought you were making an online MechWarrior game true to the original titles, rather than some watered down arcade game using the BattleTech IP.

Yep, that's pretty much what I was going for. I prob should have phrased the question better and just said "can 1pv be called normal because 1st person is how a MW game is "normally" played."

[James DeGriz]

CapperDeluxe, on 01 July 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

People really need to get over the third person thing. There's plenty of other topics to drone on about, but this one really isn't an issue since they have declared that force first person will be an option. Additionally, every previous Mechwarrior has had 3rd person as well so its not exactly something they're doing new here.


Also look at it this way, people complain about how many low Elo players are messing up their games, well maybe once those players have their 3rd person then what remains in the force first person queue will be generally the higher Elo players only. Does that not sound like it could be a potential benefit of this?

Read my post. I don't have a problem with MWO having 3PV.

I'll say it again just in case you miss it again.

I don't have a problem with MWO having 3PV.

What I have a problem with is the way 3PV APPEARS (yes APPEARS. I could be completely wrong) to be being implemented in the game is as the "preferred" mode, rather than an optional one, with 1PV being the oddball weirdo simhead mode for purists and people who want an additional challenge. That is the wrong slant to put on it. It should be angled from the other point of view: 1PV is the NORMAL default mode. 3PV is an "option" if you are a) having problems figuring out how to move your legs and torso independently of one another, or just because you like it.

To you that might seen like an ever so minor, even nit picky difference to point out, but the reason it's so important to people like me is because it goes against what MechWarrior titles in the past have been about. An immersive, in-cockpit experience of piloting a BattleMech. If you decide you don't want that immersive experience by using a third person view, seriously, knock yourself out, that's your perogative, but MWO shouldn't be angling that view as part of the normal experience as it appears to be doing with the way it's been talked about thus far - especially to the point of using language like "1PV is for that extra challenge" or.. "1PV is for simheads". No. MechWarriors focus is 1PV. 3PV is a secondary option.

As for the second part of you post "1PV will be high ELO players only". How is that even remotely acceptable? I'm not a high ELO player. I'm a fairly average one - some would even say, slightly below average. I will rarely, if ever, play 3PV. So how is that going to be fun for me?

*Edit*

I've just thought of a rather good analogy. Imagine id Software come along and say, "We're going to make a Doom based MMO. It's going to have two view modes, First Person View and Isometric 3D view. You will be able to play as either FPV, or ISO3D and although FPV will be for people who want that extra challenge, we think you'll love ISO3D view!"

If you make a new game on a classic, established IP, then yes there are things available to you that you can add to it to make it appeal to a wider range of potential players. There are also things that you really don't mess with. This is why people have a problem with 3PV and it's implementation in MWO.

Edited by James DeGriz, 01 July 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

James DeGriz, on 01 July 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

What I have a problem with is the way 3PV APPEARS (yes APPEARS. I could be completely wrong) to be being implemented in the game is as the "preferred" mode, rather than an optional one, with 1PV being the oddball weirdo simhead mode for purists and people who want an additional challenge. That is the wrong slant to put on it. It should be angled from the other point of view: 1PV is the NORMAL default mode. 3PV is an "option" if you are a) having problems figuring out how to move your legs and torso independently of one another, or just because you like it.

I see where you are coming from there, as the MechWarrior games have typically been more serious stompy-robot games with Mech building rules and customizations, lots of switches to toggle and weapons to configure, things to consider... and less "OMG ASPLOSIONS!!" than other stompy robot titles.

However... this game is being presented to a very wide audience. I think it is somewhat of a natural progression for a completely BT/MW-novice player to start with a 3rd person perspective, and then see if they then want to try it in "simulator mode." I can see many simulator buffs trying the game in 1pv and sticking with it, but I also see many more new players starting in 3pv and migrating to 1pv only if they so choose to.

[James DeGriz]

Prosperity Park, on 01 July 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I see where you are coming from there, as the MechWarrior games have typically been more serious stompy-robot games with Mech building rules and customizations, lots of switches to toggle and weapons to configure, things to consider... and less "OMG ASPLOSIONS!!" than other stompy robot titles.

However... this game is being presented to a very wide audience. I think it is somewhat of a natural progression for a completely BT/MW-novice player to start with a 3rd person perspective, and then see if they then want to try it in "simulator mode." I can see many simulator buffs trying the game in 1pv and sticking with it, but I also see many more new players starting in 3pv and migrating to 1pv only if they so choose to.

Fair enough, but largely the reason why we have MWO is because of the success of the previous titles, isn't it? All of those were successful because of the 1PV focus, so why does it have to change now? I even grit my teeth at referring to 1PV as "Simulator Mode", because again that makes it sound like a specialist option, rather than default settings.

I do get the need for trying to appeal to the maximum number of people, but is it naiive or unrealistic to believe that if you dilute the core of what the MWO experience is in an attempt to maximise its appeal, you end up losing the people that will buy in to that experience based on the IP alone? And those are the people that will stick around largely because of the IP. The people you want to appeal to likely won't be so loyal based on just the IP (if that makes sense).

As I say though, I could be completely wrong about all this and my concerns completely unfounded, I'm just worried about some of the language that's being thrown around to achieve the goal that they're after.

[Felicitatem Parco]

James DeGriz, on 01 July 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

...I do get the need for trying to appeal to the maximum number of people, but is it naiive or unrealistic to believe that if you dilute the core of what the MWO experience is in an attempt to maximise its appeal...


As I say though, I could be completely wrong about all this and my concerns completely unfounded, I'm just worried about some of the language that's being thrown around to achieve the goal that they're after.

The idea of "Core Dilution" is what people are afraid of. Many have seen the addition of consumable weapons and a Coolant Flush as evidence of Core Dilution. I have not seen any detrimental effects these things have caused to the game, yet.

I'm not really afraid of Core Dilution because this game is being made by BattleTech players and MechWarrior game players. If it was being made by people who didn't have any childhood relationship with BattleTech or MechWarrior, or people who didn't really care about the IP, then I might be more concerned... but I'm not. Call me a fool.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 July 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[James DeGriz]

Prosperity Park, on 01 July 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

The idea of "Core Dilution" is what people are afraid of. Many have seen the addition of consumable weapons and a Coolant Flush as evidence of Core Dilution. I have not seen any detrimental effects these things have caused to the game, yet.

I'm not really afraid of Core Dilution because this game is being made by BattleTech players and MechWarrior game players. If it was being made by people who didn't have any childhood relationship with BattleTech or MechWarrior, or people who didn't really care about the IP, then I might be more concerned... but I'm not. Call me a fool.

Well again, that is a fair point. And I have to agree with what you say about MWO being developed by a group of people who have a personal interest in making the game have all those core elements that made the originals so engaging, however things like Coolant Flush and Airstrikes are much further down the list of what makes MechWarrior, well.. MechWarrior. The players POV is part of the games foundation.

You may well be right and 3PV will be implemented in a way that won't detract from what it is, but there are certain things that have been said, that give me and others concern - and it's not so much what's been said, but the way it's been said:

"There will be no 3PV". "We Might have 3PV". "3PV is going in"
Alright, there's a design ideal in the games inception, and further down the line, it's found it might be an idea to modify that. No problem there.

"The forums are a minority in terms of the entire playerbase of MWO and the majority tells us 3PV is a much wanted feature"

Erm. OOookkaay.. even though outside the forums, the view expressed on social media and the like pretty much echoes what the majority of the forum users think? OK.. so there's a strong likelihood that those fans who are vocal in the forums are the same people as the ones on Social Media. Any chance of some transparency in that data, so that we can at least see why you've made the U-turn?

"3PV is going in. We're not interested in hearing why you don't want it, we want constructive ways of including it".

Uh. Excuse me? Are you intentionally trying to wind us up?

"3PV will be available as a mixed mode with 1PV. There will be a hardcode mode of 1PV only for simheads and those wanting an extra challenge"

Sooo.. 1PV is for the special cases now, rather than the other way around?

Maybe because these guys are techies and not salesmen, or maybe because they're busy trying to write the damn game as well as keeping the baying mob of the community happy, you could perhaps understand why some of those statements are rather ... "unfortunately worded". Maybe that those unfortunately worded phrases conveyed an entirely different message to the one intended. Either way, with what we have, you can understand peoples concern and why it's such a bane of contention with so many people.

[sirius89]

Prosperity Park, on 01 July 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I see where you are coming from there, as the MechWarrior games have typically been more serious stompy-robot games with Mech building rules and customizations, lots of switches to toggle and weapons to configure, things to consider... and less "OMG ASPLOSIONS!!" than other stompy robot titles.

However... this game is being presented to a very wide audience. I think it is somewhat of a natural progression for a completely BT/MW-novice player to start with a 3rd person perspective, and then see if they then want to try it in "simulator mode." I can see many simulator buffs trying the game in 1pv and sticking with it, but I also see many more new players starting in 3pv and migrating to 1pv only if they so choose to.

The very wide audience that will drop the game after 3 days because they can't get Mad Skeeel MLG 360 no scopes and high K/D's.What's then left is the hardcore crowd that never asked for third person in the first place.

[Bloodweaver]

CapperDeluxe, on 01 July 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

People really need to get over the third person thing. There's plenty of other topics to drone on about, but this one really isn't an issue since they have declared that force first person will be an option.

Forced first-person queues will only be an option "out the gates", to quote.

You know what else was "out the gates"(again, quoting)? Complete lack of third-person.

Don't be surprised when they do a 180 on this a few months down the road. And be equally unsurprised when the forum white knights come along defending PGI's lawyerspeak.

[Dude42]

Bloodweaver, on 01 July 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Forced first-person queues will only be an option "out the gates", to quote.

You know what else was "out the gates"(again, quoting)? Complete lack of third-person.

Don't be surprised when they do a 180 on this a few months down the road. And be equally unsurprised when the forum white knights come along defending PGI's lawyerspeak.

I won't be surprised. They pretty much already stated they were gonna force us to play with 3PV exploiters or quit playing all together with their "Out of the gate" statement. I also won't be surprised when Pando shows up to defend it as the best decision ever made.

Just as long as PGI/IGP isn't surprised when I move on to other games it's all good.

Also, not buying a single MC from now on, unless we get some stronger language promising that we'll never be forced to play against the 3PV exploiters.

Edited by Dude42, 01 July 2013 - 11:50 AM.

[hammerreborn]

James DeGriz, on 01 July 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

This really does sound like the wicked witch from Snow White saying, "G'waan take a bite of this lovely juicy apple. You'll like it. Honest."

Completely missed the point of the question there Bryan. Some of us who are essentially against 3PV, are at least willing to try it from a balance point of view. I get some people prefer that view, even though it's not my preferred style of play.

The real problem I and many others have though, is nothing to do with its balance and everything to do with the way you appear to be marketing it. MechWarrior is and always has been primarily an FPV pseudo sim. Yes, have 3PV as an option for a "well rounded experience", but for the love of everything don't send out the message that it's the "normal" setting and that 1PV is only really for "simheads", like they're some oddball weirdos who like to intentionally gimp themselves for that "extra challenge".

THAT is why people will assume "3PV = MechAssault" and THAT is why you will get an awful lot of flack from the people who thought you were making an online MechWarrior game true to the original titles, rather than some watered down arcade game using the BattleTech IP.

How did he miss the point of the question? That some people are such incessant whiniers they'll even complain about the name of the ******* mode? Who gives a rats *** what the 3rd person mode is called.

And anyone who compares this game to MechAssault is a moron.

The fact that the 3rd person argument has shifted from "we don't want it" to attempting to "shame" people into not playing it is ridiculous. Grow up.

Edited by hammerreborn, 01 July 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[James DeGriz]

hammerreborn, on 01 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

How did he miss the point of the question? That some idiots that are such incessant whiniers they'll even complain about the name of the ******* mode? Who gives a rats *** what the 3rd person mode is called.

Bryan should have just said shut the **** up the name means nothing and keep complaining and I'll name the 1st only mode the 30 year old basement dwellers who rage about names. I would buy 3 more overlord packs.

And anyone who compares this game to MechAssault is a moron.

We all have something to contribute to this discussion. The best thing you can contribute is silence.

[BlacKcuD]

ENS Puskin, on 01 July 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Work under pressure is not good, be patient! The game will be bad becuase of players like you!

I was not being serious.

[darkfall13]

hammerreborn, on 01 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

How did he miss the point of the question? That some people are such incessant whiniers they'll even complain about the name of the ******* mode? Who gives a rats *** what the 3rd person mode is called.

And anyone who compares this game to MechAssault is a moron.

The fact that the 3rd person argument has shifted from "we don't want it" to attempting to "shame" people into not playing it is ridiculous. Grow up.

You're right... our revolution surrenders...

From henceforth the naming convention shall be as such:
1PV: "Default Mode"
3PV: "Necro-Pedo-phile Mode"

Because hey naming doesn't matter right?

Because when PGI says bend over you're getting 3PV whether you like it or not, the fight can no longer be about "hey can you maybe not put that in there?" but rather about the details of the object they want to ram down our arse.

Edited by darkfall13, 01 July 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[INSEkT L0GIC]

DirePhoenix, on 01 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

How are low-Elo players affecting other (presumably non-low-Elo) players? Shouldn't low-Elo players only being matched up with other low-Elo players?

It does not affect it if you are ungrouped.

However, if you are grouped I believe it calculates an average ELO score and goes by that.

So if you have a high ELO & are helping someone new, it is best to create new account(s) to train with.

[hammerreborn]

darkfall13, on 01 July 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

You're right... our revolution surrenders...

From henceforth the naming convention shall be as such:
1PV: "Default Mode"
3PV: "Necro-Pedo-phile Mode"

Because hey naming doesn't matter right?

Because when PGI says bend over you're getting 3PV whether you like it or not, the fight can no longer be about "hey can you maybe not put that in there?" but rather about the details of the object they want to ram down our arse.

I prefer 1st person only to be called 30 year old basement nerds that cry over video game mode names and third the master gaming race, but whatever floats your boat.

I find it hilarious that to refute my argument you wrote exactly what I said....

And if you're really so petty that the "detail" you choose to attack is the name...seriously, just give up and quit. You're embarrassing yourself

[Commander Kobold]

darkfall13, on 01 July 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

You're right... our revolution surrenders...

From henceforth the naming convention shall be as such:
1PV: "Default Mode"
3PV: "Necro-Pedo-phile Mode"

Because hey naming doesn't matter right?

Because when PGI says bend over you're getting 3PV whether you like it or not, the fight can no longer be about "hey can you maybe not put that in there?" but rather about the details of the object they want to ram down our arse.

3PV can be "Necro-Pedo-phile Mode" as long as 1PV is called "*****-Gargle-Wee-Wee"

[hammerreborn]

INSEkT L0GIC, on 01 July 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

It does not affect it if you are ungrouped.

However, if you are grouped I believe it calculates an average ELO score and goes by that.

So if you have a high ELO & are helping someone new, it is best to create new account(s) to train with.

There is also the rampant theory that because <insert poster here> is one of the hundred thousand players in the top 1% Elo bracket, anyone who has a poor match or gets one shot is immediately a low Elo scrub ruining their game

[James DeGriz]

hammerreborn, on 01 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

How did he miss the point of the question? That some people are such incessant whiniers they'll even complain about the name of the ******* mode? Who gives a rats *** what the 3rd person mode is called.

And anyone who compares this game to MechAssault is a moron.

The fact that the 3rd person argument has shifted from "we don't want it" to attempting to "shame" people into not playing it is ridiculous. Grow up.

Nicely edited. Where am I trying to shame people who want to play 3rd person, hmm? Would you like me to summarise the main points of the post you have so obviously missed?

I'll keep it short for your limited literacy:

"I don't have a problem with 3PV as part of a well rounded MechWarrior experience. This amended view comes from other rational points raised by some of its proponents".

"I do have a problem with language being used to introduce 3PV to the game in a way that suggests 1PV is no longer MechWarriors primary focus, and that it is only the mode people who are described as 'simheads' are likely to want to play. I do realise that this impression may not be the intended one, and my concerns could become unfounded".

Now, I realise I used some long words in there, but I'm sure with Googles help you'll be able to understand their meaning.

For info, this post is what an insult looks like. Learn to know the difference.