270 replies to this topic

[Viper69]

dak irakoz, on 02 July 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Am I the only one who played the other mech games in third person?

No, because you had to in league play. If you did not you played in small leagues with even smaller populations. When I stopped playing the largest leagues were all 3pv and if you tried to play in 1pv you were at a large disadvantage. There is a reason people play 3pv and its not because you cant walk forward while looking left or right, its because it is easier, bottom line.

[hammerreborn]

James DeGriz, on 01 July 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Usually when someone quotes someone elses post, they do it to comment on something that they've said. Like you did just now, like you did originally, and like I have done here.

A stream of profanity, calling people "incessant whiners", "morons" or "Basement dwelling 30 year olds" isn't insulting? Maybe it's not in your trailer park, but here in the civilised world, it sure is.

Maybe if you had more of an understanding of basic english, you could understand why people have these concerns.

You really aren't that good at that reading thing are you?

My post was three short paragraphs, and apparently you didn't even finish the first. Hell, it was the first sentence.

Quote

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.

Ed Steele, on 01 July 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

And you sound like an eight year old arguing about who's daddy has a better job. You are probably a 40 year old divorced neckbeard.

A) my dad does have a better job
B ) I'm 27
C) I'm happily married
D) I have a better job than you too

You did get the beard thing right, it keeps my face warm

Viper69, on 02 July 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

[/size]

You know what else you guys promised Bryan? You guys promised there would be no 3pv and no coolant flushes. So really do you expect us to believe much of what you guys say? I know you don't care if we do because you pretty much spat in our faces with your 3pv weather you like it or not approach.

Yay another one. Cite me, entire posts mind you not cherry picked out of context sentences, where PGI promised no third person

[Walrus Jockey]

There comes a time in every game developer's life, when while taking a already defined game system and "porting" it into the digital landscape, that they must make a choice of just how much they are willing or will need to bend the rules. But in my opinion
3PV is pushing things past simply bending he rules. The loss in fidelity to the concept of "Realtime Simulator" is striking.

I have a hard time believing that it serves any purpose other than to pander to small groups that 1) find it difficult to pilot their mech because their so used to other games with 3PV, 2) min-max'ers that want to squeeze any advantage they can out of the system, or 3) people who simply like to look at themselves (or the digital representation of themselves in game).. In the end it's those not with the majority voice that get attention but rather those who's is heard not often... "The squeaky wheel get the grease".

The game needs to better define itself as not another FPS, but at an immersive simulator.

If you want to separate the communities between 1 & 3 PV, that's fine, but 1PV should be encouraged as "Normal" mode, not hardcore.

Sarcastically I would say that if you want to see outside our mech look out the cockpit window, and at the most give the mech an exterior camera, that they can switch to, much like the PIP cam or the backup cam on my truck, AND it should be just as grainy and out of focus..

Edited by Ceistant, 02 July 2013 - 07:10 AM.

[Viper69]

hammerreborn, on 02 July 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Yay another one. Cite me, entire posts mind you not cherry picked out of context sentences, where PGI promised no third person

Dude, forget if you want but Paul did a interview and said it went against their pillars of game design. If you don't believe me its fine man but I am not going to defend myself to you when I and everyone who saw the post knows what was said. So go find it yourself if you don't believe me pal.

You know what, 5 minutes of googling yielded me this.
http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

He said they will investigate 3rd person for special game modes very far in the future. he also said MWO would be 100% 1st person view. So read that and see what you will.

Edited by Viper69, 02 July 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[InRev]

You know hammerreborn, I think people would be more open to your arguments and perspectives if you didn't insult them every.single.time. Calling someone a "whiner", or a "basement-dweller" because they disagree with PGI's business practices and game decisions is not only fallacious argumentation, but toxic as well. It destroys any chance of dialog that may exist and serves only to polarize the discussion even further.

When one is alone with one's beliefs, it generally a better idea to take the high-road when advancing them.

[Walrus Jockey]

dak irakoz, on 02 July 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Am I the only one who played the other mech games in third person?

As nostalgic as I get about MechWarrior PC games, I find no value in chaining ourselves to then. MWOs has a great opportunity to redefine real Mech Combat.

Edited by Ceistant, 02 July 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[SVK Puskin]

BlacKcuD, on 01 July 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

I was not being serious.

So be a man and be serious.

[Theodor Kling]

Thontor, on 28 June 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Nah, I prefer the current flight path, where they are just as effective at range as they are up close. Once you start making them spread less at closer range, you make them much harder to balance properly. Balance them at longer range and they are too good up close. Balance them up close, and they are too weak at longer range.

The current spread is great, though I would prefer the formation not be so random. They could also use a slight damage increase.

I also agree with the current flight path. wider then the old one, and less wide then the one they tested inbetween. Dmg is difficult to judge because of bugged hit registration.

Lonestar1771, on 28 June 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

So... when exactly is UI 2.0 supposed to launch? Seems like that is holding everything up while at the same time being nothing more than window dressing.

Good question

Apostal, on 28 June 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

All I got from that AtD was that the majority of playability options like the integrated comms and a hud rework is after launch, seriously need that comm's for pug gaming over 3 months back when it was talked about

Oh yes... ingame voice should have been in from the beginning.

[spectralthundr]

Skye Storm, on 28 June 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

I'm a founder and I detest the idea of 3PV

I detest even the thought of it, and I would imagine the majorty feels the same way in not wanting to give an unfair visual advantage by allowing 3rd person. Every time PGI takes a step towards balancing the game they come up with a way to totally break it. 3PV is flat out a terrible terrible idea.

[Cubivorre]

Bryan Ekman, on 28 June 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

A: We communicate regularly

Riiiiiiiiight...

[Grimmnyr]

@Hammerreborn

I deleted my emotionally driven retort after I decided that it was not constructive. Our insults may or may not be accurate, but ultimately will have no effect on how 3PV is implemented in the game.

[Stomp]

Lefteye, on 28 June 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

I asked ther same question twice in a row, and got totally ignored in the last two "Ask the Devs". I don't expect all answers to be equally important, nor for them to answer all questions, but mine was pretty simple and I wonder how hard can it be to say yes or no.

I just asked if with the new UI we'll get a better way to admire the 3D models of our 'mechs. Nothing is more underwhelming of what we have now and considering all other games on the markets where you pilot a big vehicle have a nice "showroom" function, I just asked when and if we'll get a chance to rotate our mechs while zooming in and out in the mechlab to appreciate the stuff we are piloting and had paid for.

Am I really the only one who misses this?

Anyway, no answer. Meh.

I think they stated in the UI 2.0 notes that you'll be able to look at the mech itself without having to go into Camo Spec or the Loadout screen, but don't quote me on that.

[hammerreborn]

Viper69, on 02 July 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Dude, forget if you want but Paul did a interview and said it went against their pillars of game design. If you don't believe me its fine man but I am not going to defend myself to you when I and everyone who saw the post knows what was said. So go find it yourself if you don't believe me pal.

You know what, 5 minutes of googling yielded me this.
http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

He said they will investigate 3rd person for special game modes very far in the future. he also said MWO would be 100% 1st person view. So read that and see what you will.

Ah, the same post that everyone foolishly links to. At least you openly admit that 3rd person is for special game modes (and you do realize having a seperate queue for 3rd person that can not be used in merc v merc scheduled battles fits the definition of special, right? Also, I would consider a year later to be in the far future).

There is also this:

Quote

While we appreciate those who enjoy 3rd person, MWO will be 1st person out of the gate and in the near future

You don't say that if you are promising never to have 3rd person.

Quote

It is 100% first person view only.

Note how this is in the present tense.

So Paul's post has two statements saying 3rd in the future, and one saying 100% 1st in present tense. And you are wondering why I call out everyone who says they promised no 3rd?

Look, you can hate third all you want, but don't ever argue that this was some broken promise. I knew this was coming back when I read that post way before I got my Founders.


The argument against Coolant has so much more standing as a "broken promise" than third ever has or ever will.

Quote

You know hammerreborn, I think people would be more open to your arguments and perspectives if you didn't insult them every.single.time. Calling someone a "whiner", or a "basement-dweller" because they disagree with PGI's business practices and game decisions is not only fallacious argumentation, but toxic as well. It destroys any chance of dialog that may exist and serves only to polarize the discussion even further.

When one is alone with one's beliefs, it generally a better idea to take the high-road when advancing them.

Yes, because there is soooooo much maturity coming from your side. You know, the ones call 3rd person training and have it panned so far back you can see the training wheels, or the lies (see above), or the guy who said call 3rd person the child necro philas, or the person who said I'm illiterate and live in a trailer park.

Don't want to be called a whiner? Don't cry an ocean every single time you don't get your way for something that was announced over a year ago as a possibility. It's really all that simple.

Edited by hammerreborn, 02 July 2013 - 09:38 AM.

[BlackBeltJones]

Re: hammerreborn
"never argue with an (*****), they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Leave this fool to his foolish ways.

[Viper69]

hammerreborn, on 02 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Ah, the same post that everyone foolishly links to. At least you openly admit that 3rd person is for special game modes (and you do realize having a seperate queue for 3rd person that can not be used in merc v merc scheduled battles fits the definition of special, right? Also, I would consider a year later to be in the far future).

There is also this:



You don't say that if you are promising never to have 3rd person.




Note how this is in the present tense.

So Paul's post has two statements saying 3rd in the future, and one saying 100% 1st in present tense. And you are wondering why I call out everyone who says they promised no 3rd?

Look, you can hate third all you want, but don't ever argue that this was some broken promise. I knew this was coming back when I read that post way before I got my Founders.

Thanks for walking me through what everything meant in his post, I understood perfectly what it meant. However i'm glad they hold their design pillar in such high regard. Its funny when I read that initial post I read "Special game modes" as training only, but we can see how interpretation can be 20/20 a year later. To me I would interpret a key design pillar as having more weight than a feature you may investigate in the far off future. That is my argument and why I hate these ****** so much.

Thanks for the spirited debate though Hammer. S!

[Henchman 24]

VOIP comes up and we get

Quote

A: No firm dates, we have a concept ready when the team has some free time after launch.

So not only is this 'competitive, supposedly esport-bound' game launched into open beta with no real useful comms, a full year later after one of the more heated discussions on it from last year is gone from the forums, but it will launch as a full 1.0(nyuck) with no VOIP comms.

sigh...way to keep your base splintered!

[Viper69]

Henchman 24, on 02 July 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

VOIP comes up and we get


So not only is this 'competitive, supposedly esport-bound' game launched into open beta with no real useful comms, a full year later after one of the more heated discussions on it from last year is gone from the forums, but it will launch as a full 1.0(nyuck) with no VOIP comms.

sigh...way to keep your base splintered!

The best VOIP implemented game I ever played was DDO. It had the most clear and most powerful ingame tools for a VOIP integrated system.

[hammerreborn]

Viper69, on 02 July 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Thanks for walking me through what everything meant in his post, I understood perfectly what it meant. However i'm glad they hold their design pillar in such high regard. Its funny when I read that initial post I read "Special game modes" as training only, but we can see how interpretation can be 20/20 a year later. To me I would interpret a key design pillar as having more weight than a feature you may investigate in the far off future. That is my argument and why I hate these ****** so much.

Thanks for the spirited debate though Hammer. S!

See, maybe its just my job bleeding through, but as a patent examiner, every single word counts and has a "broadest reasonable interpretation" and meaning.

Reading that post pretty much made me go 3rd would be implemented. Like you, not sure how, maybe training, maybe something else, but the fact that it was coming was entirely guarenteed, so I find it really, really difficult to be angry about it, or support those that use "PGI LIED, MWO DIED" as their rallying cry against it.

I'd also argue that by keeping the hardcore "merc vs merc" fights 1st only and some of the other perks I'm sure they will be seeing kinda satisifes the focusing on 1st person pillar of design. Then again, almost none of their "pillars" have really come to fuition at this point, we don't have multi-targetting or spoofs in info warfare, role warfare they've admitted is pretty much in shambles (in that only combat is truely rewarded), and CW hasn't even seen the light of day, so who knows.

[Viper69]

hammerreborn, on 02 July 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

See, maybe its just my job bleeding through, but as a patent examiner, every single word counts and has a "broadest reasonable interpretation" and meaning.

Reading that post pretty much made me go 3rd would be implemented. Like you, not sure how, maybe training, maybe something else, but the fact that it was coming was entirely guarenteed, so I find it really, really difficult to be angry about it, or support those that use "PGI LIED, MWO DIED" as their rallying cry against it.

I'd also argue that by keeping the hardcore "merc vs merc" fights 1st only and some of the other perks I'm sure they will be seeing kinda satisifes the focusing on 1st person pillar of design. Then again, almost none of their "pillars" have really come to fuition at this point, we don't have multi-targetting or spoofs in info warfare, role warfare they've admitted is pretty much in shambles (in that only combat is truely rewarded), and CW hasn't even seen the light of day, so who knows.

Patent examiner? As my friend George would say OOOOOhhhh MMMYyyy. I have a few patents that had to be written so vague as to cover as many points it was not funny while still trying to protect the core of our design. Got a few lamps and mugs around here.

At any rate keep deciphering the sanscript of patent drawings. remember fig.A-1 is referring to the way the object is detected not the object itself.

[Aleksanteri Bekker]

Sorry everyone, been gone a while, please forgive my dumb q, but I was reading this ATD and saw:

Quote

hawk819: With the Clan Weapons just announced in the last Ask the Devs, I (and maybe a thousand others) want to know: What will become of the OmniMechs? Mad Cat? Vulture? etc.
A: They will show up in the future at some point.

So I went to read the last ATD (#40) and found absolutely no mention about Clans, Clan Weapons, Clan Mechs... nothing. Does anyone know what this is referring to?