25 replies to this topic

[Team Leader]

They already use the 1PV to draw the reticle, right? I propose they use the same system as the targeting thing, and apply it to... MECH RENDERING!! So, if you cant see it in 1PV, it doesnt even appear in 3PV! Problem solved, right? Maybe they apply it to environmental and weapon effects too, idk. We should definitely do this.

Talking about the mechs only btw, you should still be able to see your allies (maybe as only wireframes until theyre in physical sight?) but enemies would simply not appear while all the terrain and stuff would still be visible. After all 3pv is a training tool for new players right?

Edited by Team Leader, 11 August 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[Coralld]

Team Leader, on 10 August 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

They already use the 1PV to draw the reticle, right? I propose they use the same system as the targeting thing, and apply it to... MECH RENDERING!! So, if you cant see it in 1PV, it doesnt even appear in 3PV! Problem solved, right? Maybe they apply it to environmental and weapon effects too, idk. We should definitely do this.

This is something I have proposed before in other threads about the 3PV subject but every one appeared to ignore it. I honestly think if PGI did this then the fear of periscoping would be significantly less and make both 1PV and 3PV be on a even playing field.

[Team Leader]

Coralld, on 10 August 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

This is something I have proposed before in other threads about the 3PV subject but every one appeared to ignore it. I honestly think if PGI did this then the fear of periscoping would be significantly less and make both 1PV and 3PV be on a even playing field.

It seems like the biggest no brainer solution... Would pretty much crush those fears yeah.

[Coralld]

Team Leader, on 10 August 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

It seems like the biggest no brainer solution... Would pretty much crush those fears yeah.

Yes it would. Now I would agree that the best course of action would be to simply remove 3PV, but this is PGI we are talking about and they would never do that, so the second best option to balance 3PV would be to go down this rout. Problem solved, which then just leaves us with the meta balance and hit detection as the next big issues that NEED to be solved.

Edited by Coralld, 10 August 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[Wolfways]

This is how WoT does it. What you see is decided on the position of your tank, not your "camera", so while you might be able to see around a hill you won't know if there's a tank there until you move your tank forward.

[Coralld]

Wolfways, on 10 August 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

This is how WoT does it. What you see is decided on the position of your tank, not your "camera", so while you might be able to see around a hill you won't know if there's a tank there until you move your tank forward.

Who cares, as long as it balances 1PV and 3PV I will be much happier.

I am curies as to why some people say no to this idea.

Edited by Coralld, 10 August 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[Deathlike]

It doesn't matter how it gets done... it just has to get done. On PGI's track record, it probably won't be in any consideration.

[Coralld]

Deathlike, on 10 August 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

It doesn't matter how it gets done... it just has to get done. On PGI's track record, it probably won't be in any consideration.

Perhaps if we convince them that it was their idea all along they will do it.

[Zylo]

Team Leader, on 10 August 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

They already use the 1PV to draw the reticle, right? I propose they use the same system as the targeting thing, and apply it to... MECH RENDERING!! So, if you cant see it in 1PV, it doesnt even appear in 3PV! Problem solved, right? Maybe they apply it to environmental and weapon effects too, idk. We should definitely do this.

Talking about the mechs only btw, you should still be able to see your allies (maybe as only wireframes until theyre in physical sight?) but enemies would simply not appear while all the terrain and stuff would still be visible. After all 3pv is a training tool for new players right?

I have a difficult time believing players would not find a way to exploit this allowing mechs to render. Sure that could get them banned if they get caught but if they don't get caught it's a balance issue between those who exploit and those who play by the rules. I also don't trust PGI to pull off a sort of WoT type of spotting/rendering system based on mech visibility.

[Deathlike]

Coralld, on 10 August 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Perhaps if we convince them that it was their idea all along they will do it.

The ECM hardpoint was a bunch of people's silly idea. Now its there and it is simply a terrible idea from the beginning. Same thing happened with BAP LITERALLY being the hard counter to ECM. People wanted that BAP would reduce the effect of ECM... but PGI made it a literal hard counter to ECM.

So, take that for what it is worth.

Edited by Deathlike, 10 August 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Eddrick]

I know this feature comes from World of Tanks. I have never played it. But, the idea makes sense. I don't think there would be to much confusion over why enemies appear out of thin air, near a new person. That is the only factor that would matter for it to be considered.

[Coralld]

Zylo, on 10 August 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I have a difficult time believing players would not find a way to exploit this allowing mechs to render. Sure that could get them banned if they get caught but if they don't get caught it's a balance issue between those who exploit and those who play by the rules. I also don't trust PGI to pull off a sort of WoT type of spotting/rendering system based on mech visibility.

Lets see, the way I see it is like this. We go down the WoT 3PV rout with most people playing fair and a few people abusing exploit and run the risk of being banned, OR, have every one run around with periscopes like little submarines.

Deathlike, on 10 August 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

The ECM hardpoint was a bunch of people's silly idea. Now its there and it is simply a terrible idea from the beginning. Same thing happened with BAP LITERALLY being the hard counter to ECM. People wanted that BAP would reduce the effect of ECM... but PGI made it a literal hard counter to ECM.

So, take that for what it is worth.

I don't recall a lot of people behind that given the fact that it didn't solve the OP ECM problem. The reason why IMO PGI used that idea is because it was easy to do and allowed them to say "Look, we did something."

Edited by Coralld, 10 August 2013 - 02:24 PM.

[Deathlike]

Coralld, on 10 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Lets see, the way I see it is like this. We go down the WoT 3PV rout with most people playing fair and a few people abusing exploit and run the risk of being banned, OR, have every one run around with periscopes like little submarines.

These ideas were pushed by actual players in the godforsaken ECM threads of lore. Feel free to read through that train wreck. These suggestions have ALSO appeared in AtDs.

Quote

I don't recall a lot of people behind that given the fact that it didn't solve the OP ECM problem. The reason why IMO PGI used that idea is because it was easy to do and allowed them to say "Look, we did something."

Well, that's besides the obvious lazy points that PGI has been in favor of. ECM isn't inherently OP, but there are too many properties that make it too desirable and people who don't use it when given the option are foolish. That's the problem with designs that make people MUST take something to the detriment of the game and its gameplay...

[Coralld]

Deathlike, on 10 August 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

These ideas were pushed by actual players in the godforsaken ECM threads of lore. Feel free to read through that train wreck. These suggestions have ALSO appeared in AtDs.

So we don't use this idea for 3PV even though this idea actually has merits on balancing the two views because PGI in the past went with a train wreck of an idea based on the community? So in short, we are going to allow a few bad apples of ideas to ruin the bunch? Now I know that's not what you are saying but that's kinda what I am getting from your posts after your first one where you said, basically, you don't care how it gets done as long as it gets done. Well, this idea gets it done.

Also, my comment on 'making it sound like it was PGIs idea from the start' was more of a joke. Which clearly went over peoples heads. I kinda thought the smiley face would give it away, guess I was mistaken.

Edited by Coralld, 11 August 2013 - 03:55 PM.

[Deathlike]

Coralld, on 11 August 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

So we don't do anything to 3PV even though this idea actually has merits on balancing the two views because PGI in the past went with a train wreck of an idea based on the community? So in short, we are going to allow a few bad apples of ideas to ruin the bunch? Now I am know that's not what you are saying but that's kinda what I am getting from your posts after your first one where you said, basically, you don't care how it gets done as long as it gets done. Well, this idea gets it done.

Actually, it kinda matters how it gets done... because like in various threads, the actual PGI solution is generally either too much or too little in the actual effectiveness in the details. The basic idea for the solution is fine, but given how there isn't an explanation on why low graphic settings are beneficial to see mechs from far away (over higher graphics settings)... the implications of what PGI decides to do never ceases to boggle anyone's mind.

Quote

Also, my comment on 'making it sound like it was PGIs idea from the start' was more of a joke. Which clearly went over peoples heads. I kinda thought the smiley face would give it away, guess I was mistaken.

It takes a while for sarcasm to be understood on the Internets. Perhaps, it needs a little bit of work.

[Coralld]

Deathlike, on 11 August 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Actually, it kinda matters how it gets done... because like in various threads, the actual PGI solution is generally either too much or too little in the actual effectiveness in the details. The basic idea for the solution is fine, but given how there isn't an explanation on why low graphic settings are beneficial to see mechs from far away (over higher graphics settings)... the implications of what PGI decides to do never ceases to boggle anyone's mind.

No argument from me on this one.

Deathlike, on 11 August 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

It takes a while for sarcasm to be understood on the Internets. Perhaps, it needs a little bit of work.

Perhaps PGI should put in a smiley with a jesters hat.

Ok, we are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic. Implementation of WoT 3PV into the MWO 3PV gets two thumbs up from me... As if that wasn't clear already.

[Team Leader]

Coralld, on 10 August 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Who cares, as long as it balances 1PV and 3PV I will be much happier.

I am curies as to why some people say no to this idea.

Yeah me neither. Zylo seems to be the only unsure poster here so far. Can this thread get more attention please? thanks lol.

[Team Leader]

Zylo, on 10 August 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I have a difficult time believing players would not find a way to exploit this allowing mechs to render. Sure that could get them banned if they get caught but if they don't get caught it's a balance issue between those who exploit and those who play by the rules. I also don't trust PGI to pull off a sort of WoT type of spotting/rendering system based on mech visibility.

if theyre hacking i think you would have bigger problems than them "exploiting" the 3pv system lol

[Jestun]

While it's better than being able to see everything you can still see the exact terrain over and around cover so it still gives an advantage.

What about weapons? Say there are two buildings in front of you with a gap between them and someone fires on the other side of the cover with the beam visible through the gap in 1st person:

What would you see in 3rd person, just the part of the beam visible from the cockpit, a few feet of laser in mid-air?


And what consideration has been given to the resources required to track this? We have a system that already tracks all non-hitscan projectiles to see if they hit a mech. On top of this the server would now need to track your x,y,z position and the x,y angles that your torso is pointing and assess exactly where all the other mechs are (and potentially all of their projectiles & beams) and then calculate exactly what cover is between the two to decide whether to render it.

Edited by Jestun, 11 August 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Team Leader, on 10 August 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

They already use the 1PV to draw the reticle, right? I propose they use the same system as the targeting thing, and apply it to... MECH RENDERING!! So, if you cant see it in 1PV, it doesnt even appear in 3PV! Problem solved, right? Maybe they apply it to environmental and weapon effects too, idk. We should definitely do this.

That's how WoT does it - you can play a few matches there and see for yourself how it works. Most people are not very thrilled about targets magically appearing out of nowhere though. Besides, it doesn't address the problem with people in 3PV being able to see buildings/hills they are about to bump into, and if you don't render terrain it would look really crappy.