2021 replies to this topic

[Johnny Human]

Five by Five, on 30 August 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Had they not fixated on the old 3rd person view conflict, not gotten trapped inside of that, they could have actually designed a system that embraced a 3rd person view drone by balancing both tactical advantage (informational advantage) with risk and disadvantage. I'd really rather see a much more capable drone that also puts the pilot at much more risk (right now there is basically none, maybe artty or airstrike?). That would add depth and fun to the game. Instead, I'm annoyed at poor communication and at opportunities lost.

As long as using the drone is risk free,.... well, I sure would like to see those first person queues. And with-out the 1st person queues, I'd sure like to see a lot more risk added to using the drone.

Yes. If there is going to be a 3PV "drone" then that let's have that drone occupy a hardpoint slot on the mech and take up some tonnage. Give players an actual choice on if they want to balance giving their mech 3PV capabilities versus having the hardpoint and weight available for something else.

It doesn't even need to be that complicated to implement. Give all mechs and extra hardpoint slot and an extra ton on their torso, and stick a 3PV drone there by defaut which weighs one ton.

I would feel much better about 3PV view being in this game if I had the choice to remove my 3PV drone from my mech in favor of freeing up weight for, say, an extra ton of armor.

[Lord of All]

Johnny Human, on 30 August 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Yes. If there is going to be a 3PV "drone" then that let's have that drone occupy a hardpoint slot on the mech and take up some tonnage. Give players an actual choice on if they want to balance giving their mech 3PV capabilities versus having the hardpoint and weight available for something else.

It doesn't even need to be that complicated to implement. Give all mechs and extra hardpoint slot and an extra ton on their torso, and stick a 3PV drone there by defaut which weighs one ton.

I would feel much better about 3PV view being in this game if I had the choice to remove my 3PV drone from my mech in favor of freeing up weight for, say, an extra ton of armor.

I only agree with 3pv being a module if it is auto mounted on all trial mech and therefore works for it's stated purpose of helping N00bs.

But I would much prefer the separate Ques we we assured of.

[DashFire61]

zwanglos, on 20 August 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

And do what? Shoot the rock?

Same goes for the guy with 3rd person on, he cant fire either. So whats your point?

[Johnny Human]

Lord of All, on 30 August 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

I only agree with 3pv being a module if it is auto mounted on all trial mech and therefore works for it's stated purpose of helping N00bs.

But I would much prefer the separate Ques we we assured of.

The purpose as I understand it isn't so much to "help noobs" but rather to entice new players to the game who are otherwise too lazy to figure out game mechanics. Now, having a 3PV module on only trial mechs seems like a nice idea on the surface, but the problem is you don't pay for trial mechs. PGI's goal is to get new people to spend money. And those new players are not going to buy mechs if they can only play 3PV in trial mechs. (Since those new players have presumably been attracted to the game based on the 3PV experience.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that 3PV is in the game at all. But it seems PGI is going to stick to it no matter what. So let's at least implement a system that uses tradeoffs in the mechlab. Give players the choice of tangible benefits/incentives to remove 3PV capabilities from their mechs.

Edited by Johnny Human, 31 August 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[SprinkleFree]

Here's what gets me about all you petulant little children whining about the perceived wrongdoings of PGI:

Do you seriously think that in the 31st century AD, humankind will not have invented some kind of magical device called a "camera" that is capable of peering above and around geographic obstacles?

I mean it's not like humankind has already devised a technology that allows them to mount a remotely-controlled machinegun way up high, controlled via telemetry from a video camera, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?



OMG US MILITARY IS SUCH CHEATING, THEY R USING 3PV

[Rifter]

mad kat, on 29 August 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

'players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd person'


Er that's not a lie, nor even a U-turn as the two views are OPTIONAL.

Really? i didnt know you could optionally force all other players in the game with you into First person view only, please tell me how to do this.

[SprinkleFree]

Rifter, on 31 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Really? i didnt know you could optionally force all other players in the game with you into First person view only, please tell me how to do this.

You're focusing your anger in the wrong direction.

Granted, at a later point the developer in question stated that there would be separate 1PV/3PV queues so that you could play separately. The devs did indeed promise that.

However, it is painfully obvious to anybody with more than a passing understanding of the English language that the "never be forced to use or play" quote is in regards to YOU as the individual player. YOU will never be forced to use or play (the "against other players" is added for clarification here) in 3rd person mode. It's a sad fact that literacy is so low nowadays.

[RussianWolf]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Here's what gets me about all you petulant little children whining about the perceived wrongdoings of PGI:

Do you seriously think that in the 31st century AD, humankind will not have invented some kind of magical device called a "camera" that is capable of peering above and around geographic obstacles?

I mean it's not like humankind has already devised a technology that allows them to mount a remotely-controlled machinegun way up high, controlled via telemetry from a video camera, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?



OMG US MILITARY IS SUCH CHEATING, THEY R USING 3PV

actually that is 1PV, same for US drones. The pilot isn't seeing the drone, but is seeing as if he is in the "cockpit" of the drone.

I fly quadcopters (4 prop heliocopters). One of the subsets in the hobby is actually called FPV, where you mount a camera on the Quad and put on monitor goggles. It allows you the experience of flying without the risk of dying in a crash (though it still can be dangerous if you crash your quad into someone). If I fly without the goggles, watching the quad in the air, then I'm in 3PV.

[Johnny Human]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

OMG US MILITARY IS SUCH CHEATING, THEY R USING 3PV

From my perspective, being in the military is a lot less fun than playing a game. If we based all game design choices on strict translations of reality, gaming would be far worse off.

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

However, it is painfully obvious to anybody with more than a passing understanding of the English language that the "never be forced to use or play" quote is in regards to YOU as the individual player. YOU will never be forced to use or play (the "against other players" is added for clarification here) in 3rd person mode. It's a sad fact that literacy is so low nowadays.

Anyone with even a casual familiarity with the history of this issue will know that one of the biggest concerns was playing in games against other people who use 3PV. While one could make an attempt to misrepresent the statement as you have, it is absolutely clear that the intended meaning was to say a player would never be forced to participate in matches against other players using 3PV.

The "against other players" is plainly not added "for clarification." Besides having the context of the issue in which to comprehend the statement, it makes no sense to interpret it as you have because it would imply that "using" 3PV is different from "playing." Since the only way to "use" 3PV is by "playing" in 3PV, it is evident we are dealing with two separate clauses in this sentence: 1) that you will not need to use first person view, and 2) you will not be forced to play against others using first person view.

So, you may be trying to confound the issue by deliberately misrepresenting the statement, an attempt at duplicity which speaks poorly of your character. Or, you have poor reading comprehension. Either way, I advise you abandon this line of argument because neither of those possibilities makes you look very good.

(Don't worry, one of my previous jobs was working as a managing editor for a national publication, my literacy and understanding of the English language are quite sound.)

Edited by Johnny Human, 31 August 2013 - 11:04 AM.

[Dakross]

I tried to keep an open mind on this, but after playing against it, I have to say it's a big advantage for those who stoop to using it. Especially fighting against us lighter mechs who sneak up on the Assaults from behind.

This morning I encountered 3PV cheating in a couple matches (Alpine Map and Canyon Map). A scout would get behind terrain (we could see his camera) and be able to see over it while being immune to our attacks. From there he could scout our formation with impunity and direct his teamates to our locations.

If they won't let us have a "no 3PV" queue, then the drones need to be destroyable (with no respawn) and cause a full shutdown of the mech when they are destroyed, as well as minor cockpit or rear torso damage.

Just my $.02 on this.

Dak

[SprinkleFree]

Johnny Human, on 31 August 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

From my perspective, being in the military is a lot less fun than playing a game. If we based all game design choices on strict translations of reality, gaming would be far worse off.



Anyone with even a casual familiarity with the history of this issue will know that one of the biggest concerns was playing in games against other people who use 3PV. While one could make an attempt to misrepresent the statement as you have, it is absolutely clear that the intended meaning was to say a player would never be forced to participate in matches against other players using 3PV.

The "against other players" is plainly not added "for clarification." Besides having the context of the issue in which to comprehend the statement, it makes no sense to interpret it as you have because it would imply that "using" 3PV is different from "playing." Since the only way to "use" 3PV is by "playing" in 3PV, it is evident we are dealing with two separate clauses in this sentence: 1) that you will not need to use first person view, and 2) you will not be forced to play against others using first person view.

So, you may be trying to confound the issue by deliberately misrepresenting the statement, an attempt at duplicity which speaks poorly of your character. Or, you have poor reading comprehension. Either way, I advise you abandon this line of argument because neither of those possibilities makes you look very good.

(Don't worry, one of my previous jobs was working as a managing editor for a national publication, my literacy and understanding of the English language are quite sound.)

So did you CHOOSE to omit the part where I acknowledged the very point that you based your whole rant upon?

Quote

Granted, at a later point the developer in question stated that there would be separate 1PV/3PV queues so that you could play separately. The devs did indeed promise that.

I have some simple advice for you:

Uninstall the game.

Demand a refund for any goods you have paid for and not received (e.g. Project Phoenix)

And shut the **** up and stop trying to sabotage a good and fun game for those of us that actually enjoy it.

Oh, and by the way:

Johnny Human, on 31 August 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

From my perspective, being in the military is a lot less fun than playing a game. If we based all game design choices on strict translations of reality, gaming would be far worse off.

Do you even know what you want? No, you don't. You people are always whining and moaning and crying about how this is supposed to be a SIM, it's supposed to be REALISTIC, and 3PV is a travesty.... and then when I point out that 3PV is actually quite realistic, you backpedal and say "NOPE NOPE NOPE IT'S JUST A GAME"

Get over yourself.

Edited by SprinkleFree, 31 August 2013 - 01:45 PM.

[SprinkleFree]

Dakross, on 31 August 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

This morning I encountered 3PV cheating in a couple matches (Alpine Map and Canyon Map). A scout would get behind terrain (we could see his camera) and be able to see over it while being immune to our attacks. From there he could scout our formation with impunity and direct his teamates to our locations.

Oh my God, are you serious? That's preposterous! That's insane! How dare he!

By Jove, how could such a technology exist!? The ability to peer over obstacles whilst remaining concealed? That must take THOUSANDS of years of development! The application of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours! We won't have that technology until at least the 40th century AD! The 50th! Nay, the SIXTIETH century AD!

Right?

Er.... right?

Oh wait

[Amerante]

It supposed to be realistic... as much as Battletech was. So it is more likely supposed to be Battletech.
Beside the submarine example is quite bad. If a military ship discovers the peeking submarine it can easily destroy it, they have the weapons for it. So the submarine expose itself to danger in order to being able to gather info, 3pv scouts don't.

[Protection]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Oh my God, are you serious? That's preposterous! That's insane! How dare he!

By Jove, how could such a technology exist!? The ability to peer over obstacles whilst remaining concealed? That must take THOUSANDS of years of development! The application of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of man-hours! We won't have that technology until at least the 40th century AD! The 50th! Nay, the SIXTIETH century AD!

Right?

Er.... right?

Oh wait

Except you aren't understanding the way in which that changes gameplay for the worse. It's basically the final nail in the coffin for "role warfare" since the role of scout is now totally obsolete and lights serve no purpose other than to get back to base quickly to stop a capture. It's a permanent and core change to how large team battles unfold, and it's detrimental to tactics and depth. It eliminates risk and rewards defensive play, something that was already advantageous in MWO now given an additional boost.

It is a feature that most of the community never wanted, and the manner in which it was added was insulting and deceptive.

[Stile Jr]

sucks

[Johnny Human]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

So did you CHOOSE to omit the part where I acknowledged the very point that you based your whole rant upon?

Seems there is still a reading comprehension issue to resolve, so I will make another attempt.

Here's the statement under question:
“Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3^rd person.”

Now here is your misinterpretation of that phrase:
“...it is painfully obvious to anybody with more than a passing understanding of the English language that the "never be forced to use or play" quote is in regards to YOU as the individual player. YOU will never be forced to use or play (the "against other players" is added for clarification here) in 3rd person mode.”

I hope this makes it clear now to which statement of your I was providing a rebuttal. Your remarks represent an incorrect interpretation.

Also, let's define the meaning of “rant.” According to Merriam-Webster:
1. to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2. to scold vehemently

I've done neither. I will point out, however, that you seem to be doing quite a bit of it in these posts. Again, this kind of thing reflects poorly on one's character, so my advice would be to consider making your tone more civil.

Edited by Johnny Human, 31 August 2013 - 03:49 PM.

[Tolkien]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Here's what gets me about all you petulant little children whining about the perceived wrongdoings of PGI:

...

You make yourself hard to like, but I will try to point out a few articles that describe why the mood around here has become so overwhelmingly negative over the past year.

Penny arcade report[color=#959595]The hardcore mechwarrior online community is in open revolt[/color]
GameFront[color=#959595]A cautionary tale: The rage of the mechwarrior online community[/color]
Starburst Magazine[color=#959595] Mechwarrior Online faces widespread accusations of false advertising[/color]
The Mittani[color=#959595]MWO A failure to communicate[/color]
Loaded Dice[color=#959595]What happened to mechwarrior online? [/color]

The forums used to be brimming with optimism but the constant delays and missing features have left the founders (or at least many of us) very disappointed.

[Valaska]

I haven't played in ages, came back to see if they fixed the old problems with ECM etc, and holy hell they did it, they actually put third person view in the game despite 90%+ of us saying we didn't want it in, wasn't it like 3800 people who voted against it? Its ECM all over again haha.

[SprinkleFree]

Amerante, on 31 August 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

It supposed to be realistic... as much as Battletech was. So it is more likely supposed to be Battletech.
Beside the submarine example is quite bad. If a military ship discovers the peeking submarine it can easily destroy it, they have the weapons for it. So the submarine expose itself to danger in order to being able to gather info, 3pv scouts don't.

lol you're being deliberately obtuse.

It's NOT unreasonable to assume that, A THOUSAND YEARS FROM NOW, humanity will have the technology to peer around corners and over ridges without exposing themselves to fire.

[Chronojam]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Here's what gets me about all you petulant little children whining about the perceived wrongdoings of PGI:

Do you seriously think that in the 31st century AD, humankind will not have invented some kind of magical device called a "camera" that is capable of peering above and around geographic obstacles?

I mean it's not like humankind has already devised a technology that allows them to mount a remotely-controlled machinegun way up high, controlled via telemetry from a video camera, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?



OMG US MILITARY IS SUCH CHEATING, THEY R USING 3PV

The argument was never that "Indestructible anti-gravity camera bots are unrealistic" although it's a pretty good one to make if you want to bring realism into a series that is the future how the 80s saw it. The argument is that, beyond betraying their core principles or design pillars (this is just one more of several examples keep in mind), the addition of a disembodied third person camera has been proven to give players an advantage (despite PGI's claims to the contrary). It gives an extended advantage to competitive players while simultaneously giving a disadvantage to new players, because they cannot see their teammate or map information or even their legs, generally speaking, and makes it difficult to learn how to aim.