2021 replies to this topic

[Chronojam]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

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.

Except this is a future where personal computers are uncommon, and a walkie-talkie is far more common than a cellular telephone. This is not the future of 2013. Much like the future of Fallout is the future of the 50s, the future of BattleTech is the future of the 80s,

[Valaska]

It's also a video game. Fun sort of trumps "BUT THE FUTURE SHOULD DO THIS"

[SprinkleFree]

Valaska, on 31 August 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

It's also a video game. Fun sort of trumps "BUT THE FUTURE SHOULD DO THIS"

So WHICH IS IT?

It's a simulation when it suits you people
It's a "fun video game" when it suits you people

You people can't make up your minds.

[Johnny Human]

It is a simulation-style video game.

As in "this is a game which utilizes the gameplay mechanic of being a simulator." (Or at least it did, prior to the current 3PV implementation.)

It cannot be a simulation of reality since the reality upon which it is based is fictional. This much should likely be obvious to anyone in this thread, but if saying it explicitly can help move the discussion along, then there, it's been said.

[Chronojam]

SprinkleFree, on 31 August 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

So WHICH IS IT?

It's a simulation when it suits you people
It's a "fun video game" when it suits you people

You people can't make up your minds.

It's almost as if the MWO community isn't one homogenous entity, but you'd know that if you'd been around longer than a week.

[VarietyOfCells]

I had so much hope back when PGI proudly ignored the cries for a rear view camera because they knew it would hurt the sort of gameplay they were trying to encourage. They seemed to have such a firm grasp of what a free to play game should be. And now we have this. I'm not the type to ask for a refund; I knew the risk of spending money on something that wasn't finished. But I don't see myself playing any longer.

Just adding my voice to those who are not happy.

[Ensaine]

Made the big time ......

http://games.slashdo...mmunity-warfare

[Ghost_19Hz]

It gives an advantage to vets and hurts new players. Its the opposite of what was touted, can we take it out now?

[Chronojam]

https://twitter.com/...999287830061056

Posted August 20

[Modo44]

Another gameplay improvement from 3PV: I was just TK'd in a match for refusing to go back to 1PV. Thanks, PGI.

[Tolkien]

Modo44, on 01 September 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Another gameplay improvement from 3PV: I was just TK'd in a match for refusing to go back to 1PV. Thanks, PGI.

You can't blame PGI for that, it was a jerk that did it, not PGI.

You can however complain that there still isn't an in game report function meaning that jerks like that seldom get reported and continue to do that

[Modo44]

I think it was a premade that did this, and yeah, they got reported. But I do blame PGI -- for introducing a game mechanic so bad, it intices people to seriously gimp their own team (like destroying the one DDC on the team).

[BDU Drakzen]

I personally stopped supporting the game when they let it loose in the web broadcast they were looking at it, Already saw the writing on the wall at that time and stopped playing a couple weeks later. I have no plans on playing the game further after this hit the live servers though I wished you would have stuck to the original design plan which is what generated the excitement that so many of your founders bought into.

So my feedback is - You not only hurt yourself but other game developers that gather a community together on the premise to create a game based on a set group of principles, only to reverse the defining characteristics that were so heavily talked about up front because you enabled the publisher to dictate to you what they want, not what the starting community wanted based on your original design. This reversal of principles will ***** future projects especially when associated with a publisher as you did with this project. Face it, without the initial launch from the founders you would not have a game today, you have swapped a loyal fan base for a transient population of misfits. In the end your loss.

Edited by BDU Drakzen, 01 September 2013 - 09:05 AM.

[Uri Brauer]

Ugh. Well that's one game wasted because some ***** decided to default to 3rd person without warning us...

Do not want.

[VarietyOfCells]

It's not too late to take some advice from Microsot and completely about face on your current policies due to a consumer outcry. Just take out 3pv and we can all forget this ever happened. It'll all be like a bad dream we collectivly wake up from, and then we can continue to give you money.

[MWHawke]

Chronojam, on 31 August 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

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.

Just to add on, it's curious how come they can have a camera that allows people to look over hills and round corners, but a UAV only can see 240m distance. Oh, and if they have a camera like that, then how come nobody is smart enough to install it so that it faces backwards and sideways so that instead of having to turn around, you can have screens showing you a 360 degree arc around you?

[Warge]

Modo44, on 01 September 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Another gameplay improvement from 3PV: I was just TK'd in a match for refusing to go back to 1PV. Thanks, PGI.

From one side i disagree with such behavior.
From second one... I'm on his side.

Edited by Warge, 01 September 2013 - 01:09 PM.

[Mike Getsome]

How the f*ck 3PV is alright when I can stay below cover and launch lrms from shoulder rocket pods to an enemy that can't even see me?

I'm telling you for a hundred time: 3PV shouldn't give any more vision that 1PV i.e. you can't see enemy in 3PV if you wouldn't be able to see him in 1PV. That makes perfect sense and eliminates all the issues with 3PV.

Edited by Mike Getsome, 02 September 2013 - 03:54 AM.

[mad kat]

P.G.I. keep up the good work giving us a great mech GAME that we have waited ten years for!!!!!!

sheesh talk about biting the hand that feeds!

[Kain]

mad kat, on 01 September 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

P.G.I. keep up the good work giving us a great mech GAME that we have waited ten years for!!!!!!

sheesh talk about biting the hand that feeds!

After a decade without eating, people will eat anything, but it doesn't says anything about the quality what you are eating.

Cons
-Making 3pv the default mode is bad imo
-Dont tell how you can switch views is bad imo
-Adding 3pv overall is bad. Imo
-Don't add separate queues initially is bad. Imo
-3pv scouting/spotting advantage is REALLY bad imo.

Pros
-you can see your own mech..