2021 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

The Clan Blood Spirit do not condone team killing, however badly you want to do it.

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.

They are called UAVs

[SprinkleFree]

Chronojam, on 31 August 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

It's almost as if the MWO community isn't one homogenous entity

True, but it's always the same vocal minority that insists upon raging at PGI and biting the hand that feeds them.

Quote

but you'd know that if you'd been around longer than a week.

I've actually been around since closed beta, but don't let that get in the way of your ad hominem. The age on your forum account is only tied to the date of your first post on the forum.

The more you know!

[SprinkleFree]

Mike Getsome, on 01 September 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

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 even see me?

Yeah! It's SO unrealistic to be able to fire long-range missiles from a concealed position!

Oh wait



You people are so ridiculous. You want a game with 31st century technology but 19th century tactics.

[Chronojam]

The people who designed BattleTech wanted to create a 31st century game with tech that had decayed to 21st century gear while employing 19th century tactics to defend their 16th century fiefdoms.

[Znail]

Mike Getsome, on 01 September 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

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 even see me?

I do that all the time, in 1PV that is.

One downside of this uproar is that we wont get much info from the devs anymore as they don't want to take the risk of making a statement that they will later change their minds about.

[Johnny Human]

SprinkleFree, on 01 September 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

You people are so ridiculous. You want a game with 31st century technology but 19th century tactics.

Actually, no. We just want the game mechanic that was advertised at the outset. Please note the phrase game mechanics. That is what is key. Not "what is realistic" or "what will probably be realistic in a fictional future." No one cares. We are very strictly talking about game mechanics.

[MWHawke]

Before you criticize people. learn to read and stop trying to ACT SMART.

MWHawke, on 01 September 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

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?

SprinkleFree, on 01 September 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Yeah! It's SO unrealistic to be able to fire long-range missiles from a concealed position!

Oh wait



You people are so ridiculous. You want a game with 31st century technology but 19th century tactics.

[Mike Getsome]

Znail, on 01 September 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

I do that all the time, in 1PV that is.

One downside of this uproar is that we wont get much info from the devs anymore as they don't want to take the risk of making a statement that they will later change their minds about.

No, stupit, you can't do it in 1PV, you wouldn't be able to see the enemy from your cockpit, you meant you shot lrms from cover at targets spotted by friendlies.

I'm talking about staying behind hill and launching lrms because your r3tarded non-Battletech drone is able to see the enemy.

I said the solution is simple - forget the drone, delete it, then make 3PV but with fog of war mechanic if you wish, like you wouldn't be able to see the enemy in 3PV that you wouldn't be able in 1PV, your cockpit is only line of sight.

That's all.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Kain, on 01 September 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Pros
-you can see your own mech..

Well, at least half of it ...

[evensen007]

I haven't posted or even visited in a while. I wanted to check the game status out and find out where community warfare is. I could *never*, ever in a million years have guessed that Russ, Bryan, and the team had destroyed the game so quickly. I suppose sometime in the future someone will write an article detailing the spectacular implosion that was MWO. WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE!?

Edited by evensen007, 02 September 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[GrandLocomon]

Darius Deadeye, on 21 August 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Now that 3rd person view has been implemented, I don't see any problems with it.

It doesn't give you any advantages whatsoever. You won't see any half decent players using 3rd person view to "their advantage", as all the advantages are in 1st person view.

3rd person view is pleasantly useless enough for me to not care at all about it.

Played a few rounds in 3rd person to try it out - did horribly.

Went back to 1st person and played fantastically.

Biggest offset was lack of the minimap - very disorienting.

You are supposed to use third person to look around corners and over cover not the entire time! The problem is in the ability to switch between them so effectively you get the advantages of both! You've completely missed the point of the arguments saying it's OP. ... technically it's the in-game switching that is OP.

[Trundel]

Well might as well give my two cents. I'm not a fan of 3rd person view at all for the changes that it gives the gameplay. As a Jenner I can now hide behind smaller rocks and tell team-mates exactly where the enemy is going without ever risking myself. Sure the weird floating camera should give me away but when I only need to toggle it for less than a second at a time to get a read on the number of enemy mechs and their composition, there's really not a downside and in the three matches that I tried this no one on the opposite side noticed me at all.

I feel weird that I suddenly have this advantage and there doesn't seem to be a concrete downside to the point where even though it clearly gives me an advantage I'd rather not use it at all due to feeling kind of scummy about it. I don't feel the need to get hyperbolic about this, but it's a confusing feature that in theory could provide some help to new players but isn't really balanced at all for the wider game, let alone competitive gameplay.

As an aside, was the choice to make the 3rd person toggle button F4 at all a nod to the rather rampant new player abuse where rookies were told to toggle their 3rd person mode by hitting Alt-F4?

I hope that this feedback helps.

[Teeboy]

just ignore sprinklefree. she is on the PGI payroll, not because she is smart, but because her dad pulled some strings so she wouldn't have to go to a juvenile detention center.

[Johnny Human]

After playing with 3PV a bit and contemplating all the feedback I think we can come to a few conclusions.

1.) 3PV was ostensibly implemented to attract new players, but will make the game harder for them. The combat limitations are obvious to veteran players (arm lock, no radar to see where players are in relation to teammates and enemies, that annoying reticle hop). But it will probably seem counter-intuitive to a new player that 3PV is not the best way to engage in combat. Given the fact that MWO is starting new players in 3PV by default, they won't know this and will assume that is how the game is meant to be played.

2.) 3PV will help veteran players who know how to exploit its advantages. There will be no shortage of players who understand the exploitative features of 3PV and when to use them.

In other words, anyone trying to use 3PV while in actual combat (a.k.a. "new players") will be at a disadvantage. They will score fewer kills, they will get killed quicker, and they will quite possibly even be harassed by others for using the 3PV camera.

This will have the exact opposite effect of what was intended by PGI and will drive new players away from the game.

We have tried the 3PV experiment. The impacts are fairly clear. Upside for ruthless veteran players willing to exploit it, downside for new players trying to learn the game. And if not fixed this will also have the effect of fracturing the community, and alienating the core player base that supported the game through the beta. None of this bodes well for the long-term future of the game.

The obvious solution is to make 3PV available in a tutorial mode only. Force new players to play through at least one tutorial before they start the game. In the meantime make 1PV the default mode when starting.

Edited by Johnny Human, 02 September 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[Enrage]

Not one more cent. Thats what you wankers are getting from me.

Ive 'invested' no less than five hundred dollars into this game and you screw it over with 3rd person view. Seriously. Piranha nor IGP is getting one more cent from me.

Ill quote myself "Continue to listen and you will continue to generate 'sales' revenue while you develop the game. You're in a unique situation in history, dont screw it up folks."

You will be remembered by more than just me how bad you screwed the pooch. I seriously hope you guys dont ever get another IP, even better, dont make games. Just go program for a bank instead.

Idiots

[Enrage]

SprinkleFree, on 01 September 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Yeah! It's SO unrealistic to be able to fire long-range missiles from a concealed position! Oh wait You people are so ridiculous. You want a game with 31st century technology but 19th century tactics.

We had a game that was fun and strategically challenging. Now we have an Xbox arcade game on the PC.

[evlkenevl]

A walking tank with arms is pretty irrational just by itself. There are far more effective and efficient types of locomotion for a machine. Pretty hard to grow or maintain biological wheels, tho.

We all would love that chance to play around with all the high-tech gizmos found on modern war equipment, but many of them are horrible for maintaining fairness and therefore fun in the limited simulation ability of a game. Hence, the current state of the forums.

Most players willing to leave feedback have deemed 3pv as one of those horrible things. Tally users' first posts in any 3pv feedback forum if you need proof. I need a REAL 1pv-only mode, not just 5% of my games. If 3pv remains forced, then I consider this game broken. I see it becoming nothing but a cash-grab without respect for those who supported it. Disagree if you want, but I'm trying to help see this game become something great.

MW is due for an epic title, not another bugged-up fizzle.

[evensen007]

Ok PGI, here's my 3rd person view feedback:

Hello,


Due to the condescending tone of the developers and their refusal to listen to their users, I am requesting a refund for the project phoenix pack.

PilotName: evensen007

Account logged under this email account.

Regards,

Christopher Evensen



Sent in to support and awaiting word.

Edited by evensen007, 02 September 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[Enrage]

Can someone point me in the direction of where I can get a refund?

Email sent to Support requesting a refund. I love Australian Consumer law

Edited by Enrage, 02 September 2013 - 08:08 PM.

[Helsbane]

Here's a perfectly legit way to show how we feel about MWO...

Download MW:LL and never look back at this steaming pile of sh*t. Generate community interest in a game that, while admittedly a mod (they never claimed it to be anything else), ACTUALLY WORKS.

Show the guys that were behind MW:LL that the community chooses them over PGI, and would like to see them continue to create content for their game. Hells, I bet we could even get funding going to support them if they required it.

PGI has proven they do not, and will not, care about the feedback we provide. Okay, fine, they can listen to crickets as the 'vocal minority' migrates to a game that is both MW and FUNCTIONAL.