123 replies to this topic

[Marmon Rzohr]

+1

3PV as is was bad design and even worse PR.
The could solve this simply by restricting 3PV to trial mechs ! It wouldn't even take much programming work I think. And would solve all the problems. New pilots keep training wheels, no competitive concerns. (Trials could be banned from tourneys if one ever came out that was actually usable)

Edit:
To all of you who think this isn't an advantage: it isn't a combat advatage. It's a SCOUTING advantage. Seeing others while the can't shoot at your squishy light mech is like an extra free ECM. It's a bad thing, even if it's situational since it can't be completely fixed.

Especially if you want it to serve a purpouse with new players. (Do you see the legs on that Atlas ? No ? Then what was PGI's point ?)

Original credit goes to:
http://mwomercs.com/...to-trial-mechs/

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 21 August 2013 - 01:18 AM.

[stjobe]

No Guts No Glory, on 21 August 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

I suggest you actually spend time playing in 3rd person beyond the 2 seconds to screenshot this "advantage".

You'd notice the reticle tends to bounce around

Yeah, it's a built-in aimbot, actually. Not a very good one, but still.

[William Mountbank]

I'm not against 3PV as such, it was in previous MW games and it's nice to have a view of your own mech sometimes. But those, for me at least, were all single player games.

Prior to seismic, MWO had a really interesting dynamic with mech movement and limited situational awareness. I understand why people don't like that mechanic, it took me a few matches to really get to grips with it. But it meant that if I out manoeuvred another player, it was because I out thought him - as opposed to the current seismic meta, where it means I simple had a bigger engine, because at no point did I have to guess where my opponent was.
3PV is an extension of this reduction of awareness burden on the player. So the sense of reward a player gets from playing MWO currently comes from exploding another stompy robot, whereas the pre-seismic game rewarded players for outsmarting another human being (exploding his robot was purely an additional benefit).

[ryoma]

William Mountbank, on 21 August 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

I'm not against 3PV as such, it was in previous MW games and it's nice to have a view of your own mech sometimes. But those, for me at least, were all single player games.

Prior to seismic, MWO had a really interesting dynamic with mech movement and limited situational awareness. I understand why people don't like that mechanic, it took me a few matches to really get to grips with it. But it meant that if I out manoeuvred another player, it was because I out thought him - as opposed to the current seismic meta, where it means I simple had a bigger engine, because at no point did I have to guess where my opponent was.
3PV is an extension of this reduction of awareness burden on the player. So the sense of reward a player gets from playing MWO currently comes from exploding another stompy robot, whereas the pre-seismic game rewarded players for outsmarting another human being (exploding his robot was purely an additional benefit).

That is so well put I think it deserved a quote and hell, parts of it could even be a signature.

[c0nk3r]

ryoma, on 20 August 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

Guess 3PV having no advantage over 1PV players was simply the "position at the time"

Thanks.

First an Atlas size medium, now 3PV, and I bet the Phoenix mechs will suffer from bad scaling too.

@ryouma: Thank you for the nice screenshot; that is exactly what I mean in

http://mwomercs.com/...son-once-again/

[SiDheBRX]

Roland, on 21 August 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

How terrible people must be at this game, if they are unable to grasp how they can use third person view for tactical advantage.

That is what is so amazing about this addition. It will be used by good players to further crush the bad players, who are also the people who think third person view isn't advantageous... Because they are too bad to understand how the game is played.

... assuming that good players, or let's say, regular / competitive players, elect to actually use this. It's our choice, you may or may not press that button.

Personally, while I appreciate the numerous possible advantages pointed out, I don't think the actual advantage in battle is all that significant. So I can see there's mechs behind that ride. Wow, tell you what, I'd say in 90% of the cases I'd know that anyways.

In addition, my own pride is in the way in any case: if I need 3PV to win, what kind of pilot am I and so on.

p.s.: all this reminds me of the shitstorms about ECM, 12vs12, etc. And look: we got used to it, possibly even like it in the end.

[stjobe]

William Mountbank, on 21 August 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

I'm not against 3PV as such, it was in previous MW games and it's nice to have a view of your own mech sometimes. But those, for me at least, were all single player games.

Prior to seismic, MWO had a really interesting dynamic with mech movement and limited situational awareness. I understand why people don't like that mechanic, it took me a few matches to really get to grips with it. But it meant that if I out manoeuvred another player, it was because I out thought him - as opposed to the current seismic meta, where it means I simple had a bigger engine, because at no point did I have to guess where my opponent was.
3PV is an extension of this reduction of awareness burden on the player. So the sense of reward a player gets from playing MWO currently comes from exploding another stompy robot, whereas the pre-seismic game rewarded players for outsmarting another human being (exploding his robot was purely an additional benefit).

Well said. A PvP game is supposed to be a contest between players, not between modules, tonnage, weapons, or even view modes; the player that outsmarts his opponent should be the one that wins the fight, not the one that brings a special view mode, a special module, or that has an advantage in tonnage or weaponry.

This is also my contention with the people claiming "lights shouldn't be able to win against assaults" - why not? If the assault automatically wins, it's no longer a contest between players, it's purely a game of "bring the heavier 'mech and win" - and that's not a PvP game. It's arguably not even a fun game.

Smart play should trump any other considerations, and it's arguable whether that's true in the current MWO.

[DeadlyNerd]

SirLANsalot, on 20 August 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

nice doctoring up a screen shot to prove your "point".


Heres another good question. How often dose that happen during the course of a game? Not very, Radar or your allies there with BAP could tell you the SAME THING you are seeing right there.

You really are an ignorant sod aren't you? You got proved wrong in 1 thread and are now attempting the same, in the same manner, in another thread.
Einstein calls this insanity.
I call it being ignorant and dense.

VXJaeger, on 20 August 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

3PV works both ways u see, those drones are nice target markers and visible miles away

And how exactly are you supposed to see a drone when the other guy is behind a ridge above you?
Unless light bends around that ridge in a 45 degree angle, or you have x-ray vision I'm pretty sure it's impossible.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 21 August 2013 - 02:02 AM.

[No Guts No Glory]

Question: Would you guys be fine with 3rd person, if players were forced to use their selected viewmode (1/3PV) for the entire duration of the match? Rather then being able to switch viewmodes in situations where it is most advantageous?

[MustrumRidcully]

No Guts No Glory, on 21 August 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

Question: Would you guys be fine with 3rd person, if players were forced to use their selected viewmode (1/3PV) for the entire duration of the match? Rather then being able to switch viewmodes in situations where it is most advantageous?

Seems to be problematic, since 3PV alone has limitations that might make it unplayable (no mini map). 3PV as is requres the ability to switch to 1 PV. I mean, I don't want 3PV at all, so if it's unusuable, that's an option, but I don't think that'S a reasonable solution.

The thing is that switching between them gives you advantages you didn't have before.

Before:
You want to know what's behind the ridge? You leave cover and see what's going on, possibly getting a bunch of PPCs and Gauss Rifles in your face.

Now:
You want to know whats behind the ridge? You leave cover and see what's going on, possibly getting a bunch of PPCs and Gauss Rifles in your face; OR you just activate 3PV and check it out, making the PPCs and Gauss Rifle users on the other side be aware of your presence, but unable to do anything about it. You lost nothing. You already wanted to know what was behind the ridge, so you couldn't really avoid alerting the enemy to your presence - but now you at least won't risk being greeted with enemy fire.

[DeadlyNerd]

No Guts No Glory, on 21 August 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

Question: Would you guys be fine with 3rd person, if players were forced to use their selected viewmode (1/3PV) for the entire duration of the match? Rather then being able to switch viewmodes in situations where it is most advantageous?

Generally 3PV gives a very bad motion sickness since the mech is moving up and down and the drone is moving up and down.
People would end up complaining it sucks and PGI would then simplify it to the point where it's actually advantageous over 1PV even in a straight up brawl.

3PV users just shouldn't be able to play against 1PV users in any way, under any circumstances.

[Kitane]

Nah.

3PV as it is shouldn't be in the game, because it doesn't serve any purpose. PGI had two design tasks:

1) Make the initial learning curve less steep.
They failed horribly - with arm lock, no minimap and horribly wobbly jittering aiming reticle, no one sane would try this game and last for more than few rounds of wild bewilderment how something SO BAD and obviously unplayable could even make it through beta.

2) Not give players any advantage over 1st person view
Failed just as much, but this was impossible from the beginning.

Edited by Kitane, 21 August 2013 - 02:23 AM.

[Galen Crayn]

ryoma, on 20 August 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

Guess 3PV having no advantage over 1PV players was simply the "position at the time"

Thanks.

First an Atlas size medium, now 3PV, and I bet the Phoenix mechs will suffer from bad scaling too.

Russ Bullock said in twitter: Showing me a picture that displays more of a view is not the smoking gun. I want to know if people using it can actually kill, dmg, win more

And he is right. This picture only shows an atlas watching a battle scene. Nothing more. He doesnt shoot better, has not more armor, he only has a better view. Will he kill more than without 3rd PV? I doubt it... So what?

[Lupin]

http://mwomercs.com/...29#entry2672429

[MrZakalwe]

I'll be back when they start up the other queue.

Back to LoL/DOTA2 for me for the next while.

Playing with a magic periscope was silly fun last night but when combined with seismic sensors its removing too much of the claustrophobic information starved feel that made this game good.

[Oriius]

So, as I had worried all along we are now currently forced to use it (assuming one wishes to play in a "competitive" way),

One big area a lot of people seem unable to think of, is the high level competitive 12v12 teams, 3pv "scouting" is now a must for those teams. I get the feeling the 12v12 waiting time is going to get longer.

Would PGI like to go into 12v12 and not use 3pv at all, vs a team that can use it at will, because there is no advantage there right?

[Thoummim]

Galen Crayn, on 21 August 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Russ Bullock said in twitter: Showing me a picture that displays more of a view is not the smoking gun. I want to know if people using it can actually kill, dmg, win more

And he is right. This picture only shows an atlas watching a battle scene. Nothing more. He doesnt shoot better, has not more armor, he only has a better view. Will he kill more than without 3rd PV? I doubt it... So what?

If he really said that he just prove he know nothing about his own game. If the atlas was in a 12man be sure his team would win against 1pv only.

Positionning is the true name of the game, individual aiming/piloting skill come second, and 3pv give a MASSIVE advandage in positionning.

[Galen Crayn]

[GalaxyBluestar]

William Mountbank, on 21 August 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

I'm not against 3PV as such, it was in previous MW games and it's nice to have a view of your own mech sometimes. But those, for me at least, were all single player games.

Prior to seismic, MWO had a really interesting dynamic with mech movement and limited situational awareness. I understand why people don't like that mechanic, it took me a few matches to really get to grips with it. But it meant that if I out manoeuvred another player, it was because I out thought him - as opposed to the current seismic meta, where it means I simple had a bigger engine, because at no point did I have to guess where my opponent was.
3PV is an extension of this reduction of awareness burden on the player. So the sense of reward a player gets from playing MWO currently comes from exploding another stompy robot, whereas the pre-seismic game rewarded players for outsmarting another human being (exploding his robot was purely an additional benefit).

thankyou for summing up the game we all wanted and glacially but surely pgi screwed it.

*awaits pgi to delete 1pv because people who want to win abandon it to easy mode*

[ryoma]

Russ [can't write his last name], like many devs, isn't actually that good at his own game.

It's like balancing LoL around Bronze and Silver players.

Edited by ryoma, 21 August 2013 - 03:05 AM.