123 replies to this topic

[DeadlyNerd]

ryoma, on 21 August 2013 - 03:03 AM, said:

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.

Seeing how the matchmaker is matching high Elo players to low Elo players, it's exactly that.

[VXJaeger]

I just wonder what kinda medicine devs use to prevent going suicidal after reading this forum.

Edited by VXJaeger, 21 August 2013 - 04:22 AM.

[Appogee]

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

Heres another good question. How often dose that happen during the course of a game?

And here's another good question: why should it be allowed to ever happen during the course of a game?

[arghmace]

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

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?

Actually he has more armor. Normally to scout those enemies he would've had to go around the corner getting shot at and losing his armor. Now with the armor he saved, he can kill more enemies later on. And anyways killing is not the goal of this game, winning is. That Atlas can tell his team about the enemy positions which hugely increases win chances.

[Doctor King Schultz]

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?

That almost makes sense... if the Atlas is playing quake deathmatch. But this is a team game and being able to relay all of that information back to his team changes everything.

At the very least, 3PV makes this a more shallow game for organized teams and competitive matches.

[Telemetry]

I don't think Russ understands that in Tactical Awareness is an actual advantage. In fact it is the most important factor on the battlefield.

I haven't played or downloaded the patch yet. In fact, I might not ever....

Can someone tell me, can you target mechs when in 3pv? Because of you can, now a spotter for a team of LRM boats can safely hide behind cover and have his team rip apart the enemy.

At this point I am considering my options to get my money back for the Phoenix package, including putting a hold on the credit card. I think the only way PGI is going to listen to us is by refusing to pay any more money.

[William Mountbank]

From what I can tell, 3PV targeting draws a ray from the cockpit, so it doesn't allow you to target otherwise obscured mechs.

It is really, really useful though - all those foiled ambushes! The only downside from using it is the slow transition between 1PV and 3PV, and the armlock on mechs with articulated arms.

[SiriusBeef]

Telemetry, on 21 August 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

At this point I am considering my options to get my money back for the Phoenix package, including putting a hold on the credit card. I think the only way PGI is going to listen to us is by refusing to pay any more money.

PGI has lost me as a paying customer and I was a pretty damn good one.

[Telemetry]

I guess I don't care if 3pv is in if we have separate queues AND there isn't a problem finding matches for 1pv gamers.

[Tragos]

Just to make it obvious once again...

Oh and on a short note: Since the spider is displayed completely - and depending on the version, has no arm weapons at all...I don't really need to switch back. Tried a few games in "complete" third person mode - works pretty much. If I need to use coordinates I simply press "b". While jumping it seemingly shakes less than in first person.

So let's see how it works:

Caustic:



River City (a few different ones)




And Forest Colony:

Edited by Tragos, 21 August 2013 - 05:24 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

What are you all arguing about; it is obvious by the mode drop down that Hardcore is on it's way; why care so much?

1.) Organized Game Play People will choose one or the other (their business).
2.) Lone Wolves, or Pug Matches will have a choice between modes (their business).
3.) In the 3pv mode, yes, it gives a situational awareness boost (their choice).
4.) In #3, it can also be used as bait - 'Oooooh, a lone mech peeking, let me get em....Ack! 5 mechs there (4 not deploying their little vanity camera....dead; or, let me use my little camera....sneaky guys, I ain't going in there.... and on, and on, until the last 5 minutes of game play peeking, everyone charges each other --- wooopididoooo!).

"their' being the person who chooses the mode.

What are you all arguing about, why do you care so much?

So, dynamics changed to make the game more appealing to more people, and PGI "lied" to us; wow! Who cares.... things change, CHOOSE not to use it.

Edited by Aphoticus, 21 August 2013 - 05:55 AM.

[Tragos]

You mean like the store and factions are on their way, or the command console...since closed beta?

Besides, just look Bryans post up. Postponed indefinately.







...and it is not like first person view would be something new, is it?

Edited by Tragos, 21 August 2013 - 05:57 AM.

[El Bandito]

El Bandito, on 21 August 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

Just wait til Paul says 3PV is perfectly fine as is. Like the ECM.

Well, Bryan just said it. Doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 August 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[hashinshin]

Your allies are already shooting them. They clearly know where they are.

[Umbra8]

Aphoticus, on 21 August 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

What are you all arguing about; it is obvious by the mode drop down that Hardcore is on it's way; why care so much?

1.) Organized Game Play People will choose one or the other (their business).
2.) Lone Wolves, or Pug Matches will have a choice between modes (their business).
3.) In the 3pv mode, yes, it gives a situational awareness boost (their choice).
4.) In #3, it can also be used as bait - 'Oooooh, a lone mech peeking, let me get em....Ack! 5 mechs there (4 not deploying their little vanity camera....dead; or, let me use my little camera....sneaky guys, I ain't going in there.... and on, and on, until the last 5 minutes of game play peeking, everyone charges each other --- wooopididoooo!).

"their' being the person who chooses the mode.

What are you all arguing about, why do you care so much?

So, dynamics changed to make the game more appealing to more people, and PGI "lied" to us; wow! Who cares.... things change, CHOOSE not to use it.

Because it's a bad idea to introduce a game element that splits your gaming base into two separate queues that don't interact with one another. Do you suppose the number of new players this would introduce is going to equal or exceed the total number of players we have now? No? Then you just cut your player base in half and made two different games for them to play. Seems like bad game design to me.

[Deathlike]

Umbra8, on 21 August 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Because it's a bad idea to introduce a game element that splits your gaming base into two separate queues that don't interact with one another. Do you suppose the number of new players this would introduce is going to equal or exceed the total number of players we have now? No? Then you just cut your player base in half and made two different games for them to play. Seems like bad game design to me.

Here's something to think about.

Let's say it is a bad idea to split the queues... is that because players want it "fair" or is there more of an background issue that PGI has failed to tell us... the small queues as they are now.

If the queues are split, imagine how many more MM complaints would be made? The tonnage imbalances themselves are problematic, but think of how hard it may just be to get a simple PUG match. With people complaining about the monotony AND the grind, this can only get worse... not better... unless you believe the incoming 3PV players will be sufficient to hold the tide?

It's not even a matter of splitting the base... it's how many in the base that there are to split in the first place!

Edited by Deathlike, 21 August 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[Thuzel]

VXJaeger, on 21 August 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

I just wonder what kinda medicine devs use to prevent going suicidal after reading this forum.

They read this stuff? Maybe a dev sticks his head in every now and then, but for the most part they don't give 2 ***** about what goes on in here. The mods try to keep a pro-PGI spin on things by deleting or hiding critical threads, but the people at PGI generally don't care.

The truth is that PGI has been making this game for a handful of people at PGI, and most definitely not for us. There are a couple of people in power at PGI "with a vision" and that's where this game has been going for at least the last 12 months. They don't care about our ideas, opinions, or even our game play. They want our money and that's all.

[Deathlike]

Thuzel, on 21 August 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

They read this stuff? Maybe a dev sticks his head in every now and then, but for the most part they don't give 2 ***** about what goes on in here. The mods try to keep a pro-PGI spin on things by deleting or hiding critical threads, but the people at PGI generally don't care.

The truth is that PGI has been making this game for a handful of people at PGI, and most definitely not for us. There are a couple of people in power at PGI "with a vision" and that's where this game has been going for at least the last 12 months. They don't care about our ideas, opinions, or even our game play. They want our money and that's all.

People continue to cite the BETA tag on and on.

The thing about BETAs is about FEEDBACK about a progressively changing game. The thing is that PGI has MORE OFTEN THAN NOT IGNORED AFOREMENTIONED FEEDBACK.

If feedback is NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, then it's not a beta that people claim it to be. It's that simple.

[Shae Starfyre]

Deathlike, on 21 August 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Here's something to think about.

Let's say it is a bad idea to split the queues... is that because players want it "fair" or is there more of an background issue that PGI has failed to tell us... the small queues as they are now.

If the queues are split, imagine how many more MM complaints would be made? The tonnage imbalances themselves are problematic, but think of how hard it may just be to get a simple PUG match. With people complaining about the monotony AND the grind, this can only get worse... not better... unless you believe the incoming 3PV players will be sufficient to hold the tide?

It's not even a matter of splitting the base... it's how many in the base that there are to split in the first place!

No one knows with certainty that the player base is small. They could have put it in a single queue to begin with to maximized testing data for evaluation.

Everything mentioned is just pure speculation.

[Deathlike]

Aphoticus, on 21 August 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

No one knows with certainty that the player base is small. They could have put it in a single queue to begin with to maximized testing data for evaluation.

Everything mentioned is just pure speculation.

How about having those queues that... to confirm/reaffirm or break my logic? Then we can see how things fall.