151 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

One could always make a larger feathered circle to blur more as it goes outwards from the "core", eventually leaving everything as one general blur of color that nothing could be recognized. I only did a single layer of blurring with a feathered circle in the middle. (Feathering, if you didn't know, is a term used from photoshop where you select only a portion of pixels in a faded motion, till you go from all selected to none selected. Like a gradient color blending from one color to another, just with selection instead of color.)

The blurring effect could be changed as needed. I feel it'd look softer, easier on the eyes, and more professional looking over a black background of any kind being used. (This is my Graphic Design degree talking, and personal preferences and tastes as well.) It probably would be more intense on the upper most top parts of the screen and sides, but less blur on the bottom of the screen, as there really isn't anything there to "peep" around. Not to mention having a blurred lower section of the screen could hinder jumping movements and other simple movements, countering the whole purpose and idea behind this mechanic.

[Monky]

I'm in favor of an actual art developed background representing a drone's circuitry/technical stuff etc over a black background, but would prefer fade to black over a permanent blur going on forever, which in my opinion doesn't look professional at all (how do you explain it providing a blurred image, if it is relaying info, how is that info relevant/useful, is that visual output pleasing/etc).

Something similar to a much higher tech looking version of these;
http://1.bp.blogspot...ircuitboard.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.co...w6Foo6UvreiBLHk
http://t2.gstatic.co...ufh4XKYTP8BCUZg

Edited by Monky, 24 August 2013 - 09:28 PM.

[Peter von Danzig]

The question of a team mate: "Do you think PGI took the wrong exits the last weeks?"
My answere: "The Star citizen forums are down."

Beeing upset about game changes is not the worst indicator that the community is disappointed. Desinterest is the worst case...

[Lord of All]

Another reason the "Herd" doesn't get is they pug exclusively and it doesn't enter their little world that on team play this extra knowledge is GAME BREAKING.

Great POST OP.

[Chronojam]

Lord of All, on 25 August 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Another reason the "Herd" doesn't get is they pug exclusively and it doesn't enter their little world that on team play this extra knowledge is GAME BREAKING.

Great POST OP.

Definitely! To quote myself responding to folks who think third person is no different than seismic:

Chronojam, on 25 August 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

You can't tell me you won't act differently if you see a full-health Catapult, eyes locked towards your position, barreling down a street, flaps open -- versus a red blip intermittently getting closer.

What if instead of that Catapult you see a Hunchback missing an arm, limping from a lost leg, and trying to torso-twist to avoid potential damage to his ruined back? This is critical information to determine if you're spotted and about to get nuked by a Splatcat, or found yourself a free kill on an unaware, wounded medium mech.

A red blip gives you nothing. The drone saw the Catapult coming 800 meters down the street. You are awful at the videogame if you find these equivalent, and this is not an insult, it's based on what you've shared.

It's quite possible some players are too new to recognize the difference between a K2 and an A1 at a distance, and don't even know that flaps can open on a Catapult, but for anybody competent the differences between the drone and seismic are truly staggering.

[Tesunie]

Monky, on 24 August 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

I'm in favor of an actual art developed background representing a drone's circuitry/technical stuff etc over a black background, but would prefer fade to black over a permanent blur going on forever, which in my opinion doesn't look professional at all (how do you explain it providing a blurred image, if it is relaying info, how is that info relevant/useful, is that visual output pleasing/etc).

Something similar to a much higher tech looking version of these;
http://1.bp.blogspot...ircuitboard.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.co...w6Foo6UvreiBLHk
http://t2.gstatic.co...ufh4XKYTP8BCUZg

Though I don't mind the visual concept of having some kind of grid or pattern being blurred into at the extreme edges, I don't get (as you put it) why we would "see the circuits" of the camera drone on the edges.

Maybe it blurring into "white snow" static might be a better choice, but highly distracting. I don't know. More thoughts required...

I see the blur being produced by the edges of the lens as it tries to capture more light but isn't able to focus it properly as it's the lens edge and not the focusing middle. A lens captures more "image" than most surfaces can properly contain. It doesn't project a square shape onto film but is instead a circle (like the shape of the lens). The square film (light reader, whatever is capturing the light and converting it into imagery) is placed in the best focused spot under the lens. My blurring concept is based on a film that is actually larger than the "image of light" being projected onto it. This makes the outer edges blur (though it probably would turn into black shadows at some point). Just saying where my thoughts where coming from.

I think the question here is, should we be hindering those who payed the money for a tri-monitor setup to get such gross wide screen possibilities by limiting their "edge" just because most people don't have those setups? Or should they be permitted to use their expensive rig to it's real potential? I feel that it should be limited, but no so much that they don't at least gain something from their expense, as we can't tailor make this game to fit everything equally. However, on the flip side, I feel that it should be tailored for as many people to be able to play it on as equal of a footing. (I feel the second thought process stronger than the first, so that it is as fair for as large of a portion of the game population as possible.)

[Monky]

I think that since this very problem is being reported on by people with wide field of view, it isn't unreasonable that a 3 monitor setup person could see this as an unfair advantage. People with 3 monitor setups are no less likely to want a sim-like game out of their MWO experience than anyone else. Additionally, of the people who have 3 monitor setups, how many of them bought them solely for MWO, and of that group, how many bought them solely for MWO to exploit 3PV's extra viewing range? My guess is a number near zero, due to the sheer probability of it. I don't think their money is wasted because you still get a cool view of your cockpit and great detail.

One alternative to what we're talking about - is we could put the tab screen on the left monitor (the score card essentially) which is already accessible at the push of a button and maybe something on the right monitor which is one of the features highly talked about for multi monitor support - something like allowing the battlegrid to be open on the right monitor, I think that would be a little overpowered, but a higher resolution view of the minimap might be entirely viable. In this case it would still be the collapsed near-area view I recommended earlier just at a higher resolution so that details like terrain can be made out more clearly.

[ShadowSpirit]

PGI doesn't have the skill to do this right.

They can't deliver the design they promised but they spend time to deliver something they said they wouldn't do?

It's hard not to take it personal when they just straight up lie and mislead customers.

[repete]

Lord of All, on 25 August 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Another reason the "Herd" doesn't get is they pug exclusively and it doesn't enter their little world that on team play this extra knowledge is GAME BREAKING.

With all due respect, I believe this comment smacks of elitism. I used to play both competitively with ARMD and pug. Dismissing those who pug (Derogatorily as "the 'herd'"), doesn't help bring anyone around to your argument. Could I possibly subject more helpful language such as?:

"Players who primarily or exclusively pug may be either less aware of or concerned about the advantages offered by 3PV during organised team/competitive play"

Edited by repete, 25 August 2013 - 08:41 PM.

[Monky]

repete, on 25 August 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

With all due respect, I believe this comment smacks of elitism. I used to play both competitively with ARMD and pug. Dismissing those who pug (Derogatorily as "the 'herd'"), doesn't help bring anyone around to your argument. Could I possibly subject more helpful language such as?:

"Players who primarily or exclusively pug may be either less aware of or concerned about the advantages offered by 3PV during organised team/competitive play"

I primarily pug myself, but I didn't take offense at his arguement, he's saying that people who don't think it through or don't take into account more than just pointing and shooting are the people who don't see this as a problem. People who don't use tactics, but are just there to shoot robots.

[Orzorn]

I think the blurring is a bit much. As I've said in the past, simply tie what the screen draws in terms of mechs to the pilot's cockpit view. Pilot can't see it? It isn't drawn. The terrain would be drawn (which I guess is still somewhat of an advantage, although not one that I really care about considering I know the maps like the back of my hand), but mechs not in the pilot view would not. They would be drawn into the center view.

Maybe it might confuse new players, I don't know, but it would fix every single issue 3rd person has in terms of exploiting it.

Then we'd just need to fix the fact that the camera doesn't show enough of your mech. This one is easy if we do the first suggestion, because now it doesn't matter where the camera is, because it gives no advantage!

In fact, we could add command that zooms in or out the camera, so that players can get different views of their mechs. This would truly help new players get a sense of the scale, the torso in relation to legs, and just to see their cool mechs on the field.

I think 3rd person can be balanced, but this requires PGI to pay attention and skillfully execute the solutions.

Edited by Orzorn, 26 August 2013 - 06:38 AM.

[Wired]

Thank you to the OP and those making recordings / etc.

This is the type of community response we need when something is put in that is as badly designed as this - not just demanding refunds.

[RG Notch]

Wired, on 26 August 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

Thank you to the OP and those making recordings / etc.

This is the type of community response we need when something is put in that is as badly designed as this - not just demanding refunds.

Why? they won't listen to feedback but they will listen to refunds. Just you wait and they will say they are "looking into it" and tweaks are coming. If enough people ask for refunds you watch how quick they actually do something. The community has provided them solid feedback plenty of times usually for naught. The only language they will understand is money.
So make all the videos you want, watch the tepid response and wait months for the fixes. Or hit them where it hurts and watch them react. Russ was all snarky on Twitter when this first dropped and he knew then perfectly well it hadn't been communicated properly. Fast forward a bit after all the talk and actual refund requests started processing and we got the "apology". What changed in that time? People demanded refunds.

[Monky]

Orzorn, on 26 August 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

I think the blurring is a bit much. As I've said in the past, simply tie what the screen draws in terms of mechs to the pilot's cockpit view. Pilot can't see it? It isn't drawn. The terrain would be drawn (which I guess is still somewhat of an advantage, although not one that I really care about considering I know the maps like the back of my hand), but mechs not in the pilot view would not. They would be drawn into the center view.

The major problem is the limitations of CryEngine - suddenly rendering a mech causes even my computer which is less than a year old and normally runs at max settings with 60 FPS to stutter. You can see this on game launch when all the mechs load in. Maybe there is some kind of filter they can put over a non spotted mech so that it is not visible but treated as rendered, but this means additional server load to verify if a mech has any visible portions, not just the simplistic radar detection that we have now.

[Arnold Carns]

Monky, on 26 August 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

The major problem is the limitations of CryEngine - suddenly rendering a mech causes even my computer which is less than a year old and normally runs at max settings with 60 FPS to stutter. You can see this on game launch when all the mechs load in. Maybe there is some kind of filter they can put over a non spotted mech so that it is not visible but treated as rendered, but this means additional server load to verify if a mech has any visible portions, not just the simplistic radar detection that we have now.

I'm already arguing that this isn't the 'Mechs which causes it but more PGI's Server Authoritive System. The way the server gets and forwards data from and to the clients. On Testing Grounds even my 4 year old medium class pc does 60+ FPS regardless of the map. In a live game this FPS are dropping waaaay down... regardless if another 'Mech is in my FoV or not.

[Orzorn]

Monky, on 26 August 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

The major problem is the limitations of CryEngine - suddenly rendering a mech causes even my computer which is less than a year old and normally runs at max settings with 60 FPS to stutter. You can see this on game launch when all the mechs load in. Maybe there is some kind of filter they can put over a non spotted mech so that it is not visible but treated as rendered, but this means additional server load to verify if a mech has any visible portions, not just the simplistic radar detection that we have now.

Regardless of the technical side of it (which I understand is important), one must admit it would solve ever problem that 3rd person gives, and would also allow every feature first person enjoys to be returned to third person view. Why gimp a totally fair view mode? Even the drone could be removed.

I would argue that the answer is to do as you said. Apply a filter to every mech such that, when they enter that vision range, the filter is removed.

Edited by Orzorn, 26 August 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Cest7]

Hopefully they read this

[Chemie]

Cest7, on 26 August 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Hopefully they read this

Wanna bet they don't? The other feedback thread is over 200 pages with community feedback on 3PV and not a single developer post. Not even "we are reading it guys thanks"

[Monky]

Chemie, on 26 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Wanna bet they don't? The other feedback thread is over 200 pages with community feedback on 3PV and not a single developer post. Not even "we are reading it guys thanks"

That thread is a lost cause though, too many people just outright trolling in there (although most of it is honest expression of dissatisfaction). A dev post in that thread would be a drop in the bucket as far as fixing the issue.

[ShadowSpirit]

repete, on 25 August 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

With all due respect, I believe this comment smacks of elitism. I used to play both competitively with ARMD and pug. Dismissing those who pug (Derogatorily as "the 'herd'"), doesn't help bring anyone around to your argument. Could I possibly subject more helpful language such as?:

"Players who primarily or exclusively pug may be either less aware of or concerned about the advantages offered by 3PV during organised team/competitive play"

Smacks of elitism? He used quotes ... as in .. not to be taken literally. I guess the term "hive mind" offends you as well?

Anyone who has dropped 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12 knows that there are people out there who will leverage any advantage. There were teams out there that would mod their user config file to remove all buildings from their client so they would know precisely where all enemy mechs were. It was worth it to take one mech out of the game in order to provide intel.

I am not saying 3PV is this extreme but for the developer to dismiss the post with evidence to the contrary truly is what smacks of elitism.