73 replies to this topic

[P4riah1]

Everything I had tried to say and more, way more in depth and articulate than I could ever be. Bravo. Those of you still fighting the good fight to get the devs to see reason, a link to this thread should be your constant weapon. Link it in discussion, link it in your sigs.

[MADSix]

Like Navi in the picture

[Joe Psycho]

thank you for makeing a sound rational post, no ranting and raving just clear information on the problems we see with 3pv.

[TheFallOfTheReaper]

Gonna agree with OP, and joe, well because its joe XD

[DarthMolen]

warner2, on 24 August 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

Great post, and I agree 100%.

I love the signature warner.... that is the exact point of my other thread.

[DarthMolen]

At the end of the day, no matter how cogent the argument, I don't think that PGI really cares that there is a decided advantage for mixed play. They know that. This is a very calculated choice to grab more market share and provide numbers despite a very vocal portion of its community not wanting any part in a mixed matches.

It pretty much confirms what we knew all along. The player base isn't big enough to split across view types. This was mentioned before and shrugged off half-heartedly by those that were in the community.... and now the reality is here.

[ryoma]

Great post

[Shamous13]

MuonNeutrino, on 22 August 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

"The fact is that 3pv allows for an advantage in certain situations. This is bad on one level in that a player who understands how to optimally use 3pv will have an advantage over a player who does not, but this, on its own, does not break the game. It represents a skill gap, and theoretically the situation would balance out once players on both sides become proficient in doing so. The real problem, the one that 'breaks the game' for so many of the players who are protesting, is that the abilities bestowed by 3pv *fundamentally change the game dynamic* in a way that they dislike. The real problem is that 3pv short-circuits much of the information warfare elements that give high-level gameplay its depth.

This is why so many people are frustrated, because it is this that PGI doesn't seem to get. The fact that PGI doesn't seem to understand how someone could flip back and forth between 1pv and 3pv to make optimal use of both would be annoying by itself, but that they also seem unable to understand how drastically this can alter the overall gameplay dynamic can be quite frustrating. This is why the specific decision to not implement a 1pv-only queue is causing so much grief - even if PGI *did* make it so that you were locked into one view for the whole match, the game with 3pv is *still* a completely different game that simply doesn't function the same as the one they signed on to play."

Very well written OP, The quote above is what bothers me the most about 3PV and why I feel that either the viewing angle needs to be changed so that their is no tactical advantage or separate ques need to be made.

[Chrithu]

Draxist, on 22 August 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

THIS is how I would want to see the community providing their feedback, thanks for laying it out and presenting in a way that is not just "YOU DID IT WRONG".

well done.

Yeah well. If it wasn't for the deletion/archiving and interim forum split up you could go back and read a whole lot of threads filled with such posts that were made when PGI spoke about their plans and reasoning for 3rd pv for the first time about 6ish months ago. Many of them repeated when the discussion was revived again with their announcement that after reading said feedback they still think 3rd pv must be implemented. This finally made them announce that they would seperate the queues.

Keeping that in mind it would be rather insane to do all the tedious work of making such posts again after it's been done to as much as NO avail twice already. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change". After the community vocal minority tried it the constructive way twice it now simply was and is time to pick up the forks and torches, form a mob and lynch the royals (metaphorically speaking of course, if theres anything to be sad about in this whole affair then that I have to make this addendum).

Edited by Jason Parker, 29 August 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[FactorlanP]

DarthMolen, on 28 August 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

At the end of the day, no matter how cogent the argument, I don't think that PGI really cares that there is a decided advantage for mixed play. They know that.

This was very clear during the Total Biscuit/Angry Joe live feed when Garth was heard telling TB to use his 3PV to see over the ridge...

[Chrithu]

Zuesacoatl, on 24 August 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

tldr, The gods can exploit things far better than a commoner can. I understand the OP, but he needs to take a moment to step down and find a way to see it from the average players view and know that the further down you go, the less of an issue it becomes.

Deducing from this logic that nothing needs to be done addressing the situation is the very reason why so many games fail to be balanced. Because they get balanced around the average joes which just is a very very bad point to start your balancing. At least in my view. You also do them no favor with it. The more you give easy stuff to the average joes the more they get stomped into the ground by the top competition because their effectivenes is buffed exponentially compared to the effect on average joe's gameplay.

Edited by Jason Parker, 29 August 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[aniviron]

Zuesacoatl, on 24 August 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

tldr, The gods can exploit things far better than a commoner can. I understand the OP, but he needs to take a moment to step down and find a way to see it from the average players view and know that the further down you go, the less of an issue it becomes.

My question to you is: does the fact that 3pv in casual games isn't much of an advantage argue against having a 1pv-only queue? All the people who don't care about 3pv can continue to not care about 3pv in the casual queue, while the rest of us stick to hardcore or whatever they want to call it.

I do also want to point out the flaw in your logic, that bad game balance doesn't matter simply because not everyone will take advantage of it. Applied to any other in-game item that grants too much of an advantage like the PPC for the last six months, or ECM eight months ago, would you say that it should have been left as it was because average players weren't taking advantage of the fact that one piece of equipment was clearly superior to the rest? I saw plenty of people with less-than-optimal builds while the PPC was king (moreso than it is now, anyway) but that doesn't justify leaving the PPC being so OP merely because someone found a way to enjoy themselves without using it. I would actually argue that having a well-balanced game at a high level will work out better for average players, especially in a game like this where the matchmaker is fine with throwing vets and first day players in together.

[r4plez]

3PV is another nail to the coffin - great job on killin your game PGI

Edited by r4plez, 29 August 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Very good post. This is the kind of feedback that was common during the closed beta. Clear and objective with illustrated points.

IMO, 3PV should be called Training View, not have hud elements except chat and limited to Training Period of, say, 30 games max with the option to leave Training Mode at any time. If you master torso twist on your 5th game then great and you can opt to leave training mode. Once you opt out of training mode you cant go back and you are 1PV only from then on.

3PV such a hugely negative connotation in the community that it needs to be renamed for context. It's not "3PV vs 1PV" if its just a gimped training view that doesn't have hud data and plays inferior to 1PV.