245 replies to this topic

[Aluminumfoiled]

Wolfways, on 30 August 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Well to be fair it was in the other MW games (as far as i know. I only played MW2 and i can barely remember it), but i do think 1pv and 3pv should be separated. I'd be happy with them together if they put in a LoS like in WoT...and got rid of the immersion-breaking drones

Did MW2 have an expansion or something called Ghost Bears legacy?

Yes there was Ghost Bear legacy and then MW2 Mercenaries. Mercenaries was a really good title but is was so very buggy. I still play them now. Installed on my Win 7. Still so very good with those 20 yr old graphics even.

I am 1pv all the way. They way they did this way what gets me. I think this is the first stage on console porting too. The lame excuses degenerated to ludicrous. Vacations. Really, what company drops the ball that bad due to vacations. And new player help? Arm lock, default 3pv, Hardcore Mode, adds up to console port to me.

[Oriius]

When one looks at how the third person view was implemented, you can't help but get the feeling that the development of this game lacks focus, it seems as if stuff is done on the fly, with varying levels of staff agreement.

As it stands right now the third person view is bad, were this sold as a third person game I think it would be fair to call it a failure. So what it looks like is a compromise, one that in this case shouldn't have been made. I feel a lack clear design vision and focus is hurting the design of the game. If it must have a third person mode, why is the third person not done well? as it stands this current view is unlikely to keep third person enthusiasts.

Combine this with the people who don't want it at all, you have an odd situation. I say odd, because I haven't seen anyone really argue that it is good, I have seen people say "it makes no difference so why care" and "well no one uses it so why do you care?". Were the implementation of third person a good one, I feel arguments in it's favor would be a little better than that and likely be able to persuade me of it's value.

The more the view is limited, in my opinion, the worse it will get. I cannot see a compromise with this style of game working well. In my opinion it should either be a good implementation with no compromise on it or it shouldn't be in at all.

With that however I also think it must have a split queue. Go ahead and split it, then make a really good third person mode, make it so they can play fully in it with no disadvantages, no compromise, that will attract third person players, and that's cool by me. You also can make the first person only mode also with no compromises, make it as good as you can and people will come.

You could even add a "random game" search, for those that don't actually mind which they play, or for those who like a little variety, just because it's split doesn't mean you can't do some overlapping, if it is done well some people will love to do both, and those that do not wish to do one won't have to. Seems like a win win to me.

Sorry for the long ramble.

Edited by Oriius, 31 August 2013 - 06:36 AM.

[ebea51]

stop crying about 3PV - its {Scrap}. It will do what it was meant to: show new kids how to pilot mechs in regards to the orientation of torso to legs. It is useless in combat and its good that way - because it will eventually force them into 1PV the way all MechWarrior games are meant to be played. Go find something decent to cry about: Like getting a pass on HSR or getting collisions re-released or balancing ppc+gauss kiddie combos...

[Wolfways]

ebea51, on 31 August 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

stop crying about 3PV - its {Scrap}. It will do what it was meant to: show new kids how to pilot mechs in regards to the orientation of torso to legs.

Yes it is {Scrap} (for now), but it doesn't do what it was meant to do as with the majority of mechs you cant see your legs in 3pv. It's actually easier to see which way your legs are pointing in 1pv on the minimap.

[C E Dwyer]

as long as I don't have to deal with snoopy little cheats using a feature to look over creasts without exposing themselves to danger, I don't care if its in or not..sperate ques is fine, and i'd relax my not spending a penny except on unseen and an orion, but all they time I have to play with the 3pv crowd pgi get no more money off me, for anything else..

[superbob]

Oriius, on 31 August 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

When one looks at how the third person view was implemented, you can't help but get the feeling that the development of this game lacks focus, it seems as if stuff is done on the fly, with varying levels of staff agreement.

As it stands right now the third person view is bad, were this sold as a third person game I think it would be fair to call it a failure. So what it looks like is a compromise, one that in this case shouldn't have been made. I feel a lack clear design vision and focus is hurting the design of the game. If it must have a third person mode, why is the third person not done well? as it stands this current view is unlikely to keep third person enthusiasts.

Combine this with the people who don't want it at all, you have an odd situation. I say odd, because I haven't seen anyone really argue that it is good, I have seen people say "it makes no difference so why care" and "well no one uses it so why do you care?". Were the implementation of third person a good one, I feel arguments in it's favor would be a little better than that and likely be able to persuade me of it's value.

The more the view is limited, in my opinion, the worse it will get. I cannot see a compromise with this style of game working well. In my opinion it should either be a good implementation with no compromise on it or it shouldn't be in at all.

With that however I also think it must have a split queue. Go ahead and split it, then make a really good third person mode, make it so they can play fully in it with no disadvantages, no compromise, that will attract third person players, and that's cool by me. You also can make the first person only mode also with no compromises, make it as good as you can and people will come.

You could even add a "random game" search, for those that don't actually mind which they play, or for those who like a little variety, just because it's split doesn't mean you can't do some overlapping, if it is done well some people will love to do both, and those that do not wish to do one won't have to. Seems like a win win to me.

Sorry for the long ramble.

That's an excellent point actually - separate queues will allow devs to make 3pv a fully viable way to play the game, because nobody will complain about 3pv advantages forcing them to use it. This will also allow them to further tweak both game modes to suit the target audiences, assuming 3pv players want a smoother ride and 1pv only crowd prefers a more gritty, sim-like experience.

I think that would make a win-win scenario, we could both have a game that's relatively accessible to most gamers as well as the MWO most core fans wanted, which would be harder and something for the casual-mode players to aspire to.

[Oriius]

superbob, on 31 August 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

That's an excellent point actually - separate queues will allow devs to make 3pv a fully viable way to play the game, because nobody will complain about 3pv advantages forcing them to use it. This will also allow them to further tweak both game modes to suit the target audiences, assuming 3pv players want a smoother ride and 1pv only crowd prefers a more gritty, sim-like experience.

I think that would make a win-win scenario, we could both have a game that's relatively accessible to most gamers as well as the MWO most core fans wanted, which would be harder and something for the casual-mode players to aspire to.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly, my sleep deprived ramble there hopefully wasn't too bad to read.

I think they could make a split queue work, if they were to make a fully third person mode, then I'm sure they could make it well enough to pull in people who love third person, while also having the first person experience a lot of us here crave.

If they did it like that, I am sure I would play both modes.

I guess all we can do is wait and see what they do next.

[ollo]

Separate queues, where of course one is 1PV only and the other is switchable, not 3PV only!

Edit: add Oriius variant in (post on this page above)

Edited by ollo, 31 August 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Valaska]

Aethos, on 29 August 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

I think you should remove 'do not want it at all' since its already widely known on the forums that the vocal minority aka forum majority don't want it but its here, and here to stay. At least this would push more votes into the split ques, which is all we really want.

TBH it doesn't matter, this poll will be deleted by tomorrow.

Remember guys, it's because they cared so much that they are doing this.

They care SO much it hurts

[Bishop Steiner]

meh.

don't like it, but it's realistically been largely a non issue.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 01 September 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[Jragonsoul]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 September 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

meh.

don't like it, but it's realistically been largely a non issue.

How about you "Deal with it" when they release CW and it's just the same thing we have now BUT you get loyalty points... The problem is right now we CAN'T trust the things they say. I hope the game gets back on a track I can follow but since I'm not their "Target Demographic" (Though I'm an adult, love BT, love games and have disposable income. If I'm not their target I honestly wonder what is...) I don't see it happening. Also, just because it's not an issue for you don't you start telling me what to "deal with".

[Dataman]

as much as I want 3PV gone, I can't choose that. That was selfish. Also, the damage is (or was?) already done. You can't do a thing.

so separate queue. But I get the feeling that average player base isn't that high.

Edited by Dataman, 02 September 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[Faithsfall]

Dataman, on 02 September 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

as much as I want 3PV gone, I can't choose that. That was selfish. Also, the damage is (or was?) already done. You can't do a thing.

so separate queue. But I get the feeling that average player base isn't that high.

But but but there are over 1 million registered users............

[Viper69]

ebea51, on 31 August 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

stop crying about 3PV - its {Scrap}. It will do what it was meant to: show new kids how to pilot mechs in regards to the orientation of torso to legs. It is useless in combat and its good that way - because it will eventually force them into 1PV the way all MechWarrior games are meant to be played. Go find something decent to cry about: Like getting a pass on HSR or getting collisions re-released or balancing ppc+gauss kiddie combos...

So does a training grounds no? So combine 3pv and the training ground alone and you have a training program. Viola you dont need 3pv in matches because people will stay in the training grounds till they can master the complexities of looking to the left while walking straight. I am sure glad I dont occupy the same sidewalk as people who cant walk and chew bubblegum or walk and look to the left or right while crossing a road.

[pantherzero]

well the patch notes say they have a tutorial now, so now they will remove 3pv ?

[Hellcat420]

Wolfways, on 30 August 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Well to be fair it was in the other MW games (as far as i know. I only played MW2 and i can barely remember it), but i do think 1pv and 3pv should be separated. I'd be happy with them together if they put in a LoS like in WoT...and got rid of the immersion-breaking drones

Did MW2 have an expansion or something called Ghost Bears legacy?

yes the old games had 3pv, but none of them were very successful multiplayer wise. the only reason they were so successful was due to the campaigns the games had.

[Alois Hammer]

RedDragon, on 30 August 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Come on guys, get the word out there. We need at least as many votes on here as on the "official" poll

So they can delete this one like they already did the last 5000+ vote anti-3PV landslide poll?

Wait until launch when the "beta" sticker comes off, and they announce that Community Warfare is Working as Intended™...on the forums.

[TheSteelRhino]

I think it's safe to say the "core fans" do not want 3pv. And it has been beaten like an Urbie in an open field

PGI wants to draw more players. Players that aren't here to vote. Therefore polls don't mean a lot really. I dont want it in game either.

But in regard to a poll with 3500 responses as shown above. That is less than 1% of registered players (million or so) or registered forums users (500k or so) Not a lot of input there. Either ppl arent on the forums and with all the illogical ranting at times i cannot blame them or the majority doesnt care.

Best bet for handling 3pv would be to put a bit of pain around it

1) it costs a module slot
2). It can be shot down (someone else suggessted this)
3) you only get 3 camera drones and there is a 15 or 30 second launch delay(again not my idea)
4). If you switch views there is static or a cooldown of some sort
5) ppc hits on drone or mech result in some static and loss of resolution for X seconds
6) it needs to be larger and more visible and visible on radar even if mech is not (unidentified blip)


Personally i don't know why to show leg/torso orientation you couldnt just have a small instrument in the corner that showed your legs relational to the torso. Kind of like a turn and bank indicator for an aircraft or esomething that looked a little like a compass. Red arrow is torso and blue band is legs (use different symbols for the color blind among us)

Edited by Rhinehardt Ritter, 03 September 2013 - 07:17 PM.

[RedDragon]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 03 September 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

But in regard to a poll with 3500 responses as shown above. That is less than 1% of registered players (million or so) or registered forums users (500k or so) Not a lot of input there. Either ppl arent on the forums and with all the illogical ranting at times i cannot blame them or the majority doesnt care.

Yeah well but the point is: PGI is delusional in thinking (or more correctly in trying to make us think) that of this "silent majority" out there, most people actually want 3PV. Without knowing exact numbers (and PGI doesn't, that much I bet), you can at best guess that half of that majority is for 3PV and half is against. But having a sample of 3000 people with 90% against 3PV would strongly suggest that you have at least a small majority of the whole player base not wanting 3PV. But PGI sees it the other way around: "The vocal guys don't want 3PV and they are a minority, so the majority of players does want 3PV." The logic behind that is as false as it can get.

[Oriius]

I do wonder how they decide what to work on first, how many of their team worked on third person, how many of those people could (should) have been working on CW?

As we watch a content poor MWO limp towards launch, I can only think of the reviews to come.

At least they might get one good one, right PC gamer?