287 replies to this topic

[Dr Herbert West]

Shar Wolf, on 20 November 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I could honestly care less about Polls - I to well remember the arguments the goons made about their polls - and have not seen much improvement in what polls I have looked into.

I don't want to completely re-hash this argument from ealier in the thread, but I do think that there is useful information to be gathered from forum polls. If you care to read my thoughts on this, the discussion started around this post, and my concluding defense of the forum polls ends with this post.

However, as you noted, this isn't so important because ...

Quote

On the other hand I do not believe there are that many (Including Heffay) who would argue against that implementation of 3PV.

... we all can agree on a different better implementation of 3PV.

As long as you can't see in 3PV what you wouldn't have LoS to in 1PV, then all of the concerns raised by the anti-3PV crowd are addressed.

Additionally, with this restriction, you can grant the player more freedom with the 3PV camera. This would make 3PV better for aesthetics (i.e. you could allow players to 3PV to any angle of their mech to take screen shots) and for newbies (i.e. you could give them back the minimap and give the a higher camera angle).

I think its important to emphasize solutions that we can all agree on, and this one would solve everything without removing 3PV.

Quote

Problem is: I am not sure the current crew of PGI can do it.


By that I am not declaring them incompetent, just working outside their field of expertise.

Not only are they climbing the same hill Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines was - they are not a group of technical programmers. (I think that was the term for what they need to help with programming things like HSR.... if not replace Technical Programmer with whatever the appropriate term would be )

I freaking loved VTM:B. Despite all of its technical flaws, it really was an excellent early example of the action RPG genera. I'd love to see a sequel done by the same people behind DX:HR (or for that matter, just make a sequel to DX:HR!).

Quote

I get irritated when people start screaming about how incompetent they are (thank you for not doing that by the way) since they have shown themselves quite competent - in their field of expertise.



I find myself hoping and (in all honesty) praying every day that they manage to hire some people who are competent technical programmers (more than one most likely) because that is (near as I can tell anyways ) their biggest hurdle right now.

I don't know enough to say anything about their programming skills. IMO, MWO's strong points are its art. The mechs look excellent. The maps look great (IMO). The weapons look and sound great. Mech animation, movement and feel is almost perfect.

IMO, PGI's weakness is in its design department. In addition to 3PV, this is evident in things like the new player experience (grind/trial mechs), mech scaling issues, and weapon balance. This is especially true with weapon balance where, we start out with CBT damage/heat values, but then scramble all of the recycle times. Then, instead of iterrative tweaks to the weapons stats tables, we get long delays and weird undocumented mechanics like Ghost Heat and GR Charge. Alof of these design issues were obvious to people from MW4/MWLL, and many players posted well reasoned and thought out solutions. Unfortunately, they were all (all!) ignored.

This is why I don't actually have alot of hope for a fix to 3PV. However, if we can stay focused on what we agree on (i.e. LoS based rendering for 3PV), maybe we can get a change for the best.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Dr Herbert West, on 20 November 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

I don't want to completely re-hash this argument from ealier in the thread, but I do think that there is useful information to be gathered from forum polls. If you care to read my thoughts on this, the discussion started around this post, and my concluding defense of the forum polls ends with this post.

However, as you noted, this isn't so important because ...

I am well aware that you can get good information from Polls: I am also aware that I have seen (for what my little knowledge about polling can tell me) maybe 3 pollsters that didn't bulldooky their number interpretations/outright ignore the polls when they didn't like the results.
So off of that - I tend to ignore most pollsters (the people setting up the polls more than the results - though I have a list of people who I ignore their polls to)

Dr Herbert West, on 20 November 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

... we all can agree on a different better implementation of 3PV.

As long as you can't see in 3PV what you wouldn't have LoS to in 1PV, then all of the concerns raised by the anti-3PV crowd are addressed.

Additionally, with this restriction, you can grant the player more freedom with the 3PV camera. This would make 3PV better for aesthetics (i.e. you could allow players to 3PV to any angle of their mech to take screen shots) and for newbies (i.e. you could give them back the minimap and give the a higher camera angle).

I think its important to emphasize solutions that we can all agree on, and this one would solve everything without removing 3PV.

Problem is - we cannot agree on 1 implementation of 3PV (as shown by Heffay's response)
At the height of the anti-3PV, before it was actually put into the game - how many different suggestions did we have running around?
I would prefer it if it did not give LOS advantages over 1PV - but honestly am fine with its current setup as well.

Dr Herbert West, on 20 November 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

I freaking loved VTM:B. Despite all of its technical flaws, it really was an excellent early example of the action RPG genera. I'd love to see a sequel done by the same people behind DX:HR (or for that matter, just make a sequel to DX:HR!).

Then you can see where it was in the same boat PGI is in now?
Game engine that is still under development - even if VTM:B had it worse than PGI is dealing with
Little/No support from the developers of the engine - though from what I can tell, VTM:B had what support Valve could really give them...
Big point with that being, MWO could very easily wind up with the same 'injured' (cannot think of a better term right now >.<) reputation that VTM:B had, and for about the same reasons.

I join you in your love of the game though - and hoping the people who made it can remake/make more.

Dr Herbert West, on 20 November 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

I don't know enough to say anything about their programming skills. IMO, MWO's strong points are its art. The mechs look excellent. The maps look great (IMO). The weapons look and sound great. Mech animation, movement and feel is almost perfect.

IMO, PGI's weakness is in its design department. In addition to 3PV, this is evident in things like the new player experience (grind/trial mechs), mech scaling issues, and weapon balance. This is especially true with weapon balance where, we start out with CBT damage/heat values, but then scramble all of the recycle times. Then, instead of iterrative tweaks to the weapons stats tables, we get long delays and weird undocumented mechanics like Ghost Heat and GR Charge. Alof of these design issues were obvious to people from MW4/MWLL, and many players posted well reasoned and thought out solutions. Unfortunately, they were all (all!) ignored.

This is why I don't actually have alot of hope for a fix to 3PV. However, if we can stay focused on what we agree on (i.e. LoS based rendering for 3PV), maybe we can get a change for the best.

Somewhere there is a list of who they are and what they specialize in.

Out of the 50 or so of them, around 25-30 of them are strait up artists - not programmers, hence my wish for them to hire some technical programmers or whatever it is.
(don't quote me on the numbers, cannot find the list right now, and I have a lousy memory for stuff like this )

So until they DO get more technical programmers, we are going to have a VTM:B experience.
Good, Awesome even, but not as good as it could be.

^ and that is from me, who would honestly rate the game as is 7.5/10 or higher.
(higher than I'd rate Halo or God of War anyways. but that is another matter)

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 20 November 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I'm not a fan of that solution. It destroys the sim feeling that the game has. How do you justify a camera that can't see something right in front of it?

I think it all comes down to what you (and by "you" I mean the player population at large as well) think the purpose of 3PV/drone view is?

Is the purpose of 3PV a vanity view so players can see their paints? Is it a view mode designed to help newbies move their mechs? If the answer to either of those is "yes" then the solution is to just eliminate the drone, and implement 3PV as previously stated (i.e. mechs not rendered if no LoS in 1PV).

If, on the other hand, the purpose of 3PV is intentionally to be a "periscope" via a drone (i.e. something that makes sense in universe), then you have to ask how it helps or harms gameplay. I can think of a few ways off the top of my head in which it harms gameplay, but can't think of any ways giving mechs a periscope helps gameplay:
-It eliminates the risk/reward dynamic of popping out from cover vs staying in cover
-It devalues scouts and the scouting role, as well as ECM and BAP
-It harms the radar/stealth dynamic by allowing you to be both stealthy (i.e. behind cover) and observant at the same time

In this way, its kind of like Seismic before it was nerfed: the module made sense as far as """realism""" was concerned, but it harmed gameplay because it essentially gave players a 400m wallhack. Additionally, it wasn't clear what seismic added to gameplay.

IMO, the same thing is true about 3PV/the 3PV drone: even if it makes sense according to """realism""", it hurts gameplay and doesn't add anything to it.

Quote

There are other, better ways to balance it. Make the mech targetable if the drone is visible, then rain down LRMs on those snipers abusing it. Make it so that when you hit it with a PPC or laser, it blinds the pilot for a couple of seconds. Make it a module that is installed by default on all mechs, and has to be removed by people who don't want it at all (also a good intro for new players to the module system, plus are you going to take it over a drone or arty strike?).

Although, I (obviously) would prefer to have the whole periscope-drone concept removed and either replaced with a drone-less, LoS limited "vanity mode" 3PV, or nothing at all, these ideas aren't bad. If I was going with a periscope-drone module, I'd probably go with this:

-The mech appears on radar and is targetable if mechs have LoS to the drone (as you suggested, which would also allow LRM bombardment as you suggested)
-Instead of PPC/laser blinding effects, I would make the drone destructable (maybe 15-30 armor or something)
-I would not make the drone equipped by default but make it purchasable, and take up a slot like any other module.

But again, the question to ask here is what does a periscope-drone add to gameplay and how does it change/damage existing gameplay?

Quote

Lots of things you can do to balance it even more that don't involve having it not render a mech that is clearly visible to it. That's a lazy solution.

I don't think its lazy. In fact it would probably require some work. Again, it all comes down to what the purpose of 3PV is?

Is it a vanity mode so players can look at their own mechs or is it a periscope drone designed to help/change gameplay?

I personally don't think adding a periscope drone adds anything necessary to gameplay, but I do see how a vanity mode could be desireable to players (screenshots of my awesome mech to facebook/whatever!) and to the developers (players are buying more paints/heros to show off on facebook/whatever!). Thats why I've been suggesting the drone-less, LoS-limited implementation of 3PV.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 20 November 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

If, on the other hand, the purpose of 3PV is intentionally to be a "periscope" via a drone (i.e. something that makes sense in universe), then you have to ask how it helps or harms gameplay.

Let's just stop here. 3PV can add depth to the game beyond just those two reasons. It can be balanced. It is not inherently evil or an immersion killer or any of the other questionable reasons people argue against it. If it can add to the tactical and strategic battles, it adds complexity and depth to the game. That is a good thing, and one we should encourage.

So don't get rid of it, don't limit it to a completely un-sim like "just don't render mechs". Balance it so that it's part of the many design and tactical decisions a pilot has to make when engaging in combat.

[KovarD]

Heffay, on 20 November 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Let's just stop here. 3PV can add depth to the game beyond just those two reasons. It can be balanced. It is not inherently evil or an immersion killer or any of the other questionable reasons people argue against it. If it can add to the tactical and strategic battles, it adds complexity and depth to the game. That is a good thing, and one we should encourage.

So don't get rid of it, don't limit it to a completely un-sim like "just don't render mechs". Balance it so that it's part of the many design and tactical decisions a pilot has to make when engaging in combat.

Sorry, but I can't buy your idea. 3PV is not an immersive experience. 1PV is immersive. 1PV with a rendered cockpit is even more. 1PV with TrackIR is another level. And finally using an Oculus Rift you go even further.

[MadcatX]

KovarD, on 20 November 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Sorry, but I can't buy your idea. 3PV is not an immersive experience. 1PV is immersive. 1PV with a rendered cockpit is even more. 1PV with TrackIR is another level. And finally using an Oculus Rift you go even further.

A rendered cockpit is immersive. One filled with screens that just say "autodetect" and other arbitrary switches and buttons that although make for a great start-up sequence, makes me wonder why all the others are there since they're never used. Although I get a good laugh out of the displays that show ammo on a energy-only build.

[KovarD]

MadcatX, on 20 November 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

A rendered cockpit is immersive. One filled with screens that just say "autodetect" and other arbitrary switches and buttons that although make for a great start-up sequence, makes me wonder why all the others are there since they're never used. Although I get a good laugh out of the displays that show ammo on a energy-only build.

Yes, they give up to fix these screens. This problem exist since ever and now it have been promoted to a "feature".

I will not be surprised if they remove the cockpit entirelly on 1PV to kill this bug, save time and money to release new mechs faster.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 20 November 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Let's just stop here. 3PV can add depth to the game beyond just those two reasons. It can be balanced. It is not inherently evil or an immersion killer or any of the other questionable reasons people argue against it. If it can add to the tactical and strategic battles, it adds complexity and depth to the game. That is a good thing, and one we should encourage.

I guess we can focus on this.

First I will grant you this: 3PV could, concievably be balanced (we've both suggested some ways). It also could be implemented in a way that isn't an "immersion killer" (i.e. the drone, and make the drone destructable so its not a magical periscope). I don't think that I've made arguements ot the contrary and I won't.

My main issue is that 3PV, no matter how you balance it, changes the face of game play by giving the player a completely new ability: the ability to see over/around obstacles without exposing your mech. I believe that this hurts tactical/strategic depth, and that it does this by removing complexity from the game.

I'm interested to hear your reasons why you think the opposite is true, but allow me to explain my reasons:

One, key to all of my points is the fact that no matter how you balance it, 3PV adds a new ability to the game. This ability is being able to see mechs without exposing yourself. Currently, in order to see an enemy mech (or even know its there), you either have to expose yourself to the enemy (and therefore its radar/weapons) or a teammate has to expose himself to the enemy. This new ability is key to my other points.

Two, it reduces the value of scouts and light/fast mechs in general. As noted earlier, the only "safe" way to see an enemy is for a teammate to see it for you. The only defenses against an enemy that can see you are either staying close to cover or speed. This is why light mechs are valueable. 3PV allows a mech to be completely covered while observing an enemy team. This reduces the value of fast, small scouts.

Three, it restricts maneuver warfare. One of the big problems with MW4 was the all-seeing eye of radar. Radar could go through hills, which made sensor warfare in MW4 mainly an issue running passive (essentially flying blind to reduce detection bubble) and using BAP/ECM mechs as spotters/scouts. Although larger maps made maneuvering possible, the all-seeing-eye radar had the effect of turning matches into trench warfare because you (or one mech on your team) could see the entire team. MWO's LoS based radar was one of the best improvements MWO made relative to MW4 because it greatly deepened maneuver warfare. Ambushes and flanking were now possible in ways previously not possible (it was possible in MW4, but only at great ranges). Scout and sniper positions now became much more critical. Certain manuvers (i.e. dashing across an open space from one position of cover to another) became possible, if not always wise. 3PV changes this by essentially allowing you to look through walls in a way. Incidentally, this was the same big issue with Seismic before it was nerfed.

Four, because of the above point, gameplay becomes more stilted toward long range trench warfare. Short range combat is inhibited because it becomes easier to detect short range combatants. Short range combat will be limited more to specific maps with lots of cover (just like MW4). Any sort of manuver in anything other than a trench becomes risky because the other guy can watch you without exposing himself.

Five, overall, due to the above points, gameplay becomes more single dimensional. Scouts aren't as important. Faster cavalry mechs aren't as important because the only safe movement becomes ball-ing up in a trench. The result is that heavier mechs with long range weapons (and JJs) become relatively better and better.

In short, 3PV, to me, undoes all of the gameplay improvements MWO had over MW4 .. and in fact makes it worse (EDIT: relative to force-first-person, No-respawn MW4 servers).

Quote

So don't get rid of it, don't limit it to a completely un-sim like "just don't render mechs". Balance it so that it's part of the many design and tactical decisions a pilot has to make when engaging in combat.

This all depends on what you want 3PV to be.

If you want 3PV to contribute to gameplay, then you're absolutely right. Its better to balance it (and the drone) than to do something that flys in the face of """realism."""

However, I don't think 3PV should be a part of gameplay because I think (for reasons above) that allowing the (completely new) ability to peek over/around cover without exposure is detremental to gameplay. If you eliminate gameplay from 3PV, then the only reasons for its existence are vanity (i.e. look at your own paints) and newbie tutorial purposes (i.e. loo at your own legs). For these purposes, it makes total sense to implent 3PV as a non-simmy camera that is prevented from affecting gameplay by LoS-based rendering restrictions.

EDIT: ball ing is censored?

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 21 November 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 21 November 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

My main issue is that 3PV, no matter how you balance it, changes the face of game play by giving the player a completely new ability: the ability to see over/around obstacles without exposing your mech. I believe that this hurts tactical/strategic depth, and that it does this by removing complexity from the game.

Seismic did the same thing. Of course the drone changes the face of the game. But if you remove the "without exposing your mech" part, then it doesn't give you the "ability to see over/around obstacles without exposing your mech".

A drone is a very realistic solution, especially for a giant stompy space robot operating in mech bays around a lot of squishy technicians. Providing the pilot a way to watch the mech from an exterior view is a sensible solution to replace "scraping body parts off the bottom of the foot actuator" problem.

Risk free 3PV can be an issue (and really, no big deal to be honest). Risky 3PV isn't an issue. That is how you balance it.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 21 November 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Seismic did the same thing. Of course the drone changes the face of the game. But if you remove the "without exposing your mech" part, then it doesn't give you the "ability to see over/around obstacles without exposing your mech".

Two things here:

One, the comparison to seismic is VERY appropriate, and also gets back to some of my points RE MW4 and all-seeing-eye radar. Even though seismic is nerfed, I'm still not sure it should be in the game. Sure, it makes sense according to """realism""", but I don't see a convincing argument for why allowing mechs to essentially see through walls adds anything good to the game.

Two, about removing the "not exposing your mech" part. I'm really not sure this is possible. Currently the drone is visible, but you're still are safe from taking armor damage and from radar detection. Even if you make it so that the drone allows you to be radar detectable and make it so that the drone is destructable, you're still safe from taking armor damage. If you went even further and made it so that hitting the drone applied damage to the CT (which is ridiculous, an immersion killer, and something I don't recommend), the drone is still a much smaller/harder target.

Quote

A drone is a very realistic solution, especially for a giant stompy space robot operating in mech bays around a lot of squishy technicians. Providing the pilot a way to watch the mech from an exterior view is a sensible solution to replace "scraping body parts off the bottom of the foot actuator" problem.

I agree that a drone camera is fine from the standpoint of """realism""". No arguement from me there. My issue is that I think its a bad gameplay design choice.

Quote

Risk free 3PV can be an issue (and really, no big deal to be honest). Risky 3PV isn't an issue. That is how you balance it.

Disagree on risk free 3PV. MW4 already proved this point.

I don't disagree that is possible to balance "risky" 3PV. However, no matter how you balance it, the fact is that you're introducing a new ability into the game that completely changes game dynamics, IMO for worse (see my previous post for reasons).

======

The question is, why should 3PV (lets say its drone based and risk-balanced) be in the game at all, from a gameplay standpoint. What do you think it adds to gameplay? What are the positive reasons for adding it?

[Heffay]

Quote

The question is, why should 3PV (lets say its drone based and risk-balanced) be in the game at all, from a gameplay standpoint. What do you think it adds to gameplay? What are the positive reasons for adding it?

We're clearly looking for 2 different types of games. I'm looking for a deep, enriching mech tactical simulator, where every equipment decision has dramatic and often fatal decisions over the course of a match. You're looking for a simpler, more straightforward experience with fewer options and better suited for console play.

[Lucian Nostra]

I'm just mad they put it in the game because of their staunch no 3pv at the beginning of development, to be switched to adding it because new players needed it. Meanwhile it's totally worthless and created so much drama and resentment towards PGI.

Just a total waste of time on EVERYONE'S part

[KovarD]

Lucian Nostra, on 22 November 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

I'm just mad they put it in the game because of their staunch no 3pv at the beginning of development, to be switched to adding it because new players needed it.

New players need good tutorials, not 3PV.

[Alaskan Nobody]

KovarD, on 23 November 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

New players need good tutorials, not 3PV.

Out of all the videogamers I know - I am the only one who regularly uses the tutorials in games.
Rather anecdotal I know, but they advertise the movement tutorial on the front page (in game) and we STILL have people who do not know how to move their mechs.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 22 November 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

We're clearly looking for 2 different types of games. I'm looking for a deep, enriching mech tactical simulator, where every equipment decision has dramatic and often fatal decisions over the course of a match.

I also want this kind of game. Was MWO not this kind of game before 3PV was added? Was force-first-person no-respawn MW4 not this type of game? How does adding 3PV make MWO this kind of game?

Quote

You're looking for a simpler, more straightforward experience with fewer options and better suited for console play.

More options does not always mean a better game or a game less suited for console play.

If we added the option for players to self heal, would the game be better? Would it be less like a console game?

You still haven't answered my question on how 3PV improves gameplay (i.e. what is the positive reason for adding it).

Lucian Nostra, on 22 November 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

I'm just mad they put it in the game because of their staunch no 3pv at the beginning of development, to be switched to adding it because new players needed it. Meanwhile it's totally worthless and created so much drama and resentment towards PGI.

Just a total waste of time on EVERYONE'S part

This is why the addition of 3PV resulted in a mushroom cloud of hate (not my own words) rather than a bunch of threads explaining why its a bad design descision (see seismic, ghost heat, gauss delay).

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 23 November 2013 - 02:19 PM.

[Antonio]

I think the effort to develop 3PV should have been spent on creating a more robust tutorial since its intent is supposed to be to help new players. Also for me personally 3PV is not a deal breaker but I think it is a step in the wrong direction.

[Geek Verve]

I don't much care one way or the other about 3PV. I just want someone to tell me how it helps new players. It doesn't show the legs to check their orientation or anything. All it really does is allow you to peek over a hill without exposing yourself. Is that really a game changer for new players?

Personally I think it is just as likely that it was added due to the fact that, short of the death screen, it is the only way you can see what your mech looks like in game. Then again, with the way so many of the maps tend to mess up the colors you've spent money on, I'm not sure why they would want that.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 23 November 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

[/size]
I also want this kind of game. Was MWO not this kind of game before 3PV was added? Was force-first-person no-respawn MW4 not this type of game? How does adding 3PV make MWO this kind of game?

If 3PV has positives and negatives, choosing to use it *adds* to the complexity. MW4 didn't have any 3PV limitations. MWO already does, and can have more.

How can you not see this? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Dr Herbert West, on 23 November 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

If we added the option for players to self heal, would the game be better? Would it be less like a console game?

It depends. What are the negatives associated with a self heal? How is it implemented in a way to be true to a simulator? Is it realistic?

Balance means balance. You can have a very useful ability, but if there is a cost associated with using it, then it adds to the complexity of the game. And that is a good thing.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Heffay, on 23 November 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

[/size]

If 3PV has positives and negatives, choosing to use it *adds* to the complexity. MW4 didn't have any 3PV limitations. MWO already does, and can have more.

How can you not see this? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Heffay, I say this, not as an enemy, but a fellow Pale Knight.

You are starting to sound like the people you argue against.

Edit: you expanded on what you wrote even as I wrote.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 23 November 2013 - 05:33 PM.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 23 November 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

You still haven't answered my question on how 3PV improves gameplay (i.e. what is the positive reason for adding it).

But I have. Many times.