287 replies to this topic

[StaIker]

I remember when polls questioning 1PV/3PV issues regularly crushed the 3PV proponents by 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 against. Yet things are now to the point where the 3PV viewpoint is a majority on the forums (at least in this poll) and the number of responses is a tiny fraction of what it once would have been. The 3PV people still vote... but the hundreds and hundreds of former 1PV votes are nowhere to be seen. That suggests a very large number of 1PV players simply disappeared after 3PV came along and have not been replaced. There were some who predicted this, but I doubt there are any prizes on offer.

[Farix]

StaIker, on 14 November 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I remember when polls questioning 1PV/3PV issues regularly crushed the 3PV proponents by 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 against. Yet things are now to the point where the 3PV viewpoint is a majority on the forums (at least in this poll) and the number of responses is a tiny fraction of what it once would have been. The 3PV people still vote... but the hundreds and hundreds of former 1PV votes are nowhere to be seen. That suggests a very large number of 1PV players simply disappeared after 3PV came along and have not been replaced. There were some who predicted this, but I doubt there are any prizes on offer.

An alternative view is that the majority of those who originally opposed 3PV saw that it wasn't what they initially feared and came to accept it, especially after PGI dealt with its potential misuse in the competitive scene.

[Dr Herbert West]

zolop, on 13 November 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

I still can't believe this thread is still going on...

PGI officially asked the community to make 12 (group) vs12 (Group) 1PV only. The community Agreed to this... some of us came back because of this.

If you want to use 3PV in 12 (grouped) vs 12( grouped) make a poll to split the Ques. Otherwise now you are making PGI lie on its second official promise it made to the community... (the first was split ques.. oh wait and a bunch of other stuff like never including 3pv in the first place).

I think you're confused. Noone is asking for 3PV in the 12v12 queues.

Quote

3PV is a issue for competitive play, not pub play, this is why the community earlier (months back) voted and PGI agreed to make 12 group of players vs 12 group of player 1pv only.

This is incorrect. Players who play in 12v12 or who just want 1PV aren't always able to or want to play 12v12. Sometimes they just want to drop in a few games in the 30 minutes they have before running off to work, or something.

Also, there is no legitimate reason why players desiring to play 1PV should be limited in their gameplay.

Quote

PGI this back and forth would have been solved if ques were logically split between 1pv and 3pv... I guess Cest la vi ....

This is exactly true.

StaIker, on 14 November 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I remember when polls questioning 1PV/3PV issues regularly crushed the 3PV proponents by 5 to 1 or even 10 to 1 against. Yet things are now to the point where the 3PV viewpoint is a majority on the forums (at least in this poll) and the number of responses is a tiny fraction of what it once would have been. The 3PV people still vote... but the hundreds and hundreds of former 1PV votes are nowhere to be seen. That suggests a very large number of 1PV players simply disappeared after 3PV came along and have not been replaced. There were some who predicted this, but I doubt there are any prizes on offer.

This is exactly the point I made, earlier in the thread. There is no reason to believe that the poll in this thread isn't representitive of the player population at large. Unfortunately, its not possible to gague the number of players who just gave up on MWO completely. If PGI made its player count data publicly available, we could make some estimations.

Farix, on 14 November 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

An alternative view is that the majority of those who originally opposed 3PV saw that it wasn't what they initially feared and came to accept it, especially after PGI dealt with its potential misuse in the competitive scene.

This is an optimistic perspective, but unfortunately, without data only PGI has access to, its just as unprovable as the "lots of people gave up on MWO completely" hypothesis. There are a few minimal things we can say:

1: About 30% of the current population of forum users is not playing due to 3PV.

2: If you assume that 0% of players quit using the forums (i.e. gave up on MWO completely) due to 3PV, then PGI still lost ~30% of its players due to 3PV. This isn't 90%, but it's still really bad.

3: Additionally, given the assumption that 0% of the players opposed to 3PV gave up on MWO completely, a maximum of 2/3 of them are still playing despite 3PV, either because they decided it wasn't so bad, or because they're holding their nose because they don't want to quit.

4: It is unreasonable to assume that the number of anti-3PV players who gave up on MWO is 0%, therefore the number of players lost to 3PV is greater than 30%.

[Heffay]

Well, those 30% (lol) will be missed.

Moving on...

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 14 November 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

1: About 30% of the current population of forum users is not playing due to 3PV.

You're reading that wrong. Only 15% of the poll respondants said they aren't playing.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 14 November 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Well, those 30% (lol) will be missed.

Moving on...

Are you seriously suggesting that loosing 30% of your player base (minimum!) is inconsequential?

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 14 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Are you seriously suggesting that loosing 30% of your player base (minimum!) is inconsequential?

Again, only 15% of the sample is claiming not to play anymore.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 14 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

You're reading that wrong. Only 15% of the poll respondants said they aren't playing.

You don't know what the word "abstain" means.

You also fail at math.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 14 November 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

You don't know what the word "abstain" means.

You also fail at math.

Abstain means they choose not to vote. It doesn't mean they quit playing.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 14 November 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Abstain means they choose not to vote. It doesn't mean they quit playing.

You know, Heffay, I know you're a troll/knight for whatever PGIGP does. Therefore its your job (maybe literally?) to be deliberately obtuse. However, for the sake of our other readers, allow me to break it down for you.

As of the writing of this post, the counts for the first question are:
-46 Yes (32.86%) (34% non abstainers)
-89 No (63.57%) (66% non abstainers)
-5 Abstain (3.57%)

For those that answered "yes" the only possible recourse for these individuals are to play 12 mans or to not play. For those that answered no, the only possible answer for question 2 is "I don't need 1PV". The abstainers probably abstained on the second question, but even if they didn't, they're so small a population, they won't shift anything dramatically.

The counts for the second question are as follows:
-21 Not Play (15.00%)
-11 12 mans (7.86%)
-79 Don't need 1PV (56.54%)
-29 Abstain (20.71%)

The sum of Not Play and 12 Mans is 32, meaning that of the original 46 Yes votes, meaning that 14 of these individuals abstained. Here I will admit a mistake: in my original 30% quote, I neglected the % of players playing 12 mans.

If you assume that all of the players who play 12 mans voted "12 mans", and that abstainers aren't playing but didn't want to vote so, then the % of not players is 25%.

If you assume an equal distribution among those who voted "need 1PV" in question 1 and abstained in the second question, then ~9 of the abstainers are not playing, but chose not to vote as such, giving you a not-playing percentage of 21%

So, the percentage of non-players due to 3PV is most likely between 21% and 25%. Again, I admit the error of not excluding the 12-mans from the 30%. I find the 25% figure more reasonable, as if you need 1PV, and you're not doing 12 mans, then you're not playing. It might be interesting to hear from someone who voted "Yes" to question 1 and abstained in question 2.

20-25% is still a significant percentage. Even if the percentage is as low as 15% (its not), 15% is still a big chunk to loose due to a single design feature. Additionally, I'll remind you that we can't poll the players who just quit completely and stopped reading the forums due to 3PV, and such people do exist.

[Dr Herbert West]

Also, even those still playing the game with 3PV aren't happy with it:

http://mwomercs.com/...l/page__st__220

[Farix]

Polls are snapshots in time and simply reflect the opinions at that time. People's opinions change, especially after they have time to reflect on the matter. So taking a poll 3 months ago when the FUD of 3PV first came and no one really knew just how it would affect the general game play and construing it as a reflection of current opinion is, frankly, the nicest way to put is is spin-doctoring worthy of a political pundit. Especially after a more recent poll doesn't support your position.

[pbiggz]

Dr Herbert West, on 14 November 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Also, even those still playing the game with 3PV aren't happy with it:

http://mwomercs.com/...l/page__st__220

That pole is from august.

[Dr Herbert West]

Farix, on 14 November 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Polls are snapshots in time and simply reflect the opinions at that time. People's opinions change, especially after they have time to reflect on the matter. So taking a poll 3 months ago when the FUD of 3PV first came and no one really knew just how it would affect the general game play and construing it as a reflection of current opinion is, frankly, the nicest way to put is is spin-doctoring worthy of a political pundit. Especially after a more recent poll doesn't support your position.

pbiggz, on 14 November 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

That pole is from august.

The poll was started in august almost a week after 3PV was introduced, and was active through October 4 (necroed on November 7). The poll is reflective of the views of the population up to the begining of October. Its also the most recent poll on 3PV, asside from the one in this thread, which is asking a different question.

Yes, people's opinions can change over time. However, is it reasonable to assume that those opinions have changed drastically in a month and a week? Nothing has changed that might affect people's opinions on 3PV, so I'd say no.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 15 November 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Yes, people's opinions can change over time. However, is it reasonable to assume that those opinions have changed drastically in a month and a week?

Ask the gun control people how much people's opinions can change a month after an event like Sandy Hook.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 15 November 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Ask the gun control people how much people's opinions can change a month after an event like Sandy Hook.

Fair enough, but we haven't had a "Sandy Hook" in the last month and a week. In fact, I made that point in my last post, and you conveniently cut off my quote before that point.

Dr Herbert West, on 15 November 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Yes, people's opinions can change over time. However, is it reasonable to assume that those opinions have changed drastically in a month and a week? Nothing has changed that might affect people's opinions on 3PV, so I'd say no.

You are adorable.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 15 November 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Fair enough, but we haven't had a "Sandy Hook" in the last month and a week. In fact, I made that point in my last post, and you conveniently cut off my quote before that point.

You're completely missing the lesson to be learned here. The implementation of 3PV was your Sandy Hook event.

Nobody cares about 3PV. You missed your window to make people actually care. Something that the #savemwo and Unite and Drop crowd figured out pretty much way back then. They failed to make a difference because... wait for it... wait for it...

Nobody cares about 3PV.

[xMintaka]

Wut? 3PV is OP?

What universe do you live in? I want to move there. Sounds like it would rain money and all the cats would defecate on my neighbour's lawn rather than mine.


The moment I see a 3PV drone (which is usually halfway across the map, even on Alpine or Tourmaline) I make a point to eat that player. Free damage with practically no risk to my mech? Win.


I don't know where you guys are playing, but it's an incredible rarity to see people using the drone. Maybe at the start of the match to check out their slick new paintjob, or who's humping their leg (if they can't twist that far).

Okay, you can peek over hills with it. There's a fundamental flaw with that though. You may be seeing them, but they're also seeing your flashing "HI I'M HERE!!!!" beacon. What's to stop a light running parallel to the ridge and poking their head up for a second or two? They can get the same info you can, with far less obviousness. Not to mention the drawback of forced armlock.

People will complain, regardless if there is a problem or not.

[Fooooo]

Farix, on 14 November 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

An alternative view is that the majority of those who originally opposed 3PV saw that it wasn't what they initially feared and came to accept it, especially after PGI dealt with its potential misuse in the competitive scene.

I basically stopped playing for a while after the whole thing was thrown onto us after being told it was never going to be.

After coming back and testing it out, there is still an advantage there. It doesn't really bother me atm as I only play pub matches and it seems it is not used very often, even tho I have found plenty of perfect spots to use it to advantage. (mainly hiding behind a ridge or down in a depression , popping 3pv and watching which way people walk past buildings etc...which I could not see in 1pv unless I pop my head and get targetted.)

I still really really dislike not having a match option with it totally disabled. However its ATM not stopping me from playing. It is annoying being there tho, as I dont want to use it, but the bonus I can get from using it forces me to sometimes.

[MisterPlanetarian]

I think people who complained about 3PV were essentially two people: Simulator only guys and Battletech vets from MW4 Mercs.


Yeah 3PV had the potential to really screw up the game but PGI really pulled it off. I was opposed to the silence about it all yes but in retrospect not splitting the queue was the right move. 3PV in its current form is not an edge to your play, I'd rather say it's the opposite. It is also absent from the real comp scene with 12 mans.