287 replies to this topic

[KovarD]

Shar Wolf, on 23 November 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

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.

Funny, because all new players that I showed this game asked me if there is a tutorial or single-player game to practice befored get crushed against more experienced players...

The tutorial of MWO is a joke. Just look to MW2 Mercs tutorials, they're story driven and fun. Hawken did a great job on different tutorials on Closed Alpha and Open Beta.

Give XP rewards, CBill, achievments and a Mech for who completed the tutorial and players will come.

Geek Verve, on 23 November 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

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?

Exactly.

Edited by KovarD, 24 November 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Thomas Covenant, on 27 October 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

I think why I care now, when I didn't care before in MW4, is that I was new in MW4(my first in the series). When MWO had higher graphics and locked you to 1PV, I accepted and took up the challenge and greater immersion.

That's the game I want to play simply put.

I am totally lax about this, it's like when a friend asks if I want to play Call Of Duty, and I say no thanks, I'll play Battlefield though. I see it as a different experience, and any emotion, is that I feel I had what I want, and suddenly I am in this quasi grey area where I don't know if it's been taken away permanently, or will return soon. It's like waiting for the punch line, after a generously long pause.

Soooo....you don't like playing in 3PV, to the point where you exclusively play in 1PV. Thus no one else should play in 3PV.

In the immortal words of the intarwebz, lol, wut?

[Dr Herbert West]

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?

Adding features to a game doesn't always add to gameplay.

If I added a cruise missile weapon (very realistic, by the way) that locked at 10km, was guided, and did 500 damage, it wouldn't matter how many tons it weighed, how many crit slots it took, or how much heat it produced. As long as any mech could carry it, it would completely nullify the other weapons in the game.

If you added lasers that could shoot through hills (i.e. a new ability), it wouldn't matter how you balanced them. They would trump all of the other weapons in the game because they nullify cover.

I already explained how 3PV similarly removes from gameplay, no matter how its balanced in this post. You have failed to address any of the points in that post.

As for MW4, MW4 had the ability to disable 3PV for the server. All of the serious leagues used this option (for some reason that completely escapes you, I'm sure). MWO currently has no such option, and the 3PV mechanism itself is currently no more limited than the MW4 mechanism.

As for being deliberately obtuse ... repeating my (well founded) accusations against you is basically "no u." Not a highly effective arguement.

Quote

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.

I threw out healing there because it should be obvious, but I guess not.

Healing, no matter how its balanced, fundamentally would change the game because it would eliminate the permanence of damage. Currently, no matter how much damage you do to an enemy, you have made an absolute gain against the other team. This makes snap shots, harrassing fire, and hit-and-run attacks consequential. With healing, incidental damage can be nullified.This changes the game on an absolute level, no matter how you balance it.

Jumping is another good thought experiement. Imagine a MWO without JJs, and then imagine adding them. The change in the game is fundamental and absolute because you have given mechs a new ability: the ability to bypass and scale terrain. No matter how you balance them, new paths on the map are now open.

Any time you add a new ability, you fundamentally change the game. How that ability is balanced does not change this fact.

Heffay, on 23 November 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

[/size]

But I have. Many times.

You have not once explained how adding 3PV (again, assuming """realistic""" and balanced) benefits gameplay. Please quote or link for me the post where you have, if I am wrong.

As noted before, I gave serveral points explaining why 3PV hurts gameplay in this post. You have not countered with any of your own. I'll repost them again:

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

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).

=============

Shar Wolf, on 23 November 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

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.

Is this directed at me? If you've got a problem, just come out and say it.

[Dr Herbert West]

Geek Verve, on 23 November 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

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?

As Kovar pointed out, the things that would really help new players are a real tutorial, and a free mech/c-bill pile on startup. All of these things were suggested for a LONG time (since last fall in closed beta at least ... I was there arguing the same things myself), but were all roundly ignored.

Quote

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.

This, I believe, is the REAL reason why 3PV was added. PGIGP is currently running on people buying paints and hero mechs. It makes sense that they would want you to see your awesome paints/mechs to encourage you to buy more. The whole "it helps newbies!" was a post-hoc excuse, in all likelyhood.

This is why I suggested the WoT style LoS-based-rendering 3PV. It would have 0 effect on gameplay, but it would allow you to view your mech/paints. In fact, with LoS-based-rendering, you could allow even more camera freedom.

Nick Makiaveli, on 24 November 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Soooo....you don't like playing in 3PV, to the point where you exclusively play in 1PV. Thus no one else should play in 3PV.

In the immortal words of the intarwebz, lol, wut?

Please point the part of his post, or the part of his post where he says that 3PV should be eliminated. The only things that have been suggested by the 1PV crowd in this thread are either a non-gameplay-affecting 3PV (see above) or separate 1PV public queues (you know ... what PGI originally promised).

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 25 November 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

Any time you add a new ability, you fundamentally change the game. How that ability is balanced does not change this fact.

You have not once explained how adding 3PV (again, assuming """realistic""" and balanced) benefits gameplay. Please quote or link for me the post where you have, if I am wrong.

As noted before, I gave serveral points explaining why 3PV hurts gameplay in this post. You have not countered with any of your own. I'll repost them again:

I don't even know why I bother. You're opposition to 3PV is based on a 3PV that isn't in the game. You always talk about risk free scouting, but that is not what I'm proposing to balance it. If your opposition to 3PV is that it is *RISK FREE*, make it *NOT RISK FREE*.

That cruise missile you mentioned, beyond being just ridiculous, figure out a way to BALANCE the use of it with the benefit of firing it. Of course, you made a situation where there is no way to balance it just to be difficult, but whatever. 3PV isn't the cruise missile. And it can add depth to the gameplay as (once again, I have to mention it as you seem to not be able to read it) it gives the player ONE MORE CHOICE in which to choose to use a risky ability or not.

That is depth of gameplay, and if it's balanced, it is fine. It is realistic with the drone. It maintains the sim aspect.

How many times do you need to see that before you understand? Let me guess, this is where you hand-wave off everything I've said, because you are opposed to a version of 3PV that doesn't even exist in this game. Eh, no worries. Keep tilting at those windmills. At the end of the day, NO ONE CARES.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 25 November 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

I don't even know why I bother. You're opposition to 3PV is based on a 3PV that isn't in the game. You always talk about risk free scouting, but that is not what I'm proposing to balance it. If your opposition to 3PV is that it is *RISK FREE*, make it *NOT RISK FREE*.

Actually, you're the one arguing for a 3PV version that isn't in the game (i.e one with risk). The current version is risk free: no radar targeting, no destruction to the drone, no negative consequences to the player if the drone is shot, no way for the player to take damage if they use the drone.

Also, risk-free isn't what I've been saying. My problem is that 3PV, no matter how its implemented, allows you to see over/around cover without risking exposing your mech to weapon fire/radar detection. It is this specific risk that I have been talking about.

Quote

That cruise missile you mentioned, beyond being just ridiculous, figure out a way to BALANCE the use of it with the benefit of firing it. Of course, you made a situation where there is no way to balance it just to be difficult, but whatever. 3PV isn't the cruise missile. And it can add depth to the gameplay as (once again, I have to mention it as you seem to not be able to read it) it gives the player ONE MORE CHOICE in which to choose to use a risky ability or not.

Of course, you ignore the scenarios of healing and jumping. These are great examples of how gameplay elements that add new abilities to the game (one not in the game, one already in it) fundamentally change the nature of the game. You also conveniently ignored the scenario of the weapons that shoot through hills.

Quote

That is depth of gameplay, and if it's balanced, it is fine. It is realistic with the drone. It maintains the sim aspect.


How many times do you need to see that before you understand? Let me guess, this is where you hand-wave off everything I've said, because you are opposed to a version of 3PV that doesn't even exist in this game. Eh, no worries. Keep tilting at those windmills. At the end of the day, NO ONE CARES.

Once again, we are at the point of the thread where you no longer respond to points presented in the thread. How am I arguing against a version of 3PV that isn't in the game ... the version in game allows you to see over/around cover without exposing you rmech. I have hand-waved away nothing you have posted. In fact, I have meticulously responded to every last thing you've posted. Incidentally, this is another example of "no u" and "I know you are but what am I" debating. Again, not very effective.

Also, as noted before, "no one cares" is a lie, and has been thoroughly demonstrated to be a lie in this thread. Also, all caps?

I have consistently pointed out how adding 3PV takes away from gameplay. You have not posted any explanation for how 3PV helps gameplay (saying "adding anything = helping gameplay" doesn't work, as demonstrated by the healing example). Here are my points again.:

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

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).

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 25 November 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[Heffay]

You can tell no one cares because you're the only one who bothers to do a daily bump on this thread every morning.

Can't let it get too far down now, can you?

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 25 November 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

You can tell no one cares because you're the only one who bothers to do a daily bump on this thread every morning.

Can't let it get too far down now, can you?

Replying to a post does not equal bumping the thread.

You're not contributing anything to the thread, nor are you actually attempting to argue your point anymore, so why don't you give up and just stop posting? Then I won't have anyone to respond to and the thread will just die.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Dr Herbert West, on 25 November 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

Is this directed at me? If you've got a problem, just come out and say it.

No actually, it was directed at those who claim Heffay would defend the game no matter how badly it was made.

On the other hand, if the boot fits......

Dr Herbert West, on 25 November 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Replying to a post does not equal bumping the thread.

It was my understanding, that anything that caused the thread to be 'bumped' up the list, was considered bumping the thread.

[Dr Herbert West]

Shar Wolf, on 25 November 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

No actually, it was directed at those who claim Heffay would defend the game no matter how badly it was made.

On the other hand, if the boot fits......

I don't even know what the boot is, since you didn't specify.

However, you'll forgive me if I assume that "people who argue against you" refers to me, since I've been the one arguing with him for the last few pages.

Quote

It was my understanding, that anything that caused the thread to be 'bumped' up the list, was considered bumping the thread.

I had thought that "bumping" refered to posts, replying to no one, that just put the thread back up on the front page.

If its not, I think I can hardly be blamed for replying to people who are replying to me.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Dr Herbert West, on 25 November 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I don't even know what the boot is, since you didn't specify.

Since what I originally posted, was a mocking of Heffay, I should not need to specify.
(Although, in fact, I technically already did)
Your lack of knowledge of who/what Heffay is shows your newness to the forum.
Might want to do some more research on your opponent before you start your next debate.

[Dr Herbert West]

Shar Wolf, on 25 November 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Since what I originally posted, was a mocking of Heffay, I should not need to specify.
(Although, in fact, I technically already did)
Your lack of knowledge of who/what Heffay is shows your newness to the forum.
Might want to do some more research on your opponent before you start your next debate.

The context wasn't immediately obvious to me. Sorry if I was overly defensive.

As for newness to the forum ... well this isn't my first callsign.

My original is/was zorak ramone. I used this callsign for the entirtly of MW4 when I was part of HRR in UTS and NBT4. I used that one to play and post up untill last fall in closed beta when they wiped accounts and introduced the trial mech grind. This was before the newbie cbill bonuses. I was certain that they would change this obvious design flaw, so I created a test account (Dr Herbert West) to try out the trial mech grind. It was long and brutal but I made it through. The Devs never fixed this obvious design flaw, so I stuck with Dr. West for playing since I already had mechs/money, and with zorak ramone for posting so people could recognize me.

About a month or two ago, PGIGP changed the forum rules so that accounts with less than 25 games on them couldn't post in most forums (remember, games on zorak ramone were wiped last fall). So now I post with Dr. West.

I've been here since the second round of closed beta invites (last July, I think). Through all of closed beta and into open beta, back when I thought the devs were listening to our feedback, I along with many others like Mustrum Ridcully and Homeless Bill, created long effort-posts about game balance and how to fix it, and participated in many other discussions. So no, I'm not new to the forums by any definition of the word.


As for Heffay, I know exactly what he is, although I'm not sure who he is. I'm guessing Heffay isn't his first/only callsign either, seeing as he only really started post post posting in the immediate aftermatch of the 3PV Hatesplosion in August.

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 26 November 2013 - 11:05 AM.

[Heffay]

Time for the daily bump, eh?

5 of the last 7 days, you managed to be the first person to bump it up from the depths of obscurity. Good work!

No one cares.

Dr Herbert West, on 26 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

As for Heffay, I know exactly what he is, although I'm not sure who he is. I'm guessing Heffay isn't his first/only callsign either, seeing as he only really started post post posting in the immediate aftermatch of the 3PV Hatesplosion in August.

Go check out the fan art section.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 26 November 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Time for the daily bump, eh?

5 of the last 7 days, you managed to be the first person to bump it up from the depths of obscurity. Good work!

If someone replies to me, I reply to them. I don't think this is unusual, nor do I think that less than a day without a new post/still on the front page = "depths of obscurity."

Here you've gone and replied to me again. Just quit posting, and I'll quit replying to you.

Quote

No one cares.

No matter how big the lie, and no matter how many times you repeat it, its still a lie.

Quote

Go check out the fan art section.

I don't usually visit that forum.

I found your fanart thread. How does this have any bearing on the argument at all?

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 26 November 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[The6047]

Goat here checking in after being away for a few months.

When 3PV came out I was mad. I understand people want it etc. etc. I contacted support and got my refund for an Overlord package. I stated in multiple emails to PGI that no more of my money would be spent on this game until a 1PV only option was implemented as promised. I stopped playing almost entirely.

Fast forward a few months to today. I see the 1PV is still not in the game and is still an issue (Don't ever forget it MechWarriors!). I do see more money grabbing attempts. The thing is I spent about $1,500 to build a new gaming PC, primarily for MWO as it was my favorite game at the time. Money is not and never was an issue. I was just using it to make a point knowing that money is more important to PGI than anyones opinion.

Sad to see that the promises remain broken and the scars from the lies are still visible.

Glad to see I made the correct decision. Wallet still closed...

-Goat

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 26 November 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

I found your fanart thread. How does this have any bearing on the argument at all?

Just shows that I'm a valuable contributing member of the forums and the Battletech community, and you are... well... you.

[KovarD]

Heffay, on 26 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Just shows that I'm a valuable contributing member of the forums and the Battletech community, and you are... well... you.

Just because he doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean he is not more valuable than you.

The6047, on 26 November 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Goat here checking in after being away for a few months.

When 3PV came out I was mad. I understand people want it etc. etc. I contacted support and got my refund for an Overlord package. I stated in multiple emails to PGI that no more of my money would be spent on this game until a 1PV only option was implemented as promised. I stopped playing almost entirely.

Fast forward a few months to today. I see the 1PV is still not in the game and is still an issue (Don't ever forget it MechWarriors!). I do see more money grabbing attempts. The thing is I spent about $1,500 to build a new gaming PC, primarily for MWO as it was my favorite game at the time. Money is not and never was an issue. I was just using it to make a point knowing that money is more important to PGI than anyones opinion.

Sad to see that the promises remain broken and the scars from the lies are still visible.

Glad to see I made the correct decision. Wallet still closed...

-Goat

Same thing. I bought Phoenix Project first of all to support PGI, not because I really wanted the mechs or I was satisfied with the game.

But the good thing is that I saved around 150usd.

I will give another chance again if they separate the queues. But many of my friends already lost the interest on this game...

[Dr Herbert West]

The6047, on 26 November 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Goat here checking in after being away for a few months.

When 3PV came out I was mad. I understand people want it etc. etc. I contacted support and got my refund for an Overlord package. I stated in multiple emails to PGI that no more of my money would be spent on this game until a 1PV only option was implemented as promised. I stopped playing almost entirely.

Fast forward a few months to today. I see the 1PV is still not in the game and is still an issue (Don't ever forget it MechWarriors!). I do see more money grabbing attempts. The thing is I spent about $1,500 to build a new gaming PC, primarily for MWO as it was my favorite game at the time. Money is not and never was an issue. I was just using it to make a point knowing that money is more important to PGI than anyones opinion.

Sad to see that the promises remain broken and the scars from the lies are still visible.

Glad to see I made the correct decision. Wallet still closed...

-Goat

[sarcasm]

Goat, you're obviously mistaken in your opinion!

Heffay has repeatedly said that nobody cares about 3PV ... and yet your post makes it sound like you actually care about 3PV! Clearly, your opinion is wrong. You probably haven't made any MWO fan art either.

Please change your opinion immediately and buy project pheonix before its too late!

[/sarcasm]

I haven't started the game, much less spent any money on it since 3PV was introduced. It doesn't look like I'll be playing/paying any time soon either.

In retrospect, I'm glad that PGI introduced RnR back in closed beta last year when they did. My birthday was up, and I was deciding what to buy myself for my birthday. On one hand, I could go for founders. On the other, I hadn't bought Skyrim yet. Then PGI introduced RnR, made every game stressful, and therefore made my decision easy for me. Skyrim is/was awesome, and PGIGP continues to make terrible design decisions (3PV, ghost heat, gauss charge) despite community input (although to their credit, they DID remove RnR based on community feedback). I regret nothing.

Heffay, on 26 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Just shows that I'm a valuable contributing member of the forums and the Battletech community, and you are... well... you.

Your fan art doesn't make your arguments correct or your lies true.

Similarly, your perception of my value to the forums doesn't make my arguements incorrect.

Hell, this guy probably hasn't even played MWO (he probably hasn't made any fan art either!) and he could still come onto these forums, explain why 3PV is bad news for MWO, and he'd be right.

[Heffay]

Ah, good morning! You're up early today!

6/8.

[Geek Verve]

This is actually kind of hilarious. "I'll show you! You're not getting any of my money, until you do xxx!!!" If you think one or ten or even fifty people "threatening" to keep their wallets closed will force a particular feature into/out of the game....well, I would simply ask that you give Mr. Roarke and Tattoo my regards.