Heffay, on 02 December 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:
I have never been wrong on this subject. You just ignore answers to questions you don't agree with. You're substituting your opinion as fact.
You are projecting here Heffay (again).
Not only are you consistently wrong, you constantly fabricate data, formulate strawmen, and cut off posts to your benefit.
In addition to this trolling, you constantly lie about things ("nobody cares about 1PV") that are obvious.
Furthermore, you do constantly ignore points that you can't argue with. Anyone is free to check the thread: I consistently answer every question, and reply to every point in every response to my posts meticulously. You on the other hand, have ignored points that you can't argue with several times.
In fact, lets list some of the things you've ignored in this thread alone!
You ignored my arguments for why forum polls provide valid information about the community because you can't argue with it:
Dr Herbert West, on 01 November 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:
First of all, I will admit that the data that we have (forum polling, player/website/magazine reviews, etc.) is not ideal. Ideal data would be a polling a sample of every individual who has ever played MWO, not just those currently playing MWO. While it would be possible for the devs to do the latter, the former is probably impossible.
Second, that does not mean that there isn't information that can be gleaned from forum polls. In fact is is the ONLY information that we have. Dismissing the forum polls and then coming up with some sort of explanation for why they're wrong isn't creating new information, its dismissing the only information you have which puts your argument on shakier ground than anyone using forum polls ... in fact it makes your arguments groundless.
Third, there is no a-priori reason to assume that the self-selected population of forum users isn't representitive of the population of MWO players at large. The fact that someone uses a forum and posts on it is indicative of a higher level of motivation and dedication to the game. Level of player motivation and interest is not concievably correlatable with specific opinions about that game.
Fourth, as I stated before, the existence of feedback forums, containing polls, for MWO and every other game out there now is an implicit assumption that forum users are at least a reasonable aproximation of the game population at large. The existence of these forums rests on the assumption that there is useful information to be gathered from them. Of course that doesn't stop bad devs and their shills from dismissing this information when it doesn't fit their pre-concieved worldview.
Finally, self selected populations are used when necessary in other fields. The entirety of drug and biomedical research involving human populations rests on self selected populations (especially the healthy controls). You can't force people to participate and you can't randomly call people and ask them to participate (as you might do in a phone poll). You put up advertisements and the most interested and motivated (sound familiar?) individuals apply. I'm pretty sure the same approach is used in marketing focus groups. In each case there is no way to account for the """silent majority""" of individuals who were not motivated enough to participate ... and yet these studies are treated with validity.
:
Dr Herbert West, on 13 November 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:
One, you don't just discard a group of friends and find another one. Thats not how friends work. By virtue of being your friends you want to hang out with them. I have more than 10 years of history with the guys I play with. I'm sure I'm not the only guy out there with long term MW buddies (there are plenty of MW4 vets out there). If the game's design forces me to ditch my friends then the game design is flawed. Incidentally, this is also the same argument against the (arbitrary?) limitation of group sizes so that groups sizes of 5-11 are impossible.
Two, this restricts 1PV players in ways that others aren't. They are forced to find 11 other people, and are forced into a queue with a smaller population. This is a restriction on when they can play (i.e. only when 11 others are there) and how long they can play (i.e. waiting in the queues, waiting for others to ready up). Everyone else has no such restrictions. Other players can just jump into a game at will and get some quick action at random times (e.g. 30 minutes before they have to go to work in the morning), play with a single other friend or two (e.g. trying to get a new friend intersted in the game), or play in groups of four.
Three, players should not be forced to find groups and/or use third party software (i.e. voice comms ... why isn't voice/lobbies integrated yet?) to play the game. Each and every other sucessful online multiplayer game has some kind of solo play options. FPSs have open servers. MMORPGs can be soloable or NPCs you can use to fill out a group. Sure, top level play may require groups, and thats fine. In fact, thats probably the way it should be in every game. However, you must have lone wolf gameplay available for the sake of new players (for obvious reasons) and so an experienced player can pick up the game and play it whenever and for however long he wants. In fact, PGI themselves stated that lone-wolf gameplay was an intended part of MWO. Currently, players who want 1PV don't have these options.
Fourth, 1PV only gameplay, with no strings attached, was promised/advertised from the very begining. I could understand people being irritated with 1PV-only complaints if the game had 3PV from the start. I could even understand it if 3PV was added later and 1PV-only was never promised/advertised. However, this game was advertised as a 1PV only game from the very start, and the devs repeatedly promised this via the forums. The pictures are out there to prove this despite the censoring that occured on this forum, and you know it. The advertisment of the game as 1PV only was not a minor issue. Third vs First person is a big issue in
other tactical games. Why should I accept so many limitations to play the way I want, when the game I promoted and spent my time and money on (yes, I've bought MC) was advertised as 1PV only.
:
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.
===========
Quote
But it's just an opinion, and a silly one at that. If you don't like 3PV, don't use it. Putting arbitrary restrictions on how others play the game because you personally don't like them for no good quantifiable reason is just plain dumb.
Aside from the fact that you're ignoring posts within the last page explaining why this is wrong, allow me to flip that right back at you.
Why should arbitrary restrictions be put on players who want to play in a 1PV environment? Why were 1PV only public queues removed when it was like that from the beginning ? Why are players who want to play in a 1PV environment restricted to a queue where they need to have a group size of 12 and 3PV players are not?
As for "no good quantifiable reason" there are plenty, and you've been working hard to ignore them in this thread (see above).
8
