41 replies to this topic

[EvilCow]

Lucian Nostra, on 22 November 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Not only was it a waste of time and resources but created a riot when the promised queue splitting wasn't there.

And we are still waiting for the masses of new players just waiting for 3PV.

You can see here how it totally worked as expected.

[MustrumRidcully]

Yes, it is bad on purpose.

The community polls showed that people didn't want 3PV and worried about all the bad stuff it would cause to the game, like it did in earlier Mechwarrior titles, where it allowed circumventing cover and allt that.

But PGI believed the game needed 3PV to attract more customers and help new players understand movement and torso twisting, so they implemented it anyway, but as a compromise, tried to nerf it in various ways so that people would still gravitate towards 1PV.

The result is that they made 3PV unusable for consistent play (which is probably what players that really prefer 3PV games would have wanted), but still is giving us the ability to look around cover (which the 1PV crowd didn't want.). ANd it's not very good for understanding movement and torso twisting, due to the way the camera angle is set (but I believe it got a bit better after release? Haven't checked in a while)

The alternative solution to make 3PV equal in usefulness to 1PV and splitting the queues ina pure 1PV and a 3PV queue was not chosen (despite initial promises of doing it so). Maybe because match-making would turn even slower if the match-maker had to separate 3PV and 1PV players in addition to matching weight classes and Elo rankings.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 23 November 2013 - 04:09 AM.

[Tolkien]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 November 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

Yes, it is bad on purpose.

The community polls showed that people didn't want 3PV and worried about all the bad stuff it would cause to the game, like it did in earlier Mechwarrior titles, where it allowed circumventing cover and allt that.

But PGI believed the game needed 3PV to attract more customers, so they implemented it anyway, but as a compromise, tried to nerf it in various ways so that people would still gravitate towards 1PV.

The result is that they made 3PV unusable for consistent play (which is probably what players that really prefer 3PV games would have wanted), but still is giving us the ability to look around cover (which the 1PV crowd didn't want.).

The alternative solution to make 3PV equal in usefulness to 1PV and splitting the queues ina pure 1PV and a 3PV queue was not chosen (despite initial promises of doing it so). MAybe because match-making would turn even slower if the match-maker had to seperate 3PV and 1PV players in addition to matching weight classes and Elo rankings.

This is the most thorough and impartial explanation of the situation to date in the thread.

Next up is the question of whether 3pv will be kept as is, or adjusted to further 'broaden the appeal'. Personally I'm mostly sticking to 12 mans these days since I detest dealing with 3pv. It only happens once in a while but in pug matches I'll occasionally see a tiny blinky light near some cover then a few poptarts will introduce their weapons to my exact position :S

File photo:


"Why can't I hold all this fun?"

Edited by Tolkien, 23 November 2013 - 04:13 AM.

[Alex Warden]

mekabuser, on 22 November 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

I ask, because i cant see how you are supposed to use 3pv if your xhairs jump and twitch all over the place.

1st of all, i hear that alot... what people don´t realize is that this "jumping crosshair" is the aimaid from CE3, and - if used properly and with practice - makes it actually easier to aim (not always, but one can figure out when...the x-hair jumps to the closest asset, may it be a rock, building or the closest torsopart)... it´s confusing at first, but once you realize what it actually does, it can easily be abused in certain situations (although i have the feeling, PGI already tuned it down a bit... the first few days you could easily force headshots with it)...tbh, i think that aimaid can help the experienced player more than the newbie, so yea, basically it fails it´s purpose

with that said, i personally don´t use 3rd PV on principle and i still think it was more than unnecessary to bring it in.

Edited by Alex Warden, 23 November 2013 - 05:09 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I suspect the crosshair jumping has something to do with how the convergence points of your weapons is calculated, depending on the position of your mech. From your cockpit view, you don't notice the effect, because the crosshair is in the centre of your view, but once you change perspective, the effect becomes visible.
It could feasilby used to see when you're actually aiming on an obstacle instead of the target you want to aim on, and might help aiming when you have to lead and the convergence point is not on the mech itself. But I am not sure how well that works for most players. You might be able to identify the particularly bad edge cases, where leading will get you nothing because the enemy is at 200m but the convergence point is set at 1,000m and your shots will be all over the enemy mech, if at all.

[Blurry]

why resources was spent on this is mind blowing.

They need content and a more or less PU type fight for retention sake.

If that was addressed maybe they wouldnt have to have exorbitant prices on mechs as there would be a larger population supporting the game.

[Heffay]

Blurry, on 25 November 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

why resources was spent on this is mind blowing.

They need content and a more or less PU type fight for retention sake.

If that was addressed maybe they wouldnt have to have exorbitant prices on mechs as there would be a larger population supporting the game.

You're suggesting the prices of the mechs are high to offset the lack of content?

That's quite... interesting? Maybe interesting isn't the word I'm looking for...

[Urdasein]

Broken 3PV keep console players far away.

Working as intended.

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 22 November 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Seriously.

The same 3 people talking about 3PV over and over again.

I guess this is today's "I AM OUTRAGED" thread. Do you guys have some sort of rotation to determine who gets to post the daily 3PV thread?

This is just another version of your "nobody cares about 3PV" lie that was thoroughly debunked in this thread, and is further debunked by the existence of this poll, as well as many others in the past.

Sandpit, on 22 November 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Using it to peek around corners is the worst use of it. (Yes Heffay you CAN do that and in my opinion that's an exploit of what it was intended for)

MustrumRidcully, on 23 November 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

Yes, it is bad on purpose.

The community polls showed that people didn't want 3PV and worried about all the bad stuff it would cause to the game, like it did in earlier Mechwarrior titles, where it allowed circumventing cover and allt that.

But PGI believed the game needed 3PV to attract more customers and help new players understand movement and torso twisting, so they implemented it anyway, but as a compromise, tried to nerf it in various ways so that people would still gravitate towards 1PV.

The result is that they made 3PV unusable for consistent play (which is probably what players that really prefer 3PV games would have wanted), but still is giving us the ability to look around cover (which the 1PV crowd didn't want.). ANd it's not very good for understanding movement and torso twisting, due to the way the camera angle is set (but I believe it got a bit better after release? Haven't checked in a while)

The alternative solution to make 3PV equal in usefulness to 1PV and splitting the queues ina pure 1PV and a 3PV queue was not chosen (despite initial promises of doing it so). Maybe because match-making would turn even slower if the match-maker had to separate 3PV and 1PV players in addition to matching weight classes and Elo rankings.

These two posts are perfec and explain everything thats wrong with 3PV.

The split 1PV/3PV queues would be a solution, but I'm guessing that PGIGP knows that their player base (decimated by CW delays, and bad design choices like 3PV, ECM, Ghost Heat, and GR charge) isn't large enough to support it

Another solution that doesn't require splitting the queues is to implement a WoT style 3PV. The idead would be to get rid of the drone, and then make it so that mechs that you don't have LoS to in 1PV are not rendered. This turns 3PV into a pure vanity mode that doesn't affect gameplay.

With this implementation, you could eliminate the restrictions associated with 3PV (no map, low camera angle) and make it a viable way to play because it wouldn't let you see over/around cover. You could even allow 360 camera angles for better screenshots/views of your mech (good for selling paints/heros).

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 25 November 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Heffay]

Dr Herbert West, on 25 November 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Another solution that doesn't require splitting the queues is to implement a WoT style 3PV. The idead would be to get rid of the drone, and then make it so that mechs that you don't have LoS to in 1PV are not rendered. This turns 3PV into a pure vanity mode that doesn't affect gameplay.

With this implementation, you could eliminate the restrictions associated with 3PV (no map, low camera angle) and make it a viable way to play because it wouldn't let you see over/around cover. You could even allow 360 camera angles for better screenshots/views of your mech (good for selling paints/heros).

That solution would destroy the sim aspect of the game. And PGI has stated that this is a mech *sim*.

[Clit Beastwood]

They're probably not going to buff it until the console port comes out

[Dr Herbert West]

Heffay, on 25 November 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

That solution would destroy the sim aspect of the game. And PGI has stated that this is a mech *sim*.

If PGI wants to keep the sim-aspect of the game, and not harm gameplay, then their only choice is to cut 3PV from the game.

A "simmy" 3PV (i.e. where the drone is a physical object with eyes) by necessity allows players to see over/around cover. No matter how you balance this, it fundamentally changes gameplay because it gives players a new ability. This ability actually harms gameplay by eliminating or limiting options. I made this point in the other thread, and you failed to refute it. Incidentally, MWO doesn't currently have a "simmy" 3PV since the drone is an indestructable ghost that requires no slots/tonnage/etc.

A non-simmy 3PV (i.e. a disembodied camera who's sole purpose is to take picutres of your mech) can be modified (i.e. no rendering of mechs with no LoS in 1PV) to have no effect on gameplay, and, because of these modifications can be made to be a viable way to play the game and a better vanity camera at the same time.

For me, gameplay is key, so I would go with the non-simmy 3PV or with eliminating/segregating 3PV.

[Lightfoot]

It might have a few bugs with some mechs. Other than that you get the viewpoint restrictions that the 1PV player has. So it's good for seeing your mech while playing, but not over your mech and this is intended.

[Dr Herbert West]

Lightfoot, on 26 November 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

It might have a few bugs with some mechs. Other than that you get the viewpoint restrictions that the 1PV player has. So it's good for seeing your mech while playing, but not over your mech and this is intended.

Yes exactly.

Hey PGI: if you go this route (i.e. 3PV only renders mechs/weapon fire with LoS in 1PV), you could even allow the player to pan their camera 360 around their mech without breaking the game.

Imagine how this will improve your paint/hero sales.

[Kilo 40]

Roland, on 22 November 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

And it totally fails to achieve that end.

It gives new players the impression that 3PV is how the game is meant to be played, and they don't know how to turn it off, and they are totally crippled in combat compared to other players.

And then they quit and uninstall.

I'd love to know how you know what thousands of new players across the globe do when first encountering 3pv. Did you conduct a pole or something?

[Dr Herbert West]

Kilo 40, on 28 November 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

I'd love to know how you know what thousands of new players across the globe do when first encountering 3pv. Did you conduct a pole or something?

Roland's statement is completely logical, and supported at least by anecdotal evidence.

Why should a new player assume that 3PV isn't the way to play? They start the game, and there they are. There isn't any tutorial to tell them otherwise.

Everyone knows that 3PV cripples you in combat. The thing that makes 3PV break the game is that you can use it to peek over/around cover. Good players will pop it out to take a peek, then turn it off when its time to actually fight. New players will not only not know how to turn it off, they won't even know they can.

Finally, if you're loosing constantly, and can't even afford a new mech, much less customize it (and you don't even know how or why you should customize it ... again see the tutorial issue), why wouldn't they just quit?

Edited by Dr Herbert West, 29 November 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Diego Angelus]

Drakenn, on 22 November 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

I like how half the people complain that it is overpowered, and the other half complain that it's terrible

The real truth is it isn't supposed to be good, it's supposed to help players understand how to move. When they get good enough, they should switch to first person.

its overpowerd when used to peek over corners there is no rule that says that you have to use it for combat.

[Pwnocchio]

To answer the OP, yes, 3PV intentionally gimps you because it was added only to help new players grok the concept of 'torso twist'.

In a FPS shooter that minimap is literally the most important bit of data available to you 95% of the time. If you pay attention to it you'll be a much better player.

3PV gives you a highly situational advantage but at the cost of the minimap it's not worth it, even in MWO.

[Dr Herbert West]

Pwnocchio, on 29 November 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

To answer the OP, yes, 3PV intentionally gimps you because it was added only to help new players grok the concept of 'torso twist'.

In a FPS shooter that minimap is literally the most important bit of data available to you 95% of the time. If you pay attention to it you'll be a much better player.

3PV gives you a highly situational advantage but at the cost of the minimap it's not worth it, even in MWO.

This would be true if you were forced to play the game in one mode or the other.

However, since you toggle 3PV on and off, you can use it as a periscope to peek over/around cover, and then switch it off to fight.

This allows you all of the advantages of 3PV (i.e. detect mechs without exposing your mech to damage or radar detection) but none of the disadvantages.

Furthermore, the ability to see over/around cover to detect mechs fundamentally changes the nature of the game for the worse. Previously, the only way to spot or detect enemy mechs was to expose yourself to fire or to get a teammate to do it for you (i.e. a scout). This ability devalues scouts and hinders maneuver warfare no matter how you balance it.

[Blurry]

Lukoi, on 22 November 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

EC,

You've got to give them a little time. They can't keep with the demand for horrific ideas.

and they havent let us down. now we have the long worked on UI 2.0 not even close and the promised CW isnt even entering pipeline phase.
2014 is going to be epic. I loaded up on the popcorn have you?
well maybe not there may not be anyone here left after all.