614 replies to this topic

[Neutron IX]

Also, I should add for clarification, I'm fortunate in that I actually have found several games where 1PV was just fine (FPS only so far, no luck yet in cockpit perspective games to date ), and have played and enjoyed those games immensely.

And being such a Battletech canon/lore/immersion junky, the first time I launch the game, be it forced or not, I'll try out the 1PV and see how it feels. What I'm hoping for in my "best case scenario", is that it will feel awesome, and I can play unimpeded. What I'm fearing in my "worst case scenario", is that it will make me feel dizzy and sick, and that there will be no "second option" for me to switch to 3PV and continue to play.

And there are those out there who are afflicted even worse than I with this form of motion sickness. For at least some of them, I imagine that where there might be a slight chance that 1PV might work for me, there will perhaps be zero chance that it will work for them. I can't help but empathize, even if I do end up lucky enough to find the 1PV suitable.

[Biytor]

1st person only is the way to go. Makes all the 3rd person kiddies work on those situational awareness skills...

[Halfinax]

Many true (non-arcade) flight sims allow both 1st person and 3rd person views. Granted they tend to be on separate servers, but if MWO allows both within a single server (difficulty setting) difficulty (I'm making some level of speculation that there will be a variety of leagues and servers all with their own unique persistent worlds). There should be a trade off for 1st person and 3rd person view. For instance a 1st person player would have a 90 degree fov with the ability to look withing 45 degrees of that view in either direction, but a 3rd person view would have a 100 degree field of view, but no ability to look in either direction beyond that. In essence a person using 1st person view would end up with a total 270 degree field of view (90 degree base + 45 degree look in either direction + 45 degree torso twist in either direction) but a 3rd person viewer would only have 190 degree field of view (100 degree base + 45 degree torso twist in either direction) so the 3rd person user has a wider base FOV, but the first person viewer has an overall wider FOV.

[Sgt Saunders]

In the 31st Century? 3rd person would seem apppropriate to me. It would seem odd to have 31st Century technology depending in large part on a 2nd World War or Gulf War era vision port. Just my opinion...

[VEDRFOLNIR]

From an immersion standpoint, I can see the desire for 1st-Person POV, but from a motion-sickness issue, I can also see the desire for 3rd-person POV.

Seems to me that the best options would be:

• A tight 'over-the-shoulder' 3rd PPOV that would alleviate the vertigo issues while not giving any tactical advantages.
  
• A 1st-PPOV that has the option to disable the rocking, bucking and motion FX that causes vertigo.

I like screenies of my 'Mech as much as anyone, so hopefully the devs will have a way of offering a 'out-of-combat' option for a more expansive 3rd-PPOV.

[Sgt Saunders]

I'd like to add someting here. Perhaps one solution to this might be- 3rd person view in a mech's fully operational state. This view would rely on:
1) Cameras that could be damaged or destroyed in combat, and;

2) Orbital satellite downlink- the connection to which could be jammed.

I just registered, so I have no idea how complex the MMO will be. That said, the more complex it is, the better.

[Sal Trebov]

Only time I used external cameras was for looking at my mech, and admiring how badass running around in a giant walking tank was. When the bullets started flying, 1st person only.

[AuGuR]

If 1PV were to be accurate, the 3d fov would have to be centered on the mech, the "camera" height at same level as the FPV, up and down axis limited to what the mech can actually do as well.

Having the camera anchored several meters off center and allowed to rotate at that angle is where the tactical advantage comes into play.

In MW4 MP (forget which version), several times there was the camera drone listed as the default mech. If one pilot opted to, use a MWO version of that mech to run around the map to do their movie recordings, what-not. Only caveat would be inability to see enemy mechs (from other houses/clans) and their locations that were otherwise undetected by their team. This "drone" would not count towards BV, teamsize or anything else.

[Hodo]

Rip Snorgan, on 11 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

"The massive neurohelmets of the succession wars, which sat on the shoulders and inhibited the MechWarriors ability to turn their head compressed a 360-degree view from external cameras and sensors into a 160-degree HUD display in the helmet with the different firing arcs deliniated and having their own reticules for weapons in those firing arcs."

While all this is great, you are aware that doesnt mean it had "external" cameras floating some 10m behind the mech giving you a birds eye view of your machine. So I am 250% against external view.

TrackIR/FreetrackIR/NOIR head tracking software I am all for. But no automagic eye in the sky behind you cam.

Mechs of the Inner sphere had little in the way of advanced tech, even though mechs were the top of the tech tree for most places. It wasnt the greatest thing man had made. Jump Ships were, and most places had no clue how they worked other than they still worked.

160deg field of view isnt that big... its roughly the same as your normal unrestricted field of view. For some reason I dont see the back of my head while I walk around my house from some magic eye cam that follows a few feet behind me.

So dont try and say, its 3048 and advanced technology will give us this ability. READ A BOOK From the Battletech universe set in the end of the Fourth Succession War. You will see that mechs were and are VERY limited. This is why infantry is still the bane of mech existence.

[alVolVloLy]

I find that 3rd person offers at least some sort of approximation of the 360 degree view (compressed) that mechs are supposed to have. It may not be perfect, but it's better than the alternative. It's not a huge leap in my mind that the on board computers of the mech could create basically an avatar of the machine you are driving based upon the speed and location of it's various parts. It seems to be a sensible way to handle the limitation of not having the view available that you are supposed to have.

FFP view to me it like wearing a cardboard box on your head with a slit in the front to look out of. I don't see how that is any more realistic than having an approximation of the view of the battlefield that is supposed to be available.

Simply put, I don't see FFP (as done in MW4 anyway, been a while since I've played 2 or 3) is any more "realistic", it's just unnecessarily limited, and unrealistically limited. We are supposed to be able to see MORE than FFP allows. This is not to say that 3rd person is perfectly realistic, it's not.

If FFP is going to be locked (in the name of realism) then we need a better representation of the view we are supposed to have than we have seen in the past.

$.02

[alVolVloLy]

Halfinax, on 11 November 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

Many true (non-arcade) flight sims allow both 1st person and 3rd person views. Granted they tend to be on separate servers, but if MWO allows both within a single server (difficulty setting) difficulty (I'm making some level of speculation that there will be a variety of leagues and servers all with their own unique persistent worlds). There should be a trade off for 1st person and 3rd person view. For instance a 1st person player would have a 90 degree fov with the ability to look withing 45 degrees of that view in either direction, but a 3rd person view would have a 100 degree field of view, but no ability to look in either direction beyond that. In essence a person using 1st person view would end up with a total 270 degree field of view (90 degree base + 45 degree look in either direction + 45 degree torso twist in either direction) but a 3rd person viewer would only have 190 degree field of view (100 degree base + 45 degree torso twist in either direction) so the 3rd person user has a wider base FOV, but the first person viewer has an overall wider FOV.

This type of system may be a happy medium, given each view it's pluses and minuses. Perhaps no exactly as listed, but advantages and disadvantages to both.

[MaddMaxx]

I can only add, that if the Neurohelmet was the means by which a pilot viewed the battlefield (360 < 160) then why did almost every Mech have a clear view port (windshield) to actually look out of using their EYES? Here is excerpt about a helmet.

Quote

"
Technology

The neurohelmet reads the brainwaves of the pilot. The basic model of neurohelmet focuses on the human sense of balance. With a multi-ton gyroscope and powerful myomers in the limbs, BattleMechs can stand upright and remain balanced on their own, but the limited intelligence of BattleMechs and natural conservatism of their control computers means they often need to be told when it is acceptable to be off balance, which may be helpful in battle as MechWarriors push their machines. The neurohelmet also provides feedback to the MechWarrior, helping them retain their own sense of balance as they sit 10 to 12 meters in the air atop a swaying, weaving bipedal giant robot.
More advanced neurohelmets provide additional input and output beyond a sense of balance, though they never amount to "Direct Neural Interface" technology. A neurohelmet can provide the MechWarrior with a kinesthetic sense - a sense of how the 'Mech's limbs are positioned - and Star League aerospace fighter neurohelmets served to provide a weak virtual reality to the pilots. In return, MechWarriors can use neurohelmets to provide some clarification the simple commands they are supplying to a 'Mech through joysticks, triggers, and pedals.
Early neurohelmets had to be carefully calibrated to the brain of the pilot. If the calibration was not exact (or if there was the wrong pilot wearing the helmet), this could lead to a host of effects, including headache, dizzy sight, balance problems and disturbing buzzing inside your head (a very weak buzzing remains even if the calibration is correct)."

[wolf on the tide]

3rd for view, 1st to aim and shoot.

only having one or the other ?
might as well put your foot in a bucket, fill it with quick dry cement, and let it set.

[Omar Thirds]

Good. Not only will it add to the intensity and level of immersion, it'll also mean that Battletech can take Hawken's market share.

[Pht]

roh, on 31 October 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

First sorry if this thread exists. I just couldnt find a forum search anywhere.

That being said how do you all feel about first person only at release? I personally love it. I play first person for the immersion of it. And selfishly I don't want those advantage seekers using 3rd person to ambush me from complete concealment around a corner. At least not while being able to see me clear as day with their magically floating third eye.

LoL I want them to be nervous and twitchy as they wait, not knowing the exact moment I will step into view.

First person will only be as good as how they manage to implement the various sensor (and especially visual sensor) feeds into the first person cockpit view. It could be awesome - it could be virtually blind - or it could be information overload sheol.

Third person ... is also only as good as it's implementation. It can be done "right" and be balanced to be even with a first person view - you simply do not render anything that cannot be seen on your mech's sensors or by the pilot from the viewport. Sensor contacts could be handled like they were in MC2 - varying wireframe shapes depending on quality of sensor contact. That way you can have the joy of seeing your 'Mech in all its shot up falling apart glory without having an unequal playing field.

[Hodo]

MaddMaxx, on 12 November 2011 - 06:40 AM, said:

I can only add, that if the Neurohelmet was the means by which a pilot viewed the battlefield (360 < 160) then why did almost every Mech have a clear view port (windshield) to actually look out of using their EYES? Here is excerpt about a helmet.

Your quote says everything I dont want to be bothered to look up. Thank you for finding it.

NO THIRD PERSON.

[Pht]

Hodo, on 12 November 2011 - 08:10 PM, said:

NO THIRD PERSON.

why?

[Octavian Dibar]

I am perfectly fine with this being a 1st person perspective game. I like the simulator feel. Just give me a head movement function.

[Hodo]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

why?

Because mechs dont, and did not have a 360 field of view. Many mechs were noted for having better view out of the cockpit than others. You should be able to turn your head in the cockpit, or turn your head of your mech. This would give you a better view around you, but no floating camera behind you. If there is a 3rd person camera, there should be NO FIRING from that mode. You cant fire, you cant steer you cant move. You are accessing some zoomed in zone around your mech.

And even this would be un-fluff like. As the Cyclops, Awesome, Atlas and Orion, were some of the few mechs that could call on any off battlefield communications data, that large.

Explain to me... better yet show me in 3049 tech readouts where there is a floating camera behind every mech on the battlefield.

[Neutron IX]

Hodo, on 11 November 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

While all this is great, you are aware that doesnt mean it had "external" cameras floating some 10m behind the mech giving you a birds eye view of your machine. So I am 250% against external view.

TrackIR/FreetrackIR/NOIR head tracking software I am all for. But no automagic eye in the sky behind you cam.

Mechs of the Inner sphere had little in the way of advanced tech, even though mechs were the top of the tech tree for most places. It wasnt the greatest thing man had made. Jump Ships were, and most places had no clue how they worked other than they still worked.

160deg field of view isnt that big... its roughly the same as your normal unrestricted field of view. For some reason I dont see the back of my head while I walk around my house from some magic eye cam that follows a few feet behind me.

So dont try and say, its 3048 and advanced technology will give us this ability. READ A BOOK From the Battletech universe set in the end of the Fourth Succession War. You will see that mechs were and are VERY limited. This is why infantry is still the bane of mech existence.

I feel like maybe you didn't read my entire post perhaps?

And for the record, I have read, and reread, and reread again, every single novel short of the ones set in the Dark Age, and the only "infantry" that comes to mind, that any mechwarrior would rightly consider a "bane", is one Cassie Suthorn. Sure, you have the "Inferno" types, or the "Elemental" types, but that's based more on what the infantry in question is equipped with, than on any limits to field of vision. In the novels and in other sources there's talk about various IR and Mag sensors, allowing mechs to detect all sorts of units, including your "bane" people.

But all that is even beside the point, which is really that, the faceplate of the neurohelmet projects a 360 degree field of view mere inches in front of your nose, so why exactly are we supposing that a mechwarrior according to canon, won't be able to see things standing behind them, when point of fact, according to lore, we should have an even better field of view compressed into a 160 degree screen, than would even be offered by an over the shoulder camera. I'm not suggesting that a "hover-cam" is the technology that one should expect, since it clearly is not established that it is, rather, I'm stating that the established technology offers a mechwarrior a field of view that is at least equal in value, if not greater, than would be offered by a simple 3PV, so why be so rabidly against it on the basis of "lore" or "canon"?

Also, please read my posts further, and understand where exactly I'm coming from on this issue. I'd hope that it would allow you a modicum of respect for my position at least, even if you continue to disagree.