614 replies to this topic

[Glare]

Kohzak, on 16 November 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

You make it sound like people who play in first person are so unbelieveably hopless and frail that they are incapable of backing off quickly when a barrage of LRMs come rising over a hill top or a pulse laser streaks by their cockpit from behind and quickly crouching behind cover, then initiating an attack of their own.

You make it sound like if two pilots of hypothetically equal skill went head to head, one in first person and one in third person, that the one in third person wouldn't have an advantage. S/he clearly does. First strike is more often than not very important, and the ability to engage from a position of safety because you can see your enemy but your enemy can't see you is a skill multiplier the likes of which is hard to find many other places.

[Sgt Saunders]

I recall reading not too long ago that technology- particularly that in the military sphere- has changed more rapidly in the last century alone than in all the previous centuries combined. The next century will undoubtedly see an even more rapid rate of advance (assuming that man survives that long).

It’s been a long accepted concept in armed forces around the world that practicality governs the design and construction of military hardware. In layman’s terms, “you go with what works”- and not with what presents a challenge.

Today, applicable General and Flag rank officers in the U.S. armed forces have access to top-down displays that indicate known strength and disposition of both friendly and enemy formations. Other nations may have this ability as well, although I’m not sure. Regardless, it’s safe to say that if man still wages conflicts by riding war machines into battle one thousand years from now, the technology available to Generals today will be available to the squad, fire team, and even individual combatant in the 31^st century- to say the very least. This isn’t my opinion; it’s a fact. The rate of man’s scientific progress and the “Constant Tactical Factor” makes it one.

My point here is that because of the above, the concept of vision ports that can be more easily penetrated by enemy fire will be as obsolete then as the helmet of a medieval knight is today. In the 31^st century, every pilot and mech will be connected via multiple wireless links to an overall plot of the entire battle area that will be updated in real time. This information will likely be presented on a display that will be no bigger that the visor on one’s headgear. And every time that a combat take place, two battles will be fought simultaneously. One will be the battle for survival waged by fighting men; the other will be the battle for information waged by technicians.

What I’m suggesting is that the last thing that this MMO can afford to do is to stand still. If this new MMO is to create the mass appeal necessary in order to survive, then the Mechwarrior concept requires a facelift; one that retains the concepts of the mechlab and individual mech design while at the same time projecting the game more accurately into a 31^st century time frame. IMHO, even the heat concept needs a hard look- but that’s another story. Let the Battletech genre be the basis- but not the bible- for this new MMO.

Regardless of what they do, I wish the designers all the best in what they’re doing, and I look forward to the finished product.

Edited by Sgt. Saunders, 19 November 2011 - 12:02 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Sgt. Saunders, on 19 November 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

I recall reading not too long ago that technology- particularly that in the military sphere- has changed more rapidly in the last century alone than in all the previous centuries combined. The next century will undoubtedly see an even more rapid rate of advance (assuming that man survives that long).

It’s been a long accepted concept in armed forces around the world that practicality governs the design and construction of military hardware. In layman’s terms, “you go with what works”- and not with what presents a challenge.

Today, applicable General and Flag rank officers in the U.S. armed forces have access to top-down displays that indicate known strength and disposition of both friendly and enemy formations. Other nations may have this ability as well, although I’m not sure. Regardless, it’s safe to say that if man still wages conflicts by riding war machines into battle one thousand years from now, the technology available to Generals today will be available to the squad, fire team, and even individual combatant in the 31^st century- to say the very least. This isn’t my opinion; it’s a fact. The rate of man’s scientific progress and the “Constant Tactical Factor” makes it one.

My point here is that because of the above, the concept of vision ports that can be more easily penetrated by enemy fire will be as obsolete then as the helmet of a medieval knight is today. In the 31^st century, every pilot and mech will be connected via multiple wireless links to an overall plot of the entire battle area that will be updated in real time. This information will likely be presented on a display that will be no bigger that the visor on one’s headgear. And every time that a combat take place, two battles will be fought simultaneously. One will be the battle for survival waged by fighting men; the other will be the battle for information waged by technicians.

What I’m suggesting is that the last thing that this MMO can afford to do is to stand still. If this new MMO is to create the mass appeal necessary in order to survive, then the Mechwarrior concept requires a facelift; one that retains the concepts of the mechlab and individual mech design while at the same time projecting the game more accurately into a 31^st century time frame. IMHO, even the heat concept needs a hard look- but that’s another story. Let the Battletech genre be the basis- but not the bible- for this new MMO.

Regardless of what they do, I wish the designers all the best in what they’re doing, and I look forward to the finished product.

And we must also factor in that the Great Houses are spread across the known Universe, have been at war, off and on, for 500+ years. Given that, there is no guarantee that when your Dropship lands on some back water planet with your Mech Lance that the upper atmosphere will be full of Satellites or anything the Brass can just tap into.

That is why we hope that C3, UAV etc etc. can be put to good use and have that Tech be useful in the game as a substitute for what we know is possible to the Major military forces on our own little back water planet.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 November 2011 - 01:30 PM.

[Stingray Productions]

I would like the option of third person, but that's just because I like to look around the mech while it's moving around. Otherwise, 1st person is the best view, it feels much more realistic.

[Longhorn]

First person only or maybe a body cam.
Multiplayer 3rd person = jump snipe. They hide behind a hill and see you coming, pop up and snipe. This puts too much advantage to the 3rd person crowd. I like the leveling factor of 1st person only. Balance.

[Vagabond Nomad]

For what it's worth, I love the first-person-only view. It adds to the realisim of the Mech combat simulation.

I've seen some suggest that 3rd-person view could be made available with little probes using the "technology of the future" ^™. Okay, I can sort of buy that, IF someone wants to give up some of the scarce space in their mechs to house the probes, AND if there was the understanding that one's opponents could destroy your probes (or jam them), forcing you back into 1st-person view anyway. That actually could be sort of interesting.

Still, my preference is for 1st-person view.

Edited by Vagabond Nomad, 19 November 2011 - 06:08 PM.

[Sam Slade]

I just want to clarify that MWO will be a first person only sim based game?

[Dihm]

Sounds about right from what they said. They may find ways to give you a different perspective, but they will be limited to something logical to the gameworld/gameplay (such as a UAV/probe).

[Cattra Kell]

From what I hear about what the development team wants to do, It wouldn't be a far reach to go out and say yes.

[Sam Slade]

Well that's a poor decision. Way to lose a massive chunk of casual gamer cash. (No I don't care about 'realism' in a fictional setting, I care about the game lasting).

[Dihm]

I happen to feel the opposite about the quality of the decision, but to each their own.

[Korbyn McColl]

Sam Slade, on 22 November 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

Well that's a poor decision. Way to lose a massive chunk of casual gamer cash. (No I don't care about 'realism' in a fictional setting, I care about the game lasting).

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic.

Are you concerned that hardcore players who train and practice will be able to easily defeat new/casual players? If so, I wouldn't worry too much. Piloting a 'mech was never "difficult" in any of the previous incarnations of MW. The hardest thing to do was learn to lag shoot, but even that is non-existent these days.

If you were looking for a true BT Universe MMO, where you can play a MechWarrior, Aerospace Pilot, Tech, whatever, and get out of your cockpit and actually interact with the world, I can somewhat understand your disappointment. That said, it seems to me that that would limit the player base even more than a traditional MW sim.

Perhaps if we had a clearer picture of what you were hoping for we might be able to better answer your question, though?

[Dihm]

I'm gonna guess, MechAssault.

[Cattra Kell]

Sam Slade, on 22 November 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

Well that's a poor decision. Way to lose a massive chunk of casual gamer cash. (No I don't care about 'realism' in a fictional setting, I care about the game lasting).

How so? It is a mech simulator and the fact is locking everyone into one view will actually balance the game.

In mechwarrior 4 the 3rd person allowed people to look over hills and for long distances while still in cover while someone in first person because that's how they liked to play would have to expose themselves. This was even more so with the large amount of players taking heavies and assaults resulting in flaking failures because in the 3rd person they could see in almost a 360 degree radius but never have to leave cover meaning if someone took a light mech to flak or even a medium, you just couldn't do it without usually getting spotted from behind cover as you moved around. Another thing this resulted in was pop-tarting, having a Thor with JJ's but looking OVER the hill and only when you saw the mech you jumped, shot your PPC's and landed only to pop out again when you saw them from behind your cover.

With the lock on first person no one has a vision advantage over another player, sure we may still have JJ snipers but they will have to rely now on at least having their head or torso visible on the ridge OR fed information from another player. This will also allow flaking to be done a bit easier now that, once more, you have to actually be looking down the hill and not behind it with the camera angled.

So to conclude, by locking everyone in a single view no one has a tactical advantage of looking over scenery in third person to get the advantage over someone in first person. It actually help create a equality in gameplay rather then a inequality. This is the reason why I was always in puretech servers and also the reason why I love MW:LL.

Edited by cattra kell, 22 November 2011 - 05:48 AM.

[Black Sunder]

Its not like its gonna be sniper mode in WoT. Its the view of the pilot from the cockpit. Whatever you can see from there is your view. Some mechs may even have a better FoV than other mechs.

[CoffiNail]

Only one point stands to combat the 100% 1st person, and that was someone commenting that the cockpit bob gives them motion sickness. Bryan understood the posters concern and said they would try to consider options that would allow the people with said condition to still enjoy their game but not give them undue advantages that previous 3rd person views had offered, it could well be a none shaky camera that is just outside the cockpit glass for all we know that still mainly offers the first person feel with out the motion sickness inducing cockpit bob.

I for one love the cockpit bob as it always adds to the mech and the skill needed to play some mechs. They will not loose many casual gamers, a few maybe but it is for the greater good of balance and fairness. 3rd person has always given one a better vantage then those who are immersed inside the mechs cockpit. If the 'casual gamer' really needs his 3rd person to 'play' then I do not think he would be sticking with a Mech Sim for long anyways.

I Will also point out, that the Developers, Russ, Bryan, Paul as well as the rest of the Dev team have been and keep calling it a Mech Sim! So, if you are looking for a CoD FPS with Mechs this is not it.

Edited by CoffiNail, 22 November 2011 - 07:23 AM.

[crazy jake]

I agree that the only logical and intelligent decision would be to make MWO 1st person view. Although thank you for telling the community that YOU find it bad and the decision is not right for YOU. I want realism in my fantasy setting, so there.... and if at some point I no longer want that realism, I hope the devs listen to only me and not anyone else.

I also want fluffy pink bunnies to shoot at.

possibly hamsters too, though they need not be pink.

[metro]

It was announced the 16th.

MWO=1st Person.

This thread is a repeat of one over a week old and buried already.



Mechanics of MWO = unknown.

Topic = Speculative.

Edited by Metro, 22 November 2011 - 08:17 AM.

[Dihm]

I think metro is trying to kill the forums. That or increase that post count.

[metro]

no Im growing tired of the same ole posts, asked again and again with the period and comma in a different place.

WHat MWO members need to do is search the forums after they read the announcements and blogs, before they re hash an old post.

Its bordering on SPAM, and it is getting irritating.

Almost 50,000 posts and most if it is RE RUNS like watching TNT and USA television.

Edited by Metro, 22 November 2011 - 08:38 AM.