614 replies to this topic

[FEK315]

I am all for solely FP, but having a probe can give you a glimpse into what is going on.
I realize from a developer stand point it might be a huge problem but its a good possible solution to the problem.

If Dev time is too much then I vote FP.

FEK315...OUT!

Edited by FEK315, 20 February 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[Havoc2]

Not a bad idea, but IMO the probes that you speak of should be restricted to either Scout modules, Command modules, or both.

They make me think of the probe that was in the original 2009 trailer in that they give a brief (maybe 30 second) bird's eye view of the battlefield, can pick up enemy targets assuming they are not shut down, running passive radar, covering their heat signature or whatever combination PGI decides to go with.

[Six6VI]

I could play either, but I really enjoyed the feel of 1st person.

[FEK315]

}{avoc, on 20 February 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Not a bad idea, but IMO the probes that you speak of should be restricted to either Scout modules, Command modules, or both.

They make me think of the probe that was in the original 2009 trailer in that they give a brief (maybe 30 second) bird's eye view of the battlefield, can pick up enemy targets assuming they are not shut down, running passive radar, covering their heat signature or whatever combination PGI decides to go with.

Exactly, that is what it would be. If you put it on scouts, you just added a deeper level of cooperation between teammates.
That would also make lights mech much more attractive to players and in Team Battles, where usually they are sacrificed for fire power.

FEK315...OUT!

Edited by FEK315, 20 February 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[El Loco]

I wonder if 1st person only encourages communication between the units. Getting the full picture of the battle field to the heavy hitters... that's what scouts are for (sort of), right? With 3rd person, I wouldn't need to contact the scout lance in order to find out if it is safe for my Catapult to move to those ruins or closer to that forrest. Go 3rd person and look for yourself... not very appealing to me. Plus I'm all for surprises, the positive ones and the negative ones alike

[Felix Dante]

Aegis Kleais™, on 20 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Here's my suggestion

Basically this is what I just said wasn't it?

[FEK315]

I'm not sure why you wouldn't logically see the "asset mech " in the "Proposed 3rd Person Acceptable view".
Could you explain?

Edited by FEK315, 20 February 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[FEK315]

El Loco, on 20 February 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

I wonder if 1st person only encourages communication between the units. Getting the full picture of the battle field to the heavy hitters... that's what scouts are for (sort of), right? With 3rd person, I wouldn't need to contact the scout lance in order to find out if it is safe for my Catapult to move to those ruins or closer to that forrest. Go 3rd person and look for yourself... not very appealing to me. Plus I'm all for surprises, the positive ones and the negative ones alike

It absolutely encourages communication between the units. It was imperative in Chromehounds and Steel Battalion especially when it came to mortar strikes and missile launching.

[NeoThoR]

El Loco, on 20 February 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

I wonder if 1st person only encourages communication between the units. Getting the full picture of the battle field to the heavy hitters... that's what scouts are for (sort of), right? With 3rd person, I wouldn't need to contact the scout lance in order to find out if it is safe for my Catapult to move to those ruins or closer to that forrest. Go 3rd person and look for yourself... not very appealing to me. Plus I'm all for surprises, the positive ones and the negative ones alike

I played both 3rd and 1st a lot and my squad(s) never communicated any differently.

[SilentObserver]

Potential solution to getting "stuck" in first person only.



Basically a very tight overhead view that will show you what your bumping into. put it on a button you could toggle it to your HUD.

[DRevD]

Aegis Kleais™, on 20 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

As for the first, I don't know what else to say than the fact that I'd choose 1st if given the option. I want immersion, and after so much time, you'll have a sense of space that makes colliding with things happen much less often. Surveying the map in 3rd person won't be any more beneficial in surveying the map more than just where streets are; anything that is rendered would not show if they didn't have LOS to it from a 1st person perspective.

I can't say how long the dev time would take to implement, but it seems pretty simple. An invisible camera from the cockpit of the Mech is used to dictate entities marked as such whether they would be rendered in full or part depending on line of sight clipping. It would be an initially jarring reality for 3rd person pilots, but one they'd need to become used to in order to view in their preferred out-of-mech viewpoint. It's not fair for them to be looking around corners with a floating camera.

I played primarily in forced first person leagues in mw4. Im well aware of how good a player can get at moving around in FP and still avoid bumping into things. But that is not what Im getting at.

Say you are behind a building and want to look down the street. Last visual of the enemy mech was behind the 3rd building down the street. You predict that mech is more than likely popping back and forth from behind this building. In first person, you would have to guess the exact location of that building as you pop out to take a look. In third person (even with your suggested feature), you can still see exactly where that 3rd building is. You can even line up your reticule so when you pop out its right over the expected location of the enemy mech. You pop out, you guess right and quickly take a shot at the mech. In first person, you'll need to be REALLY good at guessing terrain to do the same. Its a subtle advantage, but one competitive players would be stupid to pass up. I like immersion, but Im not willing to gimp myself to get it. Especially when rank/planets are on the line.

As for dev time, even if it was 2 days more...thats 2 days I don't play MWO for a feature that won't really change anything. Competitive players will be in 3rd, roleplayers will be in 1st. First person only, or open the flood gates to 3rd being the primary mode of playing.

EDIT: If you are confused, this is =Outlaw=. I keep logging in to the wrong account (<---reserving this name).

Edited by DRevD, 20 February 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[Outlaw2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 20 February 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

OK, with your further explanation I see your point; the player is using elements that are not dynamically rendered for an early estimation advantage. It may end up that the 2 modes simply are not compatible with one another as far as fair play goes.

As for your latter statement, the dev time is well worth it, IMO, if a solution can be brought to bear which fully address the situation. If the game allows players traditional 1st/3rd experiences in pub games (as well as the ability to filter out servers to allow players to join servers with restrictions they want), then the question still comes down to, "On RANKED play which affects the global economy, are they going to force 1 POV to prevent the benefit these players have?"

Seeing what this did to the MW4 community, IMO it would be wiser for the devs to just stick with one POV from the start. It may pisssoff some people enough in the beginning to quit, but in the long run you will have a healthier, non-fractured community. Of course, I hope its FPV. I think it leads to more dynamic and varied matches..while TPV matches are much more static and entrenched in comparison. This is assuming the game is without your proposed feature. With your feature, I probably wouldn't care either way tbh, but would stick with TPV for its subtle advantage I described above. Just know that, with your feature, TPV will be the dominant POV.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 February 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

=Outlaw=, on 20 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Seeing what this did to the MW4 community, IMO it would be wiser for the devs to just stick with one POV from the start. It may pisssoff some people enough in the beginning to quit, but in the long run you will have a healthier, non-fractured community. Of course, I hope its FPV. I think it leads to more dynamic and varied matches..while TPV matches are much more static and entrenched in comparison. This is assuming the game is without your proposed feature. With your feature, I probably wouldn't care either way tbh. Just know that, with your feature, TPV will be the dominant POV.

I hear ya. I'm a people-pleaser, so I try to let everyone have their cake and eat it, but there's just too much of a tactical advantage with 3rd person views. You see the same problem in FPS shooters and the more recent and console-centric TPS shooters. Some games I love 1st person (traditional shooters) and others I need third person (Splinter Cell, etc.)

[FEK315]

I played MW4 for 5 years and used 3 person a total of 30 hours, I only used it to see what my mech looked like.
After about the 6th hour of playing I knew the physical boundary of my mech so I think that argument is not sound.

Are you ignoring my proposal of probes for a reason?
or is that too simple of an answer?

[Outlaw2]

No real reason. Its been talked about already in this same thread. Its an interesting idea. Although its not really a solution to this, but it is a potentially cool scouting idea ...but one that will need to be balanced very carefully.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 20 February 2012 - 03:16 PM.

[Cur]

I am still realy hoping they impliment a 3rd person option into MWO.

It realy is a preference, id much rather look at the arse of my mech and get to see it run around, and get limbs torn off than be restricted to looking out the windows from within the cockpit. Yes yes i know its a mechwarrior game, for me its as simple as preferring skim milk over full cream with you're coffee - in the end it doesnt matter, its just preference.

I will state that if they do put in 3rd person, it should not give the user any advantage over 1st person users - this is most important!

Tho, if this game is released 1st person only i'll still be playing it, tho i will be rage-tastic if the only way i can get get good views of my mechs as it runs around and does its thing is to watch other players in their mechs instead :|

[Fluffinator]

Cur, on 20 February 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

I am still realy hoping they impliment a 3rd person option into MWO.

It realy is a preference, :|

It's not a preference as it gimps 1st person view. This is not something where you put both in and choose what you like. Its like giving someone the choice do you want single heat sinks or double heat sinks? The second double heat sinks are a choice you can no longer choose single without intentionally gimping yourself. Its the same when you put in 3rd person view...you can no longer choose 1st person.

Edited by Fluffinator, 20 February 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[FEK315]

=Outlaw=, on 20 February 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

No real reason. Its been talked about already in this same thread. Its an interesting idea. Although its not really a solution to this, but it is a potentially cool scouting idea ...but one that will need to be balanced very carefully.

Thank you, I thought maybe it had been discussed because of the Reboot Video or the answer was too simple in the way that you are all trying to address a different type of problem.
It seems its more about game fairness in game play then about an optional element.
I am still for First person I always felt that 3 person take me out of the actual game play.

FEk315...OUT!

[Bortz]

First person is the only way to go if you want it to feel real.

[Wyzak]

In counterstrike, after you are eliminated from the match you hover around your teammate in third person mode, and then you get to study the player models for as long as you want