614 replies to this topic

[Hangfire]

I'd prefer 1st person. Whatever caused the MW4 'motion sickness' in some gave me a great buzz in a light with a maxed out engine .
Why not an option for Forced first person in some matches, whatever's your poison in others. Keeps everybody happy.

[FlystreesVagann]

FIST, on 31 October 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

1st person only is great... the game is supposed to be a mech sim right?

This this and this! Only first person please^^

[Pan]

StORmTrAin, on 10 November 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

I'm surprised at the number of people who voice their favor for 1st person view. This was never an issue when played on the MANY ladder matches with MekTek. There were always servers for the "minority" of people who wanted the full simulation immersion thing. Many will tell you that 1st person was preferred to hinder poptarting because many were getting owned by this new method of fighting. Which started when Black Knight came out and I'm pretty sure I know they guy that started it. Sure, it's a simulation, not a first person shooter, to me, ffp is CHEAP, and CLUNKY. Give me a Thor with machine guns and 3rd person and I'll run circles around a fully spec'd Warlord in ffp. I think ffp is meant to limit the truly talented and really meant for the less skilled style of fighting.

This should not be surprising at all. Battletech was a game created to simulate mech combat. Mechwarrior has a long tradition of attempting to emulate that combat.

Your experiences may differ but, the truly talented people I know do not complain about perceived handicaps.

First person view for me and the win! Cheers.

[Red Beard]

mwhighlander, on 10 November 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

First Person is the ONLY way to play a 'mech simulator.

End of discussion.

Thats funny...

[Hangfire]

StORmTrAin, on 10 November 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

. I think ffp is meant to limit the truly talented and really meant for the less skilled style of fighting.

I missed this the 1st time,, Exactly how is ffp meant for the 'less skilled' style of fighting?

[SnagaDance]

First person is the best for gameplay purposes IMO, many have already said why.

3rd is nice for people who want to make cool videos.

[KitLightning]

First person only to enhance the immersion of being inside a walking beast of doom. Only way I can possibly see an alternative camera view as an option is either via a deployable drone which would be displayed as a small window inside the cockpit. Or a nose camera on the missiles displayed in the same way.

omega5-9er, on 01 November 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

First person only is a plausible idea, but it has to be done better than MWLL.

Care to elaborate on that, either here or more correctly on the boards of MWLL? Feedback on the project is always welcomed imo.

[Omega59er]

KitLightning, on 11 November 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

First person only to enhance the immersion of being inside a walking beast of doom. Only way I can possibly see an alternative camera view as an option is either via a deployable drone which would be displayed as a small window inside the cockpit. Or a nose camera on the missiles displayed in the same way.




Care to elaborate on that, either here or more correctly on the boards of MWLL? Feedback on the project is always welcomed imo.

I believe everything I said below that line pertained to MWLL. So I did elaborate.
*EDIT* Above that in the first paragraph actually.

Edited by omega5-9er, 11 November 2011 - 02:24 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

I would Vote First Person (Sim) as a base.

Otherwise I want to see (graphically represented) every Mech's personal floating cameras that provides said 3rd person view. That way I can shoot it and disable the Pilots ability to see.

[Zakatak]

I would like a "hold V for 3rd person" view that doesn't have any HUD, so we can just check out our mech from the outside. Maybe only when no enemies are nearby though, so you can't use it to cheat.

[Duffanichta]

You could implement a small monitor inside the cockpit that is showing the third person view.

A third person view in general would detroy the simulator feeling.

[CeeKay Boques]

You saw your mech in the Lab. You just want to look at it again, dontcha!! Narcissistic warrior!

[Hayden]

I prefer 1st Person, it's the way Mechwarrior is meant to be played.

[Hodo]

Angelicon, on 31 October 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

So a future where people drive 30 foot tall robots doesn't have the tech skill to orbit some micro cameras for outside view? There's nothing weird or cheaty about it, it's real -today-. Give me the option for outside view please.

Its obvious you missed the whole introduction to the Battletech universe, where it stated that things as simple as water purification technology was RARE, and EXPENSIVE. To quote the back of the original Mechwarrior book. "Life is cheap, Mechs arent"

There are no random floating semi-automatic droids that follow you around like a bad episode of Sea Quest DSV. So no third person. We dont have floating UAVs following around F-15E Strike Eagles today do we? I think not.

[KitLightning]

omega5-9er, on 01 November 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

I concur with the thoughts that many players have, that first person cockpit view is the way that Mechwarrior is supposed to be, but the cockpits have to be very good for limiting the game to first person only. I know this will buy me some flame from other people, and I love Mechwarrior Living Legends, but the mech combat is almost unplayable for me. The cockpit view is, in my opinion, atrocious. One of my favorite mechs, the Uziel's cockpit jumps up and down so badly I become worried that I will develop epilepsy or some neural problem.

omega5-9er, on 11 November 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

I believe everything I said below that line pertained to MWLL. So I did elaborate.
*EDIT* Above that in the first paragraph actually.

Thanks, on that you should create a topic on MWLL, if it is a to great hindrance to play with. There may be more having that view?

[Halfinax]

I'd love to see it be First Person View only, but I don't see any inherent issue if it is allowed for a third person view as long as it isn't from too far behind and above the 'Mech itself. Personally I'll be using a 1st person view for my own immersion, but I think there are some valid arguments about only allowing 1st person view in a simulator the primary of these being motion sickness.

[Neutron IX]

Hodo, on 11 November 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

Its obvious you missed the whole introduction to the Battletech universe, where it stated that things as simple as water purification technology was RARE, and EXPENSIVE. To quote the back of the original Mechwarrior book. "Life is cheap, Mechs arent"

There are no random floating semi-automatic droids that follow you around like a bad episode of Sea Quest DSV. So no third person. We dont have floating UAVs following around F-15E Strike Eagles today do we? I think not.

"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."

The above is from an excellent "how does a mech work" type of essay found here http://www.sarna.net...nology#Overview

I only point this out, because 1PV in Battletech doesn't mean what I think many of you think it means, and if we want "realistic" according to what it "should" be like to pilot a Battletech universe mech, well, how awesome does the above sound to you, game-play wise?

The relative inability to move your head within your mech, and a 360 degree field of view compressed onto a 160 degree HUD projected onto the face-plate of your neuro-helmet?

Remember, we are not arguing known capabilities of modern war machines, or what we imagine piloting a mech should be like according to what we know of current technology. We are arguing previously well established mechanics of sci-fi technology, that won't always translate well to "real-world" mechanics, and by game mechanic necessity, it will likely differ from what it "should" be.

So why, then, is taking it a step further and allowing 3PV, some egregious divergence from logic or gritty realism on the part of the devs, especially when, as I and others have previously pointed out, it could mean the difference in actually playing the game or not for many of us, for physiologically induced reasons?

I do understand the complaint about expanded field of view being an advantage in PvP, and believe me, I'd rather be in a situation where that could be my major concern with camera views in the game, but from where I'm sitting, where including 3PV represents a problem with "how the game is played" for you, excluding 3PV represents a problem with "will I even be able to play the game in the first place" for me.

Just some things to consider from the opposite side of the coin .

[Halfinax]

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."

The above is from an excellent "how does a mech work" type of essay found here http://www.sarna.net...nology#Overview

I only point this out, because 1PV in Battletech doesn't mean what I think many of you think it means, and if we want "realistic" according to what it "should" be like to pilot a Battletech universe mech, well, how awesome does the above sound to you, game-play wise?

The relative inability to move your head within your mech, and a 360 degree field of view compressed onto a 160 degree HUD projected onto the face-plate of your neuro-helmet?

Remember, we are not arguing known capabilities of modern war machines, or what we imagine piloting a mech should be like according to what we know of current technology. We are arguing previously well established mechanics of sci-fi technology, that won't always translate well to "real-world" mechanics, and by game mechanic necessity, it will likely differ from what it "should" be.

So why, then, is taking it a step further and allowing 3PV, some egregious divergence from logic or gritty realism on the part of the devs, especially when, as I and others have previously pointed out, it could mean the difference in actually playing the game or not for many of us, for physiologically induced reasons?

I do understand the complaint about expanded field of view being an advantage in PvP, and believe me, I'd rather be in a situation where that could be my major concern with camera views in the game, but from where I'm sitting, where including 3PV represents a problem with "how the game is played" for you, excluding 3PV represents a problem with "will I even be able to play the game in the first place" for me.

Just some things to consider from the opposite side of the coin .

I agree that undoubtedly in this respect canon and what is in the game should deviate. If for no other reason than interpreting that information would be astoundingly headache inducing. I'd rather see a 90 degree FOV with the ability to move your head through either the use of TrackIR or a mouse look like function.

[Aidan]

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."

The above is from an excellent "how does a mech work" type of essay found here http://www.sarna.net...nology#Overview

I only point this out, because 1PV in Battletech doesn't mean what I think many of you think it means, and if we want "realistic" according to what it "should" be like to pilot a Battletech universe mech, well, how awesome does the above sound to you, game-play wise?

The relative inability to move your head within your mech, and a 360 degree field of view compressed onto a 160 degree HUD projected onto the face-plate of your neuro-helmet?

Remember, we are not arguing known capabilities of modern war machines, or what we imagine piloting a mech should be like according to what we know of current technology. We are arguing previously well established mechanics of sci-fi technology, that won't always translate well to "real-world" mechanics, and by game mechanic necessity, it will likely differ from what it "should" be.

So why, then, is taking it a step further and allowing 3PV, some egregious divergence from logic or gritty realism on the part of the devs, especially when, as I and others have previously pointed out, it could mean the difference in actually playing the game or not for many of us, for physiologically induced reasons?

I do understand the complaint about expanded field of view being an advantage in PvP, and believe me, I'd rather be in a situation where that could be my major concern with camera views in the game, but from where I'm sitting, where including 3PV represents a problem with "how the game is played" for you, excluding 3PV represents a problem with "will I even be able to play the game in the first place" for me.

Just some things to consider from the opposite side of the coin .

3PV is all well and good as long as the server admin can enforce 1PV vs 1PV and 3PV vs 3PV BUT NO 1PV vs 3PV !

Split the player community anyone!?

[Halfinax]

Aidan, on 11 November 2011 - 08:46 PM, said:

3PV is all well and good as long as the server admin can enforce 1PV vs 1PV and 3PV vs 3PV BUT NO 1PV vs 3PV !

Split the player community anyone!?

Nah, I think this should be a purely preferential decision. As long as 3rd person view provides no distinctive advantage or has to give up advantages of 1st person view for a wider visual range.