57 replies to this topic

[Revis Volek]

Mystere, on 25 July 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

I am going to have to disagree, primarily because of this:

I dont see how that video proves any points.


But ok....awesome, we agree to disagree. I shall be moving on as PGI did.

[Mystere]

Revis Volek, on 25 July 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

I dont see how that video proves any points.

The UAV in the video is a combination of MWO's 3PV "drone" and the current UAV. It is arguably better than either one alone.

Revis Volek, on 25 July 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

But ok....awesome, we agree to disagree. I shall be moving on as PGI did.

And that's the problem. PGI -- and much of the player base -- has moved on even though the current 3PV implmentation just feels incomplete/wanting, especially considering that Information Warfare is virtually non-existent.

[Revis Volek]

Mystere, on 25 July 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

The UAV in the video is a combination of MWO's 3PV "drone" and the current UAV. It is arguably better than either one alone.




And that's the problem. PGI -- and much of the player base -- has moved on even though the current 3PV implmentation just feels incomplete/wanting, especially considering that Information Warfare is virtually non-existent.

So how do you propose to make 3pv better (which to my knowledge NO ONE wants) and change just for the sake of change?

What idea do you have that will keep both parties happy while still keeping 1PV the main one?
Its not a problem to move on from something you consider finished. Otherwise how would you ever get anything else completed? Nothing amazing will come of a better 3PV that i can see so why are we gonna waste time, effort, money and man power on something no one even really cares to have?

The community was pretty split and not even a 50.50 split we were all over the place. You are another one that wants something not even really applicable, you want the 3pv to come from the UAV drone? So effectively killing the UAV and 3PV at the same time by merging them into one tool?

How does this help or hinder? What would it even accomplish?

Edited by Revis Volek, 25 July 2016 - 01:43 PM.

[cazidin]

Revis Volek, on 25 July 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

So how do you propose to make 3pv better (which to my knowledge NO ONE wants) and change just for the sake of change?

What idae do you have that will keep both parties happy while still keeping 1PV the main one?

I know you didn't ask me but if I might propose a way to improve 3PV? Atm, it isn't good for much other than to watch your mech run across the battlefield. PGI could extend how far the 3PV zooms out to give a better, almost isometric view, to offer a better, more tactical look at things. Alternatively, PGI could introduce new "levels" of 3PV. I.e. Over the Shoulder, Sideview, etc.

First person perspective will almost always be the most commonly used unless third person became significantly more advantageous, which I doubt will ever happen.

Edited by cazidin, 25 July 2016 - 01:47 PM.

[Xmith]

Mystere, on 24 July 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

"But you [PGI] promised not to implement 3PV!" was basically it, especially for those who somehow suffered psychological trauma from poptarts in previous MW games.

I don't recall a promise from PGI not to implement 3pv. PGI said the game is designed for 1pv but 3pv will be looked at.

Edited by Xmith, 25 July 2016 - 01:46 PM.

[Mystere]

Revis Volek, on 25 July 2016 - 01:40 PM, said:

So how do you propose to make 3pv better (which to my knowledge NO ONE wants) and change just for the sake of change?

What idae do you have that will keep both parties happy while still keeping 1PV the main one?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, here is one, although it's a bit dated. The only change I would make is to allow the UAV to follow a vector instead of just remaining stationary after being deployed straight up.

And the point of it all is to start filling in the still virtually missing Information Warfare pillar of this game.

[Lyoto Machida]

Mudhutwarrior, on 24 July 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

Could have been solved in the mech lab or kept in 3pv i training grounds. Al it did was tick off a lot of whales who support the game from the start. It was really the biggest crack in the relationship to start a downhill slide out to the islands. You would think they learned from that but the gulf just got larger over time.

Founders were not the target demographic so nothing of value was lost (to PGI).

[Lukoi Banacek]

Filling the infotech gaps don't require adjustments to 3PV, nor would they really be warranted.

What they really need to do is enhance how information is gathered and improve that role among the lights and mediums who are canonically meant to "own" that role for the most part.

[Obadiah333]

Look at all the white knights showing up to defend 3pv! One of the main points that is overlooked here is that we are separating out ALL the issues that kept building up to this point. It was lie after lie after promise broken after delay after delay, etc. This was one of those "majority of silent players want it" BS stories where everyone on the forums was raging against implementing this. Why you say? Because of the previously handled material at the time, like cooldown consumables, ecm, and a plethora of lies and setbacks that had already infuriated the founders of the game. Everyone was worried that this was going to turn the game into a poptart fest like the previous iterations of this game.

Call me a bitter vet, or whatever it is we're labeled as now, I don't care. The early goings of this game were scary, and there was a while when things kept getting worse and worse, and then it came to the point when we thought this game was beyond hope. However, it's gotten better since those days of the original lurmageddon and other dark times.

Forgive yes - forget, never.

[Mystere]

Lukoi Banacek, on 25 July 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Filling the infotech gaps don't require adjustments to 3PV, nor would they really be warranted.

What they really need to do is enhance how information is gathered and improve that role among the lights and mediums who are canonically meant to "own" that role for the most part.

Filling in IW can be done in either of two (or both) ways:

• improving/adapting something that already exists
  
• creating new mechanics

I'm just shooting for the former this time around.

[Mystere]

cazidin, on 24 July 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

Thank you, but, to the best of my knowledge, 3PV doesn't assist poptarting. At least, not in MWO.

Maybe not in MWO, but that was one of the original paranoia ... ahem, I meant ... fears.

[Mawai]

cazidin, on 25 July 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

I know you didn't ask me but if I might propose a way to improve 3PV? Atm, it isn't good for much other than to watch your mech run across the battlefield. PGI could extend how far the 3PV zooms out to give a better, almost isometric view, to offer a better, more tactical look at things. Alternatively, PGI could introduce new "levels" of 3PV. I.e. Over the Shoulder, Sideview, etc.

First person perspective will almost always be the most commonly used unless third person became significantly more advantageous, which I doubt will ever happen.

I've highlighted the problem part in my opinion.

If 3PV gives a BETTER, MORE TACTICAL look at things then it is providing more information than is available in a first person view. If aiming weapons is possible in 3PV then there is NO REASON for players to ever use 1PV except nostalgia because the 3PV you are suggesting offers a BETTER and MORE TACTICAL view of the situation providing the ability to see around corners and over buildings in order to assess the local situation better ...it automatically provides a situation where the 3PV IS more advantageous so your comment about 1PV remaining the most commonly used also becomes incorrect.

[White Bear 84]

Rarely see it, never use it.

PGI could have saved a lot of face if they just didn't bother with it.

[Revis Volek]

Mystere, on 25 July 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, here is one, although it's a bit dated. The only change I would make is to allow the UAV to follow a vector instead of just remaining stationary after being deployed straight up.

And the point of it all is to start filling in the still virtually missing Information Warfare pillar of this game.

Sooo many other (better IMO) ways to do it then with something that the community wasn't sure it wanted anyway.


Like Lukoi said, Maybe giving that Role mainly to lights and mediums? I know most would hate it but if you are going to use an existing mechanic then use the biggest one, mechs. I just dont think touching something so many hated will ever have good results.


Let it lay dead IMO.

Edited by Revis Volek, 25 July 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[DAYLEET]

I totally understand why the first generation of Islanders were completely pissed about the introduction of 3PV but at the same time it was a no show. I personally would have liked that 3pv be a module, not useless but not used to fight, could get lock directly from the mini uav while the mech is behind cover and could it be shot out of the sky. Yes you could use it to spy, in fact it would be its primary function but you would need to build for it and it could be countered pretty easily like a UAV. It would also cost cbills for recharges like the UAV. Could have been nice and engaging.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I think there's an important point missed in this thread.
At the time they said hey we know we promised but we don't care we are doing third person nobody had any idea how it would turn out.

People were rightly worried, don't forget way back then this was still supposed to be more sim like.. The redaction on that promise began the route to the arcade game we have now.

It was also one of the fatal warning signs about PGI/IGP and the direction the game would take.
If you like the game or not there is no denying it could have been so much more, and so many of the community that were alienated could have helped with that.

There are and were numerous people who modded/coded changes to MW4, MWLL administrators of various leagues that were popular..... But pgi decided we know best.. And have since always struggled for a whole host of reasons.

[AnarchyBurger]

Its fine as implemented IMHO.... Honestly its one of the most correctly done aspects.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Well, if MechAssault Online is ever made, the developer could make a really great 3PV view and I would be fine with that.