42 replies to this topic

[The Bloody History of Communism]

I have played this game on and off since 2012.

I have been waiting ever so long for a "rear view camera" or something to be able to look behind your mech. I would be happy with the 3rd person drone just going in front of the mech, if this is the only way it could be done.

Why is that basic fundamental request so elusive? I notice a lot of resources devoted to this PSR change and I just ask why put manpower into something like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa when she doesn't have the chair she is sitting in fully drawn?

Sincerely,
X

[HimseIf]

In MW2 there was a rear and downwards camera.
I'd like to think we could get a reversing camera one day.

[LordNothing]

because pgi does not have programmers. render to texture has been a thing since quake 3. but its non-trivial to implement. thing is its how advanced zoom works so the game is more than capable of doing it. but you need a programmer to go in and do it. i think it was intended to be part of the game from the get go, remember all those useless screens everywhere? thats what they were for. but pgi got rid of its coders before they could implement it.

Edited by LordNothing, 17 July 2020 - 05:36 PM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

LordNothing, on 17 July 2020 - 05:35 PM, said:

but pgi got rid of its coders before they could implement it.

That's not fair, they do have coders!

They can code in changes to the matchmaker as long as the community does all the testing for them beforehand and also writes the algorithm used from the ground up.

They can also write code to create a new set of mechpacks (do want to buy a...) using the all the basic variants in a chassis that will convince newer players to purchase copies of essentially the same mech rather than a pack with a Hero, a Champion, and a solid side mech.

They also fixed a missile bay problem that was reported in September of last year!

Oh hey, and someone coded the change that put Solo Queue and Group queue together in matches with no regard to class balance! For the first time in QP history you can take you and 9 of your favorite assault friends and fight an enemy force filled with 1 assault, and all the pesky mediums and lights you can eat!

There's been plenty of coding going on!

If anything perhaps they could stand to take a well deserved break from coding for a while and enjoy a small vacation!

[Too Much Love]

The Bloody History of Communism, on 17 July 2020 - 04:58 PM, said:

I have played this game on and off since 2012.

I have been waiting ever so long for a "rear view camera" or something to be able to look behind your mech. I would be happy with the 3rd person drone just going in front of the mech, if this is the only way it could be done.

Why is that basic fundamental request so elusive? I notice a lot of resources devoted to this PSR change and I just ask why put manpower into something like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa when she doesn't have the chair she is sitting in fully drawn?

Sincerely,
X

That's a good question. The answer - toxic community.

If you've been here since 2012 you must remember the OUTRAGE against 3rd person view. There were literally thousands of post against 3pv camera because... Well, they claimed that it will RUIN the game, it won't be simulator anymore, it will provide dishonest players with the means to "cheat" etc.

So they made "compromise" middle variant of slow 3pv camera that can't change angle of view. And it is not available in the Faction Play, because for some bizzare reason those toxic players defined FW as a real-cimpetitive-super-ultra gameplay (it's funny how nobody cares anymore).

Even after they implemented the castrated variant of the camera a lot of forum warriors promised to leave the game since it was not "simulator" anymore (disclaimer - they didn't). They argued that everybody will abuse 3pv to see over the hill (disclaimer - nobody uses it).

So as always PGI faced toxic storm of forum whiners and surrendered. In the end we are left without the ability to watch our gorgeous mechs.

[RickySpanish]

drunkblackstar, on 17 July 2020 - 06:40 PM, said:

That's a good question. The answer - toxic community.

If you've been here since 2012 you must remember the OUTRAGE against 3rd person view. There were literally thousands of post against 3pv camera because... Well, they claimed that it will RUIN the game, it won't be simulator anymore, it will provide dishonest players with the means to "cheat" etc.

So they made "compromise" middle variant of slow 3pv camera that can't change angle of view. And it is not available in the Faction Play, because for some bizzare reason those toxic players defined FW as a real-cimpetitive-super-ultra gameplay (it's funny how nobody cares anymore).

Even after they implemented the castrated variant of the camera a lot of forum warriors promised to leave the game since it was not "simulator" anymore (disclaimer - they didn't). They argued that everybody will abuse 3pv to see over the hill (disclaimer - nobody uses it).

So as always PGI faced toxic storm of forum whiners and surrendered. In the end we are left without the ability to watch our gorgeous mechs.

I knew your post would be rubbish the moment I read the word "toxic", such a silly word it is, invented by internet white knights and men who get their knickers in a twist a little too easily. Also, how are you tier 1 without thinking of a single use for the 3rd person view camera?

[LordNothing]

OneTeamPlayer, on 17 July 2020 - 05:57 PM, said:

That's not fair, they do have coders!

They can code in changes to the matchmaker as long as the community does all the testing for them beforehand and also writes the algorithm used from the ground up.

They can also write code to create a new set of mechpacks (do want to buy a...) using the all the basic variants in a chassis that will convince newer players to purchase copies of essentially the same mech rather than a pack with a Hero, a Champion, and a solid side mech.

They also fixed a missile bay problem that was reported in September of last year!

Oh hey, and someone coded the change that put Solo Queue and Group queue together in matches with no regard to class balance! For the first time in QP history you can take you and 9 of your favorite assault friends and fight an enemy force filled with 1 assault, and all the pesky mediums and lights you can eat!

There's been plenty of coding going on!

If anything perhaps they could stand to take a well deserved break from coding for a while and enjoy a small vacation!

even coders have a potato tier.

[LordNothing]

drunkblackstar, on 17 July 2020 - 06:40 PM, said:

That's a good question. The answer - toxic community.

If you've been here since 2012 you must remember the OUTRAGE against 3rd person view. There were literally thousands of post against 3pv camera because... Well, they claimed that it will RUIN the game, it won't be simulator anymore, it will provide dishonest players with the means to "cheat" etc.

So they made "compromise" middle variant of slow 3pv camera that can't change angle of view. And it is not available in the Faction Play, because for some bizzare reason those toxic players defined FW as a real-cimpetitive-super-ultra gameplay (it's funny how nobody cares anymore).

Even after they implemented the castrated variant of the camera a lot of forum warriors promised to leave the game since it was not "simulator" anymore (disclaimer - they didn't). They argued that everybody will abuse 3pv to see over the hill (disclaimer - nobody uses it).

So as always PGI faced toxic storm of forum whiners and surrendered. In the end we are left without the ability to watch our gorgeous mechs.

3pv isnt even what the op is asking for. people just want lostech features which were available in mechwarrior 2. rear view cams would have stopped a lot of whining about backstabbing squirrels.ok it ptobibly wouldnt stop the whining but it would make the default response of "turn on your rear camera" available. the down camera isnt much use because jump jets suck and you cant dfa.

RickySpanish, on 17 July 2020 - 08:08 PM, said:

I knew your post would be rubbish the moment I read the word "toxic", such a silly word it is, invented by internet white knights and men who get their knickers in a twist a little too easily. Also, how are you tier 1 without thinking of a single use for the 3rd person view camera?

agree, 'toxic' is a word for thin skinned snowflakes who cant take any kind of criticism without being offended.

[The Bloody History of Communism]

Forget any mention of the 3rd person camera -- I just offered that as a solution which is already coded that tweaked could provide the help I need.

When I am driving a 100 ton ANI You sometimes get stuck on rocks, small buildings etc and you have no idea that you are not moving at all. Happens alot when you are moving in reverse at the back of a large pack of nascarers.

I signed up in 2012 but didnt start playing much till 2014 or so, tbh, So I missed the aforementioned drama. Either way, I need the feature and I dont understand why they just ignore it.

[Nesutizale]

From what I recall it was said that the engine dosn't support a render to texture feature and that its hard to code into the old cryengine. Add to that that even if they do it, it would take lot of processing power because of how the engine does stuff.
It was about nearly twice the power of the CPU then the normal view.

Very simplified....
You could imagne it like this. Currently the PC is calculating the front view and for some people that allready hits the max capacity of their PCs. Now you want the PC to calculate the rear view in addition to the front view, basicly doubleing the task.
I think you know where that leads to...lots of people wouldn't be able to run that.
Again simplified. I think there was a pretty good video/post from the guys working on StarCitizen that explained that in lots of detail and why it even causes them such a headache and they have a lot more money, manpower and I think overall better programmers then PGI.

Makeing a permanent rear view is also different to haveing a zoom of the front like we have with advanced zoom. The PC allready calculated what you see in the front, it just has to rescale it. A much easier and less processing demaning process.

A solution could be, similar to what OP suggested, that you switch completly to a rear view, basicly turning the camera 180 so that you still only see one point of view but there is the cockpit in the way so it would have to be an external view.
I think that could work as the basic tech allready exists with the little drone that gives you a 3rd person view.

I think PGI would do itself a favor by simply turning that cam 180 degree and instead of the slow zoom in/out have a jumpcut.

[The Bloody History of Communism]

Nesutizale, on 18 July 2020 - 08:01 AM, said:

A solution could be, similar to what OP suggested, that you switch completly to a rear view, basicly turning the camera 180 so that you still only see one point of view but there is the cockpit in the way so it would have to be an external view.
I think that could work as the basic tech allready exists with the little drone that gives you a 3rd person view.

I think PGI would do itself a favor by simply turning that cam 180 degree and instead of the slow zoom in/out have a jumpcut.

yes!! this is exactly my thought, a toggle switch that just "breaks continuity from inside the cockpit and the screen is fed by a webcam on the back of the head (or other highest non destructible point) of the mech, pointing down at a 45 degree declination"
If that were done, we would be in business!

[Vyx]

PGI will never work on anything unless it can be directly billed-for.

Unless it can be monetized, it will never be done.

No new weapons. No new maps. No enhancements to gameplay.

This rule guides everything they do as a company.

Figure out a way to charge for those things and they might consider it.

[The Bloody History of Communism]

Vyx, on 18 July 2020 - 10:06 AM, said:

PGI will never work on anything unless it can be directly billed-for.

Unless it can be monetized, it will never be done.

No new weapons. No new maps. No enhancements to gameplay.

This rule guides everything they do as a company.

Figure out a way to charge for those things and they might consider it.

There is another way --- They could open source the client, since there is no value in the code itself but the IP that controls it. That way, the community could upgrade the client for free essentially. I am a programmer and would personally be willing to do this being that I am unemployed ATM.

[Nesutizale]

Think positive Vyx...Russ will win in the lottery with 90 millions and put all that money into MWO, hiring lots of very talented people with a passion for MechWarrior and we will get MWO 2.0 with all the features that where once promised and more.

On a seriouse note. Yes its totaly clear to me and I think most people, that what we talk about will 99.9 % never come true.

Still its interesting for some to theorie craft the MWO 2.0 we will never see. I for one don't care that MWO 2.0 will never happen.
I just like to think about what could be done different, what should be implemented and so on. Its not my goal to archive a change of mind in PGI or to make MWO 2.0 magicly happen or clinging to a hope. I just like to theories with other people about games and game design in regard to MWO and see where it leads.

A thought experiment if you will.

The Bloody History of Communism, on 18 July 2020 - 12:42 PM, said:

There is another way --- They could open source the client, since there is no value in the code itself but the IP that controls it. That way, the community could upgrade the client for free essentially. I am a programmer and would personally be willing to do this being that I am unemployed ATM.

I think there is a legal problem with that in regards of what content people would create / can create. Some kind of guidlines would be needed and I am not certain how much PGI could be held responsible when people don't follow it.

Something like that would have to be sorted out first but after that...sure I also think there is quite some untapped potential in the community.

Edited by Nesutizale, 18 July 2020 - 12:47 PM.

[The Bloody History of Communism]

Nesutizale, on 18 July 2020 - 12:46 PM, said:

Think positive Vyx...Russ will win in the lottery with 90 millions and put all that money into MWO, hiring lots of very talented people with a passion for MechWarrior and we will get MWO 2.0 with all the features that where once promised and more.

On a seriouse note. Yes its totaly clear to me and I think most people, that what we talk about will 99.9 % never come true.

Still its interesting for some to theorie craft the MWO 2.0 we will never see. I for one don't care that MWO 2.0 will never happen.
I just like to think about what could be done different, what should be implemented and so on. Its not my goal to archive a change of mind in PGI or to make MWO 2.0 magicly happen or clinging to a hope. I just like to theories with other people about games and game design in regard to MWO and see where it leads.

A thought experiment if you will.



I think there is a legal problem with that in regards of what content people would create / can create. Some kind of guidlines would be needed and I am not certain how much PGI could be held responsible when people don't follow it.


Something like that would have to be sorted out first but after that...sure I also think there is quite some untapped potential in the community.

To be clear, we are not talking about modifying content, but modifying the code for the client itself. Imagine a github or similar for the client. The client could only connect to the "testbed" servers. This way, you could have multiple competing designs (think *mods") for MWO and then PGI could simply pick from the modifications and incorporate them.

[letir]

The Bloody History of Communism, on 17 July 2020 - 04:58 PM, said:

I have played this game on and off since 2012.

I have been waiting ever so long for a "rear view camera" or something to be able to look behind your mech. I would be happy with the 3rd person drone just going in front of the mech, if this is the only way it could be done.

Why is that basic fundamental request so elusive? I notice a lot of resources devoted to this PSR change and I just ask why put manpower into something like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa when she doesn't have the chair she is sitting in fully drawn?

Sincerely,
X

Inability to easely look 360% around the 'Mech is primary reason for lights and harasser to exist. Restrictive cockpit viem and slow turn rate is also related to the same restrictions, placed for the sake of balance.

Even current restrictive 3rd person viem can give you some extremly useful information from corners and such. Easy and conveniet button for back viem would be completly out of balance.

[The Bloody History of Communism]

letir, on 18 July 2020 - 01:06 PM, said:

Inability to easely look 360% around the 'Mech is primary reason for lights and harasser to exist. Restrictive cockpit viem and slow turn rate is also related to the same restrictions, placed for the sake of balance.

Even current restrictive 3rd person viem can give you some extremly useful information from corners and such. Easy and conveniet button for back viem would be completly out of balance.

I disagree, because the feature has advantages other than combat, namely, navigation. Besides, my 1999 Wrangler has a rearview mirror even though you can take the top doors and wind shield down. Why cant a mech in 3060? Ludicrous.

[Nesutizale]

Okay that is different from what I thought about. I was indeed going for modding.
Mh...I think you suggestion could work, also I think it might attract less people as I think this will require more "professional" people who would working together to make bigger changes happen.

I am no programmer so I can only say what I heared about working yourself into a codebase, figureing out what does what and then reengineer it to do what you want to do...its a lot of work, even if the code is well documented.

The other point would be that even if we would create such "test envoirments", along with servers to actualy test it with other players and stuff, PGI would still need to have at least one person looking through everything and workout what is good and what dosn't work and finaly incooperate it.
That is still time and money needed ... resources I am not quite sure how and if at all PGI is willing to spend.

Modding on the other hand could produce contend within the given system without PGI looking over it or just very little oversight. Something I aspect them to be able to do much more.

[Nesutizale]

letir, on 18 July 2020 - 01:06 PM, said:

Inability to easely look 360% around the 'Mech is primary reason for lights and harasser to exist. Restrictive cockpit viem and slow turn rate is also related to the same restrictions, placed for the sake of balance.

Even current restrictive 3rd person viem can give you some extremly useful information from corners and such. Easy and conveniet button for back viem would be completly out of balance.

An interesting point. I agree that a full 360° view would give you quite an advantage, as soon as you get used to it, in your situational awareness. So yes that might be a bad idea.
A complet different point is implementation to be very difficulte. Espacialy with people haveing different resolutions. Haveing a FOV slider is easy...a 360° view that works with all sorts of resolutions...that is highly complicated.

As for the rear view beeing a gamechanger. First of all we are talking about a toggle. So either you see the rear or the front. Not both at the same time so unless a player is constantly switching every second between front and back you can still approach him unnoticed.

The other point is, even when you know that someone is in your back its hard to do something about it. Most assaults and even some heavies are to slow in turning to realy do something about it.
Beside that, even without a rear view I have a pretty good idea where the light is in my back. Radar, if a friendly looks my direction or I use an UAV, as well as the damage indicator tell me pretty precicly where the light is.

Frankly when a light attacks me I wouldn't dare to switch to the rear view. I might miss the oportunity to fire at him when he runs in front of me...where my guns are.

The most usefull thing a rear view can provide is checking who is blocking me...if I want to know that at all. Most of the time I can check the radar for that and move my mech accordingly or to see if terrain blocks me...and that is the one thing I will never be able to get informations about in any other way because sometimes its not the big hill that is drawn in the map but some very little pice of rubble that shouldn't block me but does.

TLDR
I allready know when a light is in my back anyway. Best information I get from a rear view is if terrain is blocking me.

[letir]

Nesutizale, on 18 July 2020 - 01:22 PM, said:

I allready know when a light is in my back anyway. Best information I get from a rear view is if terrain is blocking me.

You got it completly backwards.

You know which ally behind of you, thanks to the map, minimap and markings.

What you don't know it's something like stealth COM running up to your butt, or SHC taking good position for backstab, or wolfpack going to flank your lance.

Harassers relying on the restricted vision of the enemy to be sucessful in backstabbing. Window for attack with low-ranged weapons could be extremly narrow in the chaos of battle. Quick "back mirror" button would allow players to react and counteract such tactics. Even ability quickly turn sideways and call for help could completly deny a kill.