309 replies to this topic

[Jack Mitchell]

I'd love to have 3rd person view, even during battles, just so you have greater situational awareness. With any game if you're restricted to first person view you lose your peripheral vision and your undefinable "6th sense". Third-person view helps with the restoring of situational awreness. I would happily agree that your targeting or other functions would be reduced in third-person over the cockpit view.

[Fabe]

Jack Mitchell, on 12 September 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

I'd love to have 3rd person view, even during battles, just so you have greater situational awareness. With any game if you're restricted to first person view you lose your peripheral vision and your undefinable "6th sense". Third-person view helps with the restoring of situational awreness. I would happily agree that your targeting or other functions would be reduced in third-person over the cockpit view.

A good argument but I think it only applies to games where your a person on foot and not inside a vehicle as in this case where a loss of peripheral vision makes sense when your view is restricted by the cockpit and other factors. I'm not 100% opposed to a 3rd person option but if one was implemented I think it should be very tightly restricted,no ability to move the camera around for example to look behind your mech. external cameras that you can only see from the 1rst person cockpit view would make more sense and be more
immersive in my opinion.

[Nukesnipe]

F1 is the default key for third person view.

[Granitlegs]

So maybe not 3rd person, that will totally obliterate lots of tactics and make battles less realistic. But what I would really like to have a better view from the cockpit. When you get up close it seems easy to loose yourself, the surrondings and enemy contacts. But then a little further and giant tanks look indiscernable from the enviroment. Better view from the cockpit would be brilliant or some sort of enhanced vision would be cool (tho I heard enhanced vision was tried and failed earlier in the series)

[Dave Haefnir]

I agree with the 1st Person View only for combat... But I also would love to see (snapshot) my mech from the outside on the field, especially once we can customize our paint... Let me throw out these for possible compromises...

A view toggle that goes from "Cockpit' to "Front 3/4 View Left" to "Front 3/4 View Right" back to "Cockpit"... You wouldn't be able to see ahead or directly behind and your mech would occupy most of the field of view so this 3rd Person View wouldn't be tactically useful and of course controls would be locked while doing this...

The other idea would be the same views above, but hitting the toggle just saves to the game directory on your hard drive as "SnapshotL.jpg" and "SnapshotR.jpg"... Or something similar... Since this would happen while in combat, you might capture some awesome action shots.

A battle recorder would be great but I worry about the DEV effort better spent elsewhere and the potential drag on performance. These ideas would be simple and lean. I am a hardcore Simmer... but I love the visuals in this game and want to appreciate and share them...
Merit?

[a donut with rabies]

Maybe if you could go into third person but you cant see any of your HUD at all

[Damaged Neko]

i'd rather just have it in the mechbay only or while buying new mech's .. and never ever in-game, its bad enough that happens when you get rammed.
As for a match recorder i wouldn't mind. my last team i was the last man standing after 2 freaking minutes my whole side was dead. or ran away. next thing i know bam surrounded on all sides. would love to be able to review what went wrong in matches. or at least have a list of people not to play with ...

[Hidran]

I think it would be best to restrict third person view to a different, more arcade like game mode.
and have the first person view in normal deathmatch game mode.

it would be like starcraft II with the custom games and league games.

[Ps10n1C]

While talking about views, PLEASE make ZOOM command to be able to choose between toggle and hold. I hate pressing multiple times to zoom out, sometimes it make me lost and disoriented. I am used to hold my right mousebutton for zoom in many other games.

Should I post this like separate thread ?

Edited by Ps10n1C, 12 September 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Petit Mort]

Again, the compromise isn't whether or not to implement it, it's to implement it and not allow mixed matchmaking. That way, those who espouse the desire for an immersive experience aren't forced into a view they feel is less immersive.

From a business perspective, you can retain the players who prefer a 3rd person view, while offering the "immersion" players something also.

Essentially, it's the ability to please both groups without having to make two separate games. Frankly, it's the best possible solution.

[Bansheedragon75]

In other words you want to segregate the community.
What about those who want NHUA then, you want to give into them and separate them from those who dont want that?

Its never a good idea to segregate the community, you run a very high risk of splitting the community into separate camps and that is never a good thing for a game.

So I honestly dont see how that can be the best possible solution.

How would you propose to implement this in a way that would not split the community?

Edited by Dragonlord, 13 September 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Pietor Gearhart]

well... Idc about 3rd person view... But rearcam is a must :S

[wanderer]

I have a great idea.

Put 3rd person view...in Mechwarrior 5.

Because this is a FPS, and the only way 3PV should be in is if it's something that specifically gives you a remote view- like planting a camera sensor somewhere with a static view for a limited time (and it can be blown away for good measure).

[Petit Mort]

Dragon, your argument about segregating the community seems logical, but it's actually not applicable.

Let me explain.

3rd person view is a larger issue than it's understood, here, to be. Whereas those wanting an immersive experience will stay in a game that mixes them in with those who want a different experience (despite the arguable presence of imbalance), those wanting 3rd person view, when they find that it does not exist, will simply leave the game and never spend a dime. Dimes which, I'm sure you understand, are needed in order to keep the game running.

In essence, by NOT offering it, the possible player base is already segmented, and the community never contains the "3rd party only" element. Thus, a toggle switch is not exclusive, but inclusive.

Historically, in the gaming industry, the breakdown of those wanting an "immersive" experience vs. a standard experience game to play has been heavily weighted to the "standard" side of the scale. Check out any role-play MMO servers, or online FPS games and you'll see a discrepancy.

If you would prefer to use another example (that may be more applicable), check out any FPS game and count the number of times the word "balance" is used vs. "realistic." The sad truth is that while those wanting "immersion" in their game are, perhaps, in the majority of this online community, they are actually in the minority of the gaming community et al.

Again, implementing the compromise of a toggle is an inclusive feature which would allow those wanting an immersive experience (and who are concerned about unfair advantage to the TPV folks) the option in playing in "immersion only" matches or in the open matches. The alternative is to make the game cater to the exclusive wishes of a minority group of gamers. Sure, it will be great and elite and all, but eventually the company will need to make enough money to keep the lights on, and history has proven that it can't be done by catering to the minority of gamers.

Certainly, many people here have been, and are fans of battletech and the MW franchise. Those are the players who will play regardless of the content or quality. But for a franchise to be TRULY successful, it has to reach a wider audience. Consider how the Fallout franchise chose to cater to a wider audience and take what was an almost "underground" game with a cult following, into a successful, profitable and wide-spread franchise.


On the surface, it seems like a simple question of a view mechanism, but as no other feature polls more highly than camera view and angle, it's actually one of game survival. Since it's harder to lure gamers back to a game they disliked, wouldn't it just be easier to offer the option out of the gate?

[LefBreeze]

Coilshot, on 23 August 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Well if/when they put in paint schemes and or decals for your Mech, then I do hope they have 3rd person in the Mechlab so you can see the results of what you made. Otherwise, I'd say no. Mechlab would be the only place its needed.

That makes complete sense my friend well said

[LordKnightFandragon]

SCREW 3rd PERSON VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JebusGeist]

Dragonlord, on 13 September 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

In other words you want to segregate the community.
What about those who want NHUA then, you want to give into them and separate them from those who dont want that?

Its never a good idea to segregate the community, you run a very high risk of splitting the community into separate camps and that is never a good thing for a game.

So I honestly dont see how that can be the best possible solution.

How would you propose to implement this in a way that would not split the community?

You probably can't, the closest youll come is people who want access to gun cams so they can have a screen pop up on your helmet's HUD that comes from the perspective of a camera mounted to an arm. There is slightly less balance issues with them (tho some still exist like giving an advantage to mechs that actually have arms, or have a greater range of movement with them). They also can be properly described as being "immersive" because a camera on an arm is far more plausible than an invisible floating camera flying around behind people.

Personally, I like it being first person.

As for segregating the community, I agree it's a terrible idea, it usually results in the opposite of what was intended by the compromise, one game type becomes considerably more populated than the other and the players that play the other game type feel more and more pressure to play on the other one simply for the sake of having a larger pool of players for a matchmaking system to draw from.
It also can have other consquences, For instance think of an FPS/TPS player new to the MW series coming here, theres lots of other FPS/TPS for them to choose from, what sets this one apart from other ones? Maybe the new gamer likes 3rd person view more so they try it, but find the gameplay isn't different enough from other TPS games they play where they already have a clan or group of friends to play with. They play on the FPS servers and like the immersion of the cockpit view a lot, but are turned off by how sparsely populated the servers are in comparison to the TPS ones (or vice versa). They rate the game as decent but stick with their staple games they already play. If we are going to talk about alienating parts of the gaming population like its a bad thing to not try and please everyone, lets make sure to include the people who just want to play something thats different enough from all the other games they can already play to capture their interest.

Also, I'd kind of like to see competitive tournaments with cash prizes and having two game types runs into the same problem, one will be given precedence over the other, it'll have more valuable prizes than the other, it may even end up being the only game type in which there is cash tournaments. Imagine winning a tournament in one game type, with the best overall stats during the tournament of any player in any gametype, but sharing in a considerably smaller prize pool than the other game type, and the endless forum debates and flamewars over who is actually "the best" player in MWO.

Edit to add: I once heard a wise saying, the only good compromise is one where everyone feels like they are getting screwed. It's a great way of ensuring its fair to everyone, but in reality it just makes a lot of people bitter.

Edit 2: cleaned up a possible NDA breach.

Edited by JebusGeist, 13 September 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Petit Mort]

In 2 years, will the community have grown, or will it be the same people clinging to an elite game that was too limiting for the rest of the online gaming community?

That's the crux of the matter. You talk about segregating the community, but as I pointed out, that can't happen. You assume that the community of players is already comprised of pro and anti TPV people, this is not the case. The pro TPV camp has already left. All that remain are people who are fulfilling their promise to beta test, or those who want to try and plead the case.

Finally, you have group A (comprised of 2-3k people) and group B (comprised of 10-12k people). Let's assume that you "segregate" them into two camps. you have a gaming community that contains 12-15k players and an active online community.

Let's assume now, that you take the hard line and only offer the most limited option. Without the option for this "segregation", group B never actually plays, so your community is only 2-3k players. With so few players, there is less and less money monthly until, finally, they have to shut down the servers.

My point is that without this option, there is no segregation because the largest group of players is never there to begin with.



I really hope I'm wrong, but experience and history has proven (time and again) that the more limited and elite the game, the fewer players and the shorter the lifespan. If the devs are absolutely unwilling to find a compromise, only time will tell whether or not being so limited in scope was a good idea or not.

[JebusGeist]

Petit Mort, on 13 September 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Let's assume now, that you take the hard line and only offer the most limited option. Without the option for this "segregation", group B never actually plays, so your community is only 2-3k players. With so few players, there is less and less money monthly until, finally, they have to shut down the servers.

That's a false dichotomy, it ignores the possibility of a portion of the community just plain not caring. We can't accurately judge the number of them because they don't care either way so they aren't as likely to weigh in on the matter, but it would be foolish to assume they don't exist.
The industry has already segregated TPS/FPS, thats why they are their own sub-genres of shooter. This used to be so simple, if you wanted a FPS, you bought an FPS, if you wanted a TPS, you bought a TPS, if you wanted both you found a game thats both. Now its "I'll go for a game that's been announced as a FPS mech simulator since the early stages of development and argue, or even demand, that it should be a TPS. Anyone that that disagrees with me I'll call an elitist without the slightest hint of being intentionally ironic."
You can't please everyone in the marketplace, you pick a portion of the market you want to attract, you do your best to attract THEM, People in that market are not elitists for having been attracted to the game based on the basic mechanics that were the plan since the beginning.

[Petit Mort]

As I said, I hope I'm wrong, but only time will tell.