3696 replies to this topic

[BlightFang]

*deleted* - moving to official thread.

Edited by BlightFang, 14 November 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[flackee]

Z0MBIE Y0SHI, on 14 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

I really hope there's more to this then besides what they saw 1 kid doing...

Until someone types up an accurate transcript, you are best off listening to the podcast linked in the first post if you want the real answer. It's mentioned at 17 minutes in, but if you want the short version, listen from 25 to 30 minutes.

[Batlin]

Have I slept for too long and its April fools day already ????? It must be.......

Just in case its not.

Please NO !
This would ruin the game in my mind.

[AgroAlba]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

If someone can give me one argument against a 3pv being implemented like this, I'd love to hear it.

Because you run into a WoT situation where you round a corner you see as empty and a enemy mech literally pops into existence? Thats the only one I can think of. Other than that, it seems like a fine idea.

[Noth]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

If someone can give me one argument against a 3pv being implemented like this, I'd love to hear it.

You will still see the surrounding environment, including building that a a person in 1st person cannot see. This is often the difference between getting stuck on the budding and moving around it.

[Soy]

Vollstrecker the only strawman argument in this discussion so far is "I have spent X amount of RL money and if 3pv is implemented it will ruin the game and I will quit".

That does nothing to actually discuss the positives or negatives of such a system. All it does it run hyperbolic threats from a position without giving explanation.

[GargoyleKDR]

Aegis Kleais, on 14 November 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

My suggestion:

I would add to this the inability to see the targeting reticles in 3rd person. General information (name, health %, etc.) would be available, but not the ability to target and fire weapons. The ability to see the targeting reticles should only be available in first person.

Edited by GargoyleKDR, 14 November 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

If someone can give me one argument against a 3pv being implemented like this, I'd love to hear it.

I'm sure invisible Mechs won't confuse someone who is confused by torso twisting, the 3rd person demographic.

[Soy]

GargoyleKDR, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I would add to this the inability to see the targeting reticles in 3rd person. General information (name, health %, etc.) would be available, but not the ability to target and fire weapons. Having the target reticles should only be available in first person.

I fully agree with this under such premises as Aegis laid out.

PS - I've never understood why people think a feature is going to get a bad/new player to an acceptable level of play. In my opinion it is simply a resource that can be adapted into ones playstyle to give them more situational awareness. Bad/new players will still constantly be in poor situations where supreme awareness will do next to nothing regarding their aim or manueverability.

Edited by Soy, 14 November 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[Alois Hammer]

Ferrohu, on 14 November 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I dont understand the hate about this, if you dont like it dont use it ( i wont i prefer 1st person), but more options are always better.

Not when they're not really optional because one "option" confers serious advantages and your choice is "Use Easy Button, or lose."

[Zylo]

Protection, on 14 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

So how about a compromise, to leave both more casual players and more hardcore players satisfied with the game experience. Two game modes: "Casual" and "Advanced" (names subject to change if this sounds too demeaning to casuals).

I cut down the quote a bit but the idea makes sense in terms of trying to make the game as attractive to as many players as possible.

There are some problems though:

With 2 game modes dividing the community it is certain that the number of paying customers, overall populations and player retention rates will all be compared between the groups. What happens when PGI starts favoring 1 group over another?

The resources may flow as you have said but what happens if more resources are going to the casual playstyle to develop it faster and attract more players while the advanced playstyle features get put on hold because the advanced playstyle is attracting new players at a slower rate?

How many players of the advanced community would stick around while watching the casual community getting more features because the population might be larger?

Going beyond that thought how many advanced community players would be willing to PAY for features that weren't even being developed for their favored playstyle?

[Helliouse]

Seeming I came from the MechAssault and Halo/CoD/Doom...etc games to this and learnt it with in 3 - 4 games...I have to say loudly NO.

I will admit I have more then a few years of gaming under my belt, which helps, but I still can't support such a game changing feature when the philosophy set forth by PGI has been first person, Mechwarrior simulator.
A more interactive paper doll, a better tutorial, or the other more constructive, and philosophy aligned ideas that have come from this are available.

Let just think back to Closed Beta (you know where we were suppose to help clean/refine features up before open beta...) and the uproar about the third person cut out when your mech fell. It was crap. Fix by PGI? Cut it out, Mechs no longer trip...hmmm nice fix, NOT. If your beta testers didn't like that HOW will they like this? HOW does this grow your profit base...I mean player base? and then lets split the player base...that sounds like a good idea...

PGI you need to stop the scope creep...focus on your original goals. The goals and reasons you got +/- $5 million from a Founders program.

PS. I do understand that there is a concern for profitability here. Help lower skilled players get into the game, and the want/need to attract them. It still comes down to there are better methods, that align with PGI's originally states goals for this game. I will not post responses on my thoughts about the M-C cost vs actual concept of MICRO transactions, as it needs it own thread if it isn't out already.

Edited by Helliouse, 14 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Tragaperras]

Aegis Kleais, on 14 November 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

My suggestion:

You still will be able to see the laser beams hitting your back, armor starting to glow, that TAG pointing at you etc. So no, even implemented this way it still provides advantage over view from cockpit.

[malibu43]

mr dude guy, on 14 November 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

quoting Ken_Thomas from reddit as it mirrors my concern. It turns every game into tedious snipefest, because you can see the enemy without exposing yourself to fire. It's one of the things that killed MW4 for a lot of players, because the game devolved into one tactic, that was called 'pop-tarting'. You hide behind some cover you can see over, put your reticule on the enemy, hit the jump jets and pop up just enough to expose your weapons, fire, then drop back down behind cover before the enemy can return fire - and that's just one issue. The whole thing is just a huge can of worms that creates a ton of problems, splits the community, and divides units - and it's one of those things you can't take back. It's like playing with a joystick or playing with a mouse. Once you've gotten used to playing in 3rd-person, you simply can't go back to being a 1st-person player. It creates a permanent rift.

Seeing as it was such a big issue in MW4, don't you think the devs are aware of it and will be taking steps to ensure it can't be used as an advantage in MWO?

Didn't the devs already say they would implement it in a way that doesn't give an advantage? Why is everyone ignoring this?

Edited by malibu43, 14 November 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[WardenWolf]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

If someone can give me one argument against a 3pv being implemented like this, I'd love to hear it.

You have mechs appearing and disappearing at random, based on a POV calculation that will not be transparent to people playing in 3rd person mode. We will have complaints on the forums about 'bugs' and 'hacks' because mechs disappear or weapons fire comes out of no-where.

Further, even having that sort of dynamic in the code means there is an introduced chance of *real* bugs coming up and mechs not being rendered properly when they should be. All mechs should always be rendered, and your FOV should be limited to your cockpit: aka, first person view mode.

[Vollstrecker]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Vollstrecker the only strawman argument in this discussion so far is "I have spent X amount of RL money and if 3pv is implemented it will ruin the game and I will quit". That does nothing to actually discuss the positives or negatives of such a system. All it does it run hyperbolic threats from a position without giving explanation.

Good work, I couldn't resist this one. Show me where I ever said anything closely resembling that, or admit you're just assuming things because of my Founder's Tag.

Edited by Vollstrecker, 14 November 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Dieselpunk]

zorak ramone, on 14 November 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Can anyone think of any modern FPS-ish game with vehicles that allows or uses 3rd person perspective? I can't think of one, but then again, I haven't been playing a whole lot of games recently (and nothing on consoles).

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. Great game and allows both perspectives. The only game I can think of that has made it work so far. It doesn't have vehicles but the combat is even.

Edited by Dieselpunk, 14 November 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Weatherman]

3rd person viewpoint removes every aspect of immersion into the game universe that this game was supposed to foster. The developers have said multiple times that they want to bring the Battletech universe in simulation form to the fans, but 3rd person view turns the simulation into an arcade game.

[Sevaradan]

malibu43, on 14 November 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Didn't the devs already say they would implement it in a way that doesn't give an advantage? Why is everyone ignoring this?

because we dont trust them.

[Kilgore]

Russ said enough to tell me he's aware of how important it will be to implement it correctly.

My feedback is to have it implemented in phase III of the team structure. That was supposed to be when structured groups could fight only other pre-made groups if i'm not mistaken.

Then disallow it on all of those drops.

The main reason for adding it is to help new pilots get their feet wet and get used to driving a mech. Those newcomers won't be in pre-mades, so limiting 3rd person in that way won't take anything away from the hardcore pilots.

Then, seperately, allow solo pilots the option to find games that use or don't use it, so that even the solo people who prefer the true simulation can enjoy the game they want.