3696 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

This thread has confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that most of the players in this forum are the exact type of people I loathe playing games with in any social aspect. Afraid of change unable to adapt and uncapable of seeing past their own previous experiences.

I truly believe that if 3pv was in the game from the start and they were pondering the notion of removing said feature that the response would look stunningly similar to the way it does right now.

I've never been so amazed at the sheer number of emo players - "if you put in this feature I will cry and ask for a refund and tell all my friends to leave!" That is beyond immature.

The issue you are all dealing with is balance. You have anxiety or concerns about a balanced implementation that delicately places emphasis on tactical awareness while also giving some players a sense of perspective. If properly implemented then this comes at a cost of only aesthetical fluff. Give me a break. There are so many ways a different perspective can be introduced into the game without it being game breaking. It can be utilized in different manners than "poptarting" or "corner shaving". Give me a break, think outside the box a little. Never seen so much crying over a simple concept discussion in my entire life of more than 15 years of online gaming, doing inside work, outside work, community work, playing, everything. Nothing I've ever encountered in all of my life has met with such a vitriolic and textbook fanboy response than this.

This is a game people. It's not real life, PGI doesn't owe you a refund if something is implemented that you disagree with - that is the type of response a 15 year old playing their first game has. Absolutely petty.

At the end of the day I'll enjoy this game immensely regardless of whether or not some sort of 3pv feature is implemented or not. It's truly sad to see so many people react so dramatically.

PGI if you decide to implement this feature then I sincerely hope you balance it. I would also sincerely hope you work on the huge list of issues that should take a no-brainer precedent over this feature. This forum has a particularly disturbing smell to it.

No, you have a dissozial problem , you a very nacistic People ,gifted person who believes only he was right, and his opinion is better and higher quality, more than any other, and therefore he had to convert them to proselytize, ... diverted from their false beliefs, against the will of group.

[Agarwaen]

Kraven Kor, on 15 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Everyone just quote and repost this, over and over and over:

You got it.

Card, on 14 November 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

We are men of action. Let us be direct with each other.

Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to divide matchmaking into 2 pools - one for Grouped players and one for PuGs. Why? Because PUGstomping was going to drive off new players. What we got was some kind of half-baked solution that doesn't solve the problem and just makes everyone unhappy.

Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to develop a full Training Level. Why? Because the game has a steep learning curve, and we knew it would drive off new players. What did we get? Ignored.

Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you not to go to Open Beta with an incomplete, almost broken product which is really little more than a Demo for a game that has potential. Why? Because we knew people who weren't already diehard Mechwarrior fans wouldn't find enough here to hold their interest. What did we get? You moved Open Beta back a few weeks and then launched it anyway.

Now your retention rate for new players is lousy. People are signing up, installing the game, trying a drop or two and quitting.

And you've convinced yourself this is because of torso twist? Seriously?
Now you're interested in our opinion? Seriously?

[arkani]

Card, on 14 November 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

We are men of action. Let us be direct with each other.

Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to divide matchmaking into 2 pools - one for Grouped players and one for PuGs. Why? Because PUGstomping was going to drive off new players. What we got was some kind of half-baked solution that doesn't solve the problem and just makes everyone unhappy.

Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to develop a full Training Level. Why? Because the game has a steep learning curve, and we knew it would drive off new players. What did we get? Ignored.

Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you not to go to Open Beta with an incomplete, almost broken product which is really little more than a Demo for a game that has potential. Why? Because we knew people who weren't already diehard Mechwarrior fans wouldn't find enough here to hold their interest. What did we get? You moved Open Beta back a few weeks and then launched it anyway.

Now your retention rate for new players is lousy. People are signing up, installing the game, trying a drop or two and quitting.

And you've convinced yourself this is because of torso twist? Seriously?
Now you're interested in our opinion? Seriously?

Devs can learn from past mistakes or can simply ignore us.
I hope they learn to listen.

Repost this, so they listen.

Edited by arkani, 15 November 2012 - 09:54 AM.

[Sikosis]

"We are men of action. Let us be direct with each other.
Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to divide matchmaking into 2 pools - one for Grouped players and one for PuGs. Why? Because PUGstomping was going to drive off new players. What we got was some kind of half-baked solution that doesn't solve the problem and just makes everyone unhappy.
Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to develop a full Training Level. Why? Because the game has a steep learning curve, and we knew it would drive off new players. What did we get? Ignored.
Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you not to go to Open Beta with an incomplete, almost broken product which is really little more than a Demo for a game that has potential. Why? Because we knew people who weren't already diehard Mechwarrior fans wouldn't find enough here to hold their interest. What did we get? You moved Open Beta back a few weeks and then launched it anyway.
Now your retention rate for new players is lousy. People are signing up, installing the game, trying a drop or two and quitting.

And you've convinced yourself this is because of torso twist? Seriously?
Now you're interested in our opinion? Seriously?"

Yeah, had to quote this . . . Seriously?

More of a "count me amoungst" the NO side . . .

I would say that IF . . . IF PGI/IGP couldn't get their crap together and HAD to waste more time and ignore other more important things in order to research 3rd Person and go through putting it in game I would restrict it to NON-Stat bearing games where NO EXP and only partial CBills would be earned . . . so it would be a kin to what it would truly be "Screwing Around" . . . just enough "fun" for the 12 yr old lump monkey who can't figure the game out . . . but the scary part is, I have a 9 yr old who has developmental issues (can't read real well right now either) and HE can pilot just about ANYTHING I put in front of him. . . with no real hands on training and only a couple matches here and there since open beta started. . . how embarrassing eh? that a 9 yr old who can't read and doesn't play with any regularity can figure out how to pilot / aim and play the game . . . yet your wasting your breath, our time trying to "save" players who can't bear the learning curve? WOW!!

SO yeah, . . . . . NO 3rd Person View in a game that yields MONEY or EXP . . . . you should DEVELOP in-game / in-mech tutorials that will acclimate pilots to their environment, not crutch them into further stupidity. It's not hard . . . develop a dozen or so simulations for pilots to encounter solo to learn to walk, torso twist, fire, construct weapons groups, fire chained, deal with ballistics, deal with heat management, plus a couple one on one options or partial drop ( 2s, 3s, mix-weights, uneven opponent) all to give the new pilot perspective and opportunity to play without being abused, even a couple tutorials dealing with purchasing mechs, modifying mechs and dealing with add-ons, customization, etc. . . THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! ! !

for the love of pete, send me a ticket (get me a hotel room) and staff the ready room - you guys need a fresh perspective on this chaos and a new focus that isn't bend over, give up, walk away . . . instead rallies around the energy that occurred when we all started this adventure. . . .

Edited by Sikosis, 15 November 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[RG Notch]

Cant Get Right, on 15 November 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

I'm not sure how this is a majority vote when it's such a small % of the total player base.
Miniscule at best.
BTW this vote doesn't matter you all realize this yes?

The vote means nothing not because it's not representative, its because it's representative of people already playing and often paying. They got our money, they have us playing, they don't care anymore, it's about new blood. They figure we'd paid up front and obviously are fools to be parted from our money. They need to hook in new fools and apparently these new fools can't figure out how torso twisting works and want to see their mechs in combat so we'll have to deal. It may start out separated just like it started out with no plans for 3rd person. I would bet my MC it doesn't stay separated as they will eventually realize the separation was a mistake like ignoring 3rd person at first.

[Agarwaen]

Sikosis, on 15 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

"We are men of action. Let us be direct with each other.
Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to divide matchmaking into 2 pools - one for Grouped players and one for PuGs. Why? Because PUGstomping was going to drive off new players. What we got was some kind of half-baked solution that doesn't solve the problem and just makes everyone unhappy.
Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you to develop a full Training Level. Why? Because the game has a steep learning curve, and we knew it would drive off new players. What did we get? Ignored.
Those of us who were in the Closed Beta practically begged you not to go to Open Beta with an incomplete, almost broken product which is really little more than a Demo for a game that has potential. Why? Because we knew people who weren't already diehard Mechwarrior fans wouldn't find enough here to hold their interest. What did we get? You moved Open Beta back a few weeks and then launched it anyway.
Now your retention rate for new players is lousy. People are signing up, installing the game, trying a drop or two and quitting.

And you've convinced yourself this is because of torso twist? Seriously?
Now you're interested in our opinion? Seriously?"

Yeah, had to quote this . . . Seriously?

More of a "count me amoungst" the NO side . . .

I would say that IF . . . IF PGI/IGP couldn't get their crap together and HAD to waste more time and ignore other more important things in order to research 3rd Person and go through putting it in game I would restrict it to NON-Stat bearing games where NO EXP and only partial CBills would be earned . . . so it would be a kin to what it would truly be "Screwing Around" . . . just enough "fun" for the 12 yr old lump monkey who can't figure the game out . . . but the scary part is, I have a 9 yr old who has developmental issues (can't read real well right now either) and HE can pilot just about ANYTHING I put in front of him. . . with no real hands on training and only a couple matches here and there since open beta started. . . how embarrassing eh? that a 9 yr old who can't read and doesn't play with any regularity can figure out how to pilot / aim and play the game . . . yet your wasting your breath, our time trying to "save" players who can't bear the learning curve? WOW!!

SO yeah, . . . . . NO 3rd Person View in a game that yields MONEY or EXP . . . . you should DEVELOP in-game / in-mech tutorials that will acclimate pilots to their environment, not crutch them into further stupidity. It's not hard . . . develop a dozen or so simulations for pilots to encounter solo to learn to walk, torso twist, fire, construct weapons groups, fire chained, deal with ballistics, deal with heat management, even a couple tutorials dealing with purchasing mechs, modifying mechs and dealing with add-ons, customization, etc. . . THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! ! !

for the love of pete, send me a ticket (get me a hotel room) and staff the ready room - you guys need a fresh perspective on this chaos and a new focus that isn't bend over, give up, walk away . . . instead rallies around the energy that occurred when we all started this adventure. . . .

COMIC SANS!!!!!!!!!!

[Antasius]

Destructable drones, 'shoulder' and rear view cams. YES

Floating, god-mode view in game. NO

[PharmEcis]

3rd person view is for MWO is about as smart as some dumbass pushing a red button to ignite global destruction as that is exactly what will happen to MWO if the dev's develop this.

Instead of focusing on what you guys ALREADY know is a bad idea, how about focusing on the things that are CORE fundamentals that need SERIOUS work?

Newbies having a problem with adapting to the game? BUILD A TRAINING SIMULATOR WHERE THEY CAN PLAY AGAINST AI AND HAVE AN INSTRUCTOR THAT SPELLS EVERYTHING OUT!

Hawken is doing it, why can't MWO?

[RenegadeMaster]

I believe that a "paper doll" option which would show a realtime minature model of the mech's positioning on the side or corner of the HUD could be almost as effective as third person without any of the common gameplay drawbacks or concerns. The main concerns I have with implementing third person are the ability to look "around" corners and presumably larger horizontal & vertical FOV than first person.

I would not be opposed to having the third person ability only available via an item that does not require a hard point. I believe that making it a module would make sense unless third person provides significantly more tactical advantage via the drawbacks/concerns I highlighted above.

Russ convinced me that that a third person view would help attract more new players so that the learning curve & appeal is less steep, and I have confidence that he & the rest of PGI understood the drawbacks of how third person is often implemented by other games.

[Rokuzachi]

Soy, on 14 November 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

This thread has confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that most of the players in this forum are the exact type of people I loathe playing games with in any social aspect. Afraid of change unable to adapt and uncapable of seeing past their own previous experiences.

I truly believe that if 3pv was in the game from the start and they were pondering the notion of removing said feature that the response would look stunningly similar to the way it does right now.

I've never been so amazed at the sheer number of emo players - "if you put in this feature I will cry and ask for a refund and tell all my friends to leave!" That is beyond immature.

The issue you are all dealing with is balance. You have anxiety or concerns about a balanced implementation that delicately places emphasis on tactical awareness while also giving some players a sense of perspective. If properly implemented then this comes at a cost of only aesthetical fluff. Give me a break. There are so many ways a different perspective can be introduced into the game without it being game breaking. It can be utilized in different manners than "poptarting" or "corner shaving". Give me a break, think outside the box a little. Never seen so much crying over a simple concept discussion in my entire life of more than 15 years of online gaming, doing inside work, outside work, community work, playing, everything. Nothing I've ever encountered in all of my life has met with such a vitriolic and textbook fanboy response than this.

This is a game people. It's not real life, PGI doesn't owe you a refund if something is implemented that you disagree with - that is the type of response a 15 year old playing their first game has. Absolutely petty.

At the end of the day I'll enjoy this game immensely regardless of whether or not some sort of 3pv feature is implemented or not. It's truly sad to see so many people react so dramatically.

PGI if you decide to implement this feature then I sincerely hope you balance it. I would also sincerely hope you work on the huge list of issues that should take a no-brainer precedent over this feature. This forum has a particularly disturbing smell to it.

Yup. Everyone is an armchair developer that can't see past their own notions of how something could work.

I think the rabidness of this community is probably due to the length of time it's been since the last big MW title. People have been stewing in their obsession for... well, years. Now that the holy grail has arrived, everyone is on a razor's edge hoping it'll be exactly the game they imagined it to be.

Edited by Rokuzachi, 15 November 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[imagio peepot]

Please no third person -- the tactics that first person only mode imply are what makes this game so much fun! If players are having difficulty learning to pilot a mech then I think the solution is to have a very explicit, slow, and interactive training course that teaches all of the maneuvering possibilities and then asks the user to demonstrate them.

[Dimento Graven]

Cant Get Right, on 15 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

but it isn't and polls mean nothing. W/out going in to too much politics It was gonna be close and something about a landslide.
Imo the most relevant thing you said was in one word. Conjecture.

Actually polls "do" mean something when the appropriate questions are asked.

If you poll EVERYONE who is a community member, your results are likely to be skewed away from what the "most likely to play" percentage of that whole actually want.

If nothing else, taking the time to read these forums and respond to them is a STRONG indicator of your likelihood to actually play the game, and play it regularly and often. Those of us who play the game and play it often have a more worthwhile opinion than those who play seldomly.

Where as, if you're just a 'casual gamer' and only play seldomly at best, while you may have an opinion on the matter, how much is it actually worth?

After all, those of us grinding it out several times a week, if not daily, are more likely to actually PAY for something in this game, where the 'casual gamer' is not.

So, who should PGI care about more? The 'casual gamer' who can't take the time to learn how to drive his 'mech during battle and who isn't likely to purchase MC, or any sort of 'package'? Or the daily grinder, spending hour after hour, paying to convert his 'mech exp to general exp for modules, or to quickly finish his mastery of Ravens?

I know who I'd care about more, and that's the guy more likely to put money in my pocket, not just looking for a free ride on all my efforts.

[Aidan Malchor]

No to 3rd person. It makes it to easy and more like mechassault.

If you wanna give something to allow additional views while maintaining the sim feel then give a key(s) to have a quick look behind/left/right etc you but it's something you have to manually do yourself.

You shouldn't be able to see in every direction around you all at the same time.

[Kalathin]

von Pilsner, on 15 November 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Enough said!!!!

[Dogtoy]

Don't do 3rd person view. It will be better due to the situational awareness. Because of that competitive players will be required to play in 3rd person. Whats more if you give players the option to "only player against other 1st person players" you have split your player base. Not a good thing.

The real problem with new players is that you don't have good feedback mechanisms, no tutorialization, missing tooltips in the mechlab; if your not already familure with mechwarrior you have no clue whats going on. That plus the worst free to play new player experience I have ever seen is the main reason you're having trouble getting new players. (Move your pay wall)

Also you have no match making, and your game mode is baddly designed for pugs, everyone turtles due to lack of cordination. Move your pay wall, lower prices, fix larger game issues, add matchmaking, make a pug friendly and gamemode that encourages aggression, add tutorialization, don't add 3rd person.

Edited by Dogtoy, 15 November 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Starcrash]

I don't want a third person view. Thank you for offering, but no.

[Dimento Graven]

Think of it this way... You put veterans in a 3rd person view against new players and what do you think is going to happen to the new players?

I'm pretty sure it will make the past ROFLSTOMPS look like sessions of 'paddy cake' in comparison...

[Quxudica]

Cant Get Right, on 15 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

but it isn't and polls mean nothing. W/out going in to too much politics It was gonna be close and something about a landslide.
Imo the most relevant thing you said was in one word. Conjecture.

Nate silver would disagree. As long as the poles are honest, all you need are the numbers and the ability to do math. The more you have the better, but the entire point of a forum (let alone a pole) is to show a summery of the community and it's feelings which can then be used to extrapolate the feelings and concerns of the masses. It's far from pointless, if it were pointless or meaningless no sane company would go through the effort and expense of maintaining one.

[Piotr]

Man pretty much loosing all fate in this developer, they are just stupid.

[Zeus X]

Had to quote this!

von Pilsner, on 15 November 2012 - 09:43 AM, said: