3696 replies to this topic

[Damocles69]

devs.... there are 77 pages of response to this tread and 55 pages on a similar with a poll with over 2200 no votes for this idea.... can we please get one of you to respond

[Rokuzachi]

Tilon, on 15 November 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

T-U-T-O-R-I-A-L

Like sensible games.

Then, we will have this discussion again later.

Sensible games forgo stodgy old hand holdy tutorials because they are designed well enough, and have good enough GUI/messaging to do so.

[Harmatia]

MtnMan, on 15 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

I will ask for my founders money back and you can color me gone if 3rd person view is implemented! Whatever happened to "Pilot Skill"........ yea right

Same here.

[Fud]

3rd Person view would diminish the value of situational awareness and teamwork, and has no place in a Mechwarrior game in my opinion.

No thanks.

[Reggimus]

I do not think 3rd person is the way to go, you would not only lose credibility (you said it would never happen), but it is also not the way to help new players understand the game.

If someone is having difficulty learning/understanding a new concept the best way to resolve this issue is with education and training.

This has been known for years and is the approach used when hiring new staff, for new people on a sports team, and is just generally the all around accepted method for life.

Why PGI do you feel the need to move away from a method that has proven itself to be successful for countless numbers of years to try something that is not guaranteed to work and will alienate a large portion of the player base?

Please focus your efforts towards creating a new user experience that will educated players and help them understand the concepts of the game rather than re-inventing it(which is essentially what you will be doing). A similar training mission to MW2 would be a good starting point.(15 mins then enough knowledge to play the game effectively).

[Alois Hammer]

Rokuzachi, on 15 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Sensible games forgo stodgy old hand holdy tutorials because they are designed well enough, and have good enough GUI/messaging to do so.

So "sensible" games are those where the complexity is between that of "Pac-Man" and "Q-bert?" (Both of which, by the way, had instructions on the case clearly visible to the player, unlike MWO.)

[Madoc Owain]

Billygoat, on 15 November 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

"Casual gamers" don't care about this game.

Adding third person (and the other "casual-isation" steps that are likely to follow) seems like it will alienate the folks who will be the core of this game and are the best prospect for long term spending.

And those casuals? They still won't care about this game.

I consider myself a casual gamer. At one time I was much more into gaming - Quake 2, UT, MW 2-4, Warcraft 1-2, EverQuest, and numerous 4X games. Now I'm married, have kids, a job, and no time to play competitively. If I do play, it's co-op Left4Dead2 with friends, or League of Legends vs 'bots, once or twice a month.

I do plan on playing MW:O casually. I'm a Founder, so I've put my money where my mouth is here.

I definitely care about this game.

[Insidious Johnson]

The addition of 3pv isn't what I bought into with a founder's package. I remember Paul's quote, posted earlier, about possibility of 3pv in the distant future but only for a certain game mode. Apparently that game mode is dr00ler assault. This clearly constitues telling us one thing and doing another. Another cause for a refund on founders if I ever saw one, this time, backed up by bait and switch codes in my state, at least. You can't make promises, get money from customers, then change things around drastically under the guise of 'beta' open or not. I for one am fine with either format, so long as both are selectable for bidding purposes and enforced by the settings chosen by the bidders. We are going to need some clarity up the Yen-lo-Ying-Yang on exactly how this will be implemented to accomodate those who need their hands held all game every game and why you have: embraced and abandoned competitive gamers in rediculously short cycles, grabbed ankles at the first sign of any whine, and exactly how you expect to be trusted with our money after you have it and hold all the development cards. On a side note, 'Russ' ephigies would sell well in a cash shop, I'd burn several a week.

[Al the Killer]

From a competitive game play perspective - do not do this. 3rd person is a terrible idea.

That being said, I really do miss seeing my mech in 3rd person view. I used to manipulate the camera all the time in MW:2 mercs and I loved seeing my mech run into battle. Its the whole reason I fell in love with mechs like the catapult or timberwolf - they just look amazing. Not being able to see my own mech (unless its blowing up) is kind of a bummer.

Maybe one day, you all will have a tutorial for newbies. Maybe that tutorial could feature 3rd person to get players acquainted with the torso/throttle/arm mechanics. But once they queue up for a real game, its fixed to 1st person.

[Sarah Dalrymple]

My thought on 3rd person view in a MechWarrior game. Pretty much speaks for itself!

[Blahberry]

Please no, it will take the simulation aspect of game. There will be less of a cool factor to it.

[FringeAggressor]

PGI can't get the fundamental mathematics of Mechwarrior/Battletech nailed down (re: heatsinks), yet they're worried about adding a third person view?

Seriously?

Wow. Those folks who anted-up for the $120 plan, dang; I'm thinking myself as having been rather foolish supported these guys with $30- Lord knows what those "Legendary" suckers are feeling with crap like this rolling downhill.

Somebody said it best a couple pages back- priorities. The more we see this ineptitude on the part of Piranha's decision making, the more we know where their true priorities lay.

[Rokuzachi]

Alois Hammer, on 15 November 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

So "sensible" games are those where the complexity is between that of "Pac-Man" and "Q-bert?" (Both of which, by the way, had instructions on the case clearly visible to the player, unlike MWO.)

A good UI team makes enough information available to the player in the GUI that there is very little need to go out of the way to instruct them. A good UI makes the learning experience organic, and flows with the gameplay. A stand alone tutorial that is entirely separate from the game should be a last resort, and would probably take more resources to create and push out the door than adding UI elements to help the player understand what is happening.

To that end, the UI should be customizable. For example, an interface element that clearly depicts torso direction and leg direction in a very obvious way for new players, would be an option that could be turned off in settings for those that don't need it.

This whole 'new user experience' thing is largely a problem with poor messaging, both in text and graphically.

[M Jordanus Sicarius]

People are way overstating it's effects on gameplay (Honestly, you can't see much more in third person than in normal), nobodys going to have anything more than a marginal advantage. Besides, you're way more accurate in first person than third person.

The other argument is "that this is a hardcore game for hardcore battletech fans who only want a simulation". ********, if that was true, this would be a single player game. If it breaks your immursion, don't use it.

People are acting crazy, how much does this "break" the game? It doesn't, it just allows you to see your mech. It gives neglible advantages and if you think it breaks your immursion., don't use it. What is it to you if someone else uses it? Fact of the matter is, third person has been party of every Mechwarrior game, even the "hardcore" ones. People are saying 3rd person isn't Mechwarrior which makes me laugh. Selective memory at it's finest.

It's an appeal factor to see your mech, and just because a bunch of people errenously think it affects gameplay/affects their style, doesn't mean much. I can guarentee if it was in the game from the start, no one would be complaining. People hate change, even if that change doesn't affect you.

Edited by M Jordanus Sicarius, 15 November 2012 - 01:28 PM.

[Blahberry]

Please don't do this it will make it into modern shooter with lots of ********.

[Illydth]

I didn't see this mentioned yet so I felt I'd do so.

Putting aside all of the comments about breaking the game and not the right feel for the game (all of which are dead on), let me provide you another reason why you should LRM this idea back to the stone age.

10s of thousands of us gave you up to $120 each during the closed beta of this game because we were comfortable with how the game played, looked, felt and ran. Look through this thread alone and the VAST VAST VAST majority of the posters here have founders tags.

You got our money because we, the PAYING PLAYER BASE decided that this game lived up to our expectations after we saw and tried it. Many of us even increased our donation level from 40 to 80 to 120 based upon how the game was playing...even in it's most basic/beta form.

The introduction of a change of this calibur, one that changes the play style, type and feel of the entire game, top to bottom, is not one *I* or many others (reading this thread alone) would have paid you for.

That, right there, should denote to you why you should NOT take this approach...it's not what gained you LITERALLY milions of dollars in revenue before the game even went live.

Ask yourselves how many people WHO HAVE PAID YOU are asking for 3rd person view and compare that with the people who are asking you for a 3rd person view who have not made a financial contribution to your development.

DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that if you add 3rd person view you will keep the already paid customers and gain more paying customers who want 3rd person. While true, you've got my money, and I can't get it back, you also wouldn't be getting MORE of my money...and the success of this game LONG TERM is what will keep you employeed and developing new and interesting stuff for this game into the future. PGI's success is based off of the success of this game...and this game's success is not based on how many of us have ALREADY given you money, but how many will CONTINUE to give you money.

Your Founders base of players has already shown they're willing to shell out real cash for this game. At this point in the development / release cycle, please consider who has supported development up to this point and what their wishes are.

Absolutely you should listen to the population of your game at large...but the PAYING player base has paid you for a certain experience that is well known and well loved...and has been well known and well loved for the last 20 years. Changing that experience is a recipe for losing a fan base that has waited for this game for almost 30 years running...and a fan base that has proven they're willing to open their pocket books for you.

The most popular game in the Franchise is by and far MechWarrior 2. Not MechAssault.

--Illydth

[Squidhead Jax]

Stickjock, on 15 November 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Not shooting you down Alois... but the sad thing about that poll?? Last count (just looked) is 2330 voted NO out of 2546 total votes... a good 91.5% of those voting are NOT in favour of 3rd Person view...

BUT... out of the total number of registered users (last count shows 400,173) that is only .58%... so be generous and round up... so just over 1/2% of the total registered users have voted against it...

Of those who care to speak up, the overwhelming majority speak against. Even if we assume that every non-respondent is 'don't care', that's not remotely justifying spending the programming work to make a functioning 3rd person view that doesn't jettison Information Warfare. We have no reason to assume the silent masses are clamoring for this because, well, they're silent, so obviously they're not clamoring.

[darknothing]

see the results?

• Yes (119 votes [4.59%] - View)
  
• No (2375 votes [91.52%] - View)

we have spoken, if this is implemented im done with MWO. it will show that they dont give a **** about us if they implement it.

[DC GDL Bratak]

I myself prefer MW games over others just because I have the impression to really sit in the cockpit of a giant battle machine, and also have the more or less limited view to the battlefield from there above. Improve that impression, first, before you give us a bail out that no one really wants to have. If I want to see "mech-acting-in-a-battle", I just watch the battlefield ... if I want to see "mech-exploding-struck-by-$WEAPONRY" I just fit mine with $WEAPONRY and look for an opponent to take him down. That's all, really ... so re-balance the game, make it playable and more immersive first, before wasting your time with such gizmos.

[Demoned]

i have a suggestion (from a friend) if its been said or not before i don't know to many pages to read though.
how about a holographic mech in your cockpit so we/you, can tell what why parts of your mech are facing,
without the advantage of the 3rd person view and, still giving a full view of the mech,
so the newbies can tell why they are walking backwards when facing forwards.