3696 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

LynxFury, on 18 November 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

No it's not entirely logical.
Where your idea doesn't work is if that station was going to be on a different frequency anyhow. They save overhead-use the same studio, towers, many of the same advertisers etc, They also make enough money to stay afloat...and heck even make more money overall which allows them to plan for powerful transmitters down the road.

Why complain about a station on another frequency that could potentially increase the programing and signal for your own station. It simply makes no sense. Just don't tune into that station.

Would we really have nothing at all--or deny the company that finally took the chance some potential earnings for expanding the game model into a side most purest won't play anyhow? They can promise first person sim experience and expand the same by a segregated 3 person modes without going back in anyway what they said. They can build a no-heat, unlimited ammo, 3rd person with cartoon pink pony "girls" addition if they think that will make more profit--so long as it's not integrated into our hardcore side--why should we care? It won't effect us. The expressions about cutting off one's nose off to spite one's face fits so well here. I guess 3rd person is where business realities of needing a large player base meets ugly side of tiny CBT community. Is it any wonder why we've been waiting ten years?

Thinking is not your strong point? ... the hip hoppers are going to short a pure hip-hop channels, and the classics to a pure classical music station, because neither of them enough to share, for the hip hoppers want 100% and 100% of the classics like ... 50 sharks% and 50% of coarse fish is a massacre

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Quote

Garth: "Very emotional reaction from users in forums, we suggest they look at this logically like we have, and understand from a profit viability view that by having 3rd person view we may then be able to appeal to WoT's player base.."

best we still remove the legs of the Mechs and replace them with armored Tankchassis to attract even more WoT player who wanted to play but in reality MWO only because it was not like WoT ...

Edited by CSJ Ranger, 19 November 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[Kotrin]

YES to third-person view.

1. Torso-Leg alignment is one of the top issue new players struggle with. More user friendly = more new blood = more success. And it's totally different to experience torso-twist in a FPS or on a tabletop boardgame...

2. "I don't want that / I'm doing fine without". Sure. Nobody forces you into using 3rd person view. Enjoy your cockpit view.

3. "It's unrealistic / MWO is a simulator / whatever". Realism in a year 3050 giant robot combat game where artillery has half a mile range, targeting computers weight tons, and humanity is stupid enough to still struggle for land in a galactic empire? Puh-lease. It's a damn game. And you know what? All the fluff about neuro-helmet and 'Mech-brain interface could totally translate in a 3rd person view once you're in the 'Mech seat. Who knows?

4. What's the point of selling 'Mech paint jobs if we can't truly enjoy them in-game? Everyone will see them but the owner, or just in 'Mech garage. Fail.

5. "We're hating it! Hating it I tell you!" perhaps it's true, but you're a market segment not of much use to PGI anymore. They sucked dry the Mechwarrior / Battletech community with the founder program, now it's time they turn their attention to more generic players. In other words, polls are fun, but do not count.

6. "It gives an unfair advantage..." since it's not even yet implemented, it's hard to tell, but somehow contradicting #2, and it can be balanced by other things (like giving less info to people using 3rd person than 1st person). But honestly, between people shooting teammates, 'Mechs not fully repaired, guys going AFK or disconnecting after 1 sec of play and newbies continuously running in walls - the most common flock gathering in my PUG team, as it seems - I sincerely doubt that a 3rd person view will be game-breaking.

I know I'm going to be flamed by 91% of the community, but at a point such things had to be stated openly.

[Vassago Rain]

Kotrin, on 19 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

YES to third-person view.

1. Torso-Leg alignment is one of the top issue new players struggle with. More user friendly = more new blood = more success. And it's totally different to experience torso-twist in a FPS or on a tabletop boardgame...

2. "I don't want that / I'm doing fine without". Sure. Nobody forces you into using 3rd person view. Enjoy your cockpit view.

3. "It's unrealistic / MWO is a simulator / whatever". Realism in a year 3050 giant robot combat game where artillery has half a mile range, targeting computers weight tons, and humanity is stupid enough to still struggle for land in a galactic empire? Puh-lease. It's a damn game. And you know what? All the fluff about neuro-helmet and 'Mech-brain interface could totally translate in a 3rd person view once you're in the 'Mech seat. Who knows?

4. What's the point of selling 'Mech paint jobs if we can't truly enjoy them in-game? Everyone will see them but the owner, or just in 'Mech garage. Fail.

5. "We're hating it! Hating it I tell you!" perhaps it's true, but you're a market segment not of much use to PGI anymore. They sucked dry the Mechwarrior / Battletech community with the founder program, now it's time they turn their attention to more generic players. In other words, polls are fun, but do not count.

6. "It gives an unfair advantage..." since it's not even yet implemented, it's hard to tell, but somehow contradicting #2, and it can be balanced by other things (like giving less info to people using 3rd person than 1st person). But honestly, between people shooting teammates, 'Mechs not fully repaired, guys going AFK or disconnecting after 1 sec of play and newbies continuously running in walls - the most common flock gathering in my PUG team, as it seems - I sincerely doubt that a 3rd person view will be game-breaking.

I know I'm going to be flamed by 91% of the community, but at a point such things had to be stated openly.

They won't attract anyone with training wheels for their tactical sim shooter. If they want the CoD audience, they should implement full CoD. If they want the full WoT audience, they should implement the full WoT experience.

And they are, according to what we know.

I don't think this is what you want, either.

[Lane]

It seems that everything that can be said on this subject has been repeated many times, over and out.

Edited by Lane, 19 November 2012 - 08:25 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Kotrin, on 19 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

6. "It gives an unfair advantage..." since it's not even yet implemented, it's hard to tell, but somehow contradicting #2, and it can be balanced by other things (like giving less info to people using 3rd person than 1st person). But honestly, between people shooting teammates, 'Mechs not fully repaired, guys going AFK or disconnecting after 1 sec of play and newbies continuously running in walls - the most common flock gathering in my PUG team, as it seems - I sincerely doubt that a 3rd person view will be game-breaking.

Emphasis mine. It hasn't been implemented yet, no, so there is still a technical possibility that PGI could come up with some implementation of 3rd person view that does not give an advantage over 1st person view. Given that no-one has yet come up with such an implementation in practice or in theory, I somehow doubt PGI have the secret formula hidden in the fridge. Especially since this is clearly an ad-hoc addition, not something with months and months of development cycle dedicated to it.

So yeah, it's going to give an advantage if it's implemented, based on the strong evidence of every other 1st/3rd person hybrid ever produced, and the basic principles of Field of View and Line of Sight applied to an internal vs external camera view.

[Conure]

TP should only be available with a third person camera drone module which means you have to drop a heatsink or something.

[MasterBLB]

Mechwarrior is a simulator kind of game.
Simulators doesn't have 3 person view as it's unrealistic.
End of discussion.

[AC]

They think they will get more customers with 3rd person view, but what they dont' realize is that they will lose many of their existing customers. Boom...dead game.

[Relic1701]

Solved it...found the post I was looking for, one I saw many, many times in closed beta...

[color=#A4A4A4]
Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:36 PM[/color]
[color=#1D3652]

POPULAR
[/color][/center][color=#959595]

MechWarrior Online is being designed to put you the player in the seat of the pilot. It is 100% first person view only. Being the pilot is one of our key design pillars and 3rd person breaks that pillar on multiple levels as seen in many of the other 3rd Person discussions.

We will investigate 3rd person in the far off distance for special game settings, but this is very far off in the distance.

While we appreciate those who enjoy 3rd person, MWO will be 1st person out of the gate and in the near future.

-Paul
Lead Designer[/color]

The original post will no longer let me 'quote' this, so you will have to suffer the poor layout, but here is a direct link to it...http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

Edited by Relic1701, 19 November 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[Koniving]

My opinion on this topic is this: MWO's future match making system (where groups take control of planets, spread their influence, and so on), should allow the defending party to choose whether or not third person can be used during the match. Same for skirmish match making. If the match allows it, then so be it. If the match doesn't, then so be it. That way we can choose our preference. Much like any other game with such options, perhaps Combat Arms and "abilities" could be a prime example. Pop in, look at the info. Don't like abilities but it's turned on, jump elsewhere. Same for vice versa.

MasterBLB, on 19 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Mechwarrior is a simulator kind of game.
Simulators doesn't have 3 person view as it's unrealistic.
End of discussion.

Arma 2 is a simulator. It has third person.
Most flight sims are simulators. They have follow cams, and cinematic cams.
There is a train simulator by the name of (how unoriginal) train simulator. It features 13 different perspectives, to include follow cams, cinematic cams, rear view cams, etc.
Also, there's a farm simulator. You can safely guess that there is, in fact, a third person camera there too.

[von Pilsner]

Relic1701, on 19 November 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Solved it...found the post I was looking for, one I saw many, many times in closed beta...


Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:36 PM

POPULAR
[/center]

MechWarrior Online is being designed to put you the player in the seat of the pilot. It is 100% first person view only. Being the pilot is one of our key design pillars and 3rd person breaks that pillar on multiple levels as seen in many of the other 3rd Person discussions.

We will investigate 3rd person in the far off distance for special game settings, but this is very far off in the distance.

While we appreciate those who enjoy 3rd person, MWO will be 1st person out of the gate and in the near future.

-Paul
Lead Designer

The original post will no longer let me 'quote' this, so you will have to suffer the poor layout, but here is a direct link to it...http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

I will see your quote and raise you with a different quote....

Quote: http://mwomercs.com/...005#entry154005

Paul Inouye said:

No no no... no MW vs MA threads please. We've already stated that this will be a first-person perspective game. We've also addressed the gameplay speed and operations therein.

[Quxudica]

Roni, on 19 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

The screenshots do look like mwo ripped their mechlab off word of tanks..

I thought it was quite nice, but now I feel like I'm playing a clone off another game.
PGI should do better than using other peoples work and ideas... I hope.

I'm sure they will fix it and get better, but I agree with the posters, game doesn't have replayability or draw for me either at the moment, Christmas is out and there's heaps of good titles out there to play in the meantime until they put in their metagame.

Game design is iterative that means it is not remotely uncommon for games in similar genres to nick systems from each other. The only time "rip off" really applies is in extreme cases of games being lifted nigh piece for piece - the IOS game
Lep's World and Lep's World 2 are the most egregious modern examples of this I can think of. They are essentially Super Mario re-skinned with a leprechaun. MWO and WoT are substantially different games in enough respects that I don't think clone can apply. While I understand them wanting to get players from WoT, I think they are emphasizing that way to much and going about it the wrong way as well.

While I'd say there's little doubt they took heavy inspiration from WoT's garage, it's not a damning thing in itself. What is damning is that they have done so very little in all this time to improve upon it. We got a nice photo-shopped mock up of what they one day hope it to look like and that's it. And there are many other seemingly basic things that should have been in a long time ago but aren't.

I personally am really disappointed. The really sad thing is, if this game flops then it's almost certainly a nail in the casket for any Mechwarrior real time sims for the foreseeable future. If MW:Tactics flops or only does mediocre, this license may end up buried for another 10+ years.

Edit: on a side note, regardless of what one might think of the game itself I will say that Hawken's "Mechlab" and general menu UI blows MWO out of the water. The Mechlab/Garage is fully 3D and can be dragged with the mouse to see a full 360 of the mech, virtually all the components visually change when you swap them around, the menu system is interesting and provides a decent amount of data (though not quite as cleanly as I would like), it has a lobby system, server browser, section for training missions (though no missions were available during my only run with the game a couple weeks ago). It's actually very impressive what the Hawken team has accomplished.

Edited by Quxudica, 19 November 2012 - 11:16 AM.

[Johnny Human]

Epok, on 18 November 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

meh idc... ill still use 1st person i dont see what the big deal is...how does someone else using 3rd person ruin your sim- experience...

if the problem is noobs need help getting used to the movement make a better display in the cockpit than the one you have now...i mean the little arrow that tells you which way your legs are movin

The problem isn't that it will help noobs. The problem is that it will give skilled players additional tactical advantages. In which case you then have a choice. Either play in first person mode and be at a disadvantage, or use the third person perspective to stay on a level playing field.

That's the big deal. If the 3rd person POV is available, it basically means anyone who doesn't want to be at a disadvantage will have to play that way.

Edited by Johnny Human, 19 November 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[Johnny Human]

Conure, on 19 November 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

TP should only be available with a third person camera drone module which means you have to drop a heatsink or something.

Ok, this actually is not a bad idea. Use a drone module which requires a controller taking up a slot on your mech, weighs .5 tons. And if it gets destroyed in battle you lose your third person view.

There! We've done it. We've created a hypothetical mechanism by which you could reasonably have a 3rd person view while maintaining the game's "tactical battle simulator" genre by having actual tactical considerations and trade-offs involved.

Edited by Johnny Human, 19 November 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Walk]

Johnny Human, on 19 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Ok, this actually is not a bad idea. Use a drone module which requires a controller taking up a slot on your mech, weighs .5 tons. And if it gets destroyed in battle you lose your third person view.

There! We've done it. We've created a hypothetical mechanism by which you could reasonably have a 3rd person view while maintaining the game's "tactical battle simulator" genre by having actual tactical considerations and trade-offs involved.

I actually wouldn't mind this approach at all

[AC]

I still gives an unfair advantage by allowing one to look over hills etc.... Imagine an LRM boat getting lock and not having to ever crest a hill. (oh wait... we have that no with our broken *** spotting system.)

[MechyMcMecherson]

I am fairly new to the Mech games but I could see this feature being added to the game make me want to stop playing it.

Glad the community is on the same page.

[Talinthis]

Real mechwarriors pilot their mech from the inside...

[Pyrrho]

So.. my next module expansion will be a periscope that I can put up over hills to gain target locks.

Also, I custom fitted side and rear-view mirrors to my cockpit so I don't need 3rd Person.