3696 replies to this topic

[Zomeguy]

Scratx, on 14 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Hey, I'd take a Hello Kitty paintjob

No aim-assist or lack of repair costs wanted, though.

You do realize though if you had a hello kitty paint job that would be like annoucing to the enemy team Kill me! Kill me!

I really don't want 3rd person view the only time I wouldn't mind it is spectator mode but even then that could be abused.

[Vermaxx]

The majority of the FORUM USERS is nowhere near the majority of the fanbase.

Assuming they told us the truth, PGI sold over 60,000 founder accounts. We had something like 5000 views in the poll thread. Assuming there are probably AT LEAST the same number of active players, if not slightly more (even with qutting, new people have shown up, to say nothing of the non-founder beta testers) - the thread reflected about 8.3% of the player base.

They said 3rd will be considered for community warfare, which is so far away and so vague at this point it might as well be Mechwarrior 6. People need to stop raging up this issue over and over. If it shows up in CW (IF CW even shows up) then we can deal with it. Until then you have nothing to fear, since they are having trouble delivering on even the most basic features promised months ago.

[Cmdr Harabec]

How about to appeal to WoT's memberbase you focus on improving the new player experience in better ways?

Get them into a customizable mech faster. Make the first mech you buy discounted, or let them customize Trial Mech crit slot loadouts other than the engine or upgrades/modules.

Make the payout for matches performance rewarding, not stock payouts. Gets rid of your suicide grinders. Also provide more bonuses for various iddferent actions. First win of the day gives you double money. First sight in a match gives you money for seeing a mech first - you could get this up to 8 times. Incentive to lights to go scouting. Saviour kills give extra cash, avenger kills give extra cash.

Don't waste your time on creating third person when none of the current playerbase wants it. It's not what's wrong with your game, and isn't what's turning people away. Your entire new player experience is, as is just your mess of an interface. No way to see real stats on weapons, no way to see speed of a battlemech with so and so engine easily... Just so many vague things everywhere, with no hard data.

Third Person will just be a money and time sink that I seriously doubt will draw in more people compared to alternatives you can pursue that will make the game better for EVERYONE. A tutorial/training grounds, for instance, where you blow up static Mechs. You can practice torso twisting and running etc.

Third Person will just be a huge waste of development time when there's so much more we want and need in the game that will drastically add to the experience rather than this. Please, PGI. Please listen to your dedicated fanbase for once. If you won't listen to us about heat or weapon or mechbalances, listen to us here. A lot of people have spoken and almost no one wants this. This is a fake robot simulation game, not a third person shooter. You developed it knowing it was going to be rather niche, and you still made quite a few million off of Founders packs! How about you just listen to those people who have provided you the cash you sit upon? It might be worth your while to please them, especially with such a huge outcry!

Focus on other ways to make the game more friendly. Here's a start: Trial Mechs aren't enjoyable and being locked out of Customization completely sucks. People need to test out how the game actually works before they commit to playing 8 hours a day or just paying for premium and playing 6 ours a day to get a measely medium mech they may not even want, but are just settling for due to price.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Every WoT design choice imported will just make this awesome game crappier!

Furthermore I think collisions must be back in the game.

[GrimReality]

Just over 4000 votes,

91% oppose 3rd person view,

5% want 3rd person view,

and the rest don't care.

I think that speaks pretty clearly to what PGI should do!

[Taryys]

Please sign here:

How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience

[Johnny Human]

Vermaxx, on 24 November 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

The majority of the FORUM USERS is nowhere near the majority of the fanbase.

Assuming they told us the truth, PGI sold over 60,000 founder accounts. We had something like 5000 views in the poll thread. Assuming there are probably AT LEAST the same number of active players, if not slightly more (even with qutting, new people have shown up, to say nothing of the non-founder beta testers) - the thread reflected about 8.3% of the player base.

An 8.3% response is huge in terms of statistical significance.

Using basic statistics methodology: For a population of 60,000, to attain a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error and with a response distribution of 50%, you would need a recommended sample size of 382.

In other words we are 13 times over the response needed to draw a confident conclusion on this issue.

I would go so far as to put this in the category of "overwhemling."

[Billygoat]

Johnny Human, on 25 November 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

An 8.3% response is huge in terms of statistical significance.

Using basic statistics methodology: For a population of 60,000, to attain a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error and with a response distribution of 50%, you would need a recommended sample size of 382.

In other words we are 13 times over the response needed to draw a confident conclusion on this issue.

I would go so far as to put this in the category of "overwhemling."

I agree that even taking into account the "forum effect", this poll - probably the most voted-in poll that's ever been on this forum - is so one-sided that it would be silly to try to pass it off as a "vocal minority" skewing the results.

That said, the users that PGI want to implement this for aren't the players currently playing the game. They've already hooked us and, as acquired customers, we are a fait accompli as far as PGI is concerned. Apparently they think having a different perspective to view the game from will bring in the hordes of new players out there just waiting for a mech game with 3rd person as their one remaining unchecked box.

Even though I'm glad we're all here having a big ***** session over this (and PGI deserves to see it), we're all pretty much just ******* into the wind here. When a company says, "we're investigating it, we haven't decded for certain yet" and "it's not set in stone", then you know for sure that it HAS already been decided and it IS set in stone and you'd better get used it.

[Rejarial Galatan]

sad fact is, it will net such a microscopic net gain for such a minute amount of time <minute back there is minoot in pronunciation if i confused you here, did not mean the sixty second interval of minute> and such a vast loss over time in revenue that this game honestly will in all likely hood NOT be here this time next year as those of us who said to NOT do it leave as our final ounce of patience and understanding leave us, as they break their own word and a key design pillar, proving to us all that we really cannot trust them to honor what they said in order to get us here.

[Johnny Human]

Billygoat, on 25 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I agree that even taking into account the "forum effect", this poll - probably the most voted-in poll that's ever been on this forum - is so one-sided that it would be silly to try to pass it off as a "vocal minority" skewing the results.

That said, the users that PGI want to implement this for aren't the players currently playing the game. They've already hooked us and, as acquired customers, we are a fait accompli as far as PGI is concerned. Apparently they think having a different perspective to view the game from will bring in the hordes of new players out there just waiting for a mech game with 3rd person as their one remaining unchecked box.

The reason so many of us were hooked is because the game was designed as a 1st person simulator. If you take that away, you are left with a disgruntled and disenfranchised player base...and that is not a good thing for your game. The one thing that does attract more players is when a game has an enthusiastic player base. If PGI splits the community and implements another 3rd person game mode, that is very unlikely to happen.

Quote

Even though I'm glad we're all here having a big ***** session over this (and PGI deserves to see it), we're all pretty much just ******* into the wind here. When a company says, "we're investigating it, we haven't decded for certain yet" and "it's not set in stone", then you know for sure that it HAS already been decided and it IS set in stone and you'd better get used it.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe if they actually pay attention to how overwhelmingly negative the reaction has been, they will reconsider.

[Rejarial Galatan]

they will see our reaction, most likely HAVE seen it, and will overwhelmingly go: screw it, we THINK this will make us MORE money, how bad can this really get? six months later at PGI: why did this game fail? <a quietly blinking light on someones monitor finally gets attention> <they open it, and it reads: PGI please do not do third person, it will kill the game.>

[ManDaisy]

Adding third person make this just another "mech" game. It will be killing one of the things that makes it stand out. PGI honestly should know that the only thing keeping players out is how hard it is to grind trials until you can buy your first mech and start actually enjoying the game. They are ignoring that a decent tutorial/ easier new user experience, would fix their misplaced blame on what may be keeping them from capturing a broader market. IT is not the torso learning that is keeping people away but the hurdles they have to go thru for proper entry.

Edited by ManDaisy, 25 November 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[BlacKcuD]

Better add a training map / shooting range including a lovely computer voice. That would help the newcomers much more and won´t affect game balance.

[VerticalT7NK]

PLEASE!!!! DO NOT MAKE THIS GAME 3rd person view!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have already invested over 150$ to play your game and will not keep playing this game as a 3rd person game! It works with my Steel Battalion controller and is the reason I play this game. I think it will ruin the way the game is played and don't see why you should spend money I am sending you to do that when I would rather have new maps or different modes of play..so many better reasons to keep it 1st person!!!!!! If you MUST do this at least make the option to force 1st person in games that way there is a choice if we want to keep it that way!!!

[Yarvoo]

Being a fan of all the other MW games, the first time I played this game I was kinda disappointed that there was no third person view.

However, after playing a few matches, I got used to it quick, and now love how it is first person only.

In my opinion, it really makes it stand out as an actual simulator. Plus all the reasons against third person that everyone else has pointed out such as abusing LoS where you can see but not be hit of course.

I really hope they just keep it first person only. It adds a lot of tactical gameplay and mindgame possibilities to the combat.

Being able to hide behind a hill and pop out for a snipe when you can see that the enemy has turned away from you is just cheesy. Enemy fires at you, you back down, they turn away, you go back up. Lame. Sure they could just run at you but that allows you to reposition when you can see them but they can't see you.

Sure it could make it easier to hop in and play, but the people who want that kind of gameplay will just move on to the next CoD or Battlefield and stop supporting and playing the game in a month.

[Armorpiercer M82]

91.15% said NOOOOOOOO.

and thats correct.

[Digital Ninja]

202 yes votes, 3719 no votes. I don't even need to say anything. Thanks for saving me the trouble of flaming you by making it a poll.

[Digital Ninja]

Billygoat, on 23 November 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

(Where did this quote come from?)

The problem with this approach to trying to appeal to World of Tanks' playerbase is that trying to 1:1 emulate World of Tanks is probably the wrong way to do it. Why? Because World of Tanks players already have World of Tanks. Why would they want to switch to a cheap imitation with WAY less content, much slower pace of development, more technical and balance issues, etc. when they already have the real McCoy that they are already invested in? You might get some who are really dissatisfied with WoT, but are those players really going to stick around in the knock-off World of Tanks-with-legs when they probably had good reasons for not wanting to play WoT anymore? Think, McFly, think!

It's like THQ pushing out Homefront as a cheap knock-off of Call of Duty and wondering why it failed when all the CoD kids didn't move to their game.

When I hear devs here talk about WoT and see the direct copypaste of pricing structure, client layout, game mode, etc. I actually cringe and feel genuinely embarrassed for PGI. It's that white kid at high school listening to Cypress Hill, talking like a "gangsta" and dressing in FUBU gear. It's just sad.

I'd just like to point out how SWTOR and the other assorted WoW clones failed miserably. Any argument I make, no matter how good, will just be met with "what makes you an expert?". Instead, i'll just let history make my argument for me. Cloning games is a recipe for failure. The one success story, Zynga, whose business is based entirely on stealing games from smaller companies and indie devs, is currently in the process of losing all its money and will probably be bankrupt in a year. Copying another game will get you temporary success in the short term in the absolute best case scenario, but that just gives you more to lose when the inevitable happens. 99% of the time it doesn't even give you brief success. Look at gaming history, people. Cloning another game never ends well, ever. Especially when that game is the top game in the genre. Not only are you months if not years behind it on patches, but you're also competing against an army of other clones. It's impossible to succeed.

[Mota Prefect]

I sincerly hope PGI has the good and common sense to view the results of this poll. 91.13% of the 4031 players active in this poll/thread do NOT want 3rd person in any way, shape or form in MWO. This has been the way the community has felt about the issue since these forums went online.

Do I think it would be cool to have a different view of my mech? sure. Do I think that's good enough reason to include it in the game? Absolutely not.

The fact that PGI is devoting resources to plan how to impliment this in the game when so many other game mechanics are still so blatently broken is a slap in the face, especially to those of us that have been involved in closed beta since it started.

So please PGI, drop this idea where you found it ( in the garbage where it belongs ) and stop placating to the very small minority of players who are asking/whining about adding it. Concentrate on fixing what you already have going and listen to the overwhelming majority of us that never want to see a 3rd person view added, ever.

[LucidFir]

How do I vote again? Else, where are the pitchforks and PGI offices? 3rd person will ruin this.