3696 replies to this topic

[TygerLily]

I know I don't plan to use it but I don't see why anyone else can't. So long as neither choice provides an advantage over the other.

[hanitora]

Players who want 3rd person view are not going to play this game until this game lacks being this game.
Players who want to play this game but have trouble understanding mechanics such as torso twist need a ******* TUTORIAL not third person view.

Hurr, here r some meks, press lunch button n do w/e we dont care.

[Minoxen]

I understand the need to ease the level of entry to the game, but rather than compromise the solid strategic gameplay that has been established with the First Person only game that exists.

My feedback would be as follows:

1. Fully develop the new players training grounds.
It seems most of the current difficulties with new players could be alleviated with a proper In Game tutorial as well as proper matchmaking. Make the new segment of the players an area to play until they reach a certain level of "Verification" or skill aka, playing 20 games or earning so much experience. In the Training grounds they can duke it out and earn some limited rewards. Yes we understand the controls are difficult so place them in a friendly environment with other first time learners to get a grasp on them while enjoying the gameplay.

Then once they have progressed enough, remove the training wheels and give them a CBILL Bonus (500k?) and say Congrats you've graduated Battlemech Academy your well on to fighting your way into a mech of your own!! Once past the initial training of a mandatory (20?) games they can join the normal matchmaking system.

2. Limited 3rd person view:
If my first suggestion is ignored or it is inevitable that we receive third person then please implement limitations to its function such as preventing actual visual representation of targets that are concealed from the cockpit view. Make it so that yes I can pivot my camera around 360, but the game will not render an opponent's mech unless I myself can view them from the cockpit. HOWEVER you can allow them to see the position of the red Diamond floating where the mech would be since that is already done on the radar and hud when they are visible to allies, but ONLY while an allied unit has visual of them, or your sensors can detect them without visual confirmation.

I know you at PGI love this game and we all want it to succeed, but I believe there are ways to ease newcomers into the game with a newb friendly environment where they aren't at risk of being outcast because they have a hard time getting the movement figured out or constantly alpha striking. In my humble opinion adding 3rd person is the easiest way to let new players in, but certainly not the best way. A proper newb matchmaking system as well as an ingame tutorial will be much harder to do, but much more true to the game and its strategic 1st person Play.

Thank you for your consideration of this Feedback.

[Like a Sir]

Dakkath, on 14 November 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Listen to the podcast again. They aren't going to mix modes.

See, here is my problem with this. I've been waiting since last tuesday to play the game, I am normally calm about most issues, but my client has been crashing so much it's stupid.... No patch this tuesday, now I have to wait another week. Now you tell me that instead of making this game better, and making it playable, PGI will waste time and resources to implement 3rd person view? For what? To please less then 10% of the game audience? To put this game in the same category as HAWKEN and loose customers to that game, because it does it better? To appeal to the twitch crowd?

No F that, if you are going to waste time making that garbage, while you could be making the game playable for people who are willing to spend money on it, you will not see another cent from me... I might try playing this every once in a while still, but you will not get a ******** penny!

[Banditman]

Here you go: Terrible idea.

1. This community is not NEARLY large enough to split up in the manner being described.

2. It completely ruins the game to have 3rd person in it.



What I would support is a "training" server where there are no custom mechs (Trials only), where no CBills or XP are awarded and which no statistics are kept from which new players who truly have a trouble visualizing can go and use 3rd person to get a better feel for exactly what's going on.

[gregsolidus]

Aegis Kleais, on 14 November 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Er....umm.....

YOU WANT 3RD PERSON MECHWARRIOR?!

WAIT TIL COLLISIONS ARE REINTRODUCED AND KEEP GETTING KNOCKED DOWN OVER AND OVER!

[CocoaJin]

I dont like the idea. Every game has a learning curve, either you want to invest the time or you dont...those who dont, wont hang around for long anyway.

A better positional indicators would suffice in bridging the gap.

[BloodLegacy]

I'm personally indifferent. It really might be a good idea for training purposes, If the game had some kind of interactive tutorial with training missions and such I think it would be a good way for the uninitiated to become familiar with the finer points of throttle and movement being indepentent of looking/firing. That being said, I don't think it has a place in matchmaking.

[Cassius Brown]

Horrible idea. If people want to see what their mech looks like, give them an option to view it from all angles in the mechbay.

[Dagger6T6]

Aegis Kleais, on 14 November 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Er....umm.....

YOU WANT 3RD PERSON MECHWARRIOR?!

WAIT TIL COLLISIONS ARE REINTRODUCED AND KEEP GETTING KNOCKED DOWN OVER AND OVER!

i happen to believe 3rd person animation doesn't belong in the knockdown mechanics either... but i get your point

[Soy]

Having GPS on your phone, does that ruin your driving experience by taking away some of the perspective?

Or what about those pesky side mirrors, does it take away from some of the immersiveness? Ruining the ambiance, eh?

What about mini vans with backup cameras, is it not plausible that this amazing technology could still exist in the year 3050? Or a tiny camera on a wire 5 feet above you - WOW that's impossible even though 100 ton walking robots aren't.

[AlbinoSlug]

Deeeeeerrrrrrr Don't like it? don't use it, sounds like alot of the people here just want to ruin someone else's fun.


Grow up.

[Stonehouse]

Definitely no is my opinion. As many others have said the time would be better spent on either adding a sandbox training level for new players (and also experienced players to range test mech designs) so they get the hang of things without the combat to distract them or improve HUD symbology to increase situational awareness of the player about things like torso twist etc.Perhaps add configurable MFDs to the cockpit so that the player can cycle through different displays and add things like a rear view camera feed if that would help. Implementing support for TrackIR and/or the free head tracking apps would be a better spend of money and improve people's in game experience. For most simulation players the attraction is feeling the immersion of being in a mech cockpit. Add 3rd person and that immersion is gone. The only place for 3rd person would be if you added a spectator spot so people could watch/record a battle. In fact implementing a battle recorder on each mech so you could rewatch a game and learn from what people did well or you did badly would be better than just adding 3rd person in match.

If you feel you must do this then somehow implement it so that it can be disabled at a server level so the arcade/xbox guys can do their 3rd person thing and the serious players can stay in the cockpit without having 3rd person players ruin their games. It is a HUGE increase in advantage for a player to be in third person.

[Aegis Kleais]

Dagger6T6, on 14 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

i happen to believe 3rd person animation doesn't belong in the knockdown mechanics either... but i get your point

I think the devs, for whatever programmatic reasoning they had, said that having the player maintain a 1st person view while a Mech fell down during a procedural, physics-based ragdoll collapse, was a near-impossibility.

That's too bad, too, cause even though it would have been disorientating, it would be crazy to go through; landing on the ground with a loud thump and crash.

[DoktorVivi]

Maybe in a training mode / tutorial thing. If you're not used to direction of travel not being direction of looking (torso-twisting), it can be weird to adjust at first.

[Angst]

No thank you. 3rd person was stupid in the previous mech games, unless it's possible to implement it without giving any advantage over 1st person play.

[Hikyuu]

von Pilsner, on 14 November 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

A. In MW4 the convergence was the same in 3rd person as was the accuracy.


B. The ability to see over hills and around corners is exacerbated when your tank has jump jets.

A: yes but not in MWO, that was the point i was making. Mechwarrior 4's mechanics were awful. MWO's are much better, 3rd person will be difficult to aim properly

B. are you really suggesting that of the few mechs that have jumpjets that this will make them any more useful than they currently are? considering that weapon loadouts in MWO are much more diverse than say, MW4. I highly doubt poptart snipers are going to resume. considering that JJ's also damage your legs like they did traditionally for jumping too high.

I'm just saying, with or without third person, you'll notice no change in how easily you kill things.

this isn't indicating i'm for 3rd person, I'm just tired of people not weighing the pro's and con's and understanding things, rather than going on here to flame. someone has to be the voice of reason here. i could care less either way as it doesn't directly effect my player experience or enjoyment of the game. I'll probably still stay in cockpit because i learned in MW4 that using 3rd person cams made you **** awful.

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

[RG Notch]

Dakkath, on 14 November 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Listen to the podcast again. They aren't going to mix modes.

Yet! Just like they weren't going to implement 3rd person unless they could do it without unfair advantages.

[Guido]

TruePoindexter, on 14 November 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Wow. I never said I had a problem understanding this game. But apparently I do now? Also alienation and exclusion are cool now I guess? And someone else liked it? I'm at a loss for words.

How does adding 3rd person camera change any of the concepts of heat management, role warfare, and weapon selection. You will still need to lead your shots and target sections of your enemy. All that changes is that for some people they don't get stock on that building as often and in some cases you might be able to see over a hill that you otherwise normally couldn't. And that somehow makes it a "thoughtless point and shoot game?"




Isn't that kind of like how computers are all interacted with the same way and how all tablets work more or less the same? I guess that's a bad thing now? I guess we should throw out the concept of user expectations: http://en.wikipedia....er_expectations



How Machiavellian of you. They deserve it do they? It's within their power after all. But is it really? Look at how fervently I am getting negative feedback because I side with the inexperienced player despite having been a hardcore MW and BT fan for decades. Now imagine the flaming a new player receives for saying that they find the game difficult.

Just a little excerpt from the references used by the wikipedia link you posted.

Scott Berkun:"How to Avoid Foolish Consistency" said:

When Is Consistency Bad?

In rare cases, consistency can become a self-perpetuating monster: It has to be used for a purpose. A foolish consistency is one that serves no benefit for the end user. Making things look and work the same is pointless if the user can no longer accomplish their tasks. Rank making things useful above making them consistent. An example is interfaces for video games. Imagine your company was developing two video games, a driving game and a Pac-Man game. The best UI for the driving game would be a steering wheel, but the Pac-Man game would work better with a joystick and some buttons. Trying to design one UI to use for both of these games would be a disaster. At best you’d reach a middle ground that wasn’t good at anything. Consistency applied to certain user tasks can make the user experience worse, not better. Consistency does not guarantee usability. It generally helps a user interface, but there are no guarantees in interface design. In this video game example you would have to choose between the user’s cost of learning two different specialized UIs against learning one UI they could reapply but wasn’t well suited to any of the tasks they wanted to do.

In this case, PGI is trying to make two interfaces for one game, which are conflicting, drastically different game styles. 3rd person is not well suited to mechwarrior as a simulation first-person tactical shooter, which is why Hawken is a different game, and will be like the hundreds of other F2P that don't really get off the ground.

It's not welcome among at least 1k of the forum population. While it may be a minority, this has only been up for less than 24 hours, and already has heavy forum-population resistance to it. This is a beta. PGI is specifically looking for the opinion of the vocal community, because that's who's talking to them and some are trying to help them make a better game.

As far as the Founder's players go, I don't think they feel more entitled because they paid. I think they feel more entitled because they have gone through the phases of the learning curve, and know what's behind it. It's not hard to get past. My team still tears up entire PuG and premade groups, because the learning curve is long and you can always improve. Creating something to teach people how to pilot helps the learning curve tremendously, but it has to be interactive. Most people never learn by watching a video, and neither has my company.

Get the matchmaking phase three into play, and you'll see a considerable drop in the learning curve, because new players won't become matched up with 5-month veteran players of the game.

[mechymike]

The last time PGI got this kind of response from the community was over the first announcement about going into open beta. They waited what, a few weeks before going ahead anyway? Can we expect the same outcome?

Keep spitting in the faces of your customers PGI, your stacks of money get smaller every time you do! This should have never even been a question at all, bringing it up to the community was just disrespectful!

Edited by mechymike, 14 November 2012 - 03:01 PM.