3696 replies to this topic

[IIIuminaughty]

should be played exactly the way it should be played coach!

[TruePoindexter]

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhibit A : Mechlab. It a fairly simple "shopping cart" database frontend, yet it has been plagued by all sorts of issues (crashes, disappearing stuff, not updating properly, no proper item descriptions, etc.) since the start of CBT.

The words "simple" and "shopping cart" should never be used together. No shopping cart is simple. Even the likes of Sony and Microsoft mess this one up often.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhibit B : Weapon balance. While some things like laser bean durations or missile spreads do indeed need to tweaked multiple times before they are "just right", the basic relationships between weapons can be figured out with just a calculator. Especially when you use an existing system as your starting point. Again, has been broken since the start of CBT and the only "progress" we see is swings between "insanely powerful" and "utterly useless".

Balance is always on going. World of Warcraft has been around for a very long time now and is still continually re-balancing.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhibit C : Black list / ignore list. This has been asked for since last winter (way before CBT even started). It's a fairly standard and absolutely necessary feature in virtually all multiplayer games. Still hasn't been implemented.

True but this is not a high priority and is in the works. Plus many games with multiplayer do not feature this.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhibit D : Lobby / out-of-match chat. Same deal as exhibit C - has been asked for since last winter, standard feature virtually everywhere, hasn't been implemented.

In progress, not a huge deal, and again many other games do not feature this.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhinit E : Matchmaker. The ability to drop against a designated team has been asked for since the start of CBT. Matching by some sort of BV has been asked for since the start of CBT. Instead of fixing the temporary version that only matched by weight class (initially it didn't even match by that), we got a 4-man team limit with phase 2 only making it better if your unit has 7-8 people online (dropping 6v8 with no weight/BV limits vs. another organized team is practically a guaranteed loss), still no ability to do any tournaments, and potentially huge problems with phase 3 (ELO matching) and Community Warfare.

This is in progress and would be nice though actually counter to the entire F2P-MMO model. The fact that they're going to implement this at all is very nice of them.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhibit F : Unit designations. A small thing really - people have been asking for an ability to add some sort of unit "acronym" to their callsign in game, so that everybody could see who is who and how they are grouped. Still waiting for that to happen.

I'd love this but as you said it's a minor issue.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exhibit G : Weapon convergence. A convergence system that doesn't tell the pilot where the convergence point currently is and on top of that converges guns on every rock (for no apparent reason btw - why would you ever want your weapons converge on terrain?) is broken by design. We've been asking for a fix since the start of CBT - still waiting for anything to happen

I'm not even sure it's broken so much as flawed. What happens is that convergence is calculated based on where you point your cursor but often there is a delay between when you click the button, when the system calculates the convergence, and when the weapon fires. This can lead to odd cases where in close combat your arms fire into the sky and at a distance the convergence lobs the shell behind the enemy. I do wish this one would be fixed soon.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Plus it would be nice to have more mechs, more maps, more game modes, Community Warfare, etc., but that certainly takes time and qualifies more as enhancements than fixes.

All incoming with the first content patch looking to be the 20th although as we all know that may change.

Putting this into perspective some AAA games I've played recently I've had lovely things like random crashes, framerate loss on specific effects, loss of inventory, bugged game achievements that took a full week to work for. and so on. PGI is doing a good job for something still in beta.

IceSerpent, on 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

So, with all that on their plate, PGI spends quality time "thinking about 3rd person view", knowing full well that the community passionately hates the idea...really?

PGI has to think about their bottom line and part of that is keeping a flow of players coming into the game who spend some money. If the game immediately off puts players due to complexity it must be changed.

[Grabes]

The answer is no.

I might still play if you put it in, but honestly, it would ruin the feel of the game so much.

Who is even complaining about needing a 3rd person view? No one is writing huge lengthy posts demanding they get a 3rd person view anymore.

This is not Forum Effect. This is a horrible, HORRIBLE idea.

3rd person view + jj's + gauss = let jackrabbit all game.

Ya, that's valid right?

[FactorlanP]

Maybe all you twitter folks need to start lighting up the Developers twitter accounts.

[Squidhead Jax]

Pht, on 14 November 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Just something for all the

HELL NO TO 3PV crowd ... and I do understand why you want it that way ...

As long as the developers manage to implement it in a way that does not give the 3PV players any advantage over 1PV players, AND they don't force people to play one way or another ...

It will not change your gameplay experience one iota.


It is entirely possible to do 3pv in a way that fits this to a tee - simply don't render anything in 3PV that can't be seen in 1PV besides your own mech.

So if a player in 1pv can't peek around a corner or over a hill ... neither will a 3pv player.

------

Maybe the anti-3pv crowd needs to take a big breath and instead start asking the developers ...

"HOW ARE YOU GOING TO IMPLEMENT IT?"

... because we can't make a valid judgement if we do not know.

And then how long until the 3pv crowd whines about 1pv players being able to see and shoot objects in partial cover that they can't, because the game doesn't render them until sufficient exposure is registered? And then it becomes stupid like World of Tanks with magically invisible and appearing 'mechs for everyone?

Absolutely not a solution.

[Bishop Steiner]

20k views, and 800 plus response, with what, 1500 or so votes, 90% of which is saying NO>

Yeah, that is not the least bit indicative of the mood of the Mechwarrior Community on the whole.

[Yankee77]

I stand against any kind of third person camera that allows the player to control the mech effectively.

A third person view with no HUD or crosshairs might still work, however.

Thank you.

[Col Forbin]

So you would pander to the people who are complaining about controlling their mech? These people want to play Hawken anyways. They will jump ship to that game at the 1st opportunity. If you give them 3rd-person, then they will demand that the throttle functionality be removed and standard WASD FPS movement be substituted. Then they will want heat management removed. Then they will go play Hawken and forget this game. There is a small portion of your core audience asking for 3rd-person, but they would be satisfied with a free camera replay system (ala Halo 3) to see the mechs after the match. 3rd person only in spectator mode would introduce an unfair "intelligence" advantage to teams on TeamSpeak.

There are myriad reasons why not to introduce third-person and they've been discussed ad nauseum. There are many other ways to compensate for the "torso-twist disconnect." Take the giant arrow that's already in the minimap and make it giant and translucent right in the center of the HUD till you turn it off in the options. Put a small 3D hologram of the mech in the cockpit that illustrates current torso positioning. MAKE A TRAINING AREA with exercises designed to teach maneuvering.

The point is that you have a core audience that is older, has money they're willing to spend, and are already familiar with this mechanic. You will never win over the younger crown en masse as they have been raised on CoD and the like, and Hawken is coming to steal them away anyways.

You cannot implement 3rd person without sacrificing something. Simply the dev time that someone would spend on this instead of other things we care about, like customization options, more maps, etc. The inevitable balancing issues that will conflict with 1st person balancing issues. The fact that the player-base will be fragmented.

This is the SECOND decision you have made to assist newbies and PUGs that is at the expense of alienating your core. (1st being the 4-man group situation.) There has to be a way to get newbies up to speed without ticking off most of your customers.

Lastly, you sold this game as a SIMULATOR. I bought into that. I PAID MONEY into that. I would have had zero interest in this game had it been announced as a "MechAssault" type game.

To sum up my feedback: I want to love this game. I think you are mostly doing a fantastic job under pressure. I understand you are probably having to answer hard questions from publisher and investors. BUT I will request a refund when you implement this feature.

Edited by Col Forbin, 14 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

So, Between this and related posts, you have over 50,000 views, and around 2000 responses, with about 90% who voted on the related poll voting a resounding NO to 3rd person.

Do we really need to maintain the charade?

If there were ever a time to listen to your "constituency", I would say now is it. This could be the issue that truly does sink this game.

[SirLANsalot]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 November 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

20k views, and 800 plus response, with what, 1500 or so votes, 90% of which is saying NO>

Yeah, that is not the least bit indicative of the mood of the Mechwarrior Community on the whole.

Its just showing all the ones who are noisy on the forums

[Archangel943]

I have been playing the beta since I was invited in 2 weeks after close beta started. I have been they the random crashes memory leaks and everything else. I have stood by PGI the entire way completely supporting them. But if 3rd person is added into this game I will be asking for a refund and I would be done with it forever. There is no need for 3rd person in this game

[Vespaer]

Hi PGI,

I would have to say "no" to implementing the third person view into this game. If you actually do end up adding it to the game then i will advocate and try/do my best to get my money back from the founders program considering this game is supposed to be a "mech-simulator". I don't know about anyone else but whenever i go to a place that has a "(insert object here) simulator", there is never an option to go to third person view. Simulation is supposed to be from the viewpoint of your own eyes as if you were controlling/driving whatever you may be doing. In reality, if i had the option to see myself in third person and go and do my daily things all day like that; would i press that button, hell no! The experience comes from the viewpoint.

So please, DO NOT IMPLEMENT THIS FEATURE, YOU WILL LOSE MORE THAN HALF OF YOUR PLAYER BASE.

Thanks.

[Squidhead Jax]

SirLANsalot, on 14 November 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Its just showing all the ones who are noisy on the forums

1500 is way beyond the usual noisy crowd. It's way beyond the usual hangabout crowd, even.

[Bushmaster]

ISN News Flash : - Rumors surge as PGI toys with the idea of 3rd person view... Riots threaten to break out all over the Inner Sphere. Such uproar has not been seen since the Amaris Civil War.


If you get my drift

[Cache]

SirLANsalot, on 14 November 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Its just showing all the ones who are noisy on the forums

A drop in the bucket compared to the total number of players for sure, but show me another topic that has gotten this much of a response from the forum-reading player base. It's a big indication.

[Longtom]

I am angry because you promised you would not add 3rd person, and now here we are.

Now we will see around corners, over hills and buildings, and we will lose the simulator feel of the game - for good.

In order to play competitively, we'll be forced to switch to 3rd person exclusively.

WE, your community, the players who pay your wages, say that we don't want 3rd person.

My son is playing the crap out of MWO just fine without a 3rd person crutch, so I'm not seeing the benefit for new players.

I'll quit and demand a refund if 3rd person is implemented.

[Bishop Steiner]

TruePoindexter, on 14 November 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

The words "simple" and "shopping cart" should never be used together. No shopping cart is simple. Even the likes of Sony and Microsoft mess this one up often.


Balance is always on going. World of Warcraft has been around for a very long time now and is still continually re-balancing.


True but this is not a high priority and is in the works. Plus many games with multiplayer do not feature this.


In progress, not a huge deal, and again many other games do not feature this.


This is in progress and would be nice though actually counter to the entire F2P-MMO model. The fact that they're going to implement this at all is very nice of them.


I'd love this but as you said it's a minor issue.


I'm not even sure it's broken so much as flawed. What happens is that convergence is calculated based on where you point your cursor but often there is a delay between when you click the button, when the system calculates the convergence, and when the weapon fires. This can lead to odd cases where in close combat your arms fire into the sky and at a distance the convergence lobs the shell behind the enemy. I do wish this one would be fixed soon.


All incoming with the first content patch looking to be the 20th although as we all know that may change.

Putting this into perspective some AAA games I've played recently I've had lovely things like random crashes, framerate loss on specific effects, loss of inventory, bugged game achievements that took a full week to work for. and so on. PGI is doing a good job for something still in beta.


PGI has to think about their bottom line and part of that is keeping a flow of players coming into the game who spend some money. If the game immediately off puts players due to complexity it must be changed.

except that the base it seems to be "offputting" is the casual play, wants everything for free pugger army.
Since they are not actually spending 2 red nickels to actually support this game, then, sorry , but I feel that their feelings are less than crucial.

[CaptOven]

As someone who spent their first week in a standard Hunchie and when walking into wall was the least of my troubles. I found it difficult to pilot having not really piloted any tanks since the ancient Clone Wars game for the GC. After a week I was getting there and really a month of pretty solid 3 to 4 hours a day to drive pretty competently. While I felt this was time well spent many of my fiends don't have this sort of time due to them having lives so something needs to be done to help new players.

I can see how 3rd person view would benefit new players and those used the the new very common 3rd person view. I can see how it would have helped me too. And separating the people who are learning from the vets is something that the ultimate matchmaking will do anyway. So a separate server area for people like that would be a kind of training ground in 3rd person. Though it might make some people feel that the jump between 3rd person and 1st too much and never leave it and the Mech usage would be skewed too leading to some wrong assumption about Mech load outs

And I understand that PGI needs to make money so making it easier to get into will make it more profitable.

So that is one possible solution and I wouldn't begrudge it too much as the rest us of can play in 1st person to our hearts content.

However while this is one possible solution (and the easiest) having a step by step tutorial would work very well also. Though you will have to ensure that it's an engaging one. However after a short tutorial most people probably not be able to drive in stress of a combat straight away so to make it any good it will need to be dynamic and changing. Randomly changing the enemy "Mechs on sticks" they have do destroy. By keeping people in there for 10ish hours (collecting c-bills) would at least make them more confident of driving in the servers. Plus using the 4 different Mech types would help with it's length too.

But again all this will take more time than your original solution but I think it would be better in the long run.

The other was suggested by another where you have the option for you Mech "damage" display on the top left in 3d for new people to show you which way the torso is twisting. It would also be fairly cheap to implement but wouldn't give such a help and visually seeing your own Mech but would probably be enough.

I'm certain you'll be able to decide slowly and carefully.

Many thanks for a great game so far!

CaptOven

[Zhyr]

Will people who don't want 3PV be given refunds of all the money they've spent?

Perhaps a small model of their mech could be shown in the cockpit so the new people can see where their legs are?

Edited by Zhyr, 14 November 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[LethalMezzle]

My main concern is that what will happen is that people will have to switch perspectives constantly in order to stay competitive. Third person gives them huge FOV, meaning they can spot Mechs they otherwise wouldn't have noticed, while first person allows them to aim more easily.

I think players will start out in third person, switch to first person whilst in combat and occasionally switch to third person to check a Jenner isn't coming up behing them. Because third-person gives a pretty big advantage over first-person but doesn't completely eliminate the need for first-person.

And if you make it so you can't switch perspectives during a match I would be forced to use third-person anyway if I want to make sure I don't get shot in the back. This is why I don't buy the argument that 'if third person is added you don't have to use it'.

Similarly, Information warfare is a key aspect of this game, which was said by PGI themselves (one of the four pillars of gameplay, right?). 3rd person would compromise that significantly.

And think of the other knock on effects - it would now be much harder to get behind an Assault Mech, indirectly making Lights weaker and Assaults better (although I've given to understand some people would like that). I feel like it's a minefield of potential gameplay implications that should be just avoided.

The only time third person would be fine would be if it is only enabled for spectators and cannot be accessed in game, like in Team Fortress 2 (you can enable it for gameplay, but only by turning on cheats which are obviously disabled by default). Otherwise - no.

Edited by LethalMezzle, 14 November 2012 - 06:38 PM.