3696 replies to this topic

[masohiro]

Discordantone, on 18 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

How about this. Give your new players a 'training area' so that they can do some training of actual educational value, instead of destroying the game that, according to you guys, we paid for, yeah? You can stick 3rd person in there all you like. Also, according to TamperD, there are 43 people viewing this thread, not 1, which is what the thread claims until you rip apart the script for the 'user count' frame. If you're going to hide things, get it right. This isn't 1984 (Orwell Reference for the less-than-well-read), and we know that we aren't alone in this.

Really, as much as I despise third person, like it or not there are players who would like to play the game with a 3rd person option. I can understand why PGI would want to attract them: the amount of players is the lifeblood of the whole game after all. What makes absolutely no sense is betraying the majority of the current playerbase who do love it for sticking to being "sim-only" or whatever.

I do still think having that kind of "beginner" and "regular/hardcore" playlist things would really be the best solution. Think of it this way. Instead of it attacting a bunch of trash n00bs who ruin the game for everyone else, it creates a sandbox for all the children who wanna go pew pew and give PGI more money, while leaving the big boys alone with their fancy wargame simulations. Or something. xD

Edited by masohiro, 18 November 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[Discordantone]

masohiro, on 18 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Really, as much as I despise third person, like it or not there are players who would like to play the game with a 3rd person option. I can understand why PGI would want to attract them: the amount of players is the lifeblood of the whole game after all. What makes absolutely no sense is betraying the majority of the current playerbase who do love it for sticking to being "sim-only" or whatever. I do still think having that kind of "beginner" and "regular/hardcore" playlist things would really be the best solution. Think of it this way. Instead of it attacting a bunch of trash n00bs who ruin the game for everyone else, it creates a sandbox for all the children who wanna go pew pew and give PGI more money, while leaving the big boys alone with their fancy wargame simulations. Or something. xD

Here's the trick > To make C-Bills the older playerbase will drop down and utterly eat the noobs, without using the 3rd person interface anyway. Solves nothing, makes players whine about stronger mode selections, locks players into mode selections, higher tier play freezes. Fin. Been there, done that, have the bad receipts to show the games I've spent money on that did it.

Edited by Discordantone, 18 November 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Wispsy]

If it is about people not seeing their camo then add an option to camera circle your mech as the 10 second time counts down.

[Discordantone]

Wispsy, on 18 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

If it is about people not seeing their camo then add an option to camera circle your mech as the 10 second time counts down.

Why not be able to rotate the mech in the mechlab? Easier to implement.

Edited by Discordantone, 18 November 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[masohiro]

Discordantone, on 18 November 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Here's the trick > To make C-Bills the older playerbase will drop down and utterly eat the noobs, without using the 3rd person interface anyway. Solves nothing, makes players whine about stronger mode selections, locks players into mode selections, higher tier play freezes. Fin. Been there, done that, have the bad receipts to show the games I've spent money on that did it.

Um, I thought we were discussing the whole 3rd versus 1st person issue. The whole pros stomping n00bs thing and broken matchmaker is another debate entirely and I never said that the playlist thing alone would solve anything in regards to the lopsided matchmaker.

Oh, a personal opinion here but I'll mention it anyway. I'd rather the munchkins who play only the "easier" playlists to farm cbills or whine about that kind of stupid crap to stay away from the better playlists anyway.

Edited by masohiro, 18 November 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Wispsy]

Discordantone, on 18 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Why not be able to rotate the mech in the mechlab? Easier to implement.

Because I would not mind seeing my mech standing at the base we are about to defend in all its cool camo.
I just really do not ever want 3rd person playing in any way or form in this fps mech sim

Edit: Also they seem to have a lot of issues with their browser mechlab. I am not sure it would really be so simple.

Edited by Wispsy, 18 November 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[Wildcat]

arkani, on 14 November 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

In NoGutsNoGalaxy podcast "Mechs, Devs, & Beer #2: Russ Bullock" it was announced. 3rd Person view is coming. Why and How? It seems new players have problem with torso twist, legs and movement and the coordination required to pilot the mech, according to Russ. So they want to help, by showing via the 3rd person view. They also plan to add a "way" to define wich type of play the match will have: 1st person, 3rd person or both. This can be done via your House/Merc/Clan settings on community warfare. So you will be able to choose only to play against other 1st person players, or 3rd, or allow any of the two. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// EDIT 1 PGI has created an offcial thread (below) i ask all of you to CAST YOUR VOTE ABOVE, (TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME), then go to officcial thread and voice your concerns, opinions and suggestions. EDIT: Please send your feedback to this OFFICIAL specifically created thread //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// EDIT 2 This thread has a compilation of the community sugestions for BETTER alternatives to the 3rd Person. Go there and "like it". http://mwomercs.com/...w-alternatives/ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// WE ARE THE GAME, LET OUR VOICE BE HEARD

im just gonna copy and paste from another topic....

we need to see this 3rd person view in game first before anyone can make judgements about it....

if the 3rd Person view does not pick up undetected units, then I see no problem whatsoever.... seeing around corners is not really that advantageous....

if the 3rd person view is a computerized representation of current instrument data... shows nothing more than you already know from your Radar and other instruments... then I see no problem...

[James DeGriz]

The game doesn't need a 3rd person view to help new players. New players need to learn to play the game just like everyone else. There is and should be a learning curve associated with a game that describes itself as a "1st person simulation".

There is a very simple existing mechanic that allows a player to very simply and quickly identify which way their legs are pointing in relation to their torso on the hud. Show them how to use existing informational devices instead of consuming valuable resources introducing utterly unnecessary new ones.

[Lugh]

Wildcat, on 18 November 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

im just gonna copy and paste from another topic.... we need to see this 3rd person view in game first before anyone can make judgements about it.... if the 3rd Person view does not pick up undetected units, then I see no problem whatsoever.... seeing around corners is not really that advantageous.... if the 3rd person view is a computerized representation of current instrument data... shows nothing more than you already know from your Radar and other instruments... then I see no problem...

No we don't. It's a colossal waste of development time.

1) Net code
2)weapon balancing
3) Net code
4) Mech implementation
5) Collisions back in with knockdown, and Death from above
6) Net Code.
7) More maps.
8) Community warfare.
9) Net code.

See that list? THERE is a TON of stuff that needs doing long before you put in the 3rd person view in a trainer for those that stink at video games.

[MrTarget]

Only kind of third person should be an External View with no HUD so you can see your mech from the outside.

No to 3rd person.

Edited by MrTarget, 18 November 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[Solumbra]

Lugh, on 18 November 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

No we don't. It's a colossal waste of development time. 1) Net code 2)weapon balancing 3) Net code 4) Mech implementation 5) Collisions back in with knockdown, and Death from above 6) Net Code. 7) More maps. 8) Community warfare. 9) Net code. See that list? THERE is a TON of stuff that needs doing long before you put in the 3rd person view in a trainer for those that stink at video games.

This. Thisthisthisthisthisthis.

[ulziel]

I dont wnat or think this game needs a 3rd person view. I probly will not play as much and might just quit if it comes out. It would allow to much advantage to some mechs like an Atlas that could see a light sneaing up on his back

[Valcoer]

well the official feedback page is locked so it seems they no longer want feedback on this topic. And all before I got to put my two cents in. well here is my two cents anyway.

1. the need for a method of training noobies about torso twisting and other such in cockpit manevuers is great. however, instead of taking time away from the actual development of the game in order to candy coat the game for someone that doesnt want to be in first person, will never put the effort into learning how to fly first person, or who has no friends to help him learn first person, you should give us more control over our drops. we can not drop into an empty map to learn or teach players how to pilot their mechs. every attempt to learn must currently be under battlefield conditions. so the new pilot that has no clue about torso twisting must not only learn it while under fire but learn it while other pilots are cursing him for not knowing how to manevuer his mech. So it would seem that third person is the way to help them but that is so wrong on so many levels that I will only enumerate the most important of them. First it does absolutely nothing to teach a player how to fly first person and reinforces the fact that if they wine enough you will give in from your principles and give the five or six players that actually want third person what they want. second, it takes time away from developing important features such as community warfare in order to add a feature to the game that no one wants and in fact will alienate most of your audience. third, we have asked you nicely not too and that should be enough.

2. this issue is mainly about noobs not understanding what can be done because the only view they get is from the cockpit. now I applaud your you tube videos that attempt to be a tutorial for the game but they fall way short of what is needed. What is needed is a sandbox an open map with no enemies for individual and groups to learn to operate their mechs in. I have been saying this since my first day in the game when I had no clue how to do anything and I had to learn it under fire and wait for the match to end in order to consider how to continue training. and way more important to the game than third person view point is a global chat channel for all players to chat on the home page get rid of the social button and put all that on the same page so you dont have to keep opening and closing to work and chat make the client larger so you can put more stuff on it such as chat. and put in the house com channels. all this needs to be done way more than pandering to whineing people who have never before been a part of this community and who will most likely only play if they get a third person view.

Edited by Valcoer, 18 November 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[Discordantone]

Valcoer, on 18 November 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

well the official feedback page is locked so it seems they no longer want feedback on this topic. And all before I got to put my two cents in. well here is my two cents anyway. 1. the need for a method of training noobies about torso twisting and other such in cockpit manevuers is great. however, instead of taking time away from the actual development of the game in order to candy coat the game for someone that doesnt want to be in first person, will never put the effort into learning how to fly first person, or who has no friends to help him learn first person, you should give us more control over our drops. we can not drop into an empty map to learn or teach players how to pilot their mechs. every attempt to learn must currently be under battlefield conditions. so the new pilot that has no clue about torso twisting must not only learn it while under fire but learn it while other pilots are cursing him for not knowing how to manevuer his mech. So it would seem that third person is the way to help them but that is so wrong on so many levels that I will only enumerate the most important of them. First it does absolutely nothing to teach a player how to fly first person and reinforces the fact that if they wine enough you will give in from your principles and give the five or six players that actually want third person what they want. second, it takes time away from developing important features such as community warfare in order to add a feature to the game that no one wants and in fact will alienate most of your audience. third, we have asked you nicely not too and that should be enough. 2. this issue is mainly about noobs not understanding what can be done because the only view they get is from the cockpit. now I applaud your you tube videos that attempt to be a tutorial for the game but they fall way short of what is needed. What is needed is a sandbox an open map with no enemies for individual and groups to learn to operate their mechs in. I have been saying this since my first day in the game when I had no clue how to do anything and I had to learn it under fire and wait for the match to end in order to consider how to continue training. and way more important to the game than third person view point is a global chat channel for all players to chat on the home page get rid of the social button and put all that on the same page so you dont have to keep opening and closing to work and chat make the client larger so you can put more stuff on it such as chat. and put in the house com channels. all this needs to be done way more than pandering to whineing people who have never before been a part of this community and who will most likely only play if they get a third person view.

Eh on the main thread they link you to this one, so I am guessing that they still want to be told no.

[SirLANsalot]

funny thing about forum polls, you can make fake accounts and vote as many times as you want. Since this is open beta anyone can make an account and vote.

If this was closed beta it would be different since only certain people could get in, but its not so any polls made now are just bogus.

[Johnny Human]

masohiro, on 18 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Really, as much as I despise third person, like it or not there are players who would like to play the game with a 3rd person option. I can understand why PGI would want to attract them: the amount of players is the lifeblood of the whole game after all. What makes absolutely no sense is betraying the majority of the current playerbase who do love it for sticking to being "sim-only" or whatever.

Let's create a metaphor. You want to open a radio station. You pick a format for your station. Say, classic rock. So you go out and tell everybody in town about your radio station, and all the people who love classic rock are now listening to your radio station. But then you look out and see there are a bunch of other people that listen to different types of music. Hey, let's try to attract some of those listeners too! So you decide in order to try and attract more listeners, you're going to play hip hop as well as classic rock. Seems so logical, doesn't it? All you need to do to expand your audience is throw in another genre. So, how long do you think this hypothetical station playing two different genres of music will survive?

Trying to attract one type of player will alienate another. This game was designed from the ground up to be a first person battle simulation. That is its genre. That mechanism is deeply incorporated into the gameplay. Or as one of the developers put it, a "pillar of the game." I would go so far as to say it is part of the spirit of this game.

The first player simulation mechanism is the selling point of this game, not a liability, and PGI should strive to build a game which markets that selling point. Provide guidance to new players with tutorials. Build a upon the character of the simulation gameplay to create a strong identity that is unique to MWO.

Do not introduce a game mechanic which subvert one of the core things that gives this game its sense of character.

Edited by Johnny Human, 18 November 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[Squidhead Jax]

SirLANsalot, on 18 November 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

funny thing about forum polls, you can make fake accounts and vote as many times as you want. Since this is open beta anyone can make an account and vote. If this was closed beta it would be different since only certain people could get in, but its not so any polls made now are just bogus.

While it's possible, one could also claim that most of the votes in favor are sockpuppets and have just as much actual evidence (that is, none) backing such a claim.

[LynxFury]

Quote

Let's create a metaphor. You want to open a radio station. You pick a format for your station. Say, classic rock. So you go out and tell everybody in town about your radio station, and all the people who love classic rock are now listening to your radio station. But then you look out and see there are a bunch of other people that listen to different types of music. Hey, let's try to attract some of those listeners too! So you decide in order to try and attract more listeners, you're going to play hip hop as well as classic rock. Seems so logical, doesn't it?

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?

[Johnny Human]

SirLANsalot, on 18 November 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

funny thing about forum polls, you can make fake accounts and vote as many times as you want. Since this is open beta anyone can make an account and vote. If this was closed beta it would be different since only certain people could get in, but its not so any polls made now are just bogus.

This is such a common thing to do every time a poll shows you evidence that you want to ignore. Claim with no factual evidence that the poll is bogus, claim it is not to be believed, claim that the supporters of your own point of view are under-represented.

You can believe what you will, but that doesn't really work out so well (as a relevant example from recent history, see Nate Silver vs. conservative pundits).

So no, the poll does not become bogus just because someone would like to think so.

Edited by Johnny Human, 18 November 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[Devils Advocate]

SirLANsalot, on 18 November 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

funny thing about forum polls, you can make fake accounts and vote as many times as you want. Since this is open beta anyone can make an account and vote.

If this was closed beta it would be different since only certain people could get in, but its not so any polls made now are just bogus.

Are you suggesting that somebody went out of their way to design a bot to make new accounts and keep voting on this ONE poll that PGI will undoubtedly overlook? Really?