3696 replies to this topic

[Johnny Human]

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.

I think you missed the point that it is an absurd scenario to try and expand your audience by simply throwing another genre into the mix. Build on the strength of the genre you are in.

[Alareik]

Absolutely NOT!
Reasons why are as follows:
1st (and most importantly): It screws with formation tactics- I’m an Avid player of another MMO similar to MWO and they utilize a third person option. As a result you can peak around corners before you reach them which reduces ambush abilities.
2^nd: it screws with piloting tactics- one the advantages of a light tank and being able to lose a lock on and line of sight allowing you to spring up someplace else unexpected. Third person would make it easier for pilots to track locations making the lighter tanks easier targets, and reducing the amount for skill needed to affect the outcome of a battle.
3^rd: Yes, it’s a give option, but the fact is it put any player looking for a realist feeling at a disadvantage to anyone using third person (for the above stated reasons)
I agree with some of the other posts on here. I think a third person view would be great for spectator or replay views.
I’m by no means an expert at this game, but as a fan of the old MechWarriors I’m trying to get my MechLegs back. That being said I’d be sad if this turn into just another 3^rd person shooter…
Thanks for taking the time to listen to my opinion.

Edited by Alareik, 03 January 2013 - 07:32 AM.

[LynxFury]

Johnny Human, on 18 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I think you missed the point that it is an absurd scenario to try and expand your audience by simply throwing another genre into the mix. Build on the strength of the genre you are in.

And you sir are missing the point that it's not mixing anything. All they need is to add a 3rd person option on the games so players don't join a match they don't like, as has been done in others. No big deal and doesn't effect the first person gamers one whit if there's other games being played somewhere else where people are enjoying watching their mechs shoot at things. Just as it doesn't bother anyone if the same company also owns several radio stations with different genre--just don't tune into the ones you don't like. It's so easy.

Edited by LynxFury, 18 November 2012 - 06:42 PM.

[Johnny Human]

LynxFury, on 18 November 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

And you sir are missing the point that it's not mixing anything. All they need is to add a 3rd person option on the games so players don't join a match they don't like, as has been done in others. No big deal and doesn't effect the first person gamers one whit if there's other games being played somewhere else where people are enjoying watching their mechs shoot at things. Just as it doesn't bother anyone if the same company also owns several radio stations with different genre--just don't tune into the ones you don't like. It's so easy.

If we are to continue the metaphor, one company owning several radio stations with different genres is more akin to one game company owning different game titles in different genres. Because in the radio business, your station brand is built around your genre. A game brand is also built around the genre. To introduce the third person perspective into what has been built as a first person battle simulator is to dilute the brand of the game.

What you are proposing is a scenario in which effectively the splitting what we now know as Mechwarrior Online into two different games. If you want to have two different games using the Mechwarrior franchise that's fine, but having both under the single brand of MWO does not exactly build upon a singular game identity. If PGI wants to make a sepratate WoT clone with Battlemechs in lieu of tanks that's fine by me. But that game is not the MWO game that I have come to enjoy.

Edited by Johnny Human, 18 November 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[grayson marik]

grayson marik, on 18 November 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Besides all the valid arguments being brought up against 3rd, the most annoying from my point of view is, that they really think 3rd would solve anything for new players....

They will still run into buildings, because if they float behind the mech, torso 90 degree switched to left for example, they will still not see much in the direction they are running.
So the whole argument for 3rd is absolutely pointless and justifies in no way the break of design pattern for the game and of course not even one hour of development time that could be used for the real issues at hand!

If they want to bring in some eye candy for the masses, there are plenty of things they could do without going arcade!

You know, in german there is a saying:

Opium fürs Volk, S.cheisse für die Massen!
Opium for the people, S.hit for the masses! - something close to this in translation it looses a bit of its bite... but never the less, that's what 3rd is: just cheap crap for the dump mass to move it for a very very short time.

3rd is the road to dumb down game depth in order to compete with other arcade like games. But this is not the road to success for such a nice IP like Battletech and Mechwarrior! The road to success imho is to fullfill an authentic sim of Mechwarrior for its dedicated playerbase and to cater to the people, who like sophisticated gaming. Action with depth - a litle bit more than only reflex training for young console gamers.
Grown up people, who like grown up games.

PGI please try to fill the nice that will keep this game rolling for a long time, don't dare challenging WoT and the like!
Most of us are here because this is NOT and feels NOT and looks NOT like ( just for example) WoT!!

3rd is not only a matter of an exploitable view of the battlefield, its a matter of philosophy for a good MW simulation!

And a good majority of your dedicated player base does not wish to follow the philosophy 3rd means!

[LynxFury]

Quote

If we are to continue the metaphor...

With do due respect....as soon as they put "mechwarrior," on it they opened it up to a wide variety of game play that had driven that label in the past. To many that's the easy going, not hard to learn, 3rd person no-heat/icemaps, unlimited side. And those other varieties are every bit as valid as the more complex version you and I like to play.

Edited by LynxFury, 18 November 2012 - 09:47 PM.

[Sean von Steinike]

I am considering buying some more MC but I am holding off. I won't be buying them or playing if they implement this BS for matches. As strictly a training ground tool or as an after match replay feature, that is fine and dandy though.

[Rejarial Galatan]

LynxFury, on 18 November 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

And you sir are missing the point that it's not mixing anything. All they need is to add a 3rd person option on the games so players don't join a match they don't like, as has been done in others. No big deal and doesn't effect the first person gamers one whit if there's other games being played somewhere else where people are enjoying watching their mechs shoot at things. Just as it doesn't bother anyone if the same company also owns several radio stations with different genre--just don't tune into the ones you don't like. It's so easy.

this game has been sold to us, as a strictly FIRST PERSON ONLY GAME. One employee named PAUL INOUYE, their LEAD BLOODY DESIGNER, even so much as STATED THIS AS FACT, going so far, as to well, read:
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

THIS RIGHT HERE, in and of itself is the COMPANY making an open declaration of this as FACT, which, in a court of law, would make them 100% liable for false representation of a product and false advertising if they blatantly disregard this. Adding to the mix, on the tab marked GAME if you scroll down, it states the same very thing, saying that this game is meant to be a SIMULATOR with YOU in the PILOT SEAT. See, adding in third person, would and could open them to litigation for again, false advertising and false representation of the product.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 18 November 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[Johnny Human]

LynxFury, on 18 November 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

With do due respect....as soon as they put "mechwarrior," on it they opened it up to a wide variety of game play that had driven that label in the past. To many that's the easy going, not hard to learn, 3rd person no-heat/icemaps, unlimited side. And those other varieties are every bit as valid as the more complex version you and I like to play.

No, I don't agree with that. They made a decision at the start to bill this particular incarnation of the Mechwarrior franchise as a first person tactical simulation. That is how the game was touted. That was part of the selling point. And that selling point worked. That is the experience that, for many players, makes this particular style of game more appealing than the other varieties. If PGI also want to make a separate third person game with "Mechwarrior" in the name, fine. But trying to do both a casual third person arcade style shooter and a first person tactical simulator under the umbrella of a single game title does not seem like a good idea.

Any successful game needs a strong identity, and adding third person will undermine the identity which this game had already established.

[Bommer]

I'm not thinkin' so. Unless only 3rd person enabled players can ONLY play against other 3rd person enabled players.

[Epok]

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

Edited by Epok, 18 November 2012 - 11:20 PM.

[h0UNd]

Nein! Das ist Verbotten!

[Rejarial Galatan]

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

simple. They have <3rd person viewers> a significantly larger FOV which allows them to see things those in 1st cannot. It allows for seeing over hills and around corners at 0 risk to your mech while in 3rd person, and well, as marketed to us: THIS GAME WILL BE 100% FIRST PERSON ONLY. See also: why people hate mw4's multi player.

[Black Ivan]

Serious waste of ressources. They could have made maps and serious new stuff for the game rather than this gimmik.

[Sarvrin]

No it is not comming and I do hope it will not. I am more than sure that the majority of people here would like something different from the tons of generic FPS games available.

Tutorial purpose? What for? Let people learn the hard way to develop the overal feel of the mech. Once they start in 3rd and move to 1st they will suck at piloting those tons of metal even more.

No league divisions as someone stated.

No test patch with 3rd person view.

No 3rd person at all if we wish this game to remain more tactical and demanding than other shooters.

3rd person? No tactic? Just monkey like agility? Go play Q3, Blacklight and other FPS games. This one should remain tactical and based on team communication. We already have Jenners playing Quake style.

[Eiki]

I just had a thought concerning 3rd Person. Imagine if there was a mode that was like the tabletop game, where each player controlled their own mech and had movement phase and attack phase?

[StandingCow]

Eiki, on 19 November 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

I just had a thought concerning 3rd Person. Imagine if there was a mode that was like the tabletop game, where each player controlled their own mech and had movement phase and attack phase?

I see what you did there.

Edit: If you are talking about Mechwarrior tactics.

Edited by StandingCow, 19 November 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[MidnightGrass]

Why do we need a new camera view to address what the radar already does?

[Thornfoot]

Let them go 3rd person in the mech lab if they just want to drool all over their Mech coolness.

A steep learning curve is the hallmark of the Mechwarrior series. That includes more than just driving and aiming leading and targeting. It includes designing and building a mech with its compromises and tradeoffs, learning to operate THAT particular mech to make full use of its advantages and avoid its weaknesses. Learning and implementing team tactics. becoming competent at Heat management and using cover.

3rd person view and Uber Rambo mechs are for the console gamer crowd. Lets leave that there.

[sahome]

Imo 1.person is the way to go .
But it always makes me shake my head in disbelief seeing a lot of ( presumably new, unfamiliar ones) players who are stuck in what seems to be an endless circling around someone with the same speed not beein able to hit anything at all because they dont seem to realise that theire torso etc cant be twisted more than they already have .