35 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think it's general consensus in our Community that "1st person-only" players (herein referred to as "1st person" players) and people who want the 3rd person option to be toggleable in-match (referred to as "3rd person" players) should not generally be playing in the same match. 3rd person "corner peeking" is a cheating measure when used in a 1st person context, and this is an established fact.

"Gotta keep'em separated."

I [personally] have no immediate problem with them allowing 3rd person players to play together on their own and letting 1st person players continue playing together unaffected by their presence... however, with that said, I am wondering how PGI plans to implement a Community Warfare environment where you have to prevent the blending of these player bases. Since Clan/House/Merc Corp leaders will have the choice of setting the match preferences, this leaves a list of questions.

• Are certain planetary contracts going to be reserved for bidding ONLY between Mercenary Organizations that predetermined whether they run in 3rd or 1st person groups?
  
• Are planetary defenders going to have the Final Say if their group will be running1st/3rd?
  
• Will the separation of 1st and 3rd person players increase the chances of dropping with a less-than-full team once we get to scheduled Planetary Territory matches?
  
• How will statistics be tracked/compared across these player groups, since they probably won't play too much together?
  
• Will "Historical Battles" and other significant event have to be played in duplicate to let everyone play fairly?

This thread is for discussing how they could meld these game types together when we're all fighting over the same territories.


I'm opening this up as a topic of discussion among the more "emotionally-charged" threads that exist. Please refrain from simply bashing 3rd person here, as this is the wrong thread for that. If you want to express general displeasure with 3rd person, then please post your comments in the various pro/anti 3rd person threads in the forums. i have already done that, myself.

This is not meant to be a venting thread, but rather a knitting thread.

Any ideas on how Community Warfare can prevent itself from becoming splintered by the segregation of 1st and 3rd person players?

[RG Notch]

The simple answer will be that before CW comes PGI will go back on the separation, just like they went back on no 3rd person until it was balanced. That's how the melding will occur.

[Taryys]

Hmmm... Perhaps a contract will be filled and matched based on who is taking the contract on both sides.
If a team takes the Kurita side first and is 1st person only then the contract will be available only to a group who will play 1st person. Second contract acceptance will based off the first team's preferences.

Howz that sound?

[von Pilsner]

Either split the community in half or force them to play together... Not a lot of wiggle room.

[Zyllos]

It can't be. It will 100% split the community.

It also opens the door for the Comunity Warfare to be "dumbed" down (which is what happened with the skill trees). If you allow the 1st/3rd Person, then matches will have to include pre-sets. This then entails that contracts and matches are now just setup during the Community Warfare. Who knows that all else is going to be pre-configured. This totally removes the draw of Community Warfare that was given by PGI earlier.

[Ockow]

1st person only in community warfare, Sent they said that 3rd person is for training only it's should not be use in the more advance modes of the game.

Edited by Ockow, 14 November 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Taryys]

My preference.

Ockow, on 14 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

1st person only in community warfare, Since they said that 3rd person is for training only it's should not be use in the more advance modes of the game.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Taryys, on 14 November 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Hmmm... Perhaps a contract will be filled and matched based on who is taking the contract on both sides.
If a team takes the Kurita side first and is 1st person only then the contract will be available only to a group who will play 1st person. Second contract acceptance will based off the first team's preferences.

Howz that sound?

Sounds like that proposition would set the Planetary Defenders in charge of determining whether or not they will be facing 1st or 3rd person opponents by forcing the contract to be open only to who they want it open to, and the X-person perspective of the game is set-in-stone prior to the match even taking place (as it's stipulated in the contract).

This would be fair to the defenders, as they were there first. How would you feel, though, if your Mercenary Corporation cannot invade a planet because the defenders insist on 3rd person when your group runs 1st person?

Ockow, on 14 November 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

1st person only in community warfare, Sent they said that 3rd person is for training only it's should not be use in the more advance modes of the game.

3rd person in training-only would QUICKLY expand to fully-playable 3rd person, since players will learn to play the game in third person and demand to keep playing in the way they learned. If their cries got 3rd-person in the game, it'll get 3rd-person fully-integrated, as well.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 November 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[Taryys]

Not the people submitting the contract. The first people to accept the contract. Attacker of defender.
I never said my idea was perfect. I was just a possibility.

As I understand it there will be multiple battles for each planet, so each side will get the opportunity. They could duplicate each contract - one for each perspective just to be fair.

People who play 1st person and do not mind playing against 3rd person people can still accept those 3rd person accepted contracts..

[Taryys]

I agree completely and I really do not want 3rd person for much of the reason you posted.

Didn't you not want to talk about this?

Prosperity Park, on 14 November 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

3rd person in training-only would QUICKLY expand to fully-playable 3rd person, since players will learn to play the game in third person and demand to keep playing in the way they learned. If their cries got 3rd-person in the game, it'll get 3rd-person fully-integrated, as well.

[AlanEsh]

I'm going to keep posting this in these topics...

Quote

How about they just make it so when in 3rd person view you can't fire weapons. Give the pilot a grainy "chase cam" view and the ability to steer, jump, etc, but that's all.

And, corner peeking isn't much of a cheat if it doesn't actually move the mech sensors around the corner... so you won't see anything but additional terrain (which we already pretty much know like the backs of our hands anyway at this point with only 4 maps). And I'm not sure how being able to see a mech that your teammate has already lit up is much of an advantage.

BUT -- to your point: Splitting the player base is SERIOUSLY stupid at present, and doubly so when the meta game begins.
If the devs take this ill-advised path, then my guess is that they will restrict planetary conquest battles to 1st Person only. Hardcore battle for the hardcore conquests.

[TheMightyWashburn]

It will not mix in any easy or continent way imo.

[Dagger6T6]

hmmm seems the easy answer is don't add 3rd person... but since there is probably about 4% of the total player base that crave a 3rd person view PGI will make this priority #1


besides I thought "alt F4" already toggled the 3rd person view on?

[Hikaru Shizuka]

I think perhaps it's worth looking at the larger implications of the recent topics of matchmaking groups vs pugs, now another separate matchmaker, is PGI even thinking about community warfare anymore? It's like 12 person teams, I think most of us have figured out that isn't happening anytime soon due to the way the game is played, maps would all have to be redesigned and the matchmaker/group system would need to be remade to accommodate 12 mechs a side. Perhaps someday we'll have 12 person teams and community warfare. Perhaps someday we'll have the mech simulator we were sold as well.

[SquareSphere]

make 3rd person a piece of equipment that weights 4-5 tons but cheap to buy in the mechlab. That way 3rd persons have easy access to it BUT they get a weighty disadvantage. I think you'll see it as a training crutch. People might start out with it but will learn to 1st person just to get the 4-5 tons back.

Call it's advance senors or something, it's not canon but it's a decent compromise.

[Taryys]

Interesting thought... sizeable tonnage and crit cost and lock them into 3rd person games, until they get more serious or competitive... Interesting.

SquareSphere, on 14 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

make 3rd person a piece of equipment that weights 4-5 tons but cheap to buy in the mechlab. That way 3rd persons have easy access to it BUT they get a weighty disadvantage. I think you'll see it as a training crutch. People might start out with it but will learn to 1st person just to get the 4-5 tons back.

Call it's advance senors or something, it's not canon but it's a decent compromise.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Angelicon, on 14 November 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

...corner peeking isn't much of a cheat if it doesn't actually move the mech sensors around the corner...

Looking around the corner is the cheat, not lighting things up with sensors.

I don't see how they can "enable" 3rd person if they lock it out of Planetary Conquest because that's going to be the main game... I mean, the Matchmaker will be dropping Pick-Up Gamers into Territory fights of Planetary Conquest.

Where else would you use 3rd person, if not Solaris? That's the ONLY option.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 November 2012 - 11:19 AM.

[SuomiWarder]

We are making an assumption that we will actually get community warfare and that the things originally written about by PGI and Pirahna with planetary captures and such will actually materialize.

I saw several definate "this game will not be 3rd person" posts from the same dev that just said that it is on the way. Why should I believe any posts that we'd get a useful community warfare meta-game? That would just complicate things and turn off the casual players.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Simple, no 3rd person view.

[TLBFestus]

The only way I see it working is to make it a selectable option for the drop that the two teams must agree on.

It's that or make it an individual option, which means the dreaded first and third person players in the same match problem.