2926 replies to this topic

[Randodan]

River Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

What I am saying JOY TOY is that if the Torso twist Box that lock the feet at 140% lift and right you keyboard Jocks would not be crying about 3 person play right now

Is "lift and right" like the old "duck and cover" meme? I don't get it either...

[McKhaye]

Jaroth Winson, on 28 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

1. We are speaking from experience. It ruined MW4.
2. We were promised First Person only, so how about the developers stick to their word?

1. So if they do it like it was done in MW4 it might "ruin" (Exaggerate much?) the game. But if they do it in one of the hundred other ways possible, it might not be as bad.

In either case 3pv is in the "Just thinking about it" phase, and they've implied that they know about the line-of-sight advantages it can give and will be working on that if they do anything at all.

2. If they promised that then they should stick with it I guess? But it's not the end of the world if they don't? Also what was the exact wording of this "promise", I'm curious.

Also some of those 3pv implementations (tutorial only, or "bot/newb" game only) don't really break the promise of a hardcore First Person mech game anyway, so. You know, try not to jump to too many conclusions.

But like I've said a bunch of times: Being against 3pv is fine. Freaking out and pretending the devs said things they actually haven't is childish.

EDIT:

Monky, on 28 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

1001 posts... obviously a contentious issue. I hope PGI are taking the issue as seriously as the community.

I hope they aren't. If they took it that seriously they'd all be committing ritual seppuku for even having dared to ever think putting a 3rd person learning aid in might help some newbs.

I do hope they listen and avoid having it in any fashion that would actually affect their hardcore base.

I also wouldn't blame them at all if, in the future, they stopped paying much attention to some of the outspoken MW fanboys, because it's apparent there's a fraction of them that can't seriously, rationally consider what ideas may or may not be in the best interest of the future of the game.

And before the inevitable "No I will not consider 3rd person in serious matches!"; that's just the point. PGI said they were just thinking about using 3rd person in some form to help new players, and many players demonstrated that they couldn't stop to properly read that statement, and they couldn't stop to properly consider the possibilities for the game. Instead they jumped right to the worst conclusion and all had a collective meltdown about it.

Edited by McKhaye, 28 November 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[HipposChloros]

Randodan, on 28 November 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I can see something like that as a third person option, because it wouldn't affect the actual gameplay.

It would affect gameplay. Players can use the camera to look over and around obstacles without presenting their mechs.

[repete]

Valcoer, on 28 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

...did any of you listen to the pod cast?

Yes. Yes I did. And my interpretation of:

"...but there's no denying that if we want MWO to achieve the next level of players is that we need 3rd person..."

...is:

"[We have to open the appeal of the game beyond hardcore Mechwarrior / sim fans who want a first person only view, to those who want a third person view, who are typically more casual gamers usually of the younger male demographic, because that's where the money is]".

EDIT: Grammar

Edited by repete, 28 November 2012 - 02:49 PM.

[JadeViper]

HipposChloros, on 28 November 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

It would affect gameplay. Players can use the camera to look over and around obstacles without presenting their mechs.

Please read deeper into this thread. There are a number of ways it can be incorporated that prohibit unfair view peeking. I bet most people here with the problem solving capacity beyond a 7 year old could invent a few ways that a 3rd person cam could be fair. The Nay-sayers just a) don't take the time to read or b ) ignore valid options that allow 3rd person to be fair and meaningful.

Quote

1001 posts...

I would predict that there are very few unique posters though. Translation, a few loud guys has the illusion of being big. That would actually be a neat filter to run; how many individuals actually posted. I'd say maybe 200, tops. Its a small number relative to the population nonetheless. I've had 5, 6 posts in here. I would image that is dwarfed by a handful of posters (I almost said contributors there! That wouldda been a funny joke).

Edited by JadeViper, 28 November 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[repete]

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

I bet most people here with the problem solving capacity beyond a 7 year old could invent a few ways that a 3rd person cam could be fair.

What does that say of people who can't figure out:

Move in the direction of your feet, look in the direction of your torso, as shown by two indicators on their HUD?

As has been stated by many others, IF the idea behind 3PV IS founded in inexperienced player frustration, then a new player tutorial really should be able to handle most of that. At the least it would be a freaking YouTube video for my sake, which I could whip up (Including editing) in an hour, with zero valuable dev time spent.

But again. Patience level of what I believe is the demographic they probably want to hone in on is zero. "Watch an instructional video? No way. I wanna blow stuff up! Hey! Why am I not moving? What going on? Why am I dead? Your game sucks!".

EDIT: Added second paragraph
EDIT^2: Added last paragraph
EDIT the 3rd: Changed "YouTube" to "instructional" because they DO watch lots of YouTube videos. Just not educational ones.

Edited by repete, 28 November 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[shotokan5]

Now I remember a button that the game would be first person only I ran a server for some league games.

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Please read deeper into this thread. There are a number of ways it can be incorporated that prohibit unfair view peeking. I bet most people here with the problem solving capacity beyond a 7 year old could invent a few ways that a 3rd person cam could be fair. The Nay-sayers just a) don't take the time to read or b ) ignore valid options that allow 3rd person to be fair and meaningful.


I would predict that there are very few unique posters though. Translation, a few loud guys has the illusion of being big. That would actually be a neat filter to run; how many individuals actually posted. I'd say maybe 200, tops. Its a small number relative to the population nonetheless. I've had 5, 6 posts in here. I would image that is dwarfed by a handful of posters (I almost said contributors there! That wouldda been a funny joke).

It is good to know that people can think reason and understand they can't have everything they may want. As for the ranting of whacked keyboard. If a person plays one way or the other is fine with me. Some of the best players I have ever seen play that way. By the way. I am for first person but if that is so and you look into the cockpit of a mech they have a throttle and a stick. Guess you can play with an m+k. Its not in the real game. What we all want in the end is a mech warrior game that becomes popular and is around longer than I will. My belief not taking angles and measuring tapes is that if you want a first person view it needs to be more open. Drive a car with no back windows or mirrors. Please put me on you life insurance. Anyone be they for whatever style have to agree with that. In early Beta that was one of the biggest rants no rear view and a bad side one. You don't hear that now because now their is a new axe to grind. By the way try playing this game only use an old mouse with a ball on the bottom , that's one reason joysticks were so popular at the time. And a lot of adults and youngers still like the realistic feel of the stick. Be happy the game is getting better. Being able to have new weapons load outs that we make I remember that was the big rant before this game but who seems to remember that? The makers must have played the game or that is not the first thing they said. Make your own load outs . Don't worry be happy. Its from an old song. but true it will be ok in the end if you make a rational statement not a rant. Please trust me most at the company want first person and a joystick that works.

[JadeViper]

If the reason to not ahve 3rd person is "it'll only be used by stupid people," then why not? Just to spite those players? Let's pretend that that's the case. I'd agree that most of the gaming community is immature and requires immidiate gratification. What American doesn't?

This still holds true regardless of why you are anti-3rd. (copied from above, quoted from the podcast):

Quote

"...but there's no denying that if we want MWO to achieve the next level of players is that we need 3rd person..."

So let's crush 3rd person before putting it through it paces. That way, revenue dries up, and population of active players slowly depreciates. Now MWO starts shrinking from today forward, and we'll neve see hte grand 12 v 12 house v house.

WE, the 1st person hardcore players should be encouraging anything that makes us bigger and better, and supports PGI. So if you want MWO to die a premature death, keep up the "no"s.

Edited by JadeViper, 28 November 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[repete]

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

WE, the 1st person hardcore players should be encouraging anything that makes us bigger and better, and supports PGI. So if you want MWO to die a premature death, keep up the "no"s.

PGI/IPG are businesses. Decisions are largely cost benefit analyses. The business as an entity (Not specific individuals) understand costs and revenue. If / when 3PV comes in, it will be up to each person as a player to decide how important the matter is to them. When they have decided they have a number of responses available, but they can probably be represented as:

• Keep playing (And either say something about 3PV or not)
  
• Not keep playing (And be sure to tell them so, and why)

We'll see.

I'm still surprised at the lack of any recent comment on the subject in the Command Chair.

EDIT: Spelling
EDIT 2: Added comment re: Command Chair

Edited by repete, 28 November 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[Kavoh]

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Wow, just wow. Sound like a great way to have MWO shrivel and die.

Well I feel like John Stewart trying to talk sense to a FoxNews cheer-leading squad.

The only solace I hold is that the Dev's care about this game and its real community, and will explore possibilities that will be beneficial to MWO and the franchise and disregard the 850+ posts of irrationality, and keep the 100 posts that actually argue empirical foundation to the platforms of pro-3rd, and no-3rd. Empirical: look it up.

I agree with what someone else mentioned beforehand: If this forum's behavior in anyway remotely resembles the community, MWO has a despicable player base. I'm shamed to share the Founders icon with most of you. Again, solace in the fact that this forum is a minority. Loud and rude, but ultimately tiny.

My posts in the last 2 days have staked a solid rational foundation. Nothing more needs to be said.

Out.

The reason people are getting hostile is because we have shown in every case why 3rd person is bad, and that it is NOT needed. And yet, all we are told again and again and AGAIN was "NO, its not bad! It helps new players! Hurr Durr MW4 had it and it was great!" and yet, we all know exactly what 3rd person was in MW3/4. It was a disaster due to exploiting it. Yes, they did say they knew about that too, but no matter how you implement it, its either going to be abused or its so dumbed down and bad its a waste of resources that could be used on a TRUE learning tool.

Implementing it as a normal view is an obvious hell no. But...

To the people wanting to split view points into different player pools... what do you think this is... World of Warcraft? We don't have that many players to begin with. We have a relatively small playerbase as it is, once we split into factions, premades, rankings, etc, we will stretched even more thin. You want to split the starter pool and THEN divide each side? Fantastic idea.

[McKhaye]

Kavoh, on 28 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Yes, they did say they knew about that too, but no matter how you implement it, its either going to be abused or its so dumbed down and bad its a waste of resources that could be used on a TRUE learning tool.

Sweet!

Don't worry PGI, you guys can just go home. Omniscient game design guru Kavoh's on the job. You'd just make stupider decisions than him anyway.

[JadeViper]

Kavoh, on 28 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Implementing it as a normal view is an obvious hell no. But...

Do try and reasonably put yourself in another person's shoes. You say it's an obvious no. But to many others its an obvious yes. OR more accurately for me anyway, an obvious "I'm not for it, but there's no reason I can justify to deny it." (It's broken, its abuseible, its not what was promised blah blah. I've already justified in former posts why those are invalid to me as a player) There are any number of contentious issues in this world that we have a viewpoint on and we think its the, as you eloquently put it, is an obvious "durr" answer, and yet there are many people out there who are just as adamant as you but for the opposite viewpoint and is equally baffled by your stance. each has very good reasons. IMO, if both a 'try it' and a 'don't try it' scenario have a 50/50 share, its better to try and fail than never to try at all. That's how revelations are made.

So basically, this issue stinks much like American politics division. ...We need to get off that train asap.

Though, I'm quite certain this thread, at this point, is just for flames and not so much of interest to anyone anymore. Mods should just lock this thing down. Everyone has said everything for and against. We broke the stick for this horse looong ago.

Edited by JadeViper, 28 November 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[Justin Xang Allard]

Diffedge, on 20 November 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

Is it that big of a deal?.. people gravitate to what works and what doesnt. If 3rd person is better than everyone will play third person if not they wont... but as I think about it .. that is not the issue that is upsetting the forum watchers. The issue is that most people believe 3rd person is better but the "fan boys" dont want to use the better system because the old games did not give you the option... probably because the developers did not have the tech or time to implement.

Is this a correct summary or am I missing something?

actually the "old" games did. that is why we dont want people looking over the hills with third person......... makes it impossible to sneak, and gives jump snipers easy kills because they know where your at because they are hidden in 3rd person looking over the hill.................

River Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

So tell me did having a chix box in all MW game that lock the feet with the torso at a movement of 140% lift and right make it unplayable to.

You guys that want all user to beat the Crap out of there keyboards are the one that are the problem. Yes I have played and have all the PC game and I use to blow off legs at will with a joystick and or mouse an keyboard with the box chix .

Beating the Crap out of your keyboard dos not make you good it just mean you love the hand cramp and buying a new keyborad 2 or 3 times a year.

have no idea what your talking about...............

[JadeViper]

Probably my last contribution to this topic to why we should not be against it:

I'll come clean. I'm a research scientist at a university. Ecology and animal behavior is what I study. I'm currently working with Lobsters; the adorable, hot-headed cockroaches of the sea XD

In science, in order to make any kind of claim about virtually anything, you need to prove it to be so. To prove it, one must test the factor in question explicitly and contrast to a 'control group' - a group without that thing we are investigating - to show that thing has an effect. Even then, even if we do see that thing have an effect on an outcome, we must prove it has a very significant impact as compared to the control. We test the question "Is there any real difference with that thing present as with it absent?"

In these proofs, one cannot cite an example from something that's a proxy or paralell. An example: say with my lobsters I'm looking for what influences sex ratio (why are some male and others female). A similar species of lobster has already been studied, and proved to have a 50/50 male to female ratio. I CANNOT make the assumption that my lobsters will have a similar sex ratio. I must prove it within my specific species. My research would be thrown in the mud if I did use a proxy.

So let's take this back to MWO. The claim "3rd person is abuseible" cannot be made because it has not been tested specifically in MWO. Yes there are proxies, such as MW3/4, but those are an invalid comparison in an empirical (proof-required) world. MWO is a separate entity. To make that claim, one would need to collect data: the control group such as MWO right now with no 3rd person, then compare the performance of the same players with access to 3rd person. If the difference in performance is not big enough to be statistically different from first person play, then the claim is invalidated. In our question 'Is there any real difference with third person in-game as only first person?" we found there was no difference in players performance. If, however, players in 3rd person had a significant increase in, say, victories, then there would be proof that 3rd person is a bad choice, because our answer is now "Yes, 3rd person positively influences gameplay."

But we cannot invalidate 3rd person without explicitly trying it.

This methodology is tried and true. It has given rise to every science. It has produced every breakthrough. Every advancement and technology has been born through this strict method.

So until we try it, we test it, we collect evidence within MWO and prove it faulty, we have no reason to suspect it will do asit did in proxies. You can claim it failed MW3/4, but if you said that's why MWO shouldn't do it in a room-full of scientists and engineers who were hearing your testimony, you'd be laughed off the stage.

That's why I'm not against 3rd person. I'm not necessarily for it, but I would never bar its way without that proof.

This is the scientific method, and if you are inclined to still disagree with this method, look around you. unless you are sitting naked in the middle of a field, everything you see around you came from this. Let it guide you.

[Kavoh]

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Do try and reasonably put yourself in another person's shoes. You say it's an obvious no. But to many others its an obvious yes. OR more accurately for me anyway, an obvious "I'm not for it, but there's no reason I can justify to deny it." (It's broken, its abuseible, its not what was promised blah blah. I've already justified in former posts why those are invalid to me as a player) There are any number of contentious issues in this world that we have a viewpoint on and we think its the, as you eloquently put it, is an obvious "durr" answer, and yet there are many people out there who are just as adamant as you but for the opposite viewpoint and is equally baffled by your stance. each has very good reasons. IMO, if both a 'try it' and a 'don't try it' scenario have a 50/50 share, its better to try and fail than never to try at all. That's how revelations are made.

So basically, this issue stinks much like American politics division. ...We need to get off that train asap.

Though, I'm quite certain this thread, at this point, is just for flames and not so much of interest to anyone anymore. Mods should just lock this thing down. Everyone has said everything for and against. We broke the stick for this horse looong ago.

I say its an obvious no, because the developers even said themselves that it will NOT be implemented in its past MW3/4 form. Try ******* reading sometime.

McKhaye, on 28 November 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Sweet!

Don't worry PGI, you guys can just go home. Omniscient game design guru Kavoh's on the job. You'd just make stupider decisions than him anyway.

Sweet! Smartass McKhaye who believes everything developers do is right all 100% of the time! Your knees are really getting dirty there bud, I bet you thought Artemis 1.0 was badass as well right? I mean, its what the developers internally tested and found fit to be released!

Edited by Kavoh, 28 November 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[JadeViper]

Kavoh, on 28 November 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

I say its an obvious no, because the developers even said themselves that it will NOT be implemented in its past MW3/4 form. Try ******* reading sometime.

Kavoh, please read the post directly above yours. Hopefully you'll find it enlightening and enable you to look through that set of eyes.

Edited by JadeViper, 28 November 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Kavoh]

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Kavoh, please read the post directly above yours. Hopefully you'll find it enlightening and enable you to look through that set of eyes.

Quote

For now, be assured we're acutely aware of past problems with 3rd person view, and will make sure those same issues are thoroughly addressed.

Yes, your lovely lobster analogy was a great read.

EDIT: And before you post another huge wall of text beating around the bush. This is in reference to me saying it was an obvious no on a "NORMAL VIEW" implementation and you claiming we still need to try it.

Edited by Kavoh, 28 November 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[JadeViper]

Ah yes, I love that quote too!

Quote

For now, be assured we're acutely aware of past problems with 3rd person view, and will make sure those same issues are thoroughly addressed.

It suggests that while they will heed lessons learned from proxies, they still wish to empirically test their version with those lessons in MWO! Kudos to your astute observation and the dev's diligence! Let the play-testing commence!

And that analogy probably raised your IQ 20 points to boot. Lobsters can do such amazing things.

I'll probably use this as a real-world example for my class in the scientific methodologies. Conflict musters such divine inspiration to enhance the lay! As to beating around the bush... How many other posts actually try and use a hint of real science for support? Of anything else in the last 20 pages it has the most support.

Edited by JadeViper, 28 November 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

McKhaye, on 28 November 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

You are biased. And paranoid and jumping to conclusions.

You literally just said "If 3pv makes it into the game in ANY WAY the entire game would be destroyed/worthless". So yes, not entirely acting logically here.




Irrational hatred, check and check.

Look, like I said before, I don't really want 3pv in the game, but let's go through the possibilities here huh?

Worst case scenario in case PGI goes back on what they said at the beginning of this thread and just goes bat-**** insane: Entire game is forced 3pv.

I would probably still play the game. It'd lose some flavor, sure. But I'd probably still play. Hell if anything it'd get rid of half of some of the worst elements in the community insofar as I can tell.

3pv as a match option in all styles of match?

That might kind of suck and "divide the community", but has anyone thought that having 3pv might actually bring a lot of players in? I don't think that's a good reason for implementing 3pv, but there are logical reasons why it might draw people in. But oh wait, those new players would be "console brats" and totally unlike you rational, pleasant, responsible adults.

Frankly I'd love to get into it on the logistics of this whole ridiculous situation but I have a policy about wasting time on forums with disagreeable people that don't listen that I'm already at least partially violating.

there is no good that can come of 3rd person view. the console kids need to grow the hell up and learn something that is not only core to the Battle Tech universe and Mechwarrior, but CORE TO BLOODY LIFE ITSELF! When a person, a living, and presumed intelligent, decides to strike up a conversation, and then make said conversation mobile,what happens? The two or more people involved in this conversation tend to walk SIDE BY SIDE. What does this little fun fact mean? It means, and what a shock: YOU MUST TURN YOUR DAMNED HEAD TO FACE THEM TO TALK. Does your body follow your head as you turn it to look and chat? NO. 9.9999 times out of 10 it does NOT. THE ONLY time it will, is if the person suffered some sort of wickedly bad accident and their cervical spine is 100% fused OR they have a HALO device BOLTED to their skull to prevent the neck from moving.
OH MY. what a concept. Walking 1 direction, looking a different direction while maintaining the original course of motion. Hmm... this sounds very familiar.. oh right, MECHWARRIOR. My torso is aimed to my LEFT, my legs are STILL on the original course...hmm easy.
Can they drive cars? I hope to hell NOT. Why? Because guess what? They gotta look HARD LEFT/RIGHT to MERGE, and its crazy dangerous to NOT do that. What happens when they look behind them or to their right/left to merge? Oh thats right, their heads move, but the car continues on the same course it was before they started to look. IS THIS CONCEPT SOO HARD TO LEARN? NO.
Once 3rd person is injected, this game dies. THAT SIMPLE. 1st person was advertised as a KEY design pillar, and Paul Inouye said himself: this game is 100% FIRST PERSON ONLY. They <PGI> breach this pillar, we cannot trust them. Build the console kids a tutorial, THAT will help. 3rd person will not, it will only kill the game.

[Exinferis]

I say, just give 3rd person view a try. But please give it just as an option.
In other games, here naming Modern Warfare 2 for example, you have to choose if you want to play in a round which is only first person or in a round which is only 3rd person. So with this option anyone will have the option what he wants to play, and like this there will not be anyone able to blame others to be "uber" for using first person or 3rd person.
For myself I would just play in first person view, to have it a bit more realistic (pls PGI, give me the option to use 4 displays as views and tablets as statusscreens. ), but I would also like to see my mech in a game for screenshots or some videocapture.