2926 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

Here's what's gonna happen.
it happens in every game with an established, older playerbase, who want it a certain way, and have seen through your lies.

Okay.

They implement it. It's an opt-in. Community warfare relies on...well, the community. The 'community' is actually run by old people, who have zero tolerance for this stupidity, so 3rd person will NEVER be used in community warfare. Anybody who insists on it is simply frozen out.

Devs sulk, and make it mandatory. Fanbase leaves, goons steal the sourcecode, and 'mechwarrior online; now proudly PGI free' pops up on a private server somewhere.

This isn't something they can win. Surely they realize. Or are the egos at work here simply so large, they think this is something worth pursuing?

[Sam Slade]

The short answer is greater situational awareness, including surroundings, WILL be a tangiable bonus. I doubt that the current collision mechanics are going to be the final iteration in MWO... so when collision damage is returned it will not mean nearly as much as it would with no 3rd person view.

People will not panic in combat and crash... they will panic, execute a snappy turn and zip around a corner you didn't know was there. It is a tactical advantage... pop-tarts killed MW4 online because their situational awareness was enhanced... I forsee BAP/ECM 'Dragster Mechs' doing the same here.

[Vexgrave Lars]

MW Living Legends has a great 3rd person view... if anyone is interested.

No you're right.. thats not funny.

Please don't, except in spectator mode, once you figured out how to keep the dead silent to the living.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 29 November 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Kurayami]

Im getting pretty tired of this. Yes why not - but only if implementation will met listed requirements like not giving any advantages, not splitting community, being playable etc. Can you think of implementation that will meet this requirements? doubtful. And as long as you cant - i will say NO. and many others will do the same.

[Vassago Rain]

Kurayami, on 29 November 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Im getting pretty tired of this. Yes why not - but only if implementation will met listed requirements like not giving any advantages, not splitting community, being playable etc. Can you think of implementation that will meet this requirements? doubtful. And as long as you cant - i will say NO. and many others will do the same.

Vote with your own community warfare part when the time comes.
We can ruin this harder than unpopular changes are ruined in EVE.

[JadeViper]

Agent of Change, on 29 November 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

The question in my mind is should it be implemented at all.

I mean you have heard the arguments from myself and others: It is a break from the game they promised, Splitting the player base is bad, I don't like 3pv with my mechwarrior, immersion cannot be sustained from outside the cockpit, et al...

That right there is one of two fundamental questions driving the divide, whether it could be implemented in a useful way i think is without question, it is certainly possible it could.. but why should it be implemented at all.
Why should 3PV be implemented, is it actually needed and why?
Can the things 3PV is supposed to be needed for be resolved in other manners that adhere to the current asthetic and play style of the game, can we maintain the integrity of the 1PV only concept the devs were championing not long ago and fix what ever issues are being predicted?

To the end of dev's not keeping their word, etc, I cannot nor would I defend against that point. If that breach of trust is of primary importance, then I fully support your opinion and vote against.

To be fair and admit potential personal bias, I have no vested interest in 1st person-only. I'm used to having the options of first or 3 from the last few MWs. I am personally not at conflict with the Devs. I'm just pleased to have a modern mechwarrior in any form. I like to think I'm neutral on the issue.

Immersion is of personal preference, and my stance is similar to the above- I have full respect if this is a priority to individuals. Personally, I like to observe myself. I have a very, very expensive gaming PC for a reason: I like shiny things. 3rd person appeals to me in that its another avenue to appreciate mechwarrior in its shiny rendered glory. (Can't wait for 3D!!!!)
It appeals to my aesthetic. But if that would take it away for you, then I respect that. I humbly observe that it wont be mandate that anyone uses it, but I hear your fear.

I only defend against those who 'claim' it will break the game mechanics. I don't defend the spirit of the move. I think it's largely a financial move. It will enable (in every sense of the word) a new demographic of players. People here call them stupid and repugnant, but they are a bigger populace than us. What are we, 25-40ish? Yet a huge bulkk of the industry is 11-22. I cannot fault PGI for trying to tap into that. It's good business. Doesn't mean I like it. I teach in a local middleschool on top of my university work, and they qualify into this group, and most of my kids are avid gamers. I hear a lot of CoD and minecraft from them. never once have I heard MW or its affiliates from them.

Continued development come only with continued revenue sources. Again, personally, I'm willing to swallow stones if it means, in the long run, MWO will have a, well, a long run.

Edited by JadeViper, 29 November 2012 - 02:23 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

To the end of dev's not keeping their word, etc, I cannot nor would I defend against that point. If that breach of trust is of primary importance, then I fully support your opinion and vote against.

To be fair and admit potential personal bias, I have no vested interest in 1st person-only. I'm used to having the options of first or 3 from the last few MWs. I am personally not at conflict with the Devs. I'm just pleased to have a modern mechwarrior in any form. I like to think I'm neutral on the issue.

Immersion is of personal preference, and my stance is similar to the above. Personally, I like to observe myself. I have a very, very expensive gaming PC for a reason: I like shiny things. 3rd person appeals to me in that its another avenue to appreciate mechwarrior in its shiny rendered glory. (Can't wait for 3D!!!!)
It appeals to my aesthetic. But if that would take it away for you, then I respect that. I humbly observe that it wont be mandate that anyone uses it, but I hear your fear.

I only defend against those who 'claim' it will break the game mechanics. I don't defend the spirit of the move. I think it's largely a financial move. It will enable (in every sense of the word) a new demographic of players. People here call them stupid and repugnant, but they are a bigger populace than us. What are we, 25-40ish? Yet a huge bulkk of the industry is 11-22. I cannot fault PGI for trying to tap into that. It's good business. Doesn't mean I like it. I teach in a local middleschool on top of my university work, and they qualify into this group, and most of my kids are avid gamers. I hear a lot of CoD and minecraft from them. never once have I heard MW or its affiliates from them..

Amusing,

So what popular game is played through 3rd person in 2012? CoD? Nope. BLOPS? Nope. ANY shooter!? Nope. Gears of war? Gears of war? Relevant in 2012?

Haha.

They're under some kind of delusion where all the world of tanks players will swarm to world of mechs if they add third person.
If they weren't, they'd have no problem keeping first person only, as that's uhh, kinda the FPS perspective in the year 2012, and has been since 2005.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 29 November 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[arkani]

Russ Bullock was interviewed in a new nogutsnogalaxy podcast.
Interview can be heard here on the NoGustNoGalaxy podcast


Summing up the interview.
Russ says that he is a 1st person guy.. but he has changed is mind about 3rd person in this game.
Why?
He says that in previous Mechwarrior games, stats indicate that the split was 50% 1st and 50% 3rd person players, and that this is hard to ignore from a developers point of view.
He says that the core players do not want 3rd person, but if they want to grow the game they have to consider it.

They want all the core Mechwarrior players to come and play the game, but also want new players and that those players are used to 3rd person.
Says that new players have trouble with the mechanics of the mech ( torso, legs twisting, etc), its difficult to them, because there used to shooters. Also they want to see there mech.
Also says that every one should "train" in 3rd person, think of it has training mode.

The dev's are considering the option to switch 1st and 3rd person in the matchmaking. So if you don't want to play against 3rd person it will be a toggle in the matchmaking and avoid 3rd person.
It will be a player option. So effectively we can choose with view will be accepted in a match via this matchmaking feature/option.

Previous threads and poll on this subject and BETTER suggestions on the subject

My opinion on this is:

1) The switch for 1st and 3rd.( This is probably the most important.)
This is a "can of worms". I will give one example and it will suffice.
TeamA of players decide they will play in 3rd.
TeamB of players decide they will play in 1st.
They all play Community warfare. They end up on opposite sides of a match.
So how will this be solved? Will the game be played in 1st or 3rd? Which team will choose?
Will one team be forced into a game mode they don't want and are not good at?
Or again, will you split them, thus creating two very different community warfare timelines?

2) Previous games stats for 3rd person.
They are considering this because of stats in previous Mechwarrior games. (So that's were this all came from!!)
This is flawed from the start. Why?
Those games had 3rd person. As stated in previous threads, 3rd person gives a very big tactical advantage in a game. Therefore you had to play 3rd person just to be competitive. If the other team was using 3rd person and you did not, you were in a disadvantage. Therefore you were forced to also play 3rd person, so you upped the stats for 3rd person because it was shoved down your throat.
I played mechwarrior 4 online and yes, i was forced into 3rd person, until i finally just gave up playing. It became a game of pop tarting/jj-snipping behind hills. One tactic for every situation. It sucked.
So i ask, if the other games, on which you are basing your stats, sucked and failed why the hell are you doing the same mistakes they made?
This game need its own identity. It cannot carter to all. It hard to master and that is the main reason its fun and people stick with it. It is challenging.

3) Grow the game.
Yes, we all understand that. The game needs needs players for you to make money and keep adding to the game and for us players to have even more people to play with. We all want more and new players.
Giving them 3rd person is not the way. Why?
If a new players comes into the game and plays a few matches in 3rd person and likes it he will want to join a team/house. He will want to play i n community warfare. But because community is all about Mechwarrior mentality role play it will be, most probably 1st person, so this new 3rd person player will not now how to play 1st person, it will frustrate him.
Frustrate players usually don't stick around, the game will loose players.
Has stated in previous threads we will split the player base into two games: 1st and 3rd.

4) Player experience.
Again, read the previous threads. Improving the player experience suggestions are plenty, all of them better than 3rd person "crucht".

I believe that this subject will either make or break the game.

Edited by arkani, 29 November 2012 - 02:25 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Russ Bullock was interviewed in a new nogutsnogalaxy podcast.
Interview can be heard here on the NoGustNoGalaxy podcast


Summing up the interview.
Russ says that he is a 1st person guy.. but he has changed is mind about 3rd person in this game.
Why?
He says that in previous Mechwarrior games, stats indicate that the split was 50% 1st and 50% 3rd person players, and that this is hard to ignore from a developers point of view.
He says that the core players do not want 3rd person, but if they want to grow the game they have to consider it.

They want all the core Mechwarrior players to come and play the game, but also want new players and that those players are used to 3rd person.
Says that new players have trouble with the mechanics of the mech ( torso, legs twisting, etc), its difficult to them, because there used to shooters. Also they want to see there mech.
Also says that every one should "train" in 3rd person, think of it has training mode.

The dev's are considering the option to switch 1st and 3rd person in the matchmaking. So if you don't want to play against 3rd person it will be a toggle in the matchmaking and avoid 3rd person.
It will be a player option. So effectively we can choose with view will be accepted in a match via this matchmaking feature/option.

Previous threads and poll on this subject and BETTER suggestions on the subject

My opinion on this is:

1) The switch for 1st and 3rd.( This is probably the most important.)
This is a "can of worms". I will give one example.
TeamA of players decide they will play in 3rd.
TeamB of players decide they will play in 1st.
They all play Community warfare. They end up on opposite sides of a match.
So how will this be solved? Will the game be played in 1st or 3rd? Which team will choose?
Will one team be forced into a game mode they don't want and are not good at?
Or again, will you split them, thus creating two very different community warfare timelines?

2) Previous games stats for 3rd person.
They are considering this because of stats in previous Mechwarrior games. (So that's were this all came from!!)
This is flawed from the start. Why?
Those games had 3rd person. As stated in previous threads, 3rd person gives a very big tactical advantage in a game. Therefore you had to play 3rd person just to be competitive. If the other team was using 3rd person and you did not, you were in a disadvantage. Therefore you were forced to also play 3rd person, so you upped the stats for 3rd person because it was shoved down your throat.
I played mechwarrior 4 online and yes, i was forced into 3rd person, until i finally just gave up playing. It became a game of pop tarting/jj-snipping behind hills. One tactic for every situation. It sucked.
So i ask, if the other games, on which you are basing your stats, sucked and failed why the hell are you doing the same mistakes they made?
This game need its own identity. It cannot carter to all. It hard to master and that is the main reason its fun and people stick with it. It is challenging.

3) Grow the game.
Yes, we all understand that. The game needs needs players for you to make money and keep adding to the game and for us players to have even more people to play with. We all want more and new players.
Giving them 3rd person is not the way. Why?
If a new players comes into the game and plays a few matches in 3rd person and likes it he will want to join a team/house. He will want to play i n community warfare. But because community is all about Mechwarrior mentality role play it will be, most probably 1st person, so this new 3rd person player will not now how to play 1st person, it will frustrate him.
Frustrate players usually don't stick around, the game will loose players.
Has stated in previous threads we will split the player base into two games: 1st and 3rd.

4) Player experience.
Again, read the previous threads. Improving the player experience suggestions are plenty, all of them better than 3rd person "crucht".

I believe that this subject will either make or break the game.

It's nice that when an unpopular subject comes up, they'll simply not mention it on their own forums.

[arkani]

As for the posters on previous threads

Some say that the previous poll with more than 4000+ votes is just not big enough.

Let me say this.
Most of the posters are Mechwarrior fans. They take time out of their lives to post, moan, discuss, suggest, because they are fans. Some of them diehard fans. They like, and as founders, have supported this game.
But more important than anything else, they are not just speaking for themselves.
They are leader's of lances, leader's of battalions and regiments. They are influential in the group of players they play with.
There voice is not a single voice, but the voice of all those players. There vote is the vote of many.

They are the "community warfare".
They are the players who will also take time to organize there teams matches, who will organize drops, coordinate teams, create websites for recruiting, drop with newbie players and teach them the ropes.
If they do not do this then it won't matter how good pgi's "community warfare" is, there will be now one to make it happen.

So those are not just 4000+ votes. They are far greater.

Edited by arkani, 29 November 2012 - 02:59 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

As for the posters on previous threads

Some say that the previous poll with more than 4000+ votes is just not big enough.

Let me say this.
Most of the posters are Mechwarrior fans. They take time out of their lives to post, moan, discuss, suggest, because they are fans. Some of them diehard fans. They like, and as founders, have supported this game.
But more important than anything else, they are not just speaking for themselves.
They are leader's of lances, leader's of battalions and regiments. They are influential in the group of players they play with.
There voice is not a single voice, but the voice of all those players. There vote is the vote of many.

They are the "community warfare".
They are the players who will also take time to organize the teams matches, who will organize drops, coordinate there teams, create websites for recruiting, drop with newbie players and teach them the ropes.
If they do not do this then it won't matter how good pig's "community warfare", there will be now one to make it happen.

So those are not just 4000+ votes. They are far greater.

Yes, the shitstorm will be like something out of EVE. I don't think a little start-up company, that's best known for Duke forever's multiplayer, should attempt these things.

[KharnZor]

If there was anything that could drive me away from this game it would be 3rd person. Just as 3rd person Drove me away from mw4.

[Squidhead Jax]

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

I sincerely appreciate your well thought out feedback. It's a novel feeling having an intelligent conversation.

I completely agree that MW4 is a near-perfect proxy, meaning it is a very solid predictor. But a predictor of a potential outcome. Lets say PGI are idiots and are 90% likely to repeat the same mistakes that they are admittedly aware of. a 90% cance still necessitates a firm, subject unique test. If and only if there was a 95% statistic confidence could we accept MW4 as a tru predictor.

Given that PGI have indicated they are well aware of the failures of 3rd person cameras, I would predict they have a much better chance of success than our hypothetical 10% success chance. Having such a strong predictor allows them to accurately anticipate flaws in the system, and creatively combat those. Summary, from my perspective and a little faith in the devs, there is less than a 95% chance of failure, so its worth trying.

While I doubt that they can actually pull such a thing off on a conceptual basis, engineering countermeasures to the problem will take engineering time and resources. Evidence suggests that they are stretched terribly thin as it is. And even if they engineered it and succeeded, even the podcast admits it's an imitative rather than innovative reach, to try to grasp competitors' existing populations through familiarity. Ask WoW clones, even budget-busting ones like TOR, how well that strategy works out.

Conversely, if they do sink the resources into engineering a prototype system functional enough for large-scale testing, then even if it's bad it's likely to stick around. While following through with that invokes the Sunk Cost fallacy, that's the historical trend across the industry.

I do appreciate testing and statistical rigour, but experiments don't live in isolation. I don't even want to risk the potential negative effects of one when I only see downsides.

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

3rd person, I would predict, has a narrower field of view as expressed by degrees. In first person, with free-loock, you have about 160 degree view arc. I predict 3rd person will be a fixed camera, therefore no free look, and be restrained to a traditional 70-90 degrees; the same as first without freelook. The fear of abuse comes from the displacement of the camera origin. With occlusion, I suspect it would be easy for the engine to draw lines from center mass of the mech model for rendering. Foes could simply fade in/out as appropriate, instead of just popping in. Don't get hung up on the rendering details, occlusion was just an potential abuse countermeasure idea I pulled out of nowhere, but it seems to have some application. Not saying that's the best way to go, nor the only way.

Cockpits do limit the effectiveness of 1st-person freelook, so that 160 degrees isn't comprehensive. While it would make sense to lock view orientation in 3pv, I don't think that's a limiter for most of the problems referenced.
Occlusion is actually implemented in one game's 3rd person (WoT) and I think it's counter-intuitive, the opposite of new-player-friendly (one of the stated goals of adding 3pv), and (entirely IMO) just plain annoying.

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

The issues arises from the disparity in origin of the camera relative to first, which would enable peeking. I assume peeking is the reason for the majority of 3rd person hatred.

Absolutely.

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

I wont deny that a displacement of camera origin does create an uncomfortable scenario of a different field of view. The trick, in my scientific mind, is that the advantage produced must be so strong that it can be proved statistically to influence matches/performance. Right now, we only have anecdotal evidence from a proxy, and we don't have explicit numbers to run. If PGI wanted to test 3rd person camera advantage, I'd be happy to offer them the use of my statistical software if they can provide me the data from an empirical experiment. I would just need an excel sheet with 'before' and 'after' statistics. Then we could prove that 3rd person confers a distinct improvement in players normal performance after identifying the variation in player's results.

At the moment, I have a strong feeling the devs could use some help with SPSS or whatever package you use anyway. </snark>

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

For that reason I support testing 3rd person. It will give us the opportunity to empirically prove it confers advantage. I'm not looking to find" 3rd person is great its fair fanboy blah blah" I'm looking for the opportunity to give it a trial by statistical jury. If we find it's advantageous, I'll have stupidly strong proof to have the Dev's ban it for life. I just think it deserves a fair trial on its own.

From my experience, I have a lot of hit and miss games. My win/loss, cbill reward, exp reward vary so wildly, I predict that 3rd person wont be that big an influence. Sure it will influence, but not anywhere near as powerfully has having a 4player drop group vs pug. I bet that confers a bigger advantage, yet we allow and encourage that. LEts just see how much 3rd person influences it. The random assignment of matching classes in pugs probably will outweigh both 3rd cam advantage and 4 player drop if, randomly, the other team has a variet of mechs within classes, but by sheer luck, you got 5 LRM catapults, 2 XL engine awesome and a Hunchback. The randomized 'fair' dropweight probably have a huge influence on victories, yet we don't complain about that.

Influence and advantage, literally, is relative.

Any sort of influence on overall victory rates is going to be exceedingly difficult to grab because of the chaotic human factor and how it can compound - even setting aside the PUGmate unreliability problem. That said, the lack of quality control in PUGs* is something that systems are being engineered to address. We're talking about engineering a new problem to be solved.

I don't have any idea how to capture it in a more specific metric, but being able to see around adjacent cover immediately provides new tactical options that didn't exist before.

I'll freely admit that most of the arguments are based on flavor. This is an entertainment product, after all. I just don't see an upside.

• Attempting to grow population by imitating the industry leader doesn't work (see high-profile WoW clones).
  
• Without engineering special limitations, 3pv changes the conceptual nature of the battlefield and provides an information advantage (of debatable quality but nonzero quantity) to 3pv.
  
• Proposed special limitations to 3pv fall into awkward and unnatural occlusion or fragmenting of an already small queue population (and raises uncomfortable questions about the implications for Community Warfare).

*Not PUGs as A Thing. People are not automatically stupid Rambo wannabes just because they don't drop grouped, it's just that nothing filters them, AFKers, and suicide farmers from the population that actually tries. When 6-8 members of that population drop on a single PUG, it often stomps like a premade.

JadeViper, on 29 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

And to the point of a lobster egg hatching a crab, yes its stupidly unlikely, but evolution is producing offspring that are not identical to you. So yes, as some point a lobster did give birth to the crab predecessor, and that crab gave birth to another crab, and from that and a 700millioin years of time, we have 800 different species of crabs. Heck of a slim chance, but you just described evolution. And unless you are from the Bible belt, that's a real thing. Species to give rise to new species through birth. There is a reason the species of everything are categorized into things that look like family trees. Flip through an old family album and you'll find a fish too.

Hopefully you are surprised that your lobster/crab lash actually does work out for me in the end. But I get your point.

Yeah, but that's on the scale of generations. Even short enough for humans to observe major divergences in some cases with fast breeders, but I'm talking something absurd like the eggs of a Maine lobster maturing into Chesapeake blue crabs. Sure, you can have them end up an existing recognized phenotypic variant of that species of lobster, a new kind of lobster, or something not quite a lobster but an otherwise new classification*, or a much less fortunate mutant that dies before its cells even start to differentiate. But to completely hop infraorders would raise a few eyebrows. My point was, MW4 and MWO are both lobsters, and there's more potential for egg death than spontaneously reconfiguring into a crab. I'm hungry now...

I should note that my objections don't apply to implementations like an active, interactable (that is, shootable) UAV or the like, especially if it eats mechlab resources, but that seems to be out of the scope of what the podcast brought up.

*Crabs split off from modern-ish lobsters instead of both diverging from a more intermediate form (and the lobster-form is freaking old), if I read you correctly (well, and assuming you're not being facetious)? Tasty. I mean, interesting. I know what I'm gonna eat if I go back to the late Precambrian...

Edited by Squidhead Jax, 29 November 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Fugu]

So you'll have to split Community Warfare because you're going to split the community. Great idea!
Hey, MW4 also had the option to turn off heat. Why don't you also make that optional. When you go for one incredibly stupid idea, why not for two?

[Vassago Rain]

Fugu, on 29 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

So you'll have to split Community Warfare because you're going to split the community. Great idea!
Hey, MW4 also had the option to turn off heat. Why don't you also make that optional. When you go for one incredibly stupid idea, why not for two?

We could have the MW3 infinite ammo and infinite repairs, too.

[Dogmeat Pryde]

No to 3rd person view!

[Kavoh]

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Russ Bullock was interviewed in a new nogutsnogalaxy podcast.
Interview can be heard here on the NoGustNoGalaxy podcast


Summing up the interview.
Russ says that he is a 1st person guy.. but he has changed is mind about 3rd person in this game.
Why?
He says that in previous Mechwarrior games, stats indicate that the split was 50% 1st and 50% 3rd person players, and that this is hard to ignore from a developers point of view.
He says that the core players do not want 3rd person, but if they want to grow the game they have to consider it.

They want all the core Mechwarrior players to come and play the game, but also want new players and that those players are used to 3rd person.
Says that new players have trouble with the mechanics of the mech ( torso, legs twisting, etc), its difficult to them, because there used to shooters. Also they want to see there mech.
Also says that every one should "train" in 3rd person, think of it has training mode.

The dev's are considering the option to switch 1st and 3rd person in the matchmaking. So if you don't want to play against 3rd person it will be a toggle in the matchmaking and avoid 3rd person.
It will be a player option. So effectively we can choose with view will be accepted in a match via this matchmaking feature/option.

Previous threads and poll on this subject and BETTER suggestions on the subject

My opinion on this is:

1) The switch for 1st and 3rd.( This is probably the most important.)
This is a "can of worms". I will give one example and it will suffice.
TeamA of players decide they will play in 3rd.
TeamB of players decide they will play in 1st.
They all play Community warfare. They end up on opposite sides of a match.
So how will this be solved? Will the game be played in 1st or 3rd? Which team will choose?
Will one team be forced into a game mode they don't want and are not good at?
Or again, will you split them, thus creating two very different community warfare timelines?

2) Previous games stats for 3rd person.
They are considering this because of stats in previous Mechwarrior games. (So that's were this all came from!!)
This is flawed from the start. Why?
Those games had 3rd person. As stated in previous threads, 3rd person gives a very big tactical advantage in a game. Therefore you had to play 3rd person just to be competitive. If the other team was using 3rd person and you did not, you were in a disadvantage. Therefore you were forced to also play 3rd person, so you upped the stats for 3rd person because it was shoved down your throat.
I played mechwarrior 4 online and yes, i was forced into 3rd person, until i finally just gave up playing. It became a game of pop tarting/jj-snipping behind hills. One tactic for every situation. It sucked.
So i ask, if the other games, on which you are basing your stats, sucked and failed why the hell are you doing the same mistakes they made?
This game need its own identity. It cannot carter to all. It hard to master and that is the main reason its fun and people stick with it. It is challenging.

3) Grow the game.
Yes, we all understand that. The game needs needs players for you to make money and keep adding to the game and for us players to have even more people to play with. We all want more and new players.
Giving them 3rd person is not the way. Why?
If a new players comes into the game and plays a few matches in 3rd person and likes it he will want to join a team/house. He will want to play i n community warfare. But because community is all about Mechwarrior mentality role play it will be, most probably 1st person, so this new 3rd person player will not now how to play 1st person, it will frustrate him.
Frustrate players usually don't stick around, the game will loose players.
Has stated in previous threads we will split the player base into two games: 1st and 3rd.

4) Player experience.
Again, read the previous threads. Improving the player experience suggestions are plenty, all of them better than 3rd person "crucht".

I believe that this subject will either make or break the game.

Interesting to see them say the same garbage again. As someone stated earlier, I am no developer so I shouldn't have any idea of whats good for or bad for a game right? The developers know whats best for their game? Well, tell that Warhammer Online, Rift, Star Wars, etc. Different genre, same concept. Problem here is, whether or not the developers and the TINY amount of players wanting third person actually believe it will be good for the game, four THOUSAND people (and only 1%) think otherwise. We may not be developers, we may have varying degrees of education and experience under our belts, but one thing most of us have is experience with MECHWARRIOR. We don't need the training on how to construct a game to realize when an idea is bad. This is clearly one of those cases.

JadeViper, you are seeing this whole situation from such a skewed angle due to your profession and you wanting to analyze it from that point of view is blinding you from the truth. 3rd person was something we all started off with without choice but it still had negative effects on gameplay. I understand where you are coming from with continuous testing, however in this case we do NOT need to test it. If we were to allow 3rd person to be implemented, that is their foot in the door. That's what they WANT and we DON'T want. Once its in, ITS IN. There is no fully removing an aspect of the game that large once released without causing even worse drama. So if it does comes out catastrophically bad, then we are stuck with it, in one form or another.

At this point, lets agree to disagree.

Edited by Kavoh, 29 November 2012 - 04:15 PM.

[Naeron66]

3rd Person view should be implemented as a fixed camera rather than a floating one.

Allow the view to move backwards from the mech for a limited distance and up/down but tie it to the cockpit facing (best solution) or a limited angle either side of the cockpit facing (say 15-30 degrees) once you move beyond that limit it turns the torso to follow the camera and the camera turns at the same speed as the torso.

Zoom should always switch you to 1st person. Disable the targetting information partially (range/lock on etc) or completely when in 3rd person. That makes 3rd person good for navigating in tight spaces or just looking at your mech, it provides a combat disadvantage and not an advantage.

In fact if 3rd person disabled all targetting completely (and broke locks) I would not complain if it was free camera, it would be good for taking screenshots and checking your position but nothing more.

Edited by Naeron66, 29 November 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Taizan]

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

1) This is a "can of worms". I will give one example and it will suffice.
So how will this be solved? Will the game be played in 1st or 3rd? Which team will choose?

No - they won't be matched against each other. That was made pretty clear.

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

2) Previous games stats for 3rd person.
They are considering this because of stats in previous Mechwarrior games. (So that's were this all came from!!)
This game need its own identity. It cannot carter to all. It hard to master and that is the main reason its fun and people stick with it. It is challenging.

He says the analytics indicated that preferences were 50/50, so why cater only to 50%? I think its smarter to introduce the other 50% to the game with a feature they like and then gradually nudge them over to first person view, which will still be a main part of the game's identity.

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

3) Grow the game.
Frustrate players usually don't stick around, the game will loose players.
Has stated in previous threads we will split the player base into two games: 1st and 3rd.

If a fraction of these new players remain its still more new members than none. It all depends how its implemented and how far the training / tutorial mode will make it attrative to the player to move on to first person. Right now this is speculation on how it will be done.

arkani, on 29 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

4) Player experience.
Again, read the previous threads. Improving the player experience suggestions are plenty, all of them better than 3rd person "crucht".

3rd person view has benefits to the game in such that it may create an influx of new players, so it might actually be better than other suggestions that are based on TT rules and such which would not bring in new players.
New players are basically the content of a F2P game, without influx a F2P will have a hard time.

As much as I know I will not be playing in 3rd person mode and I personally prefer the immersion in FP, I've seen a similar discussion going on in ARMA 2.

There the "pro/elite" clans decided to not allow 3rd person on their servers. For noobs this was though the better way to get into the game and understand what is going on, because.in ARMA 2 similar to MWO, you can turn your head around to look around you while still moving in another direction, also body posture and things like moving over obstacles is easier to achieve until you get used to it.

In the mean time many players have moved to first person and enjoy it that way, now that they know what is going on with the movement / their character.

For MWO I see a similar progression from 3rd person to first person, if it is implemented in a smart way.

[Doomfist]

No, just no.