2926 replies to this topic

[Rejarial Galatan]

wow, you ignore what I just said. THIS is NOT prior mechwarrior games, THIS game was sold to us as 100% first person. do re-read what I said, and not cherry pick what you THINK i said.

[Stone Wall]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 November 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

wow, you ignore what I just said. THIS is NOT prior mechwarrior games, THIS game was sold to us as 100% first person. do re-read what I said, and not cherry pick what you THINK i said.

But this is a MechWarrior game, right? That includes past players from older MW games right? So if the "I want 1st person or nothing crowd" leaves, guess who will still be here.

[Rejarial Galatan]

And how long will they be here when they realize just how HARD this game is? Show me where PGI explains in intricate detail ALL the functions of every last feature in this game and why they work the way they do. You cannot show me this, as it does NOT exist. It will effectively end this game Stone Wall, do not kid yourself. We were SOLD on this being 100% first person. They will open themselves to litigation on the grounds of false product representation, false statements by a corporation, and false advertising if they foolishly add 3rd person to appease those, who again, cannot grasp the concepts that are even vital in real life, such as, while I am driving my car, and look to my left to merge into the highway, my CAR still travels in the last direction I chose to move. Slightly to my left and forward, but, I am looking HARD left, if not towards the rear of my car, why is my CAR not following my gaze? Oh right, because my HANDS are not turning the wheel to follow my face. Why does my body not turn with my head as I walk beside you and talk and LOOK directly at you? Oh right, because my legs were not commanded to follow my torso.

Once they have lost our trust Stone Wall, this game is not long for the world, and lose our trust they will, when they breach their own key design pillar for a rather pitiful reason.

[Coolant]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 November 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Fact: once in game, it becomes the Go To POV.
Fact: once the CODE exists, hackers will find a way to FORCE it into Forced First Person.
Fact: it WILL kill THIS game, as, well, this was SOLD as: 100% FIRST PERSON ONLY.
Fact: Once fact 2 happens, and do not fool yourself, it will, we are FORCED to deal with it.

Silly...games are being played on their servers...there are no hackers so far...only perceived hacks because of bugs. You're argument against 3rd person is based on something that might happen although that is far-fetched. Another argument please...

[Rejarial Galatan]

far fetched huh? Okay, lets step away from THIS game, and look at one that is about as released as it gets. World Of Warcraft. THAT game, published by Blizzard, is played on THEIR servers, with our computers containing only our basic character information and other pertinent data. THAT game, that has the backing of a MAJOR company, and I do not even want to guess how many more times the numbers of programmers and funding that frankly PGI does not have, nor can HOPE to have for the for seeable future gets hacked all the time. Just go to Stormwind near the bank in the area just off of Gold Shire. You will see something peculiar: characters floating in formations of hearts, or if you are in the starter area <cant remember its name as its been more than a year since I quit> you will see characters suddenly spring to life, then run 3-4 STEPS then VANISH only to INSTANTLY appear in Stormwind. That game is played on THEIR servers and gets hacked. No, its not a MIGHT happen, its a: It is going to happen, stop kidding yourself.

[Kavoh]

Stone Wall, on 30 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Having 3rd person as an option destroys the 1st person only universe some were hoping for. The past MW games did not sell "First Person Only" but still had a strong following.

So for the people who did play past MW games with 3rd person, do you expect them to leave the game in mass exodus because there is now a 2nd camera option? History shows that won't happen.

The past games came AS IS with both view points but it was also a single player game with some multiplayer added. You could play either one you wanted yes. HOWEVER, if you wanted to be even REMOTELY competitive you HAD to play 3rd person, because chances are the guy behind that mountain was and would have been watching you about to annihilate your cockpit out of a crouch completely out of your LoS. Could 1pv players kill 3pv? Yes of course. Were they at a disadvantage the entire time? YES.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

in all previous MW Games there was an extensive and functioning 360° Radar! which would result in this game to a completely new unfairness when 3PV in more than their own Mech looks with the LOS System

[Mad Elf]

OK, so I listened to the podcast. And I understand that the noobs might not sign up if the game doesn't pander to their inability to use an immersive interface, so I understand why the Devs (or rather, the moneymen behind them) will want to introduce a 3rd person option.

I take away quite a bit of hope that they will in fact restrict the use of 3rd person to matches where everyone agrees to allow it, even if it wasn't a promise as such.

However... I supported this product from the start. I gave them a bunch of money that could easily have been spent on something else, right when they really needed it (more than once too). Having a Dev, or the representative of one, tell me and all the other thousands of people who gave them the money to get their project off the ground that we should "suck it up" (in those exact, extremely rude words) if they do something I'm completely opposed to, is an outright guarantee that I will never give them any money ever again.

[Stone Wall]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

That game is played on THEIR servers and gets hacked. No, its not a MIGHT happen, its a: It is going to happen, stop kidding yourself.

so if the game is going to be hacked anyways, why leave out 3rd person? some of you guys want this game stripped down to nothing but LRMs vs Lasers in Assault mechs it seems.

[D3lness]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 November 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Fact: once the CODE exists, hackers will find a way to FORCE it into Forced First Person.

So I see you have no bloody idea how 'hacks' work on server based games. You can't force people into first person. That's like saying that you can mess with people's mouse sensitivity through hacks. While I don't agree with third person, you have zero idea what you are talking about.

[Stone Wall]

D3lness, on 01 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

So I see you have no bloody idea how 'hacks' work on server based games. You can't force people into first person. That's like saying that you can mess with people's mouse sensitivity through hacks. While I don't agree with third person, you have zero idea what you are talking about.

next thing you know the hackers will be able to make your GaussCat shoot itself in the head

[Tikkamasala]

He was most likely trying to say a workaround or hack will be found to switch on 3rd person view even in 1st person view restricted matches.
And i really hope the use of 3rd person view will be restricted to matches where everyone agrees to it beforehand if it really has to be implemented. Otherwise the devs can just remove first person view as the other option conveys a real in game advantage that everyone should use.

[JadeViper]

The hacking excuse is poorly founded. Could it be hacked, yes, but hackers could already neuter LoS issues if they wanted to now. Renderers are client side. That's why we have video cards. Texture and model memory is also client side. If I really, really wanted to hack MWO, I'd just make every model glow, or manipulate a model to put a giant 2d billboard over every model's head, or way easier, toggle wireframe mode. Nothing is sacred. Every engine is by default readily hackable. You can server side all you want, buit as long as my PC renders what my monitor displays, 'battlefield awareness' can be hacked in a heartbeat. LoS is server side, cool. I still see a giant arrow because i can manipulate the renderer.

Ever seen a model 'error' with a single polygon stretched infinitely into space? That.

And no, I don't do any of the above. Nor would I know how. But in my Source Modding days we discovered all kinds of weird loopholes like these.

Edited by JadeViper, 01 December 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[Canine]

I WANT TO SEE A POLL TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT 3RD PERSON.

The only reason i want 3rd person is I want to look at my mech strut around and see my personalised colours in action

BUT I WOULD HATE TO SEE 3RD PERSON USED AS AN ADVANTAGE IN COMBAT (aka look around corners) i mean what is this... mech assault... /wrist.

I'd advise one of these solutions so please let me know what you think.

1. 3rd Person view allowed for the first 30/60 seconds on the game or maybe even the camera could circle the mech before sitting in the mech cockpit (1st person)

2. A single camera probe launched and controlled that lasts for X seconds, I'd advise that this can only circle and concentrate on the users mech to limit using it as an advantage.

I'd like to add that I'm a firm believer that 3rd person is not for this game for use in combat.

Edited by Canine, 01 December 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Krell Darkmoon]

Canine, on 01 December 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I WANT TO SEE A POLL TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT 3RD PERSON.

The only reason i want 3rd person is I want to look at my mech strut around and see my personalised colours in action

BUT I WOULD HATE TO SEE 3RD PERSON USED AS AN ADVANTAGE IN COMBAT (aka look around corners) i mean what is this... mech assault... /wrist.

I'd advise one of these solutions so please let me know what you think.

1. 3rd Person view allowed for the first 30/60 seconds on the game or maybe even the camera could circle the mech before sitting in the mech cockpit (1st person)

2. A single camera probe launched and controlled that lasts for X seconds, I'd advise that this can only circle and concentrate on the users mech to limit using it as an advantage.

I'd like to add that I'm a firm believer that 3rd person is not for this game for use in combat.

http://mwomercs.com/...son-its-coming/ There's a Poll about 3rd person already.

(3819) 90% said NO they don't want 3rd Person Added
(221) 5.26% said Yes they do want 3rd Person Added
(4206) Voted on that Poll as of this Post

So if 221 is a "Big Number" of people what is 3,819 as far as a number of people?

PGI don't cave in to the minority, leave 3rd person out of MWO.

Edited by Krell Darkmoon, 01 December 2012 - 09:21 AM.

[Farix]

The thing about that poll. It's like polling only Democrats or Republicans about who they will vote for President. The sample is incredibly biased and shouldn't be taken as what potential players want.

[Kavoh]

Farix, on 01 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

The thing about that poll. It's like polling only Democrats or Republicans about who they will vote for President. The sample is incredibly biased and shouldn't be taken as what potential players want.

Sure its not 100% of the population, but dismissing it completely is ignorant. If 3rd person was as rabidly wanted as PGI claimed, at least some of these "tons" of people emailing them would have voted for it. But that didn't happen. Its such a one sided poll when everyone has the chance to vote on it. Its not a full pop poll, but its a good sample size.

[Farix]

Kavoh, on 01 December 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Sure its not 100% of the population, but dismissing it completely is ignorant. If 3rd person was as rabidly wanted as PGI claimed, at least some of these "tons" of people emailing them would have voted for it. But that didn't happen. Its such a one sided poll when everyone has the chance to vote on it. Its not a full pop poll, but its a good sample size.

The biggest problem with the poll is that the sample size consists of just forum users, who almost entirely are currently playing WMO and prefer 1st person. Those who are more likely to "vote" for 3rd person are (a) not currently playing WMO and ( are not hanging around on the forums to even see the poll. So in other words, its completely useless. A more affective poll would include a more general sample size that includes current players, previous players, and potential players, with heavy focus on the latter group. How to achieve that is a problem though. Perhaps an option when someone creates a new account.

[Agent of Change]

Farix, on 01 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

The thing about that poll. It's like polling only Democrats or Republicans about who they will vote for President. The sample is incredibly biased and shouldn't be taken as what potential players want.

Weeeellll kinda.

It's a self selecting poll on this forum, and on this forum of all this the times this highly divisive topic has come up it has been overwhelming negatively recieved. so while there is definately going to be a bias a interestign number of note is this:

While there are 400,000 + registered accounts the most that have ever been online at once was 4,382. That number likely represents a significant chunk of the people who actually use the forum regularly and that poll as it stands is the equivalent of almost every single one of them voting on that poll. Now the other thing to look at is that is the peak number and it was about 2.5 months ago which makes getting the amount of participation on the referenced poll pretty significant because you would be hard pressed to see that kind of participation in ANY thread in the history of this forum, hell the 200 some number that voted for 3pv out strip the votes you get in most polls.

Can we get any real hard data out of it, only for the sample that voted however that alone should indicate there is a strong opposition to this idea in a not insignificant segment of the forum population. Further more, as someone else pointed out each of those votes for yes/no/dunno are likely each representative of more than just the person who voted given that the active people on the forums are likely to be the bearers of word of mouth and very active in the game with groups and friends. again it would be very hard to get hard numbers on that but in my own case i am a memeber of a 30 strong merc corps most of whom don't actively post on the forums and i know that my negative voted is supported by at least 8-10 of the guys i know haven't voted.

I'm just saying that the vocal people that have voiced their opinions on this matter in the poll represent about 1% of the total registered accounts, it gets much larger is you assume that every one of those votes is agreed to by 1 or more players that didn't.

TLDR: While the poll may not give us hard numbers it could easily be indicative of a larger unpolled opinion.

[Kavoh]

Farix, on 01 December 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

The biggest problem with the poll is that the sample size consists of just forum users, who almost entirely are currently playing WMO and prefer 1st person. Those who are more likely to "vote" for 3rd person are (a) not currently playing WMO and ( are not hanging around on the forums to even see the poll. So in other words, its completely useless. A more affective poll would include a more general sample size that includes current players, previous players, and potential players, with heavy focus on the latter group. How to achieve that is a problem though. Perhaps an option when someone creates a new account.

That exactly our point. The ones who "emailed" them know enough about them to email, they should (read: should) know how to use the forums. As for the other example... don't you find it a little ridiculous to make an entire other view that so little of the current pop wants to try and lure in a mystery number of new players that might not even exist? I've stated to add a poll for everyone when they log into the game, however, that won't happen. But wanting such a large sample size is unrealistic. Thats like asking small companies like PGI to send out surveys to the entire country on a product they want to sell. It's just not a reasonable request, so they have to go with a small sample size. That sample size was our forums, and our forums decided with a heavy 90% that they DO NOT want 3rd person. Thinking that the non-forum population is automatically for 3rd person, and wouldn't follow the trend of our sample size is a bit naive. Would their be more pro-3pv? Of course. But would there be many more not wanting 3pv? Going off our poll sample and post responses, almost certainly.