2926 replies to this topic

[repete]

GarretSidzaka, on 03 December 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

...DONT GIVE INTO THE POPTARTING TRASH THAT RUINED MECHWARRIOR IN THE FIRST PLACE...

Kind of constructive feedback

GarretSidzaka, on 03 December 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

...NOOB DEVS.

Not helpful. Nor do the caps get your post any more cred. As a matter of fact, feedback is it gets you ignored.

[ultimech]

AirVengeance, on 16 November 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

It will affect everyone that chooses not to cheat at a sim game. 3rd person get's activated I will drop this game.

If you drop a perfectly good game because of something you don't want then your dumb. Play the game for what you do like about it.

Edited by ultimech, 03 December 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

ultimech, on 03 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

If you drop a perfectly good game because of something you don't want then your dumb. Play the game for what you do like about it.

when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED, and when the feature that is disliked was ORIGINALLY SAID TO NOT BE HERE, it fundamentally alters our trust of the company. SO... quitting because of this, is not dumb, as it alters the product in an unsatisfactory way and departure is the best idea at this point. Would you still eat say a pizza that when you ORDERED it, it had say: peperoni, onions, mushroom, sausage and say bellpepper only to have the delivery guy show up, charge you 20 bucks for the pizza, and have you open it after he leaves only to see: anchovies ONLY? i think not. its the same here. we ordered it up one way, because hey, that is how it was, ya know, advertised, then, they try to give us bilge water and call it champagne? uh no thank you.

[repete]

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

...when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED...

Is your concern REALLY about what was "originally promised" vs. if whether what is changed breaks the game or not? Things change.

Since I like throwing out straw men, I'll throw this one out there. In the United States, as "originally promised" only white, male landowners could vote. But that was improved.

Surely the point isn't "But you promised this would be a sim!". Surely the point is, "3PV has been done before, and it broke things. Don't break things!". Don't resist change to resist change. Resist change when it makes things worse. Focus on the change, not the fact that it is changing.

Edited by repete, 03 December 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[Sean von Steinike]

ultimech, on 03 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

If you drop a perfectly good game because of something you don't want then your dumb. Play the game for what you do like about it.

3rd person will turn it into a crap game. There will nothing to like about it if this disgusting mode of play is put in.

[DoCGabriel]

Im a player who has run Mech games going on 15 years. Third person play screwed the mechwarrior games up, turning a great sim into robots shooting each other. Player base dried up pretty fast after that. If you are going for a long standing game that will be here in 2 to 3 years you should learn from that mistake.

Giving new players a way to learn how to pilot in 3rd person is one thing (an idea I think may have merrit). However placing it in the main game as an open option to all or as a type of drop will split your player base and hurt the game either by mass exodus or lowering the number of players each can go against.

Im against thrid person being released as an open option for drops in any form unless it is done in a way to help new pilots learn (have a newbie drop option for 3rd person drops however they must drop in a trial mech).

Just my two cents...

[Failcube]

Card, on 16 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Well, that was so vague that it said absolutely nothing, will accomplish nothing, and makes no one whatsoever feel any better about it at all.

Was that the point?

Wow, quite the responses here. I know for a fact the people complaining didn't even bother to listen to the interview linked.

It explains why the third-person option is important for growing the game, but more importantly, how it won't affect first-person players at all if they don't want it to. If it's added, it'll be a separate game mode of sorts and if you choose to play standard first-person, you'll only play against other first-person players so there's no advantage/disadvantage.

Complaints... over nothing. They're growing the game for new players to the franchise, players who sometimes find getting used to the mech controls and torso more difficult. You and I know that's not us, it's other new players. This will help grow the game we want to succeed.

Comments like this will do the opposite.

[Shampoo]

i feel like 3rd person view should only be allowed durring spectator mode.

[nonplusultra]

Quote

i feel like 3rd person view should only be allowed durring spectator mode.

That is a very nice idea. Agree to that!

[Xenok]

There is one thing they could do with 3PV that would be cool. They could add in MechCommander to the game and we could take on each other running 8 mechs each. 3pv is not for running a single mech.

[Toothman]

ultimech, on 03 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

If you drop a perfectly good game because of something you don't want then your dumb. Play the game for what you do like about it.

Let the whining, non reading children go. Then the adults can play in peace.

[Toothman]

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED, and when the feature that is disliked was ORIGINALLY SAID TO NOT BE HERE, it fundamentally alters our trust of the company. SO... quitting because of this, is not dumb, as it alters the product in an unsatisfactory way and departure is the best idea at this point. Would you still eat say a pizza that when you ORDERED it, it had say: peperoni, onions, mushroom, sausage and say bellpepper only to have the delivery guy show up, charge you 20 bucks for the pizza, and have you open it after he leaves only to see: anchovies ONLY? i think not. its the same here. we ordered it up one way, because hey, that is how it was, ya know, advertised, then, they try to give us bilge water and call it champagne? uh no thank you.

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED, and when the feature that is disliked was ORIGINALLY SAID TO NOT BE HERE, it fundamentally alters our trust of the company. SO... quitting because of this, is not dumb, as it alters the product in an unsatisfactory way and departure is the best idea at this point. Would you still eat say a pizza that when you ORDERED it, it had say: peperoni, onions, mushroom, sausage and say bellpepper only to have the delivery guy show up, charge you 20 bucks for the pizza, and have you open it after he leaves only to see: anchovies ONLY? i think not. its the same here. we ordered it up one way, because hey, that is how it was, ya know, advertised, then, they try to give us bilge water and call it champagne? uh no thank you.

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED, and when the feature that is disliked was ORIGINALLY SAID TO NOT BE HERE, it fundamentally alters our trust of the company. SO... quitting because of this, is not dumb, as it alters the product in an unsatisfactory way and departure is the best idea at this point. Would you still eat say a pizza that when you ORDERED it, it had say: peperoni, onions, mushroom, sausage and say bellpepper only to have the delivery guy show up, charge you 20 bucks for the pizza, and have you open it after he leaves only to see: anchovies ONLY? i think not. its the same here. we ordered it up one way, because hey, that is how it was, ya know, advertised, then, they try to give us bilge water and call it champagne? uh no thank you.

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED, and when the feature that is disliked was ORIGINALLY SAID TO NOT BE HERE, it fundamentally alters our trust of the company. SO... quitting because of this, is not dumb, as it alters the product in an unsatisfactory way and departure is the best idea at this point. Would you still eat say a pizza that when you ORDERED it, it had say: peperoni, onions, mushroom, sausage and say bellpepper only to have the delivery guy show up, charge you 20 bucks for the pizza, and have you open it after he leaves only to see: anchovies ONLY? i think not. its the same here. we ordered it up one way, because hey, that is how it was, ya know, advertised, then, they try to give us bilge water and call it champagne? uh no thank you.

First since they have stated people in 1st person won't have to play against people in 3rd person, most of your wall of text is invalid. Second, you didn't "order" this game. PGI is making it and you have been invited to help test it. To use your erroneous example, PGI is putting out a pizza buffet and you get to come try it. If you don't like it, wait until the restaurant opens then try it again.

[JadeViper]

To the poll, one must keep in mind the people who participate: only Current MWO players, players who read multiple forum genres, people who read threads, people who participate in polls. I for example never noticed the poll and did not participate. So be aware of the demographic.

A more appropriate poll would be on general gamers at a con with questions like "Do you like FPS?" "Do you like having a 3rd person option in FPS?" "Would you enjoy a game that was Fist person only or third person only (no view options?)" "Do you like 3rd person games?" "Would you buy a game if it had more view options to the player?" etc. how players answer these affirmative, scaled questions (0= disagree, 5=stongly agree) helps to describe the demographic of the player and a market study. Polls must have decoy questions to be truly valid to distract the test taker from the goal of the study. A poll, where you can forecast teh consequences of the poll (eg our 3rd eprson poll) is invalid because the votes are for the outcome, and not the question. The questions were structured to indicate the outcome of the poll (3rd person will be added, 3rd person wont be added). The Poll is invalid.

Getting an accurate, unbiased poll is actually a very hard thing to do. Most of the time it requires a decoy. You say its a study to examine the net-worth of a gamer demographic (household income) so you make it about game purchases and preferences, but in reality, you only care about the answer to 1 or 2 questions in the questionnaire that are unrelated to the decoy topic, in this case the frequency of interest in having only 1 view angle, or multiple.

[ManDaisy]

You cannot deny that the polls represent the core group, that is those that actually care enough to responded and are actively playing on a regular basis. If 90% percent of them are displeased and leave then what you are left with is an unknown amount of players who may only play once in a while. The less core group there is the less constant volume of players. The less players the less attraction of new players (dead mmo syndrome). Eventually you end with a dried out husk as undedicated players will easily move from game to game. They hid the player count for a reason.

Edited by ManDaisy, 04 December 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[abriael]

Garth Erlam, on 16 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

If we find that there is a relevant role for an optional 3^rd person camera mode, then then would simply be an additional option that, if you don’t want it, won’t affect you.

But it does influence me Garth, as it allows my enemiesmy see behind their back when I'm sneaking up on them, which isn't cool.

I am radically against it. If people want to check out how good their mech looks, give them a chance to record and watch replays as other online games like War Thunder do (and it would be massively cool).

Edited by abriael, 04 December 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[Alois Hammer]

Now that the reality has been made clear, let's get down to brass tacks:

Okay Devs, what's the projected schedule for the impending arrival of third-person view? (And then how many months later will the first-only/third-only toggle be implemented, if at all?)

[Jakob Knight]

The question I have is if the '3rd Person' option is the -option- or the -default-. If it is the -default-, then players will assume 3P is the way the game is meant to be played, or not even be aware it is an alternate mode of play. In addition, players who don't want to play in that mode are forced to be the ones to constantly elect not to be in those games, likely dropping into them by forgetting to elect otherwise. This would be a serious problem for veteran players.

The other problem is that players who have the 3P option have no incentive to learn to play without it. When you don't have the crutch, you learn to play without, but if you have it, then the players who might otherwise have developed into good players remain in their comfort zone, with no reason to become better.

So, if this is as training wheels or a mode of play on par with normal play, then it will fail to improve the game. All it will do is cause fustration and division in the playerbase, and encourage dependence. On the other hand, if it is an attempt to allow players who simply don't have the ability to learn to pilot a battlemech to use MWO as an arcade shooter, then it is a bad idea as it encourages the idea that the devs only care about MWO as a cash cow, and nothing more.

Thus, if 3P is put in at all, it should limit the players electing to play in that mode to 'quick matches', which have no impact on the larger strategic warfare (when put in), grant no xp (you are on training wheels, don't expect to be rewarded for having your hand held), and no c-bill production (or a vastly decreased rate for the same reason). In no way should it be on the same level as actual play, nor be the default play style.

[Kaemon]

[Coolant]

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

when the feature that is disliked fundamentally alters the game as ORIGINALLY PROMISED, and when the feature that is disliked was ORIGINALLY SAID TO NOT BE HERE, it fundamentally alters our trust of the company. SO... quitting because of this, is not dumb, as it alters the product in an unsatisfactory way and departure is the best idea at this point. Would you still eat say a pizza that when you ORDERED it, it had say: peperoni, onions, mushroom, sausage and say bellpepper only to have the delivery guy show up, charge you 20 bucks for the pizza, and have you open it after he leaves only to see: anchovies ONLY? i think not. its the same here. we ordered it up one way, because hey, that is how it was, ya know, advertised, then, they try to give us bilge water and call it champagne? uh no thank you.

repete, on 03 December 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Is your concern REALLY about what was "originally promised" vs. if whether what is changed breaks the game or not? Things change.

Since I like throwing out straw men, I'll throw this one out there. In the United States, as "originally promised" only white, male landowners could vote. But that was improved.

Surely the point isn't "But you promised this would be a sim!". Surely the point is, "3PV has been done before, and it broke things. Don't break things!". Don't resist change to resist change. Resist change when it makes things worse. Focus on the change, not the fact that it is changing.

exactly, his argument has now changed to only "they promised us!" rather than it be so game-ruining. At the time when Russ and PGI decided against 3rd Person inclusion I'm sure they meant what they said, but a company or business deals with dynamic situations and bottom-lines...If you can prove they deliberately set out to deceive you then maybe you have a point...you won't be able to prove that and I doubt anyone really thinks they did...so no point.

And, the fact that you have taken a step back about how it is so game-breaking...well, because you don't mention it anymore, means you finally understand that you never have to play 3rd person or play against another person that is using 3rd person.

Wow, maybe progress? Doubt it...you like to hear yourself talk

[Pantherjay]

1. Ummmm.maybe I'm getting old, but I do believe 3rd person view was available from day 1 in MW4. The "poptarts" were always there.

2. They say if you choose NOT to play vs a 3rd person view player, you don't have to. Plain enough really.

I remember many servers had various modes/options of play in MW4.....and forced 1st person was one of those options. I chose not to play on those. There were also "no heat" servers, and others. Maybe you didn't play on those...you only played 1st person, heat on servers........fine, but not everyone did.

3. I have started playing this game in 1st person, even though I always hated it, and I admit I'm getting used to it. But there are still many, many times I get jammed up, stuck, can't get my bearings, or other events that detract from MY enjoyment of the game.

4. Seems there is a LOT of selective reading/listening going on here. If they say you won't have to play against 3rd person view players as a 1st person view player, why don't you give them the chance to prove it before you take your ball and go home?

5. Last time I checked there was a 360 degree radar module available.