2926 replies to this topic

[Pando]

CSJ Ranger, on 30 January 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

Oh ...not more stupid Console and Facebook Kids, Nerds,Cheater, Botpilots, AFKler, idiots and skilless Mechassault Babys

I'm an advocate in the corner of allowing alternate view perspectives to include but not be limited to ideally third person. Reasons an alternate view perspective should be implemented have already been clearly outlined by either DEV's or insightful persons commenting on the reality of the matter.

I've read several of your clever retorts and if you for an instance presume " stupid console and facebook kids, nerds, cheaters, botpilots and skill-less mechassault babys" comprise the audience of persons in the corner FOR this third person view YOU ARE WRONG. Building on that, I can't begin to formulate my profound hatred toward your dunning-kruger, incognisant, incomprehensible ignorance on this subject.

I will be here any day at any either private or in-game to show you how much of a "stupid console and facebook kid, nerd, cheater, botpilot and skillless mechassault baby" I can really be. Don't complain when you hold a candle to my flamethrower.

Pando

Edited by Pando, 01 February 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[WinningOne]

MWHawke, on 01 February 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

If you stop to think about it, the people who would exploit 3rd person view would always play 3rd person view. And you are dropping new players into that pot. How would this then be considered good for the game? It would kill the game faster no? As we go along, the niche BT players will start to thin out. How then would this help MWO?

Using a feature that is intentionally added to the game is not an exploit. If everyone on a map is filtered to only play one view or the other then your concern is irrelevant. People can try out the different views and modes until they find one they like. It adds variety to the game and increases the chances players will enjoy it. Did you actually listen to the interview?

[Pando]

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Using a feature that is intentionally added to the game is not an exploit. If everyone on a map is filtered to only play one view or the other then your concern is irrelevant. People can try out the different views and modes until they find one they like. It adds variety to the game and increases the chances players will enjoy it. Did you actually listen to the interview?

Most people comment and have not listened to the interview. Or, they have and are suffering from conformity issues derived from the possibility of the player base being split so severely they will be forced to play a game mode they do not enjoy (third person).

[WinningOne]

Pando, on 01 February 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Most people comment and have not listened to the interview. Or, they have and are suffering from conformity issues derived from the possibility of the player base being split so severely they will be forced to play a game mode they do not enjoy (third person).

Which, for me, is the frustrating part because they're doing so at the expense of the success of MWO. There are nearly 1700 posts over an imaginary fear which, as proved by their own arguments and supported by the Dev interview, will never happen.

[MWHawke]

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Using a feature that is intentionally added to the game is not an exploit. If everyone on a map is filtered to only play one view or the other then your concern is irrelevant. People can try out the different views and modes until they find one they like. It adds variety to the game and increases the chances players will enjoy it. Did you actually listen to the interview?

Wow, are you blind or daft or just can't read? It has been stated time and time again that if you use a 3rd person view, then Mechs hiding behind another and attacking him from behind would be exposed, if you tilt your Mech in certain ways, you would be able to see over or around hills or buildings. You mean that the developers INTENTIONALLY put 3rd person view so that people can use those "features"?

You mean only YOUR views are relevant? How is a concern that newbies play against exploiters irrelevant? You mean that newbie players getting exposed to exploiters makes them want to come back and play more often?

Did you actually read any of the posts?

[PlzDie]

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Yeah, I can't describe how absolutely unimpressive this argument is. It's obvious what you're really against is change.


In other words, your problem is with how quickly PGI is moving down their development plan. 'Cause it totally sucks when someone actually gets ahead of their work instead of missing deadlines all the time.

I do not know how you figured this out of my post, my problem is when I started this game it was pure FPV, then came the 3rd PV will be investigated in the distant future (which by the way has nothing to do with development speed, distant future remains distant future time does not speed up as you work faster).

My problem is I was promised and dropped money into one product, and currently it is being investigated and discussed to alter what I believed I was paying for to please a "ghost majority", which I understand is many but could not be found up to now.

Edited by Duppie1974, 01 February 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Pando]

MWHawke, on 01 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Wow, are you blind or daft or just can't read? It has been stated time and time again that if you use a 3rd person view, then Mechs hiding behind another and attacking him from behind would be exposed, if you tilt your Mech in certain ways, you would be able to see over or around hills or buildings. You mean that the developers INTENTIONALLY put 3rd person view so that people can use those "features"?

You mean only YOUR views are relevant? How is a concern that newbies play against exploiters irrelevant? You mean that newbie players getting exposed to exploiters makes them want to come back and play more often?

Did you actually read any of the posts?

Let me try this reading comprehension thing for you. To begin, when said feature is implemented in-game it cannot be viewed as an exploit by definition if; everyone within "X" game mode has "Y" feature as a possibility. Secondly, that was outlined by Russ in the podcast posted on page 1.

Duppie1974, on 01 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I do not know how you figured this out of my post, my problem is when I started this game it was pure FPV, then came the 3rd PV will be investigated in the distant future (which by the way has nothing to do with development speed, distant future remains distant future time does not speed up as you work faster).

My problem is I was promised and dropped money into one product, and currently it is being investigated and discussed to alter what I believed I was paying for to please a "ghost majority", which I understand is many but cannot be found up to now.

You purchased a package within a free-to-play atmosphere who's outline at the time during closed beta didn't include any third person perspectives correct? You also purchased a package within a free-to-play atmosphere where EVERYTHING is subject to change correct?

[Pando]

Duppie1974, on 01 February 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Link me to that please I must have missed it.

This is a Q&A session regarding founders packages here on forums. This is what we purchased.

http://mwomercs.com/...qa-compilation/

Edited by Pando, 01 February 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Pando]

Pando, on 01 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

This is a Q&A session regarding founders packages here on forums. This is what we purchased.

http://mwomercs.com/...qa-compilation/

Quoting myself

Also, what we paid for is found here - http://mwomercs.com/...age-on-sale-now

You will notice view perspective isn't listed.

[PlzDie]

Pando, on 01 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Quoting myself

Also, what we paid for is found here - http://mwomercs.com/...age-on-sale-now

You will notice view perspective isn't listed.

I understand what you are trying to say, but people still feel cheated, and I am now and will in future be against this.

[Pando]

Duppie1974, on 01 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

I understand what you are trying to say, but people still feel cheated, and I am now and will in future be against this.

People should not feel that way. What they were paying for was clearly outlined and provided. I can understand the frustration caused by the decision to come out and say "NO" to third person from a development standpoint regarding the true feeling they are trying to capture. Then, coming out and saying "snip"

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

For reference, we also strongly recommend listening to Russ’s comments, as he provides a clear case for our approach.

Over the course of development, we’ve had a huge number of requests for a 3^rd person camera option. At this early stage, it’s something we feel that warrants further analysis, understanding and exploration.

MechWarrior Online is, and will always be, a game focused on 1st person combat in Mechs. That experience is sacrosanct to the classic Mechwarrior experience.

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.

Cheers,
The MechWarrior Online Team

end "snip" - Probably wasn't an easy move to make. That being said, they've probably got some pretty relevant reasons of their own for making that announcement. We'll just have to wait and see.

Edited by Pando, 01 February 2013 - 10:51 AM.

[WinningOne]

MWHawke, on 01 February 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Wow, are you blind or daft or just can't read? It has been stated time and time again that if you use a 3rd person view, then Mechs hiding behind another and attacking him from behind would be exposed, if you tilt your Mech in certain ways, you would be able to see over or around hills or buildings. You mean that the developers INTENTIONALLY put 3rd person view so that people can use those "features"?

You mean only YOUR views are relevant? How is a concern that newbies play against exploiters irrelevant? You mean that newbie players getting exposed to exploiters makes them want to come back and play more often?

Did you actually read any of the posts?

If you had listened to the interview you would know that PGI would allow you to only play against other players using the same camera view as you. Which means purists who want to retain the traditional feel of the MechWarrior universe will have that option. They will also be abel to rest easy knowing the players they're fighting are also of the same mind. It's not that my opinion is more relevant. It's just that it's informed and yours is not.

Duppie1974, on 01 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I do not know how you figured this out of my post, my problem is when I started this game it was pure FPV, then came the 3rd PV will be investigated in the distant future (which by the way has nothing to do with development speed, distant future remains distant future time does not speed up as you work faster).

My problem is I was promised and dropped money into one product, and currently it is being investigated and discussed to alter what I believed I was paying for to please a "ghost majority", which I understand is many but could not be found up to now.

The game is in Beta. I don't think it's a good idea to believe a game in Beta testing is going to remain static. Based on your two posts I'm starting to believe you're trolling. That's a shame considering your Founder status.

Edited by WinningOne, 01 February 2013 - 11:18 AM.

[WinningOne]

Gulinborsti, on 31 January 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

I wonder how long this discussion has to go on until PGI realize that the (vocal) majority (80%++) is against any form of 3rd person view.

It's about time that the DEVs drop the idea and move on or come up with a real good description of how their implementation of 3rd person is not going to break the game (if possible).

Have you ever heard the story of the 2 million penguins? It goes like this. Each spring 2 million penguins would gather to watch the British do fighter jet training over their little slice of glacier. The jets would go from left to right and right to left and all 2 million penquins would, in unison, swing their beaks from one side to the other. Eventually, the jets would head directly inland and, as they approached, 2 million beaks would begin to rise higher and higher until, inevitably, all 2 million penguins would fall over onto their backs like dopes as the jets passed overhead and beyond the horizon. Then, 2 million penquins would clumsily bump and tumble into each other while they tried to stand back up. The moral? It's still stupid even if 2 million people are doing it. Trying to defend an imaginary and irrational fear which was specifically addressed in the interview would fall into that category.

[StORmTrAin]

I didn't buy a first person shooter, I bought MWO. Perspective didn't ruin MW4, no new content ruined MW4, it stagnated, then it died.

Anyone who didn't read the forums before hand would have naturally assumed that it would have a 3PV option. Just like its brother MW4; which was huge. I was shocked when I read before game release that 3PV would not be played. Literally shocked.

There are many 3PV players who play for the love of the game, not the view, these are the true mechwarriors. I am one. 1PV isn't my favorite POV, but I don't allow it to ruin the game for me, because I love Mechwarrior. I love the way the mechs move, I love the way the weapons look when they fire and hit, I love the way the mechs look and I enjoy looking at them, all of them, I like to zoom in on my team mates cockpit and try to see if i can see them inside, I like to zoom in on their mech too where I can appreciate the detail and the hard work that went into the game design. There is so much that I enjoy about mechwarrior I cannot let POV ruin it for me. I AM a Mechwarrior.

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Have you ever heard the story of the 2 million penguins? It goes like this. Each spring 2 million penguins would gather to watch the British do fighter jet training over their little slice of glacier. The jets would go from left to right and right to left and all 2 million penquins would, in unison, swing their beaks from one side to the other. Eventually, the jets would head directly inland and, as they approached, 2 million beaks would begin to rise higher and higher until, inevitably, all 2 million penguins would fall over onto their backs like dopes as the jets passed overhead and beyond the horizon. Then, 2 million penquins would clumsily bump and tumble into each other while they tried to stand back up. The moral? It's still stupid even if 2 million people are doing it. Trying to defend an imaginary and irrational fear which was specifically addressed in the interview would fall into that category.

You posess true wisdom!

[MWHawke]

Pando, on 01 February 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Let me try this reading comprehension thing for you. To begin, when said feature is implemented in-game it cannot be viewed as an exploit by definition if; everyone within "X" game mode has "Y" feature as a possibility. Secondly, that was outlined by Russ in the podcast posted on page 1.

You are right. It is only fair that Light Mechs get further creamed and lose the ability to sneak up on people. Oh my God!!! What was I thinking??!? Next, we should implement auto-aim for Gauss so that it makes it easier for new players. Well, why stop there? Goodness me!! Let's introduce auto-kill!!!

You obviously have no idea how this will kill the game. Let me reiterate. You will be putting people who will use the "features" to look over and around terrain with NEW players. And you will leave the people who really want to play first person to play with a more limited market. So, you will be killing new joiners because the people who want to look over and around terrain are the people who are most likely worried about their KDR and they will do whatever they need to to add to theirs. Thus, you have effectively split the game to :

1) a limited market for 1st person view
2) people who are worried about their KDR and will play in the newbie pool

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

If you had listened to the interview you would know that PGI would allow you to only play against other players using the same camera view as you. Which means purists who want to retain the traditional feel of the MechWarrior universe will have that option. They will also be abel to rest easy knowing the players they're fighting are also of the same mind. It's not that my opinion is more relevant. It's just that it's informed and yours is not.

Read my post above. Look at the effect and not the marketing.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

The only way to vote here is with our money. 90% of the people in the forums say no. Let me be clear: the day 3rd person view becomes an option for MWO battles will be the last day I play.

[WinningOne]

MWHawke, on 01 February 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

You are right. It is only fair that Light Mechs get further creamed and lose the ability to sneak up on people. Oh my God!!! What was I thinking??!? Next, we should implement auto-aim for Gauss so that it makes it easier for new players. Well, why stop there? Goodness me!! Let's introduce auto-kill!!!

You obviously have no idea how this will kill the game. Let me reiterate. You will be putting people who will use the "features" to look over and around terrain with NEW players. And you will leave the people who really want to play first person to play with a more limited market. So, you will be killing new joiners because the people who want to look over and around terrain are the people who are most likely worried about their KDR and they will do whatever they need to to add to theirs. Thus, you have effectively split the game to :

1) a limited market for 1st person view
2) people who are worried about their KDR and will play in the newbie pool



Read my post above. Look at the effect and not the marketing.

Your post is desperate gibberish. You just don't know what you're talking about. No matter how the game is designed new players will be at a disadvantage to experienced players. With time they'll learn all the same tricks you and I have. Plus, it is obvious from previous posts by other people defending your point of view, if there is a limited market for either camera mode it will be 3rd person and not 1st.

The big proof however, is in the fact the community is already split based on the game mode they prefer. Players have the ability to never play Conquest or always play Conquest and the same for the other mode. Unsurprisingly, it has not destroyed the community but opened the game up to people who prefer certain mechanics to others. Plus, PGI has said they plan to add more. The bottom line is we're already in a situation where, if you were right, we would be seeing the problems you mentioned. We are not. You're wrong.

[MWHawke]

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Your post is desperate gibberish. You just don't know what you're talking about. No matter how the game is designed new players will be at a disadvantage to experienced players. With time they'll learn all the same tricks you and I have. Plus, it is obvious from previous posts by other people defending your point of view, if there is a limited market for either camera mode it will be 3rd person and not 1st.

The big proof however, is in the fact the community is already split based on the game mode they prefer. Players have the ability to never play Conquest or always play Conquest and the same for the other mode. Unsurprisingly, it has not destroyed the community but opened the game up to people who prefer certain mechanics to others. Plus, PGI has said they plan to add more. The bottom line is we're already in a situation where, if you were right, we would be seeing the problems you mentioned. We are not. You're wrong.

Wow, desperate gibberish. I still have not heard any good argument from your "side". All I keep reading is we are right and you are wrong!!! Wowie!!! Great going!!! Any game which new players play will definitely have a learning curve. DEAL WITH IT!

Another WOW!!! Comparing Mission types with 1st person and 3rd person.. GREAT GOING!!!

[Rejarial Galatan]

WinningOne, on 01 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

The people posting who are upset about this need to listen to the interview. There's no reason, based on the interview, why anyone should be concerned their opinion is being ignored or that 3rd person will be forced upon them.

Did you listen to it? He claims there are people complaining about mechanics and so forth and want to have 3rd person view to 'understand' said mechanics. This is a lie. Where are the tons of people complaining about not understanding mechanics such as torso twist vs leg facing? Obviously not on the forums, because if they were, they would be taught by those of us who get it. <side note: if you cannot figure out why the legs do not follow where the torso is facing, you scare me, because this SAME mechanic is used day in and day out by you when you walk and talk, or, look over your shoulder while driving to merge into/out of traffic>

See, what PGI is TRYING to do, and it will fail, is become relevant to the twitch brats and TRY to draw them off of CoD. They openly declare that they do not want to split the community, but then state that those who wish to play in one view mode will not have to fight against those in the other view mode. Did I fail basic english or something? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us: You will be split into 2 groups. 1PP and 3rdPP.... Oh, also, this would require both modes to be caustic to the other so they cannot accidentally intermingle, which means they gotta spend MORE money on servers, programmers and so on to make certain they do not mix, which drives up prices for MC and other things that we already feel are over priced as is. This is a dangerously foul snowball to toss. Also, as mentioned a few pages back by myself, this would open them to litigation as the majority of us would feel defrauded as we paid for a product of ONE design and then they bait and switch with a lesser arcade variant. Truth In Advertising Law's are there for a reason. This is one ugly litigation prone mine field they would walk into, because it would be a financial disaster for them as a sizable portion of founders demand refunds on founders packages and MC purchases.

Oh and also, in one poll we are about 10 to 1 No vs Yes on 3rd person, and in the one that 'mysteriously' vanished we were about 100 to 1 No vs Yes on 3rd Person. This is NOT a small statistical percentage, this <especially the original poll> was well past the sample line that constitutes a major population wide opinion on it.

See, there is no way to secure the game against hacking 3rd person view once it is in, because shock of shocks we <most of us> know how they code this game because we alter our USER.CFG files to make things work or work better/smoother. not a wise risk for them to take truth be told.

[WinningOne]

Rejarial Galatan, on 01 February 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Did you listen to it? He claims there are people complaining about mechanics and so forth and want to have 3rd person view to 'understand' said mechanics. This is a lie. Where are the tons of people complaining about not understanding mechanics such as torso twist vs leg facing? Obviously not on the forums, because if they were, they would be taught by those of us who get it. <side note: if you cannot figure out why the legs do not follow where the torso is facing, you scare me, because this SAME mechanic is used day in and day out by you when you walk and talk, or, look over your shoulder while driving to merge into/out of traffic>

See, what PGI is TRYING to do, and it will fail, is become relevant to the twitch brats and TRY to draw them off of CoD. They openly declare that they do not want to split the community, but then state that those who wish to play in one view mode will not have to fight against those in the other view mode. Did I fail basic english or something? Because that sounds suspiciously like telling us: You will be split into 2 groups. 1PP and 3rdPP.... Oh, also, this would require both modes to be caustic to the other so they cannot accidentally intermingle, which means they gotta spend MORE money on servers, programmers and so on to make certain they do not mix, which drives up prices for MC and other things that we already feel are over priced as is. This is a dangerously foul snowball to toss. Also, as mentioned a few pages back by myself, this would open them to litigation as the majority of us would feel defrauded as we paid for a product of ONE design and then they bait and switch with a lesser arcade variant. Truth In Advertising Law's are there for a reason. This is one ugly litigation prone mine field they would walk into, because it would be a financial disaster for them as a sizable portion of founders demand refunds on founders packages and MC purchases.

Oh and also, in one poll we are about 10 to 1 No vs Yes on 3rd person, and in the one that 'mysteriously' vanished we were about 100 to 1 No vs Yes on 3rd Person. This is NOT a small statistical percentage, this <especially the original poll> was well past the sample line that constitutes a major population wide opinion on it.

See, there is no way to secure the game against hacking 3rd person view once it is in, because shock of shocks we <most of us> know how they code this game because we alter our USER.CFG files to make things work or work better/smoother. not a wise risk for them to take truth be told.

I had a few paragraphs written up but I just couldn't post them. Your comments are so ridiculous they don't deserve a serious reply. Litigation? Really? You'd look real clever in court complaining about how PGI made changes to a game in Beta testing meanwhile posting about how you yourself like to alter the gamefiles. You guys are completely crazy.

Edited by WinningOne, 02 February 2013 - 05:43 AM.