2926 replies to this topic

[buttmonkey]

maybe this could solve the 3rd person issue,

currently your launch options look like this

launch
any
assault
conquest

maybe they could look mlike this

launch
any 1st person
assault 1st person
conquest 1st person
any 3rd person
assault 3rd person
conquest 3rd person

surely this would be ok...? right....?

[Adrius ADI Manthays]

in the theory yes = much of new work for PGI. and spliting in two community groups. with different wishes!

simulation 1st Person group will only Simulation Features! the 3rd Arcade TeleTubbies Group will only Arcade Cheat Features! Big Conflict Potential!

Best Idea is when PGI make a Train Map with 3rd View for the New MechJockeys! But thats is a Old Story.

I think in few Months most of the Arcade 3rd Players play another Game. This is a Old Nature Way.
And we can go back to the Important Things for MWO BattleTech Simulation PC Game.

rgr&out

Edited by Adrak Manta, 03 February 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Warge]

Adrak Manta, on 03 February 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

I think in few Months most of the Arcade 3rd Players play another Game. This is a Old Nature Way.
And we can go back to the Important Things for MWO BattleTech Simulation PC Game.

How many hardcore players vs casual? Can hc only support by their money MWO? If answer is "yes" - to hell with 3pv lovers, if "not" - for the saving of this game let's this game have 3pv servers.

Edited by Warge, 03 February 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[Herodes]

I warn a test map or sandbox with 3rd person view .... to practice and to look at my beautiful Mech and take screenphotos. But in combat ... no way, I want a cockpit, maybe a rear mirror, but nothing more. Immersion and feeling is very important.

[Havok1978]

I actually came to forums for my introduction post, but this topic immediately raised my hackles.

Pouring through this mess, I note several things.
#1 There are 2 distinct fanbases for MechWarrior, there is no real benefit from alienating either of them.
#2 A server filter to keep the 1st and 3rd pov's seperate would solve this easily.
#3 "splitting" an "already small community" adds diversity and promotes growth. How can this be bad?
currently, there is only a 1st pov community, and it is small, this has been stated. That small community can be thier own community.
Ultimately, by having 2 communities, the overall fanbase would be increased and re-distributed, adding more people doesnt reduce a community.

I personally have played battletech and shadowrun since the days you could speak the name "shadowrun" and invoke the images of bladerunner instead of team fortress. this 3rd pov vs 1st pov debate is not the samething. it cant destroy the community as it is an option. it certainly didnt destroy MW4 mercs, this is not the return of microsoft. relax everyone.

in essence what I see coming from this, IF its done via server filter, is the 1st pov purists having a more rich and developed community (they usually tend to) and people playing 3rd pov migrating as they progress.

I feel though, that 3rd pov stats/mechs/cbills etc be kept seperate from 1st pov. this would keep 1st pov players from butchering noobs for easy c-bills.

Really, in truth, MW purists who try to force folks to use 1st pov for this sim.. could just as easily be subject to the 3rd pov's arguement that this game was a tabletop game and we should all be playing mechwarrior tactics online or some such, "cuz thats how it was meant to be played"

As long as the pov's arent mixed, i dont see a problem. I would like a 3rd person view for spectation though.

just my 2cents

oh and hi world!

[Gremlich Johns]

WinningOne, on 02 February 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

Um.....He says in the quote they would investigate it for the future. It's literally right there in your post. Do you see it? Right there. In your actual post. I'm not sure how you don't see it but it's right there. He openly warned you they would be taking a look at it. No....Seriously....It's right there. Who knows when they'll actually start doing it but the heads up, the information, the FYI, the warning, the prophesy, the advance notice is LITERALLY right there. You're just.....like.....I don't know how too.....it's actually in your................I just............wow.

You are such an ST1. you were provided the necessary details and still you want to weasel about investigation. Investigation is nothing but a possibility, and not a very good one, what Paul stated originally is. So, based on your requirement to be shown proof, you MUST side with the poster that showed and linked you to the specific passages.

IMNSHO, people who prefer 1PV tend to stay with a game longer. People preferring a 3PV are not in it for the long haul and will drift away as soon as the next game shows up (3-6 months at best) and only come back to a previous game whilst they are waiting for the next new game. Methinks you fall into the latter category.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 03 February 2013 - 03:47 PM.

[WinningOne]

Gremlich Johns, on 03 February 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

You are such an ST1. you were provided the necessary details and still you want to weasel about investigation. Investigation is nothing but a possibility, and not a very good one, what Paul stated originally is. So, based on your requirement to be shown proof, you MUST side with the poster that showed and linked you to the specific passages.

IMNSHO, people who prefer 1PV tend to stay with a game longer. People preferring a 3PV are not in it for the long haul and will drift away as soon as the next game shows up (3-6 months at best) and only come back to a previous game whilst they are waiting for the next new game. Methinks you fall into the latter category.

It clearly says in the quote that they will look at it in the future. The only way it could be clearer is to attach an actual date on when they plan on doing it.

As for the rest of your post, well, having the habit of speaking in such broad generalities is something you have to live with, not me.

[Natasha Kerensky]

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

Hi Mechwarriors,

So Russ let slip in an interview with No Guts No Galaxy we are looking into a 3rd person view option. It seems a lot of people are unhappy with this, so we’d like to explain our thought process here.

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. Bryan will be writing a detailed Command Chair post on this (he's currently at 40,000 feet, and not by Jump Jetting) with more details. For now, be assured we're acutely aware of past problems with 3rd person view, and will make sure those same issues are thoroughly addressed. We wouldn’t settle for anything less.

Cheers,
The MechWarrior Online Team

There is nothing you can do that will make 3rd person camera work. Why are you even entertaining the idea of third person camera? DO you not have better things to do? Like more maps, galaxy warfare, more mechs, fix a million bugs, etc?

[jay35]

buttmonkey, on 03 February 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

maybe this could solve the 3rd person issue,

currently your launch options look like this

launch
any
assault
conquest

maybe they could look mlike this

launch
any 1st person
assault 1st person
conquest 1st person
any 3rd person
assault 3rd person
conquest 3rd person

surely this would be ok...? right....?

That's a hot mess, and just more proof this game needs a proper filtering system and a way to create a game with the settings desired by the players, not this random map nonsense.

First of all, mechs drop into an environment they know in advance, so they have the opportunity to select the right mech and loadout for each mission. So the first necessity is to know which map you're about to drop into. They need to fix that first.

Once they fix that, the next step is to be able to select the gameplay settings desired, such as filtering out any night-time maps or any hot maps (or cold maps, or whatever the preference is). Once players can control what they're dropped into, or have a variety of servers running different settings and allowing you to choose which server you wish to join, that is another step in the right direction. Then you can have servers where 3rd Person View is disabled, and you can see which servers those are and join accordingly.

Edited by jay35, 03 February 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

WinningOne, on 02 February 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

Um.....He says in the quote they would investigate it for the future. It's literally right there in your post. Do you see it? Right there. In your actual post. I'm not sure how you don't see it but it's right there. He openly warned you they would be taking a look at it. No....Seriously....It's right there. Who knows when they'll actually start doing it but the heads up, the information, the FYI, the warning, the prophesy, the advance notice is LITERALLY right there. You're just.....like.....I don't know how too.....it's actually in your................I just............wow.

and you skip right past the part where he states implicitly 100% first person only. you skipped it to rail against me. nice.

oh, i should also state that, in the spirit of your trying to pick what the truth is apart from some dark recess of what ever it is you are operating from, you also fail to notice the fact that I clearly acknowledged his statement of the 'far off future' stating that he MAY have implied by way of 'special' that he veiled a hint at the impending training map. once again, IF you want to find fault with what I am saying, go for it, but, do not ignore things I am saying to try to either troll me <which it is becoming clear that is the tactic at work here> or stop cherry picking things out and come at me full bore with more than cherry picked allegations.

[Dustein]

IMO: 3PV = aceptable in a traning/sandbox mode.
HOWEVER, I do NOT want to play with 3PV or play against peolpe who are using 3PV.
also, wow this thread is still going??! 0.o 1724 posts and counting...

(I am curious if IGP would take the stats of yes / no 3PV and add a weight system by those who spent more MC... also curious if we interviews random ppl 'in the street' and showed them MWO promo videos and asked them:
"Would you play this game? Would you play this game if it was 1PV only? Would you play this game if it was 3PV also?" and see how many said "yes no yes" or "no no yes".
I expect most answered would be "no no no" or "yes yes yes" lol personally I am "yes yes no")


~edit: spelling~

Edited by Dustein, 03 February 2013 - 11:57 PM.

[WinningOne]

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 February 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

and you skip right past the part where he states implicitly 100% first person only. you skipped it to rail against me. nice.

oh, i should also state that, in the spirit of your trying to pick what the truth is apart from some dark recess of what ever it is you are operating from, you also fail to notice the fact that I clearly acknowledged his statement of the 'far off future' stating that he MAY have implied by way of 'special' that he veiled a hint at the impending training map. once again, IF you want to find fault with what I am saying, go for it, but, do not ignore things I am saying to try to either troll me <which it is becoming clear that is the tactic at work here> or stop cherry picking things out and come at me full bore with more than cherry picked allegations.

It's easiest to see your own errors in the actions of others.

[StORmTrAin]

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 strawman argument is invalid. Why do light mechs get to have an advantage and sneak up on people? The light mechs advantage is their speed and agility. When they engage in battle with a heavier mech they should get creamed. Is that your argument? Because it is one that obviously exploits a 1st person style of play. How is that better than someone who wants 3rd person?

Limited market for 1PV? BWAHAHAHAHAH! Your obviously stll in High School! Just deal with it gawd, many players who prefer 3PV are playing 1PV because they like the game and it's still pretty cool either way. You will too.

And one more thing, noobs are noobs no matter what view they use.

MWHawke, on 02 February 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

And to judge a SPECIFIC game based on a GENERAL market study? Great way to make a point. In that case, then EVERY game should be the same. Logical isn't it? Since the market likes only ONE type of game, then it is PURELY ILLOGICAL to create other types of games.



I want weapons between my legs in that case!! xD

Most games are 3PV MWHock

[StORmTrAin]

CSJ Ranger, on 02 February 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

unlike Pando or WinningOne with which a discussion is leading to safe sensible and sophisticated, I think they are a narcissistic little troll who has no social skills and wants to forcibly impose its idea UDN is not interested in the opinion of other people's . I hope that PGI is a reasonable way to introduce 3PV, eg a camera drone to straight people as they do not like find at MWO, because it's people like you that each use (not even abiding by) means to win and confirms their sick craving to see and leave any discussion to become a flamewar. What an individual they are, we see the fact that they vote their own posts ...



Yes StormyTrain because it 3PV is love, and all that was banned 3PV on many BF3 servers and MW4 (MBO League) use ignore you, of course, because it UDN in WOW now pandas are also all love this and want to have

I can not remember the closed beta where all dealt respectfully with Single core, it and all the flamewars not were, now is the forum troll territory ... No Premades, no ECM, weapon balance ... I do not want anyone on the battlefield that's better than me ... I want single player ..
on the battlefield, it does not look different, more and more people who disconnects when they risk losing, Botfarmer & AFKler.Der purest kindergarten that is the clientele that is attracted to 3VP, all the little Storm Trains and people want to play WoW with pandas

for a proper survey it would be best that each of the longer plays, log before after 50 game (mayflies should already be excluded) would vote for or against 3PV

translated from german

im Gegensatz zu Pando oder WinningOne, mit denen eine Diskussion sicher vernünftig und niveauvoll zu führen ist, halte ich sie für einen selbstverliebten kleinen Troll, der keinerlei soziale Fähigkeiten besitzt und gewaltsam seine Vorstellung durchsetzen will udn gar nicht an der Meinung anderer Leute interessiert ist.Ich hoffe,dass PGI einen vernünftigen weg findet ,die 3PV einzuführen, zb als Kameradrohne, damit gerade Leute wie sie nicht gefallen an MWO finden ,denn es sind Leute wie sie, die jedes (auch nicht regelkonformes) Mittel einsetzen ,um zu gewinnen und ihre kranke Geltungssucht bestätigt zu sehen und jede Diskussion zu einem Flamewar werden lassen. Was für ein Individuum sie sind, sieht man daran, dass sie ihre eigenen Beiträge voten...

Yes Stromtrain, weil es 3PV gibt ,lieben und nutzen es alle , das 3PV auf vielen BF3 und MW4 Servern ( MBO Liga) gebannt war ignorierst du natürlich,udn weil es in WOW jetzt Pandas gibt, lieben auch alle diese und wollen diese haben

Ich kann mich an die closed Beta erinnern,wo alle respektvoll miteinader umgegangen sind, udn es all die Flamewars nicht gab, jetzt ist das Forum ein Trollgebiet ...No Premades,No ECM ,Waffenbalance ...ich will niemanden auf dem Schlachtfeld, der besser ist als ich ...ich will Singleplayer ..
auf dem Schlachtfeld sieht es nicht anders aus, immer mehr Leute die disconnecten ,wenn sie zu verlieren drohen, Botfarmer & AFKler.
Der reinste Kindergarten , dass ist die Klientel ,welche mit 3VP angezogen wird, all die kleinen StormTrains und Leute die in WoW mit Pandas spielen wollen

für eine richtige Umfrage wäre es am besten ,dass jeder der länger spielt, vor dem einloggen nach dem 50 Spiel (Eintagsfliegen sollten schon ausgeklammert werden) für oder gegen 3PV voten müsste

Dude, you need to stay in the Germany forums, Google translate is not your friend. Maybe you can find an American friend to type for you? (Like you have friends) I am more than fairly uninvolved with what you have to say. But feel free to try again.

[CyBerkut]

One thing that I find odd about all of this... Here, in these forums PGI has a mechanism that can be used to clarify matters and lay concerns to rest... and in a manner much more efficient than having people sit through some 3rd party podcasts (there were at least 2 that I'm aware of) of guys sitting around drinking beer and BSing about MWO.

The obvious downside is that when they write stuff on the forums, the potential is there to box themselves in.

I can't really know what was in PGI's minds (or Russ's mind specifically), and I don't want to assume. But I will observe that the 1st podcast came off as a technique similar to one employed by politicians... as in "Let's float this out there, and see what reaction we get". Let me be clear... I'm not saying that is definitely what was being done... I can't possibly know that. But it sure looked like that.

After that podcast, a crapstorm arose. A bit later, another appearance in another podcast. Words that apparently were intended to soothe were uttered, but things were kept very vague. Oddly enough, many of us remained concerned. A vague generality about 1PV players not being affected by 3PV players left a long list of questions unanswered... and in light of the state of the game/UI at that time (no type of mode selection existed, for instance), more than a few of us were skeptical.

Leaving such things open for the multitudes to wonder/guess about naturally results in a number of differing theories arising in the community. People are going to run the limited information through the filters of their biases and their imaginations. Some will probably come close, and others will probably be farther off the mark in varying degrees.

I don't really know what to make of how it's been handled so far. It certainly hasn't been a textbook case of how to win over the troops and instill confidence.

Having been a business owner, and being the guy who headed up the tech support and also the PR, I know a bit about customer relations. One of the key things to always remember about effective communications is, "It's not what you think you are saying that matters... it's what they think they are hearing you say." That's always a challenge, (and the more vague you are, the more people's BS alarms sound off) but it is much more so with something like a podcast with other people (who are chiming in and potentially muddying up the message), versus making a written posting in an official forum, (such as a Command Couch, or Dev Blog posting). With that posting, you can edit it, and have your fellow team members review the contents before hitting the post button. With a few sets of eyes checking it over first, you can make sure to avoid saying something that is inconsistent with your intentions. And it stays up there in the forums for people to read and re-read as necessary.

It's easy enough to put some disclaimers in there to keep from locking yourself in to something that you are not yet ready to fully commit to. It might go something like this...

"Hey folks, we want to update you on something that we are seriously exploring. As you know, this is a business. Along with whatever other goals a business has (such as making the most kickazz MechWarrior game that has ever existed) it has to make money. More money is even better, as long as the other important goals are not being compromised. In that vein, we have reason to believe that a significant number of players can be added to the community if a 3rd Person View (3PV) mode can be made available for them. We recognize, of course, that 3PV can impart advantages that are not available to 1st Person View (1PV). We have no intention of ruining the 1PV play experience. As such, our current thinking would be to run separate match instances for those who wish to play 3PV. That would create potential concerns, in that additional servers would need to be run, and we would need to also run 2 separate instances of the Community Warfare as we have envisioned it. We believe that the additional players gained, and resulting income, would more than cover the additional resource requirements. Many details would obviously still need to be worked out, but hopefully this will serve to allay concerns about bringing a 3PV mode to MWO. It may turn out to be less feasible than we currently envision, (either technically or financially...) if so, we reserve the right to phase 3PV back out and chalk it up to experience. We appreciate your understanding, and pledge to work to make this as painless as an experiment as it feasibly can be for you. We look forward to hearing your constructive suggestions!"

A posted message like that, perhaps fleshed out a bit more as appropriate, would go a long way toward building customer confidence and acceptance. Lay out why it is being looked at, acknowledge the potential problems/concerns/challenges, and outline how those would be addressed. Include a way out if it turns out to be a bad idea. The paying customers want you to succeed... But you need to give them a reason to be with you on this. Generally speaking, muddied waters are not the best place to catch fish.

[Warge]

StORmTrAin, on 04 February 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Your obviously stll in High School!

You are not far from that age, correct?

StORmTrAin, on 04 February 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

many players who prefer 3PV are playing 1PV

10%, according to the results of voting.

[Dark Baron]

There really needs to be a 3rd person view in the game. I understand wanting the game to mimic a simulator and all, but some people just don't like cockpit view, especially with your wonky system tagging enemy mechs on the minimap. I've been trying to talk my friend into playing and let him play a few games on my mechs when he was over the other night, and he didn't seem to thrilled about the game. Not having a third person view was one of the things he mentioned. So he's still currently staying with WoT

Edit: No need to run extra servers just for 3rd person view, just make it where if you want to zoom in, you enter FPV. TPV is pretty much going to be for brawling anyways.

Edited by Dark Baron, 05 February 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[Natasha Kerensky]

@Rejarial Galatan

You are no Wolf. A Wolf will never choose Kurita because they tried to kill me and your fellow clansmen when we were in the Wolf's Dragoons. =(

[Velba]

Dark Baron, on 05 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

There really needs to be a 3rd person view in the game. I understand wanting the game to mimic a simulator and all, but some people just don't like cockpit view, especially with your wonky system tagging enemy mechs on the minimap. I've been trying to talk my friend into playing and let him play a few games on my mechs when he was over the other night, and he didn't seem to thrilled about the game. Not having a third person view was one of the things he mentioned. So he's still currently staying with WoT

Edit: No need to run extra servers just for 3rd person view, just make it where if you want to zoom in, you enter FPV. TPV is pretty much going to be for brawling anyways.

And cheating over hills or around buildings. Don't forget TPV being used for cheating, that's the whole point for most people.

[Gremlich Johns]

I wonder what constitutes a "huge number of requests" for 3PV. The forum poll(s), though only a reflection of the players willing to use the forums, indicate that it is not a statistically significant number that are wanting 3PV. I do not believe that people cannot comprehend torso twist. I think it is more the console kiddies unwilling to play a game they will get pounded on and are seeking the same gameplay as they enjoyed on XBox/PS2/Wii. Next they will be asking for gamepad controller capability.

Dark Baron, on 05 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

There really needs to be a 3rd person view in the game.  I understand wanting the game to mimic a simulator and all, but some people just don't like cockpit view, especially with your wonky system tagging enemy mechs on the minimap.  I've been trying to talk my friend into playing and let him play a few games on my mechs when he was over the other night, and he didn't seem to thrilled about the game.  Not having a third person view was one of the things he mentioned.  So he's still currently staying with WoT

Edit: No need to run extra servers just for 3rd person view, just make it where if you want to zoom in, you enter FPV.  TPV is pretty much going to be for brawling anyways.

Baloney, you guys just want Mario Cart with PPC and Gauss. If you really knew the BT milieu, you would not be asking for Mech Assault.

And for the hard-core players to stay and support MW:O, and IF they institute a 3PV capability, they will need to provide separate servers with FFP or 3PV. When "they" say they won't play a game with 3PV, they are NOT kidding. They will abandon the game in droves. They also constitute the majority of the Founders.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 05 February 2013 - 03:24 PM.