2926 replies to this topic

[Blandtastic]

I get the very strong impression that the people at PGI are tailoring this simulator towards the Call of Duty/arcade/brawler crowd. Which is fine, I guess. If you want to dumb down Mechwarrior Online from a mech simulator into Mech Assault. Here's my two cents on this: give us an option. Trying to appeal to everyone on everything is simply going to take all the fun out of the game.

So, the easy fix is to have two games under one umbrella. One game is focused on remaining faithful to the TT rules and the spirit of balanced play. Meaning no ECM "win" button, no play to win, no consumables and no off the map strikes. Get your builds and drop into a balanced multiplayer match with a focus on team based combat simulation. The focus would be less on kills and more on whether or not your team wins. To the point where I think kills rewards and ratios should be stripped out entirely in favor of team victory and losses becoming the focus of play.

The simulator crowd (me, lots of other founders) would love to play this game. We were promised ARMA and instead got Call of Duty.

The other option would be a more cartoon-ey experience with all the game-breaking "fun" ideas that have popped up like mushrooms in a dark room full of bull offal. If people want to play MWO as a Call of Duty knock-off, then here is the place for them. Give these people what they want. The ridiculous ECM Cloak of Invisibility, the non-functional NARC, the neutered BAP, the useless TAG and overpowered missiles. Throw these people a bone and let them play Call of Duty lone wolf in an arena environment.

In line with this arena thinking, you could allow the players to win by swaying the crowd to their side with pyrotechnics and glamour paint jobs instead of capturing a base for the win. Points to gaudy component and limb destruction. Points for kills. Salvage rights for certain arena matches. So if you blow off all the arms on the enemy you still win even if you die. Because the crowd would be on your side.

I am not totally against a 3rd-person arena-style arcade like game at all. I would love to play this to grind XP and Cbills while practicing shooting and targeting. I just think that 3rd person will further unbalance game play towards a FPS console experience. Haven't we gone down this road long enough? Not every shooting game needs to mimic Call of Duty to be successful. Please stop dumbing down Mechwarrior Online.

[Kvalheim]

snip--

Edited by Kvalheim, 23 March 2013 - 05:59 AM.

[Godswrath]

Blandtastic, on 23 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I get the very strong impression that the people at PGI are tailoring this simulator towards the Call of Duty/arcade/brawler crowd. Which is fine, I guess. If you want to dumb down Mechwarrior Online from a mech simulator into Mech Assault. Here's my two cents on this: give us an option. Trying to appeal to everyone on everything is simply going to take all the fun out of the game.

So, the easy fix is to have two games under one umbrella. One game is focused on remaining faithful to the TT rules and the spirit of balanced play. Meaning no ECM "win" button, no play to win, no consumables and no off the map strikes. Get your builds and drop into a balanced multiplayer match with a focus on team based combat simulation. The focus would be less on kills and more on whether or not your team wins. To the point where I think kills rewards and ratios should be stripped out entirely in favor of team victory and losses becoming the focus of play.

The simulator crowd (me, lots of other founders) would love to play this game. We were promised ARMA and instead got Call of Duty.

The other option would be a more cartoon-ey experience with all the game-breaking "fun" ideas that have popped up like mushrooms in a dark room full of bull offal. If people want to play MWO as a Call of Duty knock-off, then here is the place for them. Give these people what they want. The ridiculous ECM Cloak of Invisibility, the non-functional NARC, the neutered BAP, the useless TAG and overpowered missiles. Throw these people a bone and let them play Call of Duty lone wolf in an arena environment.

In line with this arena thinking, you could allow the players to win by swaying the crowd to their side with pyrotechnics and glamour paint jobs instead of capturing a base for the win. Points to gaudy component and limb destruction. Points for kills. Salvage rights for certain arena matches. So if you blow off all the arms on the enemy you still win even if you die. Because the crowd would be on your side.

I am not totally against a 3rd-person arena-style arcade like game at all. I would love to play this to grind XP and Cbills while practicing shooting and targeting. I just think that 3rd person will further unbalance game play towards a FPS console experience. Haven't we gone down this road long enough? Not every shooting game needs to mimic Call of Duty to be successful. Please stop dumbing down Mechwarrior Online.

I never really cared one way or the other about 3rd person view only because That feature and a few others were all present in the previous iterations of mechwarrior. Its not like 3rd person view is something completely ridiculous in regards to the game .


Now with that said, I do like the concept you are perhaps suggesting and I would like to mention the game War Thunder. They have 3 different variants of play within the game each getting closer to full sim. Having perhaps a arcade-y game mode and then a more sim oriented mode (ala' Hardcore perhaps) would be interesting.

I do have my doubts at the moment that these changes would occur though as PGI has already stated the need to not make a straight deathmatch mode as it would segregate the community of players too much (mentioned for the people not liking base capturing). Although with the mention of Solaris 7, I think straight deathmatch would be a neat addition. Either way, I dont think 3rd person view is going to make or break this game nor give anyone any unfair advatages...and If it comes to light that it is creating unfair balance then guess what...they can ultimately get rid of it

Edited by Godswrath, 23 March 2013 - 06:22 AM.

[Corwin Vickers]

Moving this from a non-official thread.

Coolant flush doesn't bother me since they are the same as the non MC version. Arty and Airstrikes don't bother me either. In fact, I don't have that much of a problem with P2W either. I think PGI should be making money.

I would expect to pay about $15 a month on the game since that is the standard subscription fee for most games now-adays. At the moment it's probably a little/lot higher than that but that is a different issue. Just know I will pay and I don't think it is wrong to charge.

I do think it is wrong for the free loaders to get so angry when they choose not to support the game. That being said, I won't be spending any more money on the game till I'm sure it's going in the direction I will want to keep playing.

I do have a serious problem with 3rd person view. It's like if one group could see through walls and another group feels that seeing through walls is not in line with universe. You can't just say "well don't use it!" since it is an overpowering ability.

We already have big flashing bars that tell us we are being shot in the back. Looking around and saying "who the hell is shooting me?" is a part of this game to me. Sneaking up behind assault mechs in a light mech and getting a good number of shots in his backside before he notices me is a part of the game. 3PV would hurt that.


Can't the game be fun and appeal to the "action gamer" without 3PV?

I played the CoDs but I prefer Project Reality. I am 37 and have been playing MW since I was about 12. I don't hate CoD players but I don't want MWO to be CoD, I want it to be Mechwarrior. Does that make me wrong and detrimental to PGI's bottom line?

[hammerreborn]

Duppie1974, on 22 March 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

Yeah it is too bad that I put money down before that post was released in July. Before that it was never will there be a third person. So I bought an Elite package on the 28th of June or sometime around there when the Founders went live, and they came out with this post in July, two to three weeks later.

http://mwomercs.com/...age-on-sale-now


The only way you can convince me that I am in error for feeling conned is to point to post regarding them considering 3PV before they started selling Founders packages.
I had this same discussion with someone else on this same thread and because I could not get to my financial documents to confirm dates I had to back down, he used the same post as you did to try and convince everybody that they should have known, as it was clearly stated.

I do have Legendary now which was a gift, I would never bought that myself and yeah I did spend more money on MC and such, there was still a small sliver of hope and some trust that 3PV would never see the light of day. After yesterdays post from PGI, the money they got from me thus far will be the last. I will still play until they eventually throw all view modes together on one server then I will just quit.

You had ample opportunity to get a refund as soon as that post was made. Founders was throwing money into an idea, nothing more nothing less.

Jade Kitsune, on 22 March 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Your "Hammers Trolls" signature is not doing you any favors.

My lance runs all flamer/mg builds in our 8s in flame red/orange/yellow mechs.

And if the ability to read makes me a troll then ill move right now under a bridge.

Both quotes from the developers people keep bitching about as lying to them mention 3rd person in the future.

So...I think it's more like you guys are all trolls for deliberately misleading people who haven't read the post yet, and causing a disturbance, things that are all against the CoC. That or you all either need to get your eyes checked or go back to second grade with nap time to calm your anger and learn the basics of reading again.

Kvalheim, on 22 March 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

Am I the only person who read properly into that?
Sounds more like at most it'll be severely limited TPV that they still don't particularly want to implement.

Lol you read what they wrote and highlighted the pertinent parts. Trolololololololololo. dont you know reading is for losers and trolls?

[PlzDie]

hammerreborn, on 23 March 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

You had ample opportunity to get a refund as soon as that post was made. Founders was throwing money into an idea, nothing more nothing less.



My lance runs all flamer/mg builds in our 8s in flame red/orange/yellow mechs.

And if the ability to read makes me a troll then ill move right now under a bridge.

Both quotes from the developers people keep bitching about as lying to them mention 3rd person in the future.

So...I think it's more like you guys are all trolls for deliberately misleading people who haven't read the post yet, and causing a disturbance, things that are all against the CoC. That or you all either need to get your eyes checked or go back to second grade with nap time to calm your anger and learn the basics of reading again.




Lol you read what they wrote and highlighted the pertinent parts. Trolololololololololo. dont you know reading is for losers and trolls?

Ok troll whatever you say, as I said there was still hope, and they never came out with a definite answer until yesterday. But continue trolling if that makes you happy.

Edited by Duppie1974, 23 March 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[hammerreborn]

Duppie1974, on 23 March 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Ok troll whatever you say, as I said there was still hope, and they never came out with a definite answer until yesterday. But continue trolling if that makes you happy.

Yes, yes, let the ******** flow through you.

You people are so adorable when you're raging. Over absolutely nothing.

[Thirdstar]

hammerreborn, on 23 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Yes, yes, let the ******** flow through you.

You people are so adorable when you're raging. Over absolutely nothing.

When enough people disagree with your point of view, perhaps it's time reexamine just how detached you sound.

There's a 100 pages of discontent here. Do you really see yourself as the 'Only sane man'?

The vast majority of the people you're trolling and insulting here are your fellow Founders.

Edited by Thirdstar, 23 March 2013 - 08:33 AM.

[Alois Hammer]

Volume, on 22 March 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

I forgot this thread still exists.

3PV would be bad, but it wouldn't be as bad as many of the other 50 things on the "bad things about MWO" list.

Not "would." "Will." They've already said it, "Up yours, the polls were biased, the phantom players we listen to although nobody else can find them want 3rd person and we're definitely giving it to them."

hammerreborn, on 23 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

You people are so adorable when you're raging. Over absolutely nothing.

At least adorable as you sitting there trolling with PGI's [REDACTED] in your mouth.

Edited by Alois Hammer, 23 March 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[Thirdstar]

hammerreborn, on 23 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Just because they're founders doesn't mean they're smart and have the ability to read. This thread is just a giant orgy of PGI lied, mwo died ranting.

Me, I saw this coming long ago by my fantastic ability to read, and the fact that third person has been historically in the mw franchise.

So they're all delusional and you're the only one who's got the straight dope? Are you listening to yourself?

There's hundreds of Founders in both of these 3rd person threads who are unhappy and your response has to be to belittle, insult and troll all of them, because you disagree with their point of view.

By generalizing this ENTIRE thread as ranting (clearly you've not read it) you're merely highlighting that you're being just a little delusional.

No one's really going to agree with you here Hammer. You're on the wrong side of this.

[Dakkath]

This is just a reminder to play nice with each other, and to post in accordance with the Code of Conduct. CoC violations will not be tolerated.

Thank you!
-Dak

[Kvalheim]

3rd person view is NOT turning this game into CoD. You guys have such a weird sense of being infinitely above casuals, and yet the tiniest change turning your game into a DM-fest for kiddies.

[Kilo Sensei]

Make the 3rd person view a part of the loadout, so it does weigh you down because of its advantages.
Like a 3rd person view drone that adds on like a ecm module, it gives you more sideview at once but can be shot down.

[Alois Hammer]

Kilo Sensei, on 23 March 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Make the 3rd person view a part of the loadout, so it does weigh you down because of its advantages.
Like a 3rd person view drone that adds on like a ecm module, it gives you more sideview at once but can be shot down.

...but it'll probably be more like a Coolant Flush module that despite being weightless and taking no critical space manages to carry a couple of tons worth of coolant, plumbing, and so on.

[MegaBusta]

Kvalheim, on 23 March 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

How can you be sure it was "lying" and not "plans for the game changed during development cycle" like they almost always do

I'm sure that's exactly what it was. However, things get a bit more complicated when you use crowdfunding. Even if the terms signed by founders states that things are to change, it's poor form to change the final product too much, because we thought we were funding one thing, but received another.

In addition, there seems to be a metric ton of things that have changed during the development cycle. It brings doubts on their ability to adhere to their plan on any level.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Kvalheim, on 23 March 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

How can you be sure it was "lying" and not "plans for the game changed during development cycle" like they almost always do

cause of the "bug" for WVVVVVVVVVVVVV on the screen. that one hint. I also think if they said during the founders time that there might 3rd person and consumables, it wouldn't have been nearly as successful.

hammerreborn, on 22 March 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

Mechwarriors 2-4 tanked? That's the most laughable thing I've ever seen.

And saying they will investigate in the future than actually investigating in the future is doing exactly what they said, no more no less.

Saying that MW2-4 didn't tank is laughable. It also tells me you a CoD kiddie otherwise you'd know that.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Dustein, on 22 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Ok.. posting here now!!!

This post is the what needs to be brought up. There is no smoke and mirrors in this post.My suggestion is to avoid selling us on one thing and delivering another...

I see this on your site:



and we have been repeatedly told:


and



and


Which led to this...


So I guess it feels pretty bait-and-switch of you to push 3pv on the game at this point.

My other suggestion is do not flip flop on major gameplay features, just be honest with us about your development direction rather than the sneaky backsliding on development direction/decisions...

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 23 March 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[von Pilsner]

Steadfast, on 23 March 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

I am sad about this. Frustrated because I feel cheated about this sudden change. They said numerous times starting in 2011 that there will be no 3rd Person mode. Period. I wanted to play that game. Not a game where half the community or more play 3rd Person while I play 1st person. Sigh. Not that anybody cares.

Daniel

I believed this one when I read it...



Oh well, maybe they can implement in a non-destructive way.

[Kurayami]

they could use it in pve when and if pve will be ingame. or in some other "special" regime.

Without 3d person game theoretically losing a great deal of players - again theoretically paying customers. But it couldn't be helped without losing something in return and in case with normal game modes this little "something" is a very big chunk of current players. will it be worth it? doubtful.

[BFett]

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

BFett said:

Sorry, but 150 members on this site that want third person is not a huge number of people when compared to the 3000+ people that do not want the feature. If you or Bryan have stats that suggest otherwise please provide them.

Source: http://mwomercs.com/...son-its-coming/

If you do the math the percentage of players lost to not adding 3rd person is nearly nothing compared to the numbers lost if even a quarter of the people who want 1st person only left.