2926 replies to this topic

[Seddrik]

Thinking about the possibility... means it could be added. This thread shows how people are upset about it even at just the thought of it... imagine the uproar if it is actually is added!

It will affect everyone, especially those who don't use it. They will be handicapped compared to those who use it. It'll be worse than the seismic wall hack module which has ruined the ability to sneak or flank.

Edited by Seddrik, 17 June 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[Pihoqahiak]

Eirikr Sim, on 17 June 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Indeed we are all "excited".

ps: I wonder why PGI has yet to clarify how 3rd POV is gonna turn out, and make an official statement about it, even after so many people have been "QQ"-ing about it ever since Nov 2012.

Oh it was a topic in the forums several months before that. Which is what led to PGI developers stating publicly that it would never be a feature implemented...and they said the same thing about coolant flush, lol. I'm amazed that people wonder why long time members of this beta are so skeptical of PGI.

Edited by Pihoqahiak, 17 June 2013 - 05:45 PM.

[Lord Rip]

Does anyone remember when they limited the ability to adjust FOV because it was being used to gain an advantage?

[Lord Rip]

M0rpHeu5, on 08 June 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Everyone will end up using 3rd person in the end, that's why I don't want it.

Don't let it worry you much, everyone isn't going to be all that many people.

[Lord Rip]

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I've had a few offers upward of 300$, because each account has approximately 20 battlemechs, all mechs have engines upgrades weapons the whole lot (and 4 founder mechs)....has the full premium time and MC that came with the package deal. Additionally each individually received a $50 injection during the last MC sale way back when that happened totaling 35,000 MC sitting on the 3 alt accounts

The plan actually is to give them to friends/family as a gift. So they can start in the game with tons of battlemechs, without the painful grind....and if they ever don't want or get tired of playing them...i get them back

You should hurry up and give them so you will have someone to play with.

[pow pow]

http://youtu.be/0STWnhqshgc

can we put all the dillusions about view advantages to rest now please?

very early in the video, the targetting computer finds the jenner before any visual cues or whatever. This I believe will be the same in mwo. Seismic, scouts and modules will find any enemy before you even bother to look for one.

Edited by pow pow, 17 June 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[Scarcer]

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

You must have missed the majority of the conversation. I'm not going to respond past this; Moving along.

How do past conversations rationalize the pettiness that is your post?

[Pihoqahiak]

pow pow, on 17 June 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

http://youtu.be/0STWnhqshgc
can we put all the dillusions about view advantages to rest now please?
very early in the video, the targetting computer finds the jenner before any visual cues or whatever. This I believe will be the same in mwo. Seismic, scouts and modules will find any enemy before you even bother to look for one.

Uhmmmm, what does a video of a flat open terrain map prove about anything? Especially with AI enemies just marching straight to the player?

[pow pow]

well, it's not exactly flat open for one... but thanks for proving some players are flat out delusional...

Also it proves that you can't see mechs behind buildings. Yes there's a building at the start. it's on the right if your eyes still fail you. There are two AI mechs behind it that you cannot see until they move out of it.

[Lt Limpy]

pow pow, on 18 June 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

well, it's not exactly flat open for one... but thanks for proving some players are flat out delusional...

Also it proves that you can't see mechs behind buildings. Yes there's a building at the start. it's on the right if your eyes still fail you. There are two AI mechs behind it that you cannot see until they move out of it.

I'd look closer at yourself before calling others delusional...

The example you provided is rubbish, and does nothing to advocate the viewpoint that 3rd person is a benign option that provides nothing more than an aesthetic advantage.

This crappy MS paint job I made in 5 minutes shows the exact scenario where 3rd person has an obvious advantage, but by no means the only.



Player 2 has an obvious advantage over player 1 because his perspective gives him a full view of the enemy mech when the enemy mech cannot see him visually or pick him up on sensors.

The only way 3rd person should ever exist in this game is as a credit-bought timed module (like 30 second- 1 minute duration) that you install on a mech like a seismic sensor or cap module. Like a camera UAV which enemy mechs can see and shoot it down. Otherwise it is a horrendous handicap to anyone who does not use 3rd person as a gameplay option.

Edited by Lt Limpy, 18 June 2013 - 03:53 AM.

[pow pow]

wait a minute... are you suggesting that low ground has more of an advantage than high ground?

I would try to argue with you if you bothered modelling it in maya or i dunno, but paint? sorry but I won't byte little troll.

[Lt Limpy]

pow pow, on 18 June 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

wait a minute... are you suggesting that low ground has more of an advantage than high ground?

I would try to argue with you if you bothered modelling it in maya or i dunno, but paint? sorry but I won't byte little troll.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your posts since it was the only valid excuse for their utter lack of intellect or critical thinking.

You obviously have nothing worthwhile to add to this conversation. Good day.

[Viper69]

Looks like we got some answers regarding 3PV in the ask the devs.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ask the Devs #40

3PV
Viper69 : If we are going to be able to choose to play against people using 3PV or not to, how are you going to address the then fractured and smaller groups that then have to wait in queue for a match that meets their perimeters?
A: There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. 3PV will be going onto test servers in the next 60 days and we’ll see how it goes from there.

So they are planning on dividing the queues.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ghost Badger: How does PGI plan to reconcile Community Warfare matches with 3PV and 1PV? How will they reconcile matches between teams with different preferences? Or do they plan to split the CW mechanic by viewpoint?
A: The plan is to have scheduled matches will be FPV only, since these will be performed between Merc. Units. Regular matches will follow the above rules (Normal/Hardcore).

Not sure on this point

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

aniviron: You've stated in the past that you don't want to give players using third person view a competitive advantage by being able to see around corners, behind them, or in their far periphery. Do you have any concrete plans for how to do this? It seems like this will be an unavoidable side effect of having the camera located behind the mech, and it is the main reason that almost the entire forum is against having it in the game. You could assuage a lot of upset on the forums if you detailed how you are going to do this.
A: Once players get their hands on 3PV, I think most people will be pleasantly surprised how little the camera impacts gameplay. Early tests are showing that there is not much of an advantage. That being said, until we get this viewmode in the hands of 1000s of players, we’re not going to see how it fully gets used.

I dont understand why have a view mode added if it really offers no advantage. The sole reason people play 3PV is for a wider FOV. I picture their version of 3PV as like WoT. You wont be able to see anything unless your mech could see it or its spotted by another mech. I hope the sight line for spotting is drawn from the cockpits of the mechs to give taller mechs a slight edge over short squat ones.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Khanahar: Why exactly is 3rd person not implemented as a module?
A: It’s not end game content.

I wish it was a UAV like many do.

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Warge: Are any plans to encourage future 3PV players to use 1PV? Maybe slight XP or/and CB boost, that sort of things...
A: Probably not, however we’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use if you are a true sim-head.

So really its not a training tool at all.

[Pihoqahiak]

Viper69, on 18 June 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

So they are planning on dividing the queues.

Dividing at first, but I am confident they will eliminate FPV queues within a year. Plenty of "Hardcore" mode players will be aggravated, disillusioned and betrayed enough that they just leave the game, and those that don't want a more immersive cockpit simulator experience (to be honest, all Mechwarrior titles and games after Mechwarrior 2 and the Battletech Center type pods were continually devolving into more arcade style games) will all use 3PV right off the bat and never look back. The main aspect of this whole issue that still seems so ridiculous to me is that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the time and money PGI is investing in the debacle of 3PV will net them any return at all. It will most assuredly delay development of needed core functions of the game, and could very well even delay the release date. All on top of alienating a good portion of the player base that were loyal to PGI before even getting to play the game. I can't help but think that a main motivator behind this push for 3PV is that they're not bringing in nearly as much money as they thought they would from their monitization model, which they never should have expected much from until the game is actually RELEASED. Since their monitization model consists of a large portion of cosmetic items currently, and many people not wanting to spend money on the convenience items until some sort of Community Warfare is implemented, they're probably grasping for ways to peddle those cosmetic items and 3PV is the result. They might sell a bit more cosmetics from this, but as I said, it comes at the cost of alienating a lot of the player base AND a lot of development resources, further increasing the chance of irritating players with more delays to the important and needed aspects of the game. How much does anyone think their "return" was on their investment of developing Coolant Flush modules? I'm betting it was a negative return overall, for many of the same reasons I listed above.

Edited by Pihoqahiak, 18 June 2013 - 08:28 AM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

I'm very pessimistic about the outcome. I'm predicting that it will be a tactical crutch like it always has been, it will split the player base, and change the game experience drastically.

Best case, imo, is that MWO will change to a 75 to 90% 3pv game (because the few who love 3pv will have such an advantage over 1pv that we will all have to use 3pv to compete) and 1st will be a relic. Bryan's comment supports this by describing their plan to make 3pv the norm and 1pv "hardcore" (which means rarely used).

I personally dont have anything against 3pv games but the divisive impact on the community could be huge. See you guys in the new, more shooter, MWO. Mouse and KB + 3pv... ugh.. I hope they dont wreck this..

[Ignatz22]

Pihoqahiak, on 18 June 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Dividing at first, but I am confident they will eliminate FPV queues within a year. Plenty of "Hardcore" mode players will be aggravated, disillusioned and betrayed enough that they just leave the game, and those that don't want a more immersive cockpit simulator experience (to be honest, all Warrior titles and games after Mechwarrior 2 and the Battletech Center type pods were continually devolving into more arcade style games) will all use 3PV right off the bat and never look back. The main aspect of this whole issue that still seems so ridiculous to me is that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the time and money PGI is investing in the debacle of 3PV will net them any return at all. It will most assuredly delay development of needed core functions of the game, and could very well even delay the release date. All on top of alienating a good portion of the player base that were loyal to PGI before even getting to play the game. I can't help but think that a main motivator behind this push for 3PV is that they're not bringing in nearly as much money as they thought they would from their monitization model, which they never should have expected much from until the game is actually RELEASED. Since their monitization model consists of a large portion of cosmetic items currently, and many people not wanting to spend money on the convenience items until some sort of Community Warfare is implemented, they're probably grasping for ways to peddle those cosmetic items and 3PV is result. They might sell a bit more cosmetics from this, but as I said, it comes at the cost of alienating a lot of the player base AND a lot of development resources, further increasing the chance of irritating players with more delays to the important and needed aspects of the game. How much does anyone think their "return" was on their investment of developing Coolant Flush modules? I'm betting it was a negative return overall, for many of the same reasons I listed above.

Sirs;

I agree with conclusion that the hardcore simulator players will migrate away from this game if third person view allows advantages over first person. I agree that there is an INHERENT advantage, and anyone playing World of Tanks can attest that the option to "zoom Out" allows the vehicle to operate with a wider field of vision than the driver of a REAL vehicle had, which is more an arcade thing.
As an aside, this also fits well within the "E-sport" and "Solaris" gameplay PGI plans. This isn't a simulation, it's a game, and the goal was never to make it a hardcore simulation of the rigors of MechWarrior but a vehicle to draw in FPS-style players. Read the developers logs; they PROMISED First Person ONLY, then devolved the promise into a joke. They want more players. They think third person is the means to that end. Whether core players like it, whether it achieves the goal of enticing new players or not, it is coming. PGI said explicitly they listen to those who DON'T play MWO, not those who INVESTED in or actively play it NOW. All opinions here are venting to space...

You are right about the possible grasping at straws by PGI with cosmetics and stunts, but note that we haven't seen many or any new maps big enough for plausible 24-mech battles, yet those are a month away. Some of us are still crashing to desktop, yet Community Warfare is close at hand. Teams are forming all over the forums, but no set faction guidelines have been implemented. All of this and third person view is expected to draw players into the same base as core players who have full garages and heavy experience bases.
Does it seem a LOT is on PGI's plate, and a LOT is expected of New players, and a tow tiered experience system is yet ANOTHER complication on a bed of unresolved issues??

As you say, I'm hoping for the Best, expecting the worst, and not buying MC until I see which occurs. If no one at PGI cares what I think, it's all I have to express my dismay.

Did you folks notice World Of Tanks is issuing Xbox 360 Beta passes?? Does anyone think THAT game, which is LARGER, has MUCH more development and content, needs more players any LESS than PGI?? Does anyone here think PGI, which is working under a Microsoft License for MechWarrior games issued to Infinite Game Publishing, will not be tempted to put MWO on Xbox to get at the larger player base? And if you think me delusional, remember how we were promised joystick controls?? We don't have them. Neither does the Xbox.

Just a thought.

-ignatz22

[Doktor Kloetenstein]

@ignatz22

Some valid points made here.

It's a sharkpool out there. It has become moreso since the majority of publishers and developers stopped laughing about World of Tanks seeing how successful it has become (Yes, playing that too, just not as often anymore).

As I mentioned earlier, the "non-hardcore gamers" aka. "Casuals" do not have the patience for games with a steeper learning curve.

I think even WITH a 3PV this game won't be going easier on them. You might see more depending on how its implemented (hoping for a fixed view, no zooming, no turning) but you might get stomped as easy without knowing the basics. I think a 3PV is more hinderance than a benefit. But we just have to wait and see about that. The only thing that counts for me as I think it does for the majority of us is the question of it being gamebreaking by granting too many unfair advantages over 1PV due to bad implementation and/or buttkissing the "Casuals".

I've already invested more than 100$ into this game. Totally overlooked it and even in this "Beta", (still more like Alpha reading some posts here ) you can see the possible potential. It IS a niche game so maybe we should start thinking of it in terms of "EVE Online". We are not in a hurry here are we? Maybe it would take off some heat and pressure of the devs.

Yeah, I know. I'm new and haven't gone through the "One step forward, two steps back" threadmill you founders have. But still. It's the only true successor to mechgames. Not Hawken, not Earthsiege, not anything.

Regarding multi platform. Common trend nowadays since there are seemingly only numbercrunchers in the business nowadays with no idea of successful game developement in most of the major developers. Oh yeah. The costs have become quadrupled yadda yadda.. For what? Jokes like Battlefield (insert your favorite digit here) or Don't call me no more to duty please! ?

I have to refer to World of Tanks again. They took a risk, they believed in themselves. They succeeded. A fresh game for male audiences and history buffs. And those major player idiots are still pumping out one sequel after another becoming more and more meaningless in content, story and gameplay. They are even ruining major developers, Diablo III vs Path of Exile anyone? But yeah blame the piracy (yawn) not the fact that Consoleros even pull out 55$ for a 6-hr single player game and even get restrained reselling it. $$ is all you know. Greedy, incompetent f****!

Oh, i'm drifting into a rant. But yeah. Being close to 44 years old and having seen most games from the earliest days of Wing Commander on a truty 286/16Mhz...you know something has seriously become wrong in the PC Gaming World.

Just another 0.02.

Still, have fun!

Regards!

B.

[Viper69]

Pihoqahiak, on 18 June 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Dividing at first, but I am confident they will eliminate FPV queues within a year. Plenty of "Hardcore" mode players will be aggravated, disillusioned and betrayed enough that they just leave the game, and those that don't want a more immersive cockpit simulator experience (to be honest, all Mechwarrior titles and games after Mechwarrior 2 and the Battletech Center type pods were continually devolving into more arcade style games) will all use 3PV right off the bat and never look back. The main aspect of this whole issue that still seems so ridiculous to me is that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the time and money PGI is investing in the debacle of 3PV will net them any return at all. It will most assuredly delay development of needed core functions of the game, and could very well even delay the release date. All on top of alienating a good portion of the player base that were loyal to PGI before even getting to play the game. I can't help but think that a main motivator behind this push for 3PV is that they're not bringing in nearly as much money as they thought they would from their monitization model, which they never should have expected much from until the game is actually RELEASED. Since their monitization model consists of a large portion of cosmetic items currently, and many people not wanting to spend money on the convenience items until some sort of Community Warfare is implemented, they're probably grasping for ways to peddle those cosmetic items and 3PV is the result. They might sell a bit more cosmetics from this, but as I said, it comes at the cost of alienating a lot of the player base AND a lot of development resources, further increasing the chance of irritating players with more delays to the important and needed aspects of the game. How much does anyone think their "return" was on their investment of developing Coolant Flush modules? I'm betting it was a negative return overall, for many of the same reasons I listed above.

You can guarrangoddamtee that 3PV was in the works from the get go as was coolant flushing. They new they were going to snag the sim money first then grab the arcade money. You cant go the other way because simmers wont touch a game with a 3pv mode, so they had to get that money first. Bryan and Paul both have some severe integrity issues to put it mildly but hey they are able to sleep knowing the money they raked in. Its fine my money for this game has shut off and is being diverted to a more trustworthy fellow called Chris Roberts.

[Viper69]

Blizzardjunkie, on 18 June 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

As I mentioned earlier, the "non-hardcore gamers" aka. "Casuals" do not have the patience for games with a steeper learning curve.

No offense to you but your opinion of "casuals" could not be further from the truth. I am so super casual at gaming but love reality in my games and the more accurate the sim the better. Unless you are using the term "casual" as in they casually follow rules. This games departure from its simulator statements during crowd funding turned me into a casual player. So when I hear or read someone using casual in the sense I think you are its confusing to those of us who are casual players but love a good simulator. I also can grasp difficult games with extremely steep learning curves. Ever play Rise of flight? if not try flying a WW1 biplane and manage your engine mixture, unjam your guns and not rip your wings off in a dogfight.

Edited by Viper69, 18 June 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[Doktor Kloetenstein]

@Viper69

Well yeah. That term has seemingly more then just one logical approach. Think more of time invested for initial learning and instant gratification. Make a game "too difficult"...which nowadays is really a joke in terms of complaining (any EQ1 Veteran here regarding corpse runs? )..and they will leave in an instant and ***** about how "lame" that thing is demanding everything should be bent to their will so they can succeed. Which includes a total revamp of gameplay all too easy and not necessarily for the better.

Seen that in World of Warcraft for example (Yeah, maybe bad example). Anyone who played rememberes vanilla Alterac Valley and the farce it had become later? Just because most didn't have the time to contribute? The more time you have and cleverly invest the more likely you will succeed. That was always true for most games since a few years ago. So it was more the QQ of players that didn't have time letting WoW become the instant reward mill that is is today. And let me tell you. I had never had more PvP fun like in those 30+ hours Alteracs when we Europeans took over matches the next day kept up by people over the whole globe.

It was glorious. Nowadays unthinkable. People can not even fathom the fun we had with own server population instead of all the queue merging crossserver. You KNEW your opponents after a while. Today you only play against John/Jane Doe 999 with no personality at all due to the toned down mechanics regarding only quick rewards and no real bonds between players like it was in the early days.

Drifting off again, but yeah definitely did not mean the casual type you have mentioned.