2926 replies to this topic

[Viper69]

@blizzard,

Gotcha. Yeah I remember vanilla WoW and how it took over a month of grinding + just to try to get a mount. Hell I didnt have my first single gold piece for almost two weeks. Heck its been so long I gave up on Wow. My poor Frost mage is sitting somewhere on his flying mount wondering where I am.

[Mr Blonde]

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

It does not nullify the viewpoint, otherwise you're saying there is only 5,000 unique players playing this game. I'm saying the people QQ'ing about 3rd person are in fact a very small minority.

Even if you inflated the voting polls to reflect 5x the value...at 25,000 members voted NO, thats still only 5.2% of 480,000

Even if you inflated the voting polls to reflect 10x the value....at 50,000 members voted NO, thats still only 10.4% of 480,000

And what percentage voted in favor of 3pv? That's all that matters in the end, the ratio. Look at any election or voting body, most people don't care enough to vote. Maybe that means the majority are sheep who'll accept whatever crap is shoveled into their trough, or maybe the percentages will bear out and a majority will leave the game. I think many of the best pilots will depart. Who can say until it happens? I know I will be sad to leave, but I don't like being sold a false bill of goods, and my time is valuable. I have plenty else to do. If all these other MW games have 3pv, then why can't they leave just one as a true simulator type?

[Mystere]

Lt Limpy, on 18 June 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

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.

Well, the concepts illustrated in your drawing is what I call a "naive" implementation of 3PV, especially because you have designated the camera as the object that determines what world objects to display.

But, remember that you have most, if not all, of the following available to (or affecting) you:

- Cockpit field of view
- HUD
- active radar
- BAP
- TAG
- ECM
- Team mates' equipment and sensors

So instead of the camera, why not make the cockpit view be the one that determines the initial set of objects to display. Then, use the equipment and sensors you and your team mates have to determine:

• what other objects to display
  
• what object details to display

Note that a lot of tweaking (e.g. interpolation, extrapolation, other rendering algorithms) will be required to minimize any visual anomalies that may result.

[Zeus X]

128 pages later, and the devs could give a rats a$$.

Bravo pgi, bravo.

[CyBerkut]

Mystere, on 18 June 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Well, the concepts illustrated in your drawing is what I call a "naive" implementation of 3PV, especially because you have designated the camera as the object that determines what world objects to display.

But, remember that you have most, if not all, of the following available to (or affecting) you:

- Cockpit field of view
- HUD
- active radar
- BAP
- TAG
- ECM
- Team mates' equipment and sensors

So instead of the camera, why not make the cockpit view be the one that determines the initial set of objects to display. Then, use the equipment and sensors you and your team mates have to determine:

• what other objects to display
  
• what object details to display

Note that a lot of tweaking (e.g. interpolation, extrapolation, other rendering algorithms) will be required to minimize any visual anomalies that may result.

What you are proposing will still provide visual representations of things that are not visually represented to you in the 1PV view from the cockpit. That still represents an advantage. If 3PV does not provide visual representations of anything not visually represented to you in 1PV view, there would be no point to having it.

Rationalizing that because your other sensors, or a team mate's sensor has picked something up, so it's OK to display it in 3PV still boils down to finding ways to visually see things that you can not visually see in 1PV. Give that nonsense to 3PV players in their own matches, and in their own CW universe with their own ELO.

[Scarcer]

Lt Limpy, on 18 June 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

Exaggerations don't help your argument. I mean I'd prefer if I could at least see my own mechs position when in 3PV.



FTFY

While we are at it, lets ban mechs with a high positioned cockpit. They clearly have an unfair advantage over players using high profile chassi with low positioned cockpits in FPV.

Edited by Scarcer, 18 June 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[Senior Knight Steele]

Scarcer, on 18 June 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Exaggerations don't help your argument.



FTFY

Thanks Scarcer. It's not rocket science. Seems like it should be pretty easy for the devs to control how the camera pans. Just because it (3pv) was arguably game breaking in a game from '99 doesn't mean it has to be game breaking in this game. Throw in their assurances that you won't even have to play with players using 3pv if you don't want to... and it really seems like there's no reason for a lot of the yuckiness going around the forums. I don't really care either way, I guess. But I've read some mean things. Q.Q My innocence... I miss it.

Edited by Senior Knight Steele, 18 June 2013 - 06:02 PM.

[Pihoqahiak]

Scarcer, on 18 June 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

While we are at it, lets ban mechs with a high positioned cockpit. They clearly have an unfair advantage over players using high profile chassi with low positioned cockpits in FPV.

If you hadn't noticed, that is taken into account when they balance the other characteristics of the mech, like torso twists, turn speed, etc...

[Scarcer]

Pihoqahiak, on 18 June 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

If you hadn't noticed, that is taken into account when they balance the other characteristics of the mech, like torso twists, turn speed, etc...

So TimberWolf has a low positioned cockpit; lets give it increased torso-twist speed, arm actuator speed, turning speed, acceleration/deceleration to give it an increased advantage in a brawl. Meanwhile that atlas can still see it first.

Not like I care but it won't fix the issues layed on the table using the naysayers logic.

People are complaining about line-of-sight advantage; not mobility.

But taking your point into account, we may as well handicap all 3rd person players mobility by 25%. That fixes everything.

Edited by Scarcer, 18 June 2013 - 08:11 PM.

[Mystere]

Senior Knight Steele, on 18 June 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Thanks Scarcer. It's not rocket science. Seems like it should be pretty easy for the devs to control how the camera pans. Just because it (3pv) was arguably game breaking in a game from '99 doesn't mean it has to be game breaking in this game. Throw in their assurances that you won't even have to play with players using 3pv if you don't want to... and it really seems like there's no reason for a lot of the yuckiness going around the forums. I don't really care either way, I guess. But I've read some mean things. Q.Q My innocence... I miss it.

Well, it seems that people were so TRAUMATIZED by 3PV in MW4 that no amount of reasoning will get through to them. The only thing they wish to believe is that 3PV in MWO will be exactly like it was in MW4. And even though 3PV has been around in Mechwarrior games since MW2, there are those that insist that it has no place in the genre.

As the old saying goes:

"Humans will seek to destroy that which they fear or do not understand."

[mack sabbath]

Senior Knight Steele, on 18 June 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Thanks Scarcer. It's not rocket science. Seems like it should be pretty easy for the devs to control how the camera pans. Just because it (3pv) was arguably game breaking in a game from '99 doesn't mean it has to be game breaking in this game. Throw in their assurances that you won't even have to play with players using 3pv if you don't want to... and it really seems like there's no reason for a lot of the yuckiness going around the forums. I don't really care either way, I guess. But I've read some mean things. Q.Q My innocence... I miss it.

I'd be happily inclined to believe this too, if someone from PGI responded to our concerns.

Not being hateful, just skeptical.

[Mystere]

CyBerkut, on 18 June 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

What you are proposing will still provide visual representations of things that are not visually represented to you in the 1PV view from the cockpit. That still represents an advantage. If 3PV does not provide visual representations of anything not visually represented to you in 1PV view, there would be no point to having it.

Rationalizing that because your other sensors, or a team mate's sensor has picked something up, so it's OK to display it in 3PV still boils down to finding ways to visually see things that you can not visually see in 1PV. Give that nonsense to 3PV players in their own matches, and in their own CW universe with their own ELO.

Do you mean to tell me that even though all my sensors and other equipment are collectively showing me that there is an Atlas hiding behind a building and is facing left, the 3PV implementation should still not render the Atlas as indicated? If my brain can already figure that one out just by looking at my HUD, where is the 3PV advantage that you fear so much?

[pow pow]

Mystere, on 18 June 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

Do you mean to tell me that even though all my sensors and other equipment are collectively showing me that there is an Atlas hiding behind a building and is facing left, the 3PV implementation should still not render the Atlas as indicated? If my brain can already figure that one out just by looking at my HUD, where is the 3PV advantage that you fear so much?

meh... it's not worth it. the forums have decided and the exit polls have shown that 98% of us believe that if 3pv is ever implemented armageddon himself is going to come down on our arses and burn us all to hell.

wait and see what will happen to these forums when they hear that their precious little game is being ported (with 3pv) to their xbox and ps3.

[Dude42]

pow pow, on 19 June 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

meh... it's not worth it. the forums have decided and the exit polls have shown that 98% of us believe that if 3pv is ever implemented armageddon himself is going to come down on our arses and burn us all to hell.

wait and see what will happen to these forums when they hear that their precious little game is being ported (with 3pv) to their xbox and ps3.

Now I understand why they've been dialing back the graphics....

[Belorion]

pow pow, on 19 June 2013 - 02:59 AM, said:

meh... it's not worth it. the forums have decided and the exit polls have shown that 98% of us believe that if 3pv is ever implemented armageddon himself is going to come down on our arses and burn us all to hell.

wait and see what will happen to these forums when they hear that their precious little game is being ported (with 3pv) to their xbox and ps3.

Won't happen... They don't have the license to make the game for PS3.

Even if they did put it on X-Box, all x-box is is a gimped PC. So no worries anyway. The advantage would rest with the mouse user.

[Critical Rocket]

I am going to withold judgement on the 3PV until I see some footage from PGI showing how this will work compared to previous MW games. I guess it hasn't been as big an issue using third person in MW because it was largely singleplayer back then. MW2 was singleplayer majorally unless you had plenty of friends, a big enough location and food to run a LAN party otherwise it was slow as hell dial ups.

MW2 Mercenaries was the much the same but buggy as hell, still fun though. MW3 was probably the best for story and seemed to have a larger emphasis on story compared to MW2. Still internet speeds sucked and relied on group gaming or patient friends. MW4 was the first to feature multiplayer commonly and it was interesting to see how people reacted. I remember there being plenty of complaints back then about 3PV having the advantage but MWO is very different.

We know there will different queues which sucks because it will split the CW playerbase (when CW arrives) and might **** some players off enough to leave for good. I hope they don't split the community, but make the 3PV cam balanced enough so as not to give players an unfair advantage. Still until we see it we won't know. At the moment this is all conjecture until we have the facts.

[MWHawke]

After all their "GREAT" work listening to us, you all actually think they will give us a workable 3rd person view??!?

[Belorion]

James Heywood, on 19 June 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

We know there will different queues which sucks because it will split the CW playerbase (when CW arrives) and might **** some players off enough to leave for good. I hope they don't split the community, but make the 3PV cam balanced enough so as not to give players an unfair advantage. Still until we see it we won't know. At the moment this is all conjecture until we have the facts.

They stated CW is FPV only. So...

[Mystere]

Belorion, on 19 June 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

They stated CW is FPV only. So...

Well, I hope they reconsider.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Mystere, on 19 June 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Well, I hope they reconsider.

I hope they reconsider too....implementing 3PV that is

Needless to say, I am interested to see this "minimal advantage" POV they are announcing and has been tested somewhat internally. Sometimes, PGI pleasantly surprises me.