2926 replies to this topic

[SJ SCP Wolf]

van Uber, on 07 July 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

What makes you so sure?

The Devs have publicly stated that one of their major concerns is dividing the playerbase into too small fragments and it is the primary reason we do not get more gamemodes currently. This is in stark contrast to splitting every existing and future gamemode in half.

Obviously PGI feel very confident that 3PV will bring in enough players to compensate. Why not share some of that knowlege to ease our minds?

The initial reaction towards 3PV was very negative here on the boards, but we were told we only represent a fragment of the playerbase. That may be so, but why not go public with the data that explains that this is the most wanted feature according to PGI. The source is unknown to us, just that it is not from these boards.

Finally, we were told not to worry that other features, such as CW would suffer, because it had only one person tied at it at the time (Bryan). But how much resources is tied to it now? Bryan will hardly do the implementation and testing himself. So a little more transparancy would be nice.

I have to be sure, because they aren't going to listen to me, or you, or anyone else in this thread. They are going to do what they want to do. I can only sit back and consider the countless other times in so many other games when rage quit sky is falling threads are made and the game just keeps on going because the reality is PGI is right. The forum community is the smallest segment of their gaming population and we are not in anyway representative of the feelings of the entire population. I have a rather large clan, 3 of us post here.

As you said about PGI being confident. There is a strong chance that players who stopped playing will come back. A strong chance that new players will come in with the addition of 3PV. So there stands to reason that while the population could shift a bit, but is far from going to generate several minute long Q's for games in either mode.

As for more transparency, while it may be nice we are not entitled to it. They do not have to say anything more than what they do. Hell they could even get away with a lot less and people would still hand over their money for new mechs. Like it or not the BT community is starved, is made up of a lot of older gamers (30+ years old) and those people have disposable income. They will throw money at PGI just to play with the toys.

[GhostBear64]

Belorion, on 07 July 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

1 FPV mode, 1 Mixed mode... either or any selection. Nothing has changed in this entire thread, its still the same thing. The presumption is when someone says 3pv they are referring to the mixed mode, since there will never be a 3pv only mode.

The "concern" some have is baseless fearmongering, and/or paranoia.

Basically 3pv is very much not wanted by a lot of folks as we like the Simulation method of play. It should not be allowed for the 2 streams to cross and that is what the issue is. We think that 3pv will either ruin 1pv or in the end it will be merged. As a result we would prefer not to have option. PGI have long been informed of this and choose to ignore the community so now lets hope they have done the correct thing!

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Hotthedd, on 07 July 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Then there should be no problem with separate servers, right?

Let me ask, what if the mixed queue does not have enough players? Do you think IGP/PGI will just shelve 3PV after committing so many resources to it? Or do you think they will merge the queues?

THAT is our fear.

A baseless fear that is completely made up by a select few people in this thread. You have absolutely no reason to think that would be the case. You haven't even seen the modes. You know 3PV is coming whether you like it or not, the only thing then is to wait and see how the population shifts.

GhostBear64, on 07 July 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Basically 3pv is very much not wanted by a lot of folks as we like the Simulation method of play. It should not be allowed for the 2 streams to cross and that is what the issue is. We think that 3pv will either ruin 1pv or in the end it will be merged. As a result we would prefer not to have option. PGI have long been informed of this and choose to ignore the community so now lets hope they have done the correct thing!

They are choosing to ignore a small portion of the community, not the community. The opinions of people here are not representative of the entire community.

Edited by SJ SCP Wolf, 07 July 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[Grimmnyr]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 07 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

They are choosing to ignore a small portion of the community, not the community. The opinions of people here are not representative of the entire community.

It is also foolish to assume that the entirety of the unheard from "majority" of players support having 3PV. It is likely that some do want 3PV, some don't and many probably don't know or care.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Ed Steele, on 07 July 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

It is also foolish to assume that the entirety of the unheard from "majority" of players support having 3PV. It is likely that some do want 3PV, some don't and many probably don't know or care.

I wouldn't call it foolish. Especially not when past history in MW4 showed a huge amount of players enjoyed 3PV.

[Farix]

Ed Steele, on 07 July 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

It is also foolish to assume that the entirety of the unheard from "majority" of players support having 3PV. It is likely that some do want 3PV, some don't and many probably don't know or care.

This is why PGI is staring out with a 1PV-only queue and a mixed queue instead of a 1PV-only queue and 3PV-only queue. They want to see if there will be enough players to support an 3PV-only queue. Since most of the resources in bring 3PV into MWO when into establishing the queue systems (which involves Elo/MM and CW), PGI has a vested interest in seeing both of the starting queues be successful with the prospect of adding a 3PV-only queue in the future.

[Belorion]

Like I said, baseless fearmongering...

There is absolutely nothing, no precedent, no hinting, no leaning, no statement that is grounds for these arguments.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Belorion, on 07 July 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

Like I said, baseless fearmongering...

There is absolutely nothing, no precedent, no hinting, no leaning, no statement that is grounds for these arguments.

Hey man, PGI MIGHT make these changes these guys fear. Then again I MIGHT win the lottery, Jennifer Love Hewitt MIGHT trip and fall into my lap, Obama MIGHT make a good decision.....

[Ghost_19Hz]

I feel only disappointment whenever I read any response the devs have regarding 3pv. I don't claim to be an excellent player but I can't help but feel punished when I see things like 3PV will be called "normal" mode and 1PV will be called "hardcore", I want to play the game with as many people as possible, but the fact that I think 1PV offers a better experience, and 3PV cheapens the experience with the ability to see over hills and past walls, and will I play 1PV because of that, while refusing to be taken advantage of in "mixed mode". Now my only choice is to play with a tiny community that will almost surely die off in "hardcore" mode. I know MWO isn't the only game out there, but I was enjoying it.

[van Uber]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 07 July 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

I have to be sure, because they aren't going to listen to me, or you, or anyone else in this thread. They are going to do what they want to do. I can only sit back and consider the countless other times in so many other games when rage quit sky is falling threads are made and the game just keeps on going because the reality is PGI is right. The forum community is the smallest segment of their gaming population and we are not in anyway representative of the feelings of the entire population. I have a rather large clan, 3 of us post here.

I take it you have not played EVE-Online? Just for reference I'll do a small recap: CCP had for quite some time ignored the very loud complaints from the community after a series of events that ended in the "Summer of Rage" where the frustration was channelled into a quite measurable drop in cancelled subscriptions. No one knows exactly how many, but the forums could keep track of roughly a 5% drop. In response CEO Hilmar wrote a public apology and swore to turn the oiltanker around. He was very forthcoming with him getting a bit of hubris due to the never ending successes of EVE, he simply thought they could not do wrong, despite what the community said. The following 12 months were simply focused on making amends. Entire expansions were committed to fix issues the community wanted. EVE is now thriving again. Not bad for a 10 year old MMO.

So basically, voicing ones opinion is totally worth it in my experience.

SJ SCP Wolf, on 07 July 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

As you said about PGI being confident. There is a strong chance that players who stopped playing will come back. A strong chance that new players will come in with the addition of 3PV. So there stands to reason that while the population could shift a bit, but is far from going to generate several minute long Q's for games in either mode.

I seriously want to believe that, I really do. It's just that PGI have contradicted themselves in this regard and raised a finger against splitting queues and I believed them, so now I'm quite sceptical until they can provide some comfort in the form of data that shows us it won't happen.

SJ SCP Wolf, on 07 July 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

As for more transparency, while it may be nice we are not entitled to it. They do not have to say anything more than what they do. Hell they could even get away with a lot less and people would still hand over their money for new mechs. Like it or not the BT community is starved, is made up of a lot of older gamers (30+ years old) and those people have disposable income. They will throw money at PGI just to play with the toys.

No we're not entitled to it, but I seriously believe it is in their best interest to be more transparent. It's the story of EVE and CCP again, they thought they did not have to inform the playerbase because "players don't do game design", ie they don't get the hard craft of putting games together so no need to waste time of telling them the details. They were wrong, they admitted it and now the act upon it. CCP is now a very good example on how to implement new features: ideas are thrown out, feedback is collected on the community, devblogs are written as a result and tweaked depending on further feedback. Needles to say, players are quite content with what they get these days from CCP.

SJ SCP Wolf, on 07 July 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

I wouldn't call it foolish. Especially not when past history in MW4 showed a huge amount of players enjoyed 3PV.

This is a good argument. If PGI could back this with some actual numbers I would have far less issues with 3PV entering MWO.

Edited by van Uber, 08 July 2013 - 01:28 AM.

[Farix]

PythonCPT, on 07 July 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

Now my only choice is to play with a tiny community that will almost surely die off in "hardcore" mode. I know MWO isn't the only game out there, but I was enjoying it.

What makes you so shore that the 1PV-only queue will "die off"? Are you afraid that those who claim to be committed to 1PV only are not not really that sincere on their support? If so, then your gripe isn't with PGI, but with other players.

Edited by Farix, 08 July 2013 - 02:38 AM.

[zraven7]

Ok, how about this: Can anyone honestly argue that 3PV will not offer a significant advantage over 1PV?

[Farix]

zraven7, on 08 July 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Ok, how about this: Can anyone honestly argue that 3PV will not offer a significant advantage over 1PV?

It very much depends on where the camera is located in relation to the cockpit and how it moves as the torso moves.

[zraven7]

Farix, on 08 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

It very much depends on where the camera is located in relation to the cockpit and how it moves as the torso moves.

That's overly vague. Honestly sounds like something a lobbyist would say. C'mon, be honest.

[Hotthedd]

Farix, on 08 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

It very much depends on where the camera is located in relation to the cockpit and how it moves as the torso moves.

Well let's look at it objectively.

IGP/PGI's reasons for adding 3PV are:
Allow people to take screenshots of their mech in action. If this is the case, the camera would have to be far enough back to see things impossible to see in 1PV, AND render the images that cannot be seen in 1PV, giving an obvious advantage.

Make it easier for new pilots to see their torso in relation to their legs. Again, the camera would have to be far enough back to give an advantage. Even if the rest of the FOV were NOT available, 3PV players will know if they are being attacked from behind, by what weapon, and at what angle.

Let's face it, if those things are NOT available in 3PV, then we have been lied to about the very reasons 3PV is being put into the game.

[DeaconW]

Farix, on 08 July 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

What makes you so shore that the 1PV-only queue will "die off"? Are you afraid that those who claim to be committed to 1PV only are not not really that sincere on their support? If so, then your gripe isn't with PGI, but with other players.

For the same reasons it happened to MW4 and why people gravitate to the OP metas in MWO...they are competitive and want to win. And while I do have problems with players who exploit broken metas for their own selfish reasons I also have a problem with devs who *enable that behavior * and either encourage it or fail to discourage it by their design decisions. This may come as a surprise, but there are few principled players in online gaming. Shocking, I know. I would venture to say that the percentage is probably higher in MWO due to it's appeal to older players...but it ain't high.

Edited by DeaconW, 08 July 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[zraven7]

Hotthedd, on 08 July 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Well let's look at it objectively.

IGP/PGI's reasons for adding 3PV are:
Allow people to take screenshots of their mech in action. If this is the case, the camera would have to be far enough back to see things impossible to see in 1PV, AND render the images that cannot be seen in 1PV, giving an obvious advantage.

Make it easier for new pilots to see their torso in relation to their legs. Again, the camera would have to be far enough back to give an advantage. Even if the rest of the FOV were NOT available, 3PV players will know if they are being attacked from behind, by what weapon, and at what angle.

Let's face it, if those things are NOT available in 3PV, then we have been lied to about the very reasons 3PV is being put into the game.

He has a good point. If they want to show the things they are claiming, then it would have to be in a position that would offer significant advantage.

[Kraven Kor]

Farix, on 08 July 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

What makes you so shore that the 1PV-only queue will "die off"? Are you afraid that those who claim to be committed to 1PV only are not not really that sincere on their support? If so, then your gripe isn't with PGI, but with other players.

We are not "sure" this will happen.

We fear it will happen, based on how things were in MW:4 - if you wanted Heat On, Limited Ammo, Forced First Person Queue,then you had to be in an organized clan or you didn't get to play, period, unless you said heck with it and joined a Heat On, Limited Ammo server that had 3PV enabled, as that is where all the "PUG" players of that era played. And even then, it was hard to find even a 3PV server with Heat On and Limited Ammo.

Farix, on 08 July 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

It very much depends on where the camera is located in relation to the cockpit and how it moves as the torso moves.

No, it depends on exactly how much stuff you can see over that hill, behind that ridge, and around that corner. Camera location and camera movement options can limit this advantage, but not eradicate it.

The only thing that would eradicate this advantage is if the engine simply did not render anything that you could not see from 1PV; which would look really awful and generally be awful for those who do want 3PV.

Separate queues are pretty much the only option us 1PV proponents will accept.

And, again, we don't KNOW for SURE that what we are railing against will happen. We FEAR that it will and we also believe half of what is said by PGI on the subject is "PR Speak" and thus take it with a grain of salt (a little lime, and a shot of tequila as well.)

[zraven7]

DeaconW, on 08 July 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

For the same reasons it happened to MW4 and why people gravitate to the OP metas in MWO...they are competitive and want to win. And while I do have problems with players who exploit broken metas for their own selfish reasons I also have a problem with devas who *enable that behavior * and either encourage it or fail to discourage it by their design decisions. This may come as a surprise, but there are few principled players in online gaming. Shocking, I know. I would venture to say that the percentage is probably higher in MWO due to it's appeal to older players...but it ain't high.

He's right. If they implement 3PV, more than likely the server with it will have a larger player base than the 1PV exclusive. If that's the case, there is a good chance they will just re-merge the player base. This isn't fear-mongering, this is simply looking at how the game's development has gone so far. If the entire player base is given the choice between 1PV and 3PV, it will become playing 3PV, or losing.

Honestly, being able to see attacks hit your backside is advantage enough to make it mandatory. I play lights, and attacking from behind is bread-and-butter strategy, especially because I might not be noticed if they are taking fire to their front at the same time. 3PV will eliminate that ability.

I'm not saying that 3PV will make the game "better" or "worse". I do believe that it will kill a lot of the immersion, and that it will fundamentally change the game. This could lose players that came to play the game as it is.

Now, this game already has a vicious learning curve. 3PV will do little to alleviate that. Whether you can see it or not, a 6ppc stalker will ruin your day, and getting caught in the open anywhere usually hurts a lot. If you take a game with a steep learning curve, then implement a change that could possibly run off a lot of the veteran players, well, you're shooting yourself in both feet,

So, yeah, a change this big could kill the game.

Edited by zraven7, 08 July 2013 - 10:26 AM.

[Bloodweaver]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 07 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

A baseless fear that is completely made up by a select few people in this thread. You have absolutely no reason to think that would be the case.

You are very mistaken. It far from baseless to think that 1PV-only games will stop being an option after a while. The basis for this presumption is that the language they used to state that you will be able to play in 1PV-only games, is exactly the same language they used when saying that MW:O was 1PV-only.

The statement was that MW:O was first-person only, "out the gates." A few months down the road, it turns out that little phrase that most people probably never noticed in the first place, was of critical importance. It allowed the game's development to stop being first-person only, without anyone being able to claim that PGI *literally* broke any promises. This is what people have been referring to as "lawyerspeak" - it is the art of deceiving people without technically lying. Which, ironically, only makes it all the more unctuous.

If you've made it this far, you should see where this post is going. They claimed MW:O was 100% 1st-person "out the gates." Now they say that players will be able to choose between mixed or forced-first-person queues - "out the gates." The very, very, very strong implication is that this choice may disappear. Even if it never does disappear, the very fact that PGI voluntarily and intentionally phrased their claim in a way which allows them to later go completely against that claim, utterly pulverizes trust. They want to tell you things that they know you want to hear, but they don't want to have to actually live up to the things they say.

Chances are the view-modes will likely be mixed. That is the presumption. Although it is not "baseless," as you claim. It has a basis - PGI's own language as applied, in an identical manner, down to the very words used, to identical situations in the past. Still, that is presumption at the end of the day. Leaving that option open does not ensure they will take it. But here is the fact: they DID leave that option open. And they did do so in a deceptive, skeevy way. The reason people aren't buying it now is not because they're wild-eyed doomsayers, your insulting accusations notwithstanding. They aren't buying it because they've seen the exact same thing happen before. If you had been paying attention, you may have seen it as well.