2926 replies to this topic

[Grimmnyr]

Kraven Kor, on 09 July 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

1,000 years of technological innovation and they have lost the rear view mirror?

Generally, I want immersion, I want sim.

Rear view camera, either on a monitor or "switch to rear view", is realistic, believable, and still challenging and fits with the sim aspect.

An external camera view does not.

What is baffling is the lack of 360° radar.

[Kraven Kor]

Ed Steele, on 09 July 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

What is baffling is the lack of 360° radar.

And I would be all for that as well.

[INSEkT L0GIC]

ThermidorFallen, on 09 July 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

There was something about a Cry Engine limitation that prevented them using one of the cockpit monitors as a rear-view camera but I've got no idea if that was confirmed by PGI. I wouldn't mind a parking camera though!

On another note, I welcome our 3rd person overlords.

Generally, each active camera they add drops your overall FPS by half (or more). It's also part of the overhaul needed for DX11 support and the PIP zoom module.

Edited by INSEkT L0GIC, 09 July 2013 - 03:08 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

It's the fact that they would have to re-render the environment for a real view mirror, doubling the computational load.

[Kraven Kor]

Rebas Kradd, on 09 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

It's the fact that they would have to re-render the environment for a real view mirror, doubling the computational load.

Then go with the 360' radar for targets in LOS of the mech.

I'm not adamantly against any way to know what is behind you.

I'm adamantly against "having to play in the 3PV queue." And I am all for other ways to draw in new players, help new players, etc.

[LastPaladin]

prizim, on 09 July 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

if no third person view how about a rear view camera

I'd rather have that then 3pv, especially because many mechs, including some that we already have, are supposed to have rear-mounted hardpoints.

Rebas Kradd, on 09 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

It's the fact that they would have to re-render the environment for a real view mirror, doubling the computational load.

That's not a problem, though, if they made it a rearview toggle. Press a key, and your whole screen switches to rear view, until you release the key, then it switches back, like in the old WingCommander games. Then they'd only ever have to render one view at a time.

[101011]

LastPaladin, on 10 July 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

That's not a problem, though, if they made it a rearview toggle. Press a key, and your whole screen switches to rear view, until you release the key, then it switches back, like in the old WingCommander games. Then they'd only ever have to render one view at a time.

Heck, they had that back in MW4.

[Shiro Matsumoto]

LastPaladin, on 10 July 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

I'd rather have that then 3pv, especially because many mechs, including some that we already have, are supposed to have rear-mounted hardpoints.



That's not a problem, though, if they made it a rearview toggle. Press a key, and your whole screen switches to rear view, until you release the key, then it switches back, like in the old WingCommander games. Then they'd only ever have to render one view at a time.

Better than than a camera hovering close to the mech, or other dumb idea to explain arcade style 3pv... really this thread is one of the longest.. why they insist is beyond my comprehension.

Edited by John McFianna, 11 July 2013 - 05:39 AM.

[Viper69]

John McFianna, on 11 July 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

why they insist is beyond my comprehension.

Because they took some magical poll of players that either quit or wont play MWO in its current form until 3PV is in, yet they wont tell us what those numbers were nor where they came up with them. I am not interested in WoT with mechs so the money I would have given them for the phoenix pack went elsewhere.

[Warge]

I don't like the idea of 3PV in MWO but I like to see how my mech looks like and acts in battle. So... I'd like to see in exchange of paperdoll - Mech's 3D model: if mech loses arm - model loses too, if I shot in back - I'd like to see it on 3D model, if I turn torso - model do the same. I think this scheme would solve a lot of problems with 3PV demanders, imho.

[Kraven Kor]

Warge, on 11 July 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

I don't like the idea of 3PV in MWO but I like to see how my mech looks like and acts in battle. So... I'd like to see in exchange of paperdoll - Mech's 3D model: if mech loses arm - model loses too, if I shot in back - I'd like to see it on 3D model, if I turn torso - model do the same. I think this scheme would solve a lot of problems with 3PV demanders, imho.

I'd love it if the minimap screen could be changed to show a computer simulation of your mech's orientation and surrounding terrain as "3PV." Still 1PV through the cockpit glass, but minimap changes to a 3D display of your mech and any nearby obstacles.

I get stuck on buildings and other mechs as often as some, if not most. I can see the benefit and am all for it.

Just not "arcade" style 3PV.

[AvatarofWhat]

Ed Steele, on 09 July 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

What is baffling is the lack of 360° radar.

its called seismic

[Aym]

Kraven Kor, on 11 July 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

I'd love it if the minimap screen could be changed to show a computer simulation of your mech's orientation and surrounding terrain as "3PV." Still 1PV through the cockpit glass, but minimap changes to a 3D display of your mech and any nearby obstacles.

I get stuck on buildings and other mechs as often as some, if not most. I can see the benefit and am all for it.

Just not "arcade" style 3PV.

Kraven has a great idea here. Use the Battlegrid zoomed in to show the mech and the terrain around you and maybe even mechs in LOS in 3D. It's effectively 3rd person, but it's a graphic simulation that works in-universe. Come on PGI!

[Ursus_Spiritus]

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Sure. I played hardcore before R&R was removed on all 4 of the accounts. I have my main account that I've played hardcore on ever since the cbills were reset for the final time. .....
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
** OH and I don't live in grandma's basement. I'm a decent player, I make good money.

Frankly, the fact that you felt compelled to list all of the previous information demonstrates not a whole lot for the argument on hand.

Aside from showing you as a potential farmer.
Being one or not is not my call though more so just at least in my mind's eye devalues your "claim" to be dedicated to the game and supportive.

I am not going to list my contributions to the game as I don't have to, to justify my value. Frankly you diminished yours with the "I have x, y, z, q, k and a of etc."

[Ursus_Spiritus]

What truly baffles me is why is it that we can target an enemy mech and see their weapon load out, yet we can not target a friendly unit and see their load out.

We should NOT be able to see the weapon config of enemy mechs. The mystery is that we can see missle racks, but they may be empty, we can see barrels and we can tell either ballistic or enegy, but is it a PPC or an ER, is it a Gause or an AC-5 is the missle rack two SRM 2s or an SRM 4? Two LRM 10s or an LRM 20?

I can't recall the last time at least in the novels where a full load out of an enemy mech was easily viewed at initial contact... unless information was acquire via Intel gathering prior to the conflict.

Even than only usually the clans when they issue a challenge will they reveal their unit load outs, or a specific mech config to the opponents...

This whole 3PV thing is a joke, fix other aspects of the game FIRST.

just my .03 1/4

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 11 July 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Kraven Kor]

AvatarofWhat, on 11 July 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

its called seismic

Seismic is both "better than" and "not as good as" 3PV in regards to seeing what you can't see.

First, it is "better" because it can show you the location of an enemy mech even if it is on the other side of something that even 3PV would not let you see over / around.

It is worse because it is extrapolated data and you have to kind of know how to translate "where the blip on your mini-map is" with "where the target actually is in relation to your mech / terrain." It also gives you no information about their elevation or orientation.

They need to nerf seismic into the stone age. Make it so you have to be standing still for a few seconds for it to work or something. I don't like it.

Aym, on 11 July 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Kraven has a great idea here. Use the Battlegrid zoomed in to show the mech and the terrain around you and maybe even mechs in LOS in 3D. It's effectively 3rd person, but it's a graphic simulation that works in-universe. Come on PGI!

Exactly.

I'm all for lore-friendly ways to accomplish this.

Just not magical out-of-body experiences, you know?

[ROJ]

I dont care about 3pv and I cant find a place for it in this game... People playing 3pv will get a better advantage of having all the blind spots you experience in 1pv exposed, now tell me how will this be fixed?

The game is already broken and is in a mess, all we are missing is adding another improvised idea like 3PV, after the game is mostly engineered & focused on 1PV, into this mess just because a bunch of noobs, who will probably play for a couple of months & quit, ask for it??

They should be focusing on fixing the messy and unbalanced aspects of this game instead of wasting your time with this.. Seeing these vague responses and the lack of transparency from the developers makes me doubt we'll get a quality product by September..

[Viper69]

What I really want to see is some test footage of their proposal. They are doing it weather we like it or not so I want to see what they are working on. I suppose I should follow these idgits on twitter and facebook if I want any real feedback.

[Kraven Kor]

And again they may not have spent a single iota of effort on this so far.

We shall see.

[101011]

Kraven Kor, on 11 July 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

And again they may not have spent a single iota of effort on this so far.

We shall see.

No, they have already said to expect it "Soon". (within 30 days of ATD 41)