2926 replies to this topic

[Agent of Change]

McKhaye, on 27 November 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Again. We're talking about people at expos and shows who typically have, say, five or ten minutes with the game.

Not that that'll change your opinion at all, but.

Ok the people at expos with only 5 minutes to play aren't going to master the movement style you are correct, neither are those people going to do well figuring out a complex 4x game or a large scale war game, or perhaps anything with a nonstandard mechanic. You are right that argument isn't going to sway me because it's irrelevant to the larger issue, should those same people come back and put time into they will figure it out.

There should be no reasonable expectation that you should do well in multi-player if your first experience with a game that has substantial mechanical differences from other games is a 5 minute demo. To think otherwise and to design to that goal is unreasonable.

McKhaye, on 27 November 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

So you're down with setting up a tutorial where people get to practice at their own pace and figure out the mechanics but not with setting up a tutorial where people get to see out of a special camera for a minute or two to figure out the mechanics.

I am and i'll tell you why. Because if 3pv has no place in the game proper (something i am pretty positive about) then introducing it in a tutorial is potentially detrimental to the new player rather than helpful. You give them a 'crutch' that provides them some aid of potentially dubious value and they get comfortable with that and then you kick it away when they get to the game, that would be frustrating. Better to let them become comfortable with the way they will actually be playing the game and perhaps add a-i-d-s from there. A little in cockpit 3d model that shows them their twist for example, on top of the map indicator which for most should be enough if they had the time to recognize it for what it is. In short I would have new players "Train how you fight" and I'm fairly sure they would be better for it.


EDIT: you gotta be ******* kidding me ******* a-i-d-s is censored.

Edited by Agent of Change, 27 November 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[McKhaye]

Ransack, on 27 November 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Please explain how it does not show the way that torso twist works.

It shows/explains the concept just fine. I said being shown something and doing something yourself aren't the same.

Ransack, on 27 November 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Yes the game would be broken. Borken into even smaller groups than we have now...

If they put it in as a normal match option, then maybe so.

But they haven't said they're going to do it that way. Really they haven't said much past "We're thinking about 3PV, but if we did it we'd make it so doesn't bother y'all."

So yeah, some conclusions jumped in your previous statement.

EDIT:

Agent of Change, on 27 November 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Ok the people at expos with only 5 minutes to play aren't going to master the movement style you are correct, neither are those people going to do well figuring out a complex 4x game or a large scale war game, or perhaps anything with a nonstandard mechanic. You are right that argument isn't going to sway me because it's irrelevant to the larger issue, should those same people come back and put time into they will figure it out.

"Master"? The problem is with only five minutes even grasping the basics can be frustrating.

I hate to get into business topics, but it's not just regular people at expo's they're concerned about impressing. Getting your hooks into journalists makes you money and keeps your game afloat. End of story.

Agent of Change, on 27 November 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Better to let them become comfortable with the way they will actually be playing...

I do actually agree with this and think a proper tutorial would be good enough, but I don't agree with the assumption that 3pv has no place, will only be terrible, or that it wouldn't help new players.

And if anything hooking more players in the first couple of minutes of play and then taking away their "crutch" is better than not hooking those extra players at all. That's the way it is.

Edited by McKhaye, 27 November 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[Ransack]

McKhaye, on 27 November 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

It shows/explains the concept just fine. I said being shown something and doing something yourself aren't the same.

My picture is referring to the stated reason for considering third view. The stated reason was people couln't figure out torso twist. I agree that there should be a practice area. A practice area that is in first person that gives them little hint screens so that they can do it them selves. By your reasoning, those same people should not be able to figure out any of the controls by reading about them, only by touching.

Quote

If they put it in as a normal match option, then maybe so.

But they haven't said they're going to do it that way. Really they haven't said much past "We're thinking about 3PV, but if we did it we'd make it so doesn't bother y'all."

So yeah, some conclusions jumped in your previous statement.

They said, that it would be an option(if implemented). It would be an option that you do not have to use(if implemented). It would be an option that you do not have to fight against(if implemented). hmmm. perhaps i am reading between the lines and seeing something that isn't there. I doubt it.

So are you telling me that if implemented, that 3pv would be fighting against 1pv? That would be seriously broken and something that they said would not happen. Or perhaps you are talking about the teaming options... those have already been laid out.

Confined to a tutorial area, a 3rd view does not help you learn first, 3rd view help you learn 3rd view. Since this is supposed to be first, it doesn't even need to be considered. What other game mechanics would be learned exclusively by third person view?
Targeting? nope
positioning? nope
Weapon grouping? nope
avoidance? nope
seeking cover? nope

I cant think of one. Have people looking at the HUD, map, target indicators, terrain and so forth from inside the mech. Give them pointers, teach them to fish per se.

Oh and please no more mumbo jumbo about design vision changing. They have said that the game is not going to be pay to win. If they decide to change that design vision by making the most OP mechs available by MC only, would you be upset, or would you start paying?

Edited by Ransack, 27 November 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[lankynathan]

Please, for the love of cake, no playable third-person view.

Go nuts with 3rd person for replays and spectating. Not while piloting.

[FinnMcKool]

well if its an option you could have a planet that battles in 3rd person; you could call it the "Bunny Hill"
Also you could have no heat no Ammo, and of course the option to take "no damage"

That is the Kids you want to please right?

[Merc85]

Geez, how far are you going to "dumb down" this game which I think has the potential to be very good given the way a pilot runs his mech now?
If this game is Mechwarrior and we each are a pilot, 3PV has no place in battle mode. If people need it to get used to the mechs, just put it in a training map. Fix the yellow screen, fix the drops to desk top, fix the warping, add some new maps, but don't radically change the real game playing experience when a training map will do what you think you need to do.

[McKhaye]

Ransack, on 27 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

By your reasoning, those same people should not be able to figure out any of the controls by reading about them, only by touching.

Yes. By saying two things are different or that one works better than the other in this one instance, I'm saying only one is any good and the other is worthless ****. For everything in the game. /sarcasm

Ransack, on 27 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

They said, that it would be an option(if implemented). It would be an option that you do not have to use(if implemented). It would be an option that you do not have to fight against(if implemented). hmmm. perhaps i am reading between the lines and seeing something that isn't there. I doubt it.

You are seeing things that aren't there. They say "It'd be an option" and you hear "It'd be an option IN ALL MATCHES AND MATCH TYPES IN SERIOUS GAMEPLAY."

Ransack, on 27 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Confined to a tutorial area, a 3rd view does not help you learn first, 3rd view help you learn 3rd view. ... What other game mechanics would be learned exclusively by third person view?

First one: Wrong. There are skills that crossover from one view to the other.

Second one: "Exclusively" is exaggeration. 3pv would help with learning torso twist. It is not the exclusive way to learn it.

Edited by McKhaye, 27 November 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[shotokan5]

I have very mixed emotions about this remembering that MW had both 3rd and1st person view. I can't remember about 3025 but I think it did also but not sure. Old can't remember. I used both in MW to be honest. It came in very handy when a light mech was running around you. It did take care of that problem boom. ' When we played matches they were always set in first person view. This made everything equal. I do understand both sides and both have their points. However the purest would only stand for first person. But many never played MW that way so I understand their feeling. To me first the view stinks as it stands now . I had a better view out of my 78 Camaro . The cockpit view needs to be increased either way . one answer is if you want third person you would have a server and first person another group. Could everyone live with that? Sorry keyboard broken so no paragraphs. I do like first person myself its more of a challenge and lt feels more like being their. I do however feel that being able to have a atlas walk up behind you and wham is not right either. Would you like to drive a car with no way to see in back or really the side of you. Crash. I think that needs to be changed and also have much to do with the 3rd person idea being so popular. I do not know what % was third person in MW but it was high. Also, you had a much better first person view than you do now now. So everyone don't get your panties in a bunch and say the sky is falling. Instead of worrying about views not the one we have needs to be fixed can we agree on that? I hope the Canadians are sober enough to put in the patch today.

[Alois Hammer]

McKhaye, on 27 November 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Second one: "Exclusively" is exaggeration. 3pv would help with learning torso twist. It is not the exclusive way to learn it.

Nope, only the worst way to learn it.

"Okay, got it? Good...now we'll shove you back into first-person, which is how you'll actually be playing the game..."

[Omega IV]

I think the 3rd person GAMEPLAY is simply against all aspects of the original mechwarrior game series. I am so psyched about the quality of the game as it is, (minus the few bugs here and there of course) and it's faithfulness to the actual mechwarrior idea. The great ideas put together in this game are vast, and i absolutely love how this game is turning out to be. The simulation experience gives me chills every day. =)

IMHO the 3rd person view should still be there for spectating. That's it. It should NEVER be used to the gameplay, 'cause then this game would be just another "stupid 3rd person robot fighting game for consoles" -kind of experience.

Mechwarrior Online has potential to be so much more, and with faction warfare, as much maps as possible, OPTIONAL clan, pilot and faction sigil's on your custom hard earned mech (with custom camo / paintjob of course) would make this game everything i dreamed of when i was a kid. Please become true. Pleasepleasepleaseplease...

[Kavoh]

To the people still claiming you need to help new players. Want to know something funny? I can almost GUARANTEE YOU, that the people ********, know how to play now. There is this thing called practice. Learning. Experience? People don't need to immediately jump in and be like "OH ****, AFTER 5 SECONDS I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IM DOING, LETS ADD 3RD PERSON". They will learn, everyone will. And yes, if after days of playing they STILL haven't understood torso twist, they have something far more wrong with them then needing an alternative view.

[Parazaine]

How can so few (developers) make so many decisions that are frankly unbelievably bad for their core player base?

Are you guys (Russ et al) at the controls of this 'runaway train'? or has marketing competely taken over (and with a very poor understanding of battletech)

No to 3rd person view....read the poll, very few people want it and those that do are probably just short-term visitors from FPS franchises.

Bring back collisions.....less arcade solutions....and who thought that a blanket speed nerf for all mechs would go unnoticed by the players? Good luck hiring some Network programmers, perhaps they can fix the abysmal net-code.

Back in the days when I bought into this franchise (and paid good money because I did) the 'road--map' was for a game that would stay close to TT and battletech lore....recently it seems like the team are trying to attract WOT to the detriment of their REAL supporters.

Guys, stop making STUPID decisions ffs.

[McKhaye]

Y'know.

I'm just gonna say: I don't like the idea of 3rd person view. I think a plain tutorial is all the game really needs.

But even more than that, I hate people being bat-****-ing irrational. And the screaming, illogical QQing I've seen in this thread makes me think less of this community than any in-game smack talk, any team killers I've encountered, and all the times I've been facerolled by premades.

The developers said "We're thinking about putting in 3rd person view in some fashion to help new players". If you get "WE'RE GONNA PUT 3RD PERSON IN NORMAL COMPETITIVE MATCHES DEFINITELY Y'ALL HAVE FUN" you are being ****-ing ridiculous. You are zooming past almost all of the sane possible conclusions and freaking out over one possible scenario.

And a sarcastic high five to all the armchair game designers who not only think that 3PV is a bad idea but go out of their way to say "It could NEVER be helpful at all, the developers and all these 'new players' are ******* stupid."

This 3PV thing could work out in a hundred different ways or not make it in at all, hell they're still in the freaking stage of just considering the idea. You could at least wait until they lay out some solid possibilities before you start being screaming ridiculous fanboys, eh?

And I'll be frank, I know it's entirely possible they could mess it up. I'd rather they didn't bother at all in anything but an extremely limited fashion with 3pv, and I think the basics of the game are great but I'm not convinced about PGI's overarching business plan for the game.

But christ, it seriously doesn't warrant this level of freakout at all.

A more serious salute, then, to posters like Omega IV and shotokan5 who come in and just state their piece of mind like regular, sane human beings. Keep the dream alive you guys.

[grayson marik]

McKhaye, on 27 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

I don't think anyone doesn't understand the tank analogy; it just doesn't help people who have never controlled something like a tank in a video game before learn the controls any faster.

Yeah but the point is:

Do I really have to fully understand a game within 2 minutes of gameplay? - Do games have to be THAT simple and cheap really?
Even Wing Commander 1 for example took you some time to grasp the grouping and manoeuvring... and it was not a complicated game!
Nowadays I am under the impression PC games have to be overly simplified for even the youngest kid, that cannot walk yet but can hold a mouse at least....

Once the new pilots get matchmaked against other new pilotes in PUGS, they are all equally bad and have time to learn without loosing every single game.

This and a tutorial should really be enough.
There is absolutely no need for 3rd in any way except maybe a replay after match for eye candy.

So after all it comes all again back to 2 things, which the community was emphasizing for month's before OB:

-Matchmaking ( at least put player experience into PUGS and let low experienced pilotes not be grouped against premades )
-Tutorial ( how long and how often was this demanded?)

These are the reasons new people, who are not familiar to the IP and mechs in general have such a rough start!
If you had put the resources into MM and a tutorial, that you now use to "consider" 3rd... maybe the game and the community in much better shape....

We are not complaining because we are narrow minded fouls! We complain because you strive for the easy way, not for the right way!

[Parazaine]

Personally, I don't usually 'freak out' this much BUT it's the latest in a long line of recent decisions that are baffling from the point of view of a rational human being.

I see that LRM's are being buffed again....how many times now? nerf, buff, nerf, buff

Collisions were removed AND with no clear statement whether they will ever be reinstated

3rd person view in a semi-sim skill/team-based MECHWARRIOR FRANCHISE....sure, if they were making gundam online or at least not using the Mechwarrior name then I would entertain the idea...this is mechwarrior, there is no place (in my humble opinion) for 3rd person views.

Are kids these days so impatient that they can't learn how to play a new game? It's hardly that difficult BUT a tutorial WOULD go a long way to alleviating this problem.

I'm not going to defend all the posts in this thread (mine included) BUT they do show how a lot of the player base is seriously pi..ed off about some of the recent decisions by the developers.

These were the guys that told us that they were long-time Battletech enthusiasts and intended to make a game that stayed as loyal to the BT universe as possible....the kind of game that I (and many others) have been waiting for for a long time.

Currently we have a reasonable core game, it's fun to play BUT it seems like they are intent on catering for the lowest common denominator to the detriment of hard-core BT fans.

Only time will tell if this is the case AND if it's ultimately a wise strategy.

[JadeViper]

Let the chuckling at the ragers commense! ftlog, listen to the podcast.

I love how people still think they will be playing an 'arcade' 3rd person game when they wont have to use that perspective. You'll only play that arcade game if you turn the feature on. Don't, and its a FP sim! Do you rage out at your Need for speed buddies who play in chase cam because you think the driver cam is way, way cooler? No?

And those peeps who shout It'll break the game, I've already posted 2 easy approaches to a cam implementation that wont confer an advantage. Occlusion and tight-cams! Read back a page or 2. I can only assume ragers haven't addressed that post as it makes way to much sense?

Sim games do have a use for 3rd person, and like here, its generally for aide in movement controls learning. Take a flight sim. Narry has there been a flight sim without 3rd person. Why is this useful for learning: it's actually very similar to the issue here in MW:
In an 'arcade' game, if flying, you hold left, you roll and turn left with the turns 'strength' based on how far you pull the stick, you let go of the yoke, you return to upright. In the Sim game though, You turn you control left, you do not turn, but you only roll, and the harder you move the yoke, the faster you roll. If you return the yoke to center, you do not upright, but maintain the current roll trajectory. Only by moving the yoke to the right can you roll back to center. If you only start to bring the yoke back after you've reached center upright, you overcorrect and are now rolling again. You have to 'meet the roll' back at neutral yoke.

Flight Roll and righting (returning to center) is very, very tough to get a grasp of if you cannot see the ailerons. Having a 3rd person camera allows you to see how your yoke motions impact the plane's position and movement. Yes, there is a cockpit hud with the horizon line and center-of-gravity bubble, but to the novice pilot, these instruments do not make sense unless paired with an outside view. There is a reason most pilots in training are mandated to use a flight sim to understand how their machine operates, and how you influence that operation, and not just to save on crash insurance.

This can be readily compared to MW leg and torso alignment and impacts on view and movement. You can have all the UI in the world, but seeing is believing.

Until you guys can prove Piranha will fail at a successful implementation, and that 'giving up' before they start is in any way a reasonable business choice and somehow increases player recruitment, It's a green light. Saying it will break the game doesn't tell the dev how you think it will break it. Saying it will turn into an arcade fest doesn't show how you would be forced into an arcade game (cause you'll never see it).

Wow was Russ right about the volumes of mindless rageouts that would ensue...

Bah, snarky again! My bad.

EDIT: To the BT end, in the Tabletop, you don't need LoS so 'see' your target. No you don't have a shot, but everyone can see everyone though buildings and terrain as long as its in sensor range. In MW you are flying blind compared to BT.

And Cheers to McH's post at the top of the page. Actually a decent summary much shorter than my long winded versions

Edited by JadeViper, 27 November 2012 - 12:37 PM.

[Kasdam672]

I have seen a bunch of people complaining about "they only said if" or "they only said they are looking in to it". If eventually turns into will if no one objects to it. I say *** it in the bud. I pilot a light or medium mech (more commonly light) and I use the blind spot of big mechs like atlas's to avoid being killed in 5 seconds, and still get some proper damage in on the bigger mechs. If they have third person on they can see where the shots are coming from and turn the right direction to find me, or anyone else playing a light mech. Yes I could move out of the way by the time they see my shots, but when I shoot again they will see the direction I am moving and can correct for it. I agree with some of the others about "focus on new mechs and fixing current issues".

"Oh I need 3rd person to play the game right." Bull ****. Its not anyone's fault but your own if you can't use the tools given to you to navigate correctly. This is a "thinking person's shooter". 3rd person will make it to where you don't have to think as much about what you are doing.

3rd person "won't give you an advantage". It will always give you an advantage. 3rd person increases the width that you can view from your current position. It allows you to see behind your mech. It allows you to see over and around things without revealing yourself. So yes it gives you an advantage. Even if you make it to where you can't shoot in 3rd person you can still see where the enemy is and where they are going with out them seeing you. So tell me again how is is not an advantage.

"It will be a different server that does 3rd". WHY? Why would you split the samll number of people who play this as is.

[Sable Hawk]

Garth Erlam, on 16 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

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.

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.

So it was a "slip" which means a mistake, unintended, intentionally being hidden?

Sacrosanct, you use this word but I do not think it means what you think it means..

sac·ro·sanct
[sak-roh-sangkt] adjective
1. extremely sacred or inviolable: a sacrosanct chamber in thetemple.
2. not to be entered or trespassed upon: She considered her homeoffice sacrosanct.
3. above or beyond criticism, change, or interference: a manuscriptdeemed sacrosanct.

So, even though 1PV is sacrosanct, you are looking at its criticisms, looking to change it, trespassing upon the role of 1PV, and violating the nature of a simulator.

Garth Erlam, on 16 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

If we find that there is a relevant role for an optional 3^rd person camera mode.........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.

If? What are the relevant criteria for that "if"? More money? Why, with all the seemingly major issues (crashes, team play, farmers, weapon balance, mech balance, net code, etc), is this even being discussed? Considering the amount of effort Russ went through to bring up 3PV, it apparently is a pretty important concern there. I am concerned with just what you will settle for.

Instead of the dribble offered here, it would have been much more prudent to make a statement along the lines of :
"Having heard the hue and cry from our hard core (and paying) players, we have tabled the 3PV idea. If other methods or alternatives do not work, we may revisit the idea at a later date, when the game is more settled and fine tuned. As the popularity of MWO increases, it may become viable to offer a 3PV option offered as an alternative to normal play that would be kept separate and treated as an 'add on' rather than core game content. Thank you for the massive and heartfelt input from you, our customers and collaborators. this is yet again proof that we are listening."

Instead, we get statements that are little more than words to placate the masses that, yet again, shows the gaming community just how much you hear but how little you listen.

Edited by Sable Hawk, 27 November 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[McKhaye]

grayson marik, on 27 November 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

We are not complaining because we are narrow minded fouls! We complain because you strive for the easy way, not for the right way!

It doesn't seem like you have any idea what I'm striving for.

Kasdam672, on 27 November 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

I have seen a bunch of people complaining about "they only said if" or "they only said they are looking in to it". If eventually turns into will if no one objects to it. I say *** it in the bud.

*** it in the bud by coming on and saying you'd hate it if 3rd person view made it into serious matches. I think everyone who objects should object.

But failing to read the fact that it IS currently an "If" is a failure of reading comprehension, and spewing bile about that "If" is a failure of reason, frankly.

[Frenchtoastman]

JadeViper, on 27 November 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I love how people still think they will be playing an 'arcade' 3rd person game when they wont have to use that perspective. You'll only play that arcade game if you turn the feature on. Don't, and its a FP sim!

And those peeps who shout It'll break the game, I've already posted 2 easy approaches to a cam implementation that wont confer an advantage. Occlusion and tight-cams! Read back a page or 2. I can only assume ragers haven't addressed that post as it makes way to much sense?

To that first part: If they add a 3rdPerson as an option with a camera angle that allows you to see from your head all the way down to your legs, for all matches, that will give such users a wider angle of view, and one that is farther back. If I simply don't use it (opting to stick with 1stP), anyone using 3rd will be able to see more of the field and more around cover (without actually leaving the safety of cover) than anyone using 1st. That's a fairly "game breaking" advantage. BUT..

In your second part there, you mention a couple ways around this game-breaker
Tight cam: It will still give a slight advantage, but a much smaller one. The problem here is that it won't be showing the relation of your upper torso with your legs because of the inheritly narrower view, so it won't be of any use as a learning tool.

Occlusion: This could work if done right. If you were allowed to pop into 3rd, but you couldn't see enemies (enemies wouldn't render when in 3rd person mode), it would allow both a wide angle of view AND offer no advantage. It would also mean you'd have to actually play in 1st, and only use 3rd to untangle yourself or take a look at how cool your 20+ton warmachine looked.

The problem with occlusion is..you know it will get hacked.

I'd prefer if it was only a small part of an otherwise purely 1stPerson-based, playable tutorial.

Edited by Frenchtoastman, 27 November 2012 - 01:07 PM.