2926 replies to this topic

[Lane]

I am glad the 3rd person disaster has been temporarily put on hold.

Does anyone remember the impromptu Q&A a developer did, where most of the questions he answered were 4 or 5 part answers that the sentences resembled the universal "giving the bird symbol"? My suggestion is an emoticon that can convey this mutual feeling.

Edited by Lane, 17 November 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

its not on hold. its burning as fiercely as it was when this fire was touched into life.

[Greyfyl]

Gargoth, on 16 November 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

so flame on if you want to, as said: you have been heard, and i seriously hope devs grow some b***s and say "nay" for something for a change.

Yea - that makes a ton of sense. Don't listen to roughly 90% of your playerbase.

Just like they didn't listen when the playerbase said don't go to open beta without matchmaking implemented or better tutorials. Yea - that worked well too.

[MagicHamsta]

Greyfyl, on 17 November 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Yea - that makes a ton of sense. Don't listen to roughly 90% of your playerbase.

There be somethings which need to be the ignored.
('-')

[Myc]

People, stop complaining that other people want to play 3rd person. It won't affect you if you don't play against people who play 3rd person. This will be an OPTION. It won't only be an option on what perspective to play, but which to play against. If you don't want top play against people who use it, don't play against them. They will give you that option, just as they did in MW4. Did everyone forget about that checkbox in the MW4 match setup? Seriously. Why take away from other's fun? Just chill, people. It sounds like most people will be on exclusively 1st person anyway, so what's the problem? Are you afraid it will get more competitive without those people who want to play 3rd person? what's the problem?

[Xavier Wulf]

Things are being rushed, not thought through, and it is crippling this game. This has been happening pre-open beta, and honestly, if this continues, this game will likely fail. And that's a shame, not because I spent money on it (I think I've gotten my moneys worth), but because it had potential to be amazing.

If the 3rd person was implemented as a training/tutorial thing only it would be completely useless and counter productive. If its allowed against people in 1st person, as everyone has stated already, it will have an advantage. If you can just be in a 3rd person vs 3rd person game, why are you playing a game that was said to be all about immersion?

I don't understand the "logic" behind 3rd person. Its not what this game was meant to be. Listening to your player base is great and all, but catering to everyone is impractical. Take a look at how you envisioned this game at the start, and keep that in your sights. Don't loose sight of your original goals, and don't cater to the few who want 3rd person. Its more wasted effort that your team could be using to fix actual problems, instead of creating them.

However, people need to be a little calmer, and not attack the devs, because this does not help your case. But I suppose it does show people's outrage about terrible ideas.

Edited by Xavier Wulf, 17 November 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[The Warnock]

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about game development, because I don't. I do know about software development and every single development model has you fixing bugs before adding more features. Adding another POV, and the server-side code to separate those who use 1st from those who use 3rd, and the testing, and the debugging is draining time from fixing bugs that would need to be fixed anyway.

If it's to help new players transition to the gameplay of Mechwarrior, then a tutorial will do far more good than another POV. Letting a new player learn the ropes in a low risk environment lowers the learning curve by allowing the player to master each major aspect of playing the game. Look at the original Homeworld's tutorial. It allows a player who's new to RTS games learn the basics of managing resources and manipulating units. Homeworld was also a fully 3D space combat RTS that required the player to master a whole new interface and learn how to keep track of units so far apart they couldn't be rendered in the same frame of reference, and the tutorial introduced those concepts as well.

If it's to expand the player-base then maybe you should seriously consider which is more important. Having a broad, very likely fragmented if you implement 3rd person the way you were suggesting it, base of players that have spend a very small amount of time and money on the game before growing bored and moving on? Or, having a smaller, cohesive base of players that spend hours upon hours playing and buy any content expansions that you produce. What is currently being discussed is a lot like 4th edition DnD. 4e had the potential to split the table-top RPG, and it did with many of the people who loved 3e and 3.5e, but hated 4e, running and eventually going to Paizo when they released Pathfinder. It's not perfect, but the analogy fits for the most part.

Even if you wouldn't allow 3rd and 1st person players to mingle in games and matches, it would still split the player-base because it would fundamentally change the feel of the game, and many of the founders have said that they would leave if it was implemented in this way. That doesn't look good or bode well when your original, and in many cases, largest backers are jumping ship, especially when they cite a failure to uphold one of the promises that made them invest in the first place as the reason they're leaving.

Frankly, the apparent lack of a "okay you've made yourselves heard, we won't even think about it." or something similar is a might bit worrisome considering the caustic reaction to this idea in the first place. I'm not say that you haven't read, or don't care, about the concerns of the players, but it can easily be seen that way.

To all those that are looking at those going no, and saying you're overreacting, or "battletech is in 3rd person" here's my two cents:

There are things called "acceptable breaks from reality." They vary from person to person, but generally you can get a pretty good consensus on whether something throws you out of a game, movie, comic, book, or whatever or not. It also changes from medium to medium. Comparing what is an accepted break from reality in a tabletop setting and applying it to a video game setting doesn't work and is plain factitious. MW:O is a mech combat simulator. It's supposed to be immersive and 3rd person is an unacceptable break from reality to many people on this forum. Things that break immersion are things that cause players to leave because the game is no longer fun and worthwhile to them. If it's not worth your time and you're not having fun, then why spend money on it. Many of these people spent $120 to back this game and one of the promises was no 3rd person. To them it's likely one of those unacceptable breaks from reality, and $120 is a good chunk of change. They maybe overreacting, but I don't think you'd be too different if you were in their place.

As for the forum poll, I'd like to point out that the ones that are most active here, and most likely to vote are the ones that are going to make you the most money, whether directly through premium purchases, or indirectly through bringing in more players that buy stuff because they like the game that much, despite all the griping you may hear. Ignoring the wishes of 90+% of your active fan-base is a slap in the face to them and they'll leave. This happened on a site I used to frequent. The parent company changed the design and name of the site and left it half finished, despite a lot of users asking them to fix the forums, which was the main draw of the site, and change the colors to something less eye-searing. What was a close and tight-knight community became a ghost town in three months, despite surviving the website equivalent of armegeddeon (server meltdown and corrupt backups) 4 years earlier.

I will admit that I am not impartial in this matter. I am against introducing 3rd person for the reasons I stated above, it'll split the community and break immersion in the game, no matter how you implement it. There are things that you can be putting resources towards that will better the game and everyone agrees will help make the game better, so why are you, the devs, even looking at this when you have some pretty major bugs to make go squish.

I want this game to succeed. I want to invest in this game to help it grow. But if the wishes of 90+% of the active community are ignored and you introduce something that breaks from the core of your original vision, then I will leave, and you will have lost any potential income from me.

[Rejarial Galatan]

The Warnock, on 17 November 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about game development, because I don't. I do know about software development and every single development model has you fixing bugs before adding more features. Adding another POV, and the server-side code to separate those who use 1st from those who use 3rd, and the testing, and the debugging is draining time from fixing bugs that would need to be fixed anyway.

If it's to help new players transition to the gameplay of Mechwarrior, then a tutorial will do far more good than another POV. Letting a new player learn the ropes in a low risk environment lowers the learning curve by allowing the player to master each major aspect of playing the game. Look at the original Homeworld's tutorial. It allows a player who's new to RTS games learn the basics of managing resources and manipulating units. Homeworld was also a fully 3D space combat RTS that required the player to master a whole new interface and learn how to keep track of units so far apart they couldn't be rendered in the same frame of reference, and the tutorial introduced those concepts as well.

If it's to expand the player-base then maybe you should seriously consider which is more important. Having a broad, very likely fragmented if you implement 3rd person the way you were suggesting it, base of players that have spend a very small amount of time and money on the game before growing bored and moving on? Or, having a smaller, cohesive base of players that spend hours upon hours playing and buy any content expansions that you produce. What is currently being discussed is a lot like 4th edition DnD. 4e had the potential to split the table-top RPG, and it did with many of the people who loved 3e and 3.5e, but hated 4e, running and eventually going to Paizo when they released Pathfinder. It's not perfect, but the analogy fits for the most part.

Even if you wouldn't allow 3rd and 1st person players to mingle in games and matches, it would still split the player-base because it would fundamentally change the feel of the game, and many of the founders have said that they would leave if it was implemented in this way. That doesn't look good or bode well when your original, and in many cases, largest backers are jumping ship, especially when they cite a failure to uphold one of the promises that made them invest in the first place as the reason they're leaving.

Frankly, the apparent lack of a "okay you've made yourselves heard, we won't even think about it." or something similar is a might bit worrisome considering the caustic reaction to this idea in the first place. I'm not say that you haven't read, or don't care, about the concerns of the players, but it can easily be seen that way.

To all those that are looking at those going no, and saying you're overreacting, or "battletech is in 3rd person" here's my two cents:

There are things called "acceptable breaks from reality." They vary from person to person, but generally you can get a pretty good consensus on whether something throws you out of a game, movie, comic, book, or whatever or not. It also changes from medium to medium. Comparing what is an accepted break from reality in a tabletop setting and applying it to a video game setting doesn't work and is plain factitious. MW:O is a mech combat simulator. It's supposed to be immersive and 3rd person is an unacceptable break from reality to many people on this forum. Things that break immersion are things that cause players to leave because the game is no longer fun and worthwhile to them. If it's not worth your time and you're not having fun, then why spend money on it. Many of these people spent $120 to back this game and one of the promises was no 3rd person. To them it's likely one of those unacceptable breaks from reality, and $120 is a good chunk of change. They maybe overreacting, but I don't think you'd be too different if you were in their place.

As for the forum poll, I'd like to point out that the ones that are most active here, and most likely to vote are the ones that are going to make you the most money, whether directly through premium purchases, or indirectly through bringing in more players that buy stuff because they like the game that much, despite all the griping you may hear. Ignoring the wishes of 90+% of your active fan-base is a slap in the face to them and they'll leave. This happened on a site I used to frequent. The parent company changed the design and name of the site and left it half finished, despite a lot of users asking them to fix the forums, which was the main draw of the site, and change the colors to something less eye-searing. What was a close and tight-knight community became a ghost town in three months, despite surviving the website equivalent of armegeddeon (server meltdown and corrupt backups) 4 years earlier.

I will admit that I am not impartial in this matter. I am against introducing 3rd person for the reasons I stated above, it'll split the community and break immersion in the game, no matter how you implement it. There are things that you can be putting resources towards that will better the game and everyone agrees will help make the game better, so why are you, the devs, even looking at this when you have some pretty major bugs to make go squish.

I want this game to succeed. I want to invest in this game to help it grow. But if the wishes of 90+% of the active community are ignored and you introduce something that breaks from the core of your original vision, then I will leave, and you will have lost any potential income from me.

QFT.

[Greyfyl]

Myc, on 17 November 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

People, stop complaining that other people want to play 3rd person. It won't affect you if you don't play against people who play 3rd person. This will be an OPTION. It won't only be an option on what perspective to play, but which to play against. If you don't want top play against people who use it, don't play against them. They will give you that option, just as they did in MW4. Did everyone forget about that checkbox in the MW4 match setup? Seriously. Why take away from other's fun? Just chill, people. It sounds like most people will be on exclusively 1st person anyway, so what's the problem? Are you afraid it will get more competitive without those people who want to play 3rd person? what's the problem?

Problem is:

Playerbase is not that large to begin with......anything that seperates the playerbase into smaller groups is bad because it reduces the number of people in a given queue.

It will take resources to implement.......sources that almost the entire current playerbase would rather see fixing other more important game issues.

The reasons given for wanting to add 3rd person in the first place are terrible and go back to the lack of proper tutorials and a new player area......both of which will need to be addressed at some point if the game is to ever get off the ground.

[Myc]

Greyfyl, on 17 November 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Problem is:

Playerbase is not that large to begin with......anything that seperates the playerbase into smaller groups is bad because it reduces the number of people in a given queue.

It will take resources to implement.......sources that almost the entire current playerbase would rather see fixing other more important game issues.

The reasons given for wanting to add 3rd person in the first place are terrible and go back to the lack of proper tutorials and a new player area......both of which will need to be addressed at some point if the game is to ever get off the ground.

Noted. I can't argue with your points here, so I will give you a nod and maintain my not so staunch disagreement. I really don't feel strongly on this issue, just trying to keep an open mind.

[Rejarial Galatan]

well, um, lets see something here. In all my time, ive never seen more than 3200 players MAX on at any one time, and well, lets look at something, namely the current <as of my copy/paste> numbers show:

Does MWO need or should have 3rd person

• Yes (156 votes [4.56%] - View)
  
• No (3135 votes [91.56%] - View)
  
• No opinion (19 votes [0.55%] - View)
  
• Im indiferent (114 votes [3.33%] - View)

That 3135 in the NO category? May as well be the ENTIRE player base. See, well, this 3rd person camera thing, may end up killing the game entirely.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 17 November 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[LynxFury]

Unless there's fear that many of us sim people would actually leave to go play 3rd person, than it doesn't effect this sim community at all. In fact by adding cash to the game, the devs will continue to support us.

As for the huge request about 3rd person:
It's not about an easy introduction,
or about immersion,
or about some vague of realistic views and what not.

It's about a huge community that as actually outnumbered the cbt sim "purest" in every previous MW title and likely would again.

They like piloting big mechy thingies with big guns and explosions over a beer and laugh as chunks fly off their friend's big robot thingies.....they don't want to worry about wearing blinders, nor often ammunition or heat. To get those bigs guns they either have a play a lot! Or help support both sides of our community.

Our mech fantasy isn't any better than theirs is--it is after all a game. I think many of us, myself includes at times, forget how small the purest side of our community really is. And we can be rather elitist. We are, in part one of the reasons why it's taken ten years to get the next version.

Edited by LynxFury, 18 November 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Lynx, there is a key fact, they ADVERTISED, PROMISED, AND STILL ADVERTISE THIS as 1st person only. Paul Inouye the LEAD DESIGNER states in a post back in july, to find this, just look up paul's profile, search his content, TOPICS ONLY for ease of finding: This game is being designed to be 100% first person. 3rd person breaks one of our key design pillars <read: 100% first person> on multiple levels.

[DirePhoenix]

I've posted this several times before, and I don't know if people haven't seen it due to all the other noise in the forum or haven't seen it b/c they've been blinded by nerdrage, but I've offered an example of how to pull off a third-person view in this game that shouldn't break immersion (especially for those that don't want it) and shouldn't result in having to have the game split the playerbase into 2 different camera modes of play.

I will say first that I am outright AGAINST any form of third-person combat view. What I will accept is a third-person non-combat view. How does that work?

Similar to the in-cockpit freelook, have a keybind toggle that you have to hold down to snap into a third-person camera with motion centered around your 'mech. The key feature: NO WEAPONS OR TARGETING CAPABILITY WHILE USING THIS MODE. This third-person view is for looking around ONLY. You can't fire weapons, you lose your HUD, and you cannot control your 'mech in this view. If you had your throttle set before you snapped into third person view, your 'mech continues moving in the same direction and speed until you hop back into your cockpit.

I have mentioned before that this could actually be of use for scouts that are capable of identifying and reporting 'mech types, movement, and direction manually, without the aid of a HUD or targeting computer. What they could do is shut down, pop into third person view and take a peek around, as if they were poking their heads out the hatch. Currently scouting while shut down is near useless because of the angle that the 'mechs tilt when shut down, so that their cockpits are facing the ground instead of straight ahead. However, even this has limited use as it relies on the scout to give manual information on enemy location and movement, and the team does not receive targeting telemetry through their battle computers.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 17 November 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

DirePhoenix, on 17 November 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

I've posted this several times before, and I don't know if people haven't seen it due to all the other noise in the forum or haven't seen it b/c they've been blinded by nerdrage, but I've offered an example of how to pull off a third-person view in this game that shouldn't break immersion (especially for those that don't want it) and shouldn't result in having to have the game split the playerbase into 2 different camera modes of play.

I will say first that I am outright AGAINST any form of third-person combat view. What I will accept is a third-person non-combat view. How does that work?

Similar to the in-cockpit freelook, have a keybind toggle that you have to hold down to snap into a third-person camera with motion centered around your 'mech. The key feature: NO WEAPONS CAPABILITY WHILE USING THIS MODE. This third-person view is for looking around ONLY. You can't fire weapons, you lose your HUD, and you cannot control your 'mech in this view. If you had your throttle set before you snapped into third person view, your 'mech continues moving in the same direction and speed until you hop back into your cockpit.

I have mentioned before that this could actually be of use for scouts that are capable of identifying and reporting 'mech types, movement, and direction manually, without the aid of a HUD or targeting computer. What they could do is shut down, pop into third person view and take a peek around, as if they were poking their heads out the hatch. Currently scouting while shut down is near useless because of the angle that the 'mechs tilt when shut down, so that their cockpits are facing the ground instead of straight ahead.

that MAY have some merit, but, still risky imho. not to mention, again, its a key design pillar to NOT have ANY 3rd person views.

[Vertrucio]

Time for people to calm the F' down.

I'm against a 3rd person view that's poorly implemented, like a lot of other games out there. However, if they make a useable 3rd person mode that doesn't provide a combat benefit, then I am all for it.

As with anything, how they implement it is key.

All of you, and I mean all of you, who are complaining with such gamer rage right now would end up using a 3rd person camera, and liking it, if Piranha implements it well.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Vertricio, thing is, there is 0 way to give it to us w/out tactically helping the users of it. Also, they said: this game is being designed to be 100% FIRST PERSON ONLY, as that is one of our KEY DESIGN PILLARS. Its not just anger or outrage at the idea of this, but, anger and out rage that they show so little respect for us, as to lie to us like this.

and, no, I would not use it, as I would be gone from this title, as at that moment, it becomes impossible to trust them.

[TANTE EMMA]

Vertrucio, on 18 November 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Time for people to calm the F' down.

I'm against a 3rd person view that's poorly implemented, like a lot of other games out there. However, if they make a useable 3rd person mode that doesn't provide a combat benefit, then I am all for it.

As with anything, how they implement it is key.

All of you, and I mean all of you, who are complaining with such gamer rage right now would end up using a 3rd person camera, and liking it, if Piranha implements it well.

I strongly disagree with you. I would never use 3rd person view in any Mechwarrior Game, well Mechcommander....but that is a different gametype. For me Mechwarrior was always about being the pilot of the mech, not some drone hovering behind my mech. 3rd person would be nice to have in spectator mode, but again it might offer an unfair advantage for the team, that has a guy in spectator mode, being able to report in what s/he sees.
I would actually agree with a UAV, that is limited, like the one in the very first trailer of the game that was called MW:3015 but it would have to be a module, it would have to be destroyable and it would have to be affected by countermeasures, such as ECM, i.E.(the drone-view would have to be displayed on the HUD, like the 4x zoom window to make that work.) additional to this there should be a timer on it, to make sure it can not be employed over and over again....and there should be limited number of drones that a mech can carry.

my 2 cents.

Edited by Noakei Siegel, 18 November 2012 - 12:23 AM.

[Bluey]

I played mech games in 1st person view even I was in elementry <.<

[Longtom]

HI Garth,


I understand the argument, but it will still ruin competitive play. You know as well as I do that whatever will get you a win will need to be used across the board.

Also, I'm angry because it was promised that 3rd person would not be implemented. When someone on either end of a business agreement makes an emphatic promise, it is expected to be kept.

Don't be angry, but if you implement 3rd person view, you're going to lose a lot of money over the years from me, because I'll quit playing - flat out.

Let's approach this from a language I know the execs will understand - MONEY.

When it was first announced that your company would be developing a new Mechwarrior, I thought to myself "they had better not screw this up because they've got some BIG shoes to fill." I'll admit that I was skeptical that a company with a reputation such as PGI would be able to fill those shoes. So far you've done a damn good job, even though there is too much focus on instant-fun shoot-em-up style play for my tastes.

Take a look at Eve Online. It was a success. Why didn't it fade into the background like so many titles before it? Because it had a dedicated following of loyal players who did not want to see it change. The company did not succumb to the pressure of trying to appeal to everyone else. Nearly a DECADE later, it is still making that company a steady flow of cash - not because they bowed to satisfy new, young, instant-fun players, but because they listed to their loyal CASH PAYING audience.

Lets take a look at another popular has-been, namely Ultima Online. They fell to the wayside because their loyal fan-base gave up and left. Why? Because the company who bought rights to the game ruined its special flavor, appealing to new players by nerfing stealing, 1 hit kills, and general hi-jinks from older players. In doing so, they alienated their BASE audience, so, like any good capitalist consumers, the loyalists left for something better. The game was later sold in pieces to a cut-rate small company for pennies, where it blew away into the winds of time.

Garth, you've got a lot of players who've followed Battletech for the better part of their whole lives and don't want you to screw this up in return for a perceived SHORT TERM profit by turning a pretty decent simulator into an over the shoulder shoot-em-up Xbox game for kids. The over-simplification and focus on immediate gratification somehow leads me to believe that's exactly where this is headed anyway.

If that happens, that special flavor in the mechwarrior online cookie will be missing. The niche will be gone. There are plenty of other mindless shoot-em-ups to play that are much more developed and noteworthy.

I know for a fact that implementing 3rd person will net VERY short term gains, but in the long run I'm sure that it will cause a long term spiral in profits. It WILL alienate most of us who have been waiting since our childhood for an online Battletech game (Those players who will probably still be paying in another ten years) - and sooner or later we will leave, as you try to appeal to young, impatient customers who just aren't going to stick around for the long term.

I hope that you prove us wrong, both for your success, the franchise, and loyal Battletech fans who want to give you their money.

Edited by Longtom, 18 November 2012 - 01:11 AM.