2926 replies to this topic

[repete]

Taizan, on 29 November 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

3rd person view has benefits to the game in such that it may create an influx of new players...

Ummm...You need to change the former to the latter OR the latter to the former. And if you do the second of those, please be prepared to cite facts as to why this is the case (Unless prefaced with "I think" or "I believe").

Let me take your own works and twist them:

3rd person view HAS negatives to the game in such that it WILL drive away players

I built a simpit to play this frickin game. But if 3rd person is implemented in a way which ruins the game by giving an advantage to those that use it over first person, then I'm outta here. Say 'good riddens' all you want. But I have no interest in giving my cash to those that ignore what I (Any many others) give as honest, constructive feedback, or when saying it is about helping new players IF the motivation is really to attract those who do want to play in 3PV.

Edited by repete, 29 November 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

IF PGI is crazy enough to ignore the majority of us who say NO THIRD PERSON, then they are actively trying to break this game and kill the franchise. Fact of the matter is, the MAJORITY of us who are saying NO to 3rd Person are FOUNDERS. What does this mean? You anger enough of us, and drive us away with us asking for refunds, thats a 5,000,000$ slam to the company. This is not your grandfathers Mechwarrior game, this is the new generation, one that is designed with a simple idea: that this is a tactical combat simulator designed to place YOU into the pilot seat. They are doing a major disservice to the Title, to US as formerly LOYAL customers, and to their own company as a whole. The instant they do this, they will not stop the tidal wave of riotous negative feedback that sweep over the net and the globe forever condemning anything PGI does or says. It is a good way to kill a title AND a company honestly. They would be wise to realize that THIS is not the way to go, but spending our funding to them on a PROPER tutorial will help them.

[repete]

Vassago Rain, on 29 November 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

They're under some kind of delusion where all the world of tanks players will swarm to world of mechs if they add third person.

THIS

[Kenyon Burguess]

you do what you think is best for your company, i will choose not to play with the 3rd person players. you can keep the 30$ Garth. i'll write it off as a kickstarter to keep mechwarrior relavant.

[QuantumButler]

3rd person is still a bad idea, devs still.don't care, Harry defeats Truman, Hindenburg explodes, news at 11.

Edited by QuantumButler, 29 November 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

JadeViper, on 28 November 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Probably my last contribution to this topic to why we should not be against it:

I'll come clean. I'm a research scientist at a university. Ecology and animal behavior is what I study. I'm currently working with Lobsters; the adorable, hot-headed cockroaches of the sea XD

In science, in order to make any kind of claim about virtually anything, you need to prove it to be so. To prove it, one must test the factor in question explicitly and contrast to a 'control group' - a group without that thing we are investigating - to show that thing has an effect. Even then, even if we do see that thing have an effect on an outcome, we must prove it has a very significant impact as compared to the control. We test the question "Is there any real difference with that thing present as with it absent?"

In these proofs, one cannot cite an example from something that's a proxy or paralell. An example: say with my lobsters I'm looking for what influences sex ratio (why are some male and others female). A similar species of lobster has already been studied, and proved to have a 50/50 male to female ratio. I CANNOT make the assumption that my lobsters will have a similar sex ratio. I must prove it within my specific species. My research would be thrown in the mud if I did use a proxy.

So let's take this back to MWO. The claim "3rd person is abuseible" cannot be made because it has not been tested specifically in MWO. Yes there are proxies, such as MW3/4, but those are an invalid comparison in an empirical (proof-required) world. MWO is a separate entity. To make that claim, one would need to collect data: the control group such as MWO right now with no 3rd person, then compare the performance of the same players with access to 3rd person. If the difference in performance is not big enough to be statistically different from first person play, then the claim is invalidated. In our question 'Is there any real difference with third person in-game as only first person?" we found there was no difference in players performance. If, however, players in 3rd person had a significant increase in, say, victories, then there would be proof that 3rd person is a bad choice, because our answer is now "Yes, 3rd person positively influences gameplay."

But we cannot invalidate 3rd person without explicitly trying it.

This methodology is tried and true. It has given rise to every science. It has produced every breakthrough. Every advancement and technology has been born through this strict method.

So until we try it, we test it, we collect evidence within MWO and prove it faulty, we have no reason to suspect it will do asit did in proxies. You can claim it failed MW3/4, but if you said that's why MWO shouldn't do it in a room-full of scientists and engineers who were hearing your testimony, you'd be laughed off the stage.

That's why I'm not against 3rd person. I'm not necessarily for it, but I would never bar its way without that proof.

This is the scientific method, and if you are inclined to still disagree with this method, look around you. unless you are sitting naked in the middle of a field, everything you see around you came from this. Let it guide you.

Take all of that, your lobsters included, & go jump in a lake. 3PV is 3PV. It ruined a previous title & we do NOT want the same thing to happen here. All your scientific horn-tooting does not negate the fact that:

1ST PERSON VIEW = INSIDE THE COCKPIT

3RD PERSON VIEW = OUTSIDE THE COCKPIT

Your "proxies" are solid reference points we the people who play this game (i.e. the people putting money in PGIs pocket) brought up because we have seen it in action.

WE DO NOT WANT IT. IF I COULD GET A BIGGER FONT, I WOULD TYPE IN IT. NO THIRD PERSON VIEW. IT ****** UP MW4. WE DO NOT WANT IT. ARE YOU LISTENING PGI?

Take it back to Sesame Street:

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 29 November 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[QuantumButler]

Jaroth Winson, on 29 November 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Take all of that, your lobsters included, & go jump in a lake. 3PV is 3PV. It ruined a previous title & we do NOT want the same thing to happen here. All your scientific horn-tooting does not negate the fact that:

1ST PERSON VIEW = INSIDE THE COCKPIT

3RD PERSON VIEW = OUTSIDE THE COCKPIT

Your "proxies" are solid reference points we the people who play this game (i.e. the people putting money in PGIs pocket) brought up because we have seen it in action.

WE DO NOT WANT IT. IF I COULD GET A BIGGER FONT, I WOULD TYPE IN IT. NO THIRD PERSON VIEW. IT ****** UP MW4. WE DO NOT WANT IT. ARE YOU LISTENING PGI?

Take it back to Sesame Street:

PGI lied [about never having 3rd person], MWO died.

[LennStar]

"He says the analytics indicated that preferences were 50/50, so why cater only to 50%?"
So 50% preferred the "Mechwarrior" View and 50% the unreallistic, but advantage-giving view?
Meaning even "handicapped" 50% of people choose 1st person? Thats a very strong commitment.

If people have problems with torso switching and such... well, nobody said you could just jump into a 100t Mech and go win a fight, right?
Just give them a **** training course where they can move and fire without getting blown up and they can learn it.

And honestly - I don't like the "casual player" people who are not willing to learn how a game works. (I had to learn that mouse-swinging for MWO, too. Have not used that except in one game ten years ago. And now that I think about it I hated it for 2 reasons: 1. mouse control, which make it not feel like you pilot a space fighter but a small model and 2. 3rd person which removed you even farther from the game. The excact opposite of Privateer, which I play through every 2 or 3 years even now.)
But then I'm an old player (30 years, 20 playing) who is used to a LOT more effort from the older games. That times where you needed to actually know what you were doing. (And I don't mean the hilarious small printed 3-page list of keyboard commands which included even 3-key commands.) You know, I think the first Prince of Persia would fail tremendously today.

Edited by LennStar, 29 November 2012 - 11:47 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

So 3rd person perspective gave an advatage in previous Mechwarrior titles, and only 50 % of the players used it?

Think about that for a moment.

[ATao]

Can't really add anything to arkani's post. Totally agree with the guy. I've been through all this 1P&3P in MW4 leagues for 2.5+ years. Splitting community is not worth it.

Russ, you should take Dean Hall and his DayZ as an example. 1P\3P question is about your and your project's integrity. If you'll sway here and there altering your product's fundamental principles on the fly (rather than helping new people understand them)... you'll never be truly successful.

Edited by Alexander Malthus, 30 November 2012 - 05:42 AM.

[clockwurks]

I haven't posted very often however wanted to add my two cents, as a veteran of the franchise, on this topic.

After listening to the podcast and reading through previous development posts and newsletters I'm getting the impression that this is a short-term money grab with hopes that long-term subscribers will come of it.

There are many people that play free-to-play games such as World of Tanks, League of Legends, etc. The players who inject their money into these games, during reasonably hard times, are the people that make up the core player-base and have a vested stake in where the franchise goes. I understand that we may not have any direct influence on the development process by creating polls, writing petitions, or posting on the forums; we do have a direct influence on where to spend our money

The 3rd Person poll now showing 91% of the player-base polling dislike for the potential change. I want to bring a fact to light to any developers that may end up reading this post; The game is still in Beta and a decision is being made that 91% of the player-base does not like.

I will stand by the BT/MW franchise and the direction that those in direct control of it decide to move it. But I want to at least make my voice known.

Edited by clockwurks, 30 November 2012 - 05:52 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

best nor a Facebook version, with isometric 2D view, as it even easier for new players, and a corresponding statistic that many people want is quickly invented...and many BT games (and Clones like Front Mission) have this View also many Player played this ...

Edited by CSJ Ranger, 30 November 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[Dihm]

Thinking that it is needed so new people can understand how their mech is moving is a horrible strawman Russ.

Instead of installing a new camera mode, why not try to improve the new player experience and give them some movement and firing tutorials against stationary targets with a voiceover? No need for AI, no need for single player, but it would give them a chance to pilot a mech without doing so in a live-fire match. Seems rather simple.

I can come up with a multitude of better ways to educate people instead of providing them a crutch that will divide the community.

[Sylow]

Actually on this topic i find the term "New Game Experience" more matching than "New Player Experience".

Any developer is free to ask John Smedley, President of SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) how introducing such a "New Game Experience" works out, especially if the majority of the current playerbase opposes the change.


@Jade Viper:
Nice example with your Lobsters, but not really applicable here. I can easily counter your example with my own working experience, i've spent almost a decade in QA IT on semiconductors. Among our products also were sensors for the automobile industry, including sensors for tire pressure, airbags and electronic gas pedals. Quality control on those was essential. (Nobody cares so much if one in a million sim-cards is broken, but for some reasons, people get really picky if they have the one in a million car which doesn't brake and their airbag is not working... ) {Edit: Actually it's their relatives who usually get angry. The owner of the car tends not to complain any more... }

The scientific approach you describe would be to put plenty of those elements into cars, see what happens and analyse the result. For some reasons, we didn't go this way, but analysed anything beforehand. Testing them at very high and very low temperatures, in moisture, while shaking and while applying physical force to their connectors was standard, along with some "more esoterical" test criterias, and we did this due to past experience of what went wrong with older product lines.

This in my book justifies our approach here: many of us here know the issues with third person view from past games. Where we had the choice of either using a disadvantageous camera position (first person), reducing our fun by playing it as yet another third person game or quitting the game completely. As both the first and second option were detremential to fun, only the most diehard fans did not go for the third option after a while of suffering.

Now, i refuse to be a "3rd person is always evil" fanatic, but i also refuse to be a religiously faithful to the developers and believe them that they can implement 3rd person view without creating issues. Unless the developers manage to somehow alter the laws of geometry at large, it is impossible to implement 3rd person view without giving a larger field of view than 1st person view. Thus a forces split of the playerbase seems to be the only option, but going this way will always stay problematic.

There were some "suggestions" on how to "fix" the issue, including black bars on the screen or fading out mechs if they would not be visible yet from 1st person view. Unfortunately i am absolutely certain that exactly the assumed dimwitted less knowledgeable new player, who supposedly would need the 3rd person view, would be completely unable to comprehend why these limitations would be in place. All he would see would be that the game was "hiding" enemies from him and that's the reason why he lost. (And he would not be wrong, the game actually would hide enemies despite they'd be in his field of view. ) Thus the game would be bad and at fault, both in the players view and also in truth. A guaranteed way to get rid of a potential new player, and thus absolutely not an option to use.

Unfortunately all suggestions i read which might help the issue of 3rd person being a significant advantage by providing more information have this or other obvious problems, so splitting the playerbase might be the only way to go. But even this split is very likely to produce a plethora of additional problems.

One potential example would be: streaks or lasers might need to be "nerfed" in 3rd person view, as they are bound to have a bigger deployment envelope there than in first person. After this change, some other adjustments might become necessary. How long will it take, till the game is either optimized for one playstyle or equally suboptimal for both? Or will the game split up into two different branches for two different playstyles? Does anybody really believe PGI can afford such a step?

Thus on the assumption that the whole thing really is for "educating the new player", the most practical solution was already mentioned many times in this thread: a really good tutorial. During the tutorial, an outside view of the mech could be used, but i doubt that it would be necesary.

Anyway, i also think the whole "people don't get the torso twist" stuff is a strawman. We had tanks with a very similar steering concept to MWO in Battlefield 1942. The mouse controled the turret, wasd controled forward and backward movement and turning of the tanks hull. That was 2002, and the Battlefield series is still alive with the same controls. (And even before that, some HL mods built vehicles on a similar pattern! Even in a CounterStrike map, there was a driveable Jeep with the same controls. )

So if players can handle the controls in the Battlefield series since over a decade, i doubt that the potential playerbase if MWO is unable to grasp it, either. I very much doubt that MWOs playerbase is moronic at large, in the unlikely case that there actually is a problem with people not getting the controls, it's clearly a communication issue and can be remedied with a proper tutorial, which for some reason is very low on PGIs priority list.

Edited by Sylow, 30 November 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[Rogallaig]

I vote NO.

However, I could see it being useful for newbs when used ONLY in a non-competitive training grounds. Once you use in a live-fire match (especially during CW), then you'll drive PAYING players away in droves in hopes of getting SOME of the newbs to fork over cash for your product. That's not the recipe for long-term success.

[seungri2000]

William McNab, on 16 November 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Again, nice to hear that the devs are listening. I will wait for the next response from Russ before ranting and raving and complaining and ******** ... and then playing for another 200 hours.

Really enjoy the game. Waiting for the Community Warfare Roll.

Thanks.

hola

[Impossible Wasabi]

The Space Pope and his Space Cardinals have after much discussion decided that the developers must be excommunicated from the Holy Space Church if they add 3rd person views to the game.

The Space Vatican cannot allow such a grave sin to go unpunished.

Edited by Merlevade, 30 November 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[CoreHunter]

the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster seconds the Space Vatican

[Impossible Wasabi]

The Space Vatican is glad to have the support of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in this matter, for though we only view him as a prophet of the one true Space God, we recognize his divine nature.

It is our firm hope that the developers repent and return to the true fold of things before it is too late to save their souls.

Edited by Merlevade, 30 November 2012 - 08:25 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Ok so I want to make a plea to the devs, first let me throw some things out here first.

http://mwomercs.com/...d-person-views/ started july 30th - 11pages
http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/ Started Aug 23rd - 16 pages
http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/ Started Nov 14th - 99 pages
http://mwomercs.com/...son-its-coming/ Started nov 14th - 80 pages
This thread start Nov 16th - 55 pages (and counting)

And many more smaller threads, what this shows me is that this discussion has been going on for a while and it has been overwhelmingly against the concept. Innumerable suggestions (and variation) have been suggested to allieviate the reasons for 3PV and the reasons for it keep changing... but not here on this forum.

The facts of PGI's positons as i have seen them in it has evolved as such:

• No 3PV, 1PV only that is how it's going to be at launch and for the forseeable future - up until this month
  
• Weeeeeellll maybe 3pv but no decision has been made - mid this month
  
• We still haven't made a decision but we think it'll be worth exploring - last week
  
• It is essential for the growth of the game that 3pv is implemented in some way- this week

That's a pretty rapid shift and whats more it has been done on interviews and AMA's but not here. The dedicated fan base is in arms, we are dying for a discussion on this and looking for alternatives. The very people who would first being affected by a potential implementation would be the testers and we get political non-answers so far, and those non-answers are directly contradicted by what we are reading and hearing about on pod casts and interviews outside this forum. I respect PGi for what they are trying to do with the MW property and i know they want it to succeed but... the actions surrounding this have been baffling.




I have been trying to reconcile a company that listens to it player base and wants to build a community with a company that makes a promise like 1PV only tries to change it and apparently ignores the concerns of the majority of it's most active player base. I say apparently because we have gotten blurbs but no has talked to us, no discussion with us, no live chat with us, not even active participation in this thread the "official" discussion.

Please be honest with us, talk to us, and keep us in the loop on something that stands to literally tear the community apart, i know you are listening and reading the threads, so please tell us whats going on or why our multitude of ideas are not preferable to something guaranteed to splinter the player base and drive currently dedicated player to other games.

Edited by Agent of Change, 30 November 2012 - 08:54 AM.