2926 replies to this topic

[Firefly]

Guess they just threw this out the window:
http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/

Quote

MechWarrior Online is being designed to put you the player in the seat of the pilot. It is 100% first person view only.

I don't buy the whole company line about looking into the far future. This seems like it was planned. I get a nagging feeling that this was planned from the get-go, which gives me a nagging feeling that Founders have been sold a false bill of goods.

I hate nagging feelings. I had one, once before. It was called an ex-wife. Emphasis on "ex".

Edited by Firefly, 30 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[DaRep]

Founder's package, 120 bucks. More MC, maybe 2-300 bucks.

What does that make me?

A sucker.

I'm not going to lay out any extortion lines on you, PGI. No "You'll never get another dime from me if you do this" rants. But I assure you of this - if you don't show some basic business savvy and a predisposition to not govern this game by weak 'polls' in a hurry, my personal fiscal behavior with respect to your game will be the least of your concerns when compared to what everyone else is going to do.

What, do you think 3rd person is going to get you WoW-like numbers? Got delusions of grandeur of taking MechWarrior to the masses on that level? What did your focus group testing and blowing with the popular breeze savants tell you on that one?

Grow a set and be authentic. Last time I looked, the name of the game wasn't "Tomb Raider."

[Pando]

Dihm, on 30 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

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.

Toss in some C-Bills for their time in completing the "program" and call it good.

[Phatel]

Garth Erlam, on 16 November 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Just to make sure everyone, well, actually read that and listened to what Russ said, we don't plan to add 3rd person. We're looking at what it would require of us if we did.

What we are telling you is. Stop wasting resources, less than 10% of people want it. So unless you enjoy wasting resources searching for new ways to upset 90%+ of the people playing, I think you can skip passed it. It's a terrible idea right up there with upsetting a huge chunck of players by not leaving grouping alone. For months premade groups are fine, no issues and you will deal with it when you can as the MM comes out. BAMMM things are broken guys so we are gonna fix it for a couple weeks so everyone is pissed off, then fix it again so people are happy.

[LordBraxton]

I wonder if they will lock this thread and make a new vague post in a few days about how they are still considering 3rd person.

Its like they keep hoping we will change our minds.

This community wants a first person only experience.

Lol...

[shotokan5]

I do know that in the founders advertisements in the beginning it was stated without doubt that it would be first person only. Following that logic then no matter if the agreement you signed had some loophole in it, they if taken to US court. By the reasonable man test a law term meaning would a reasonable person believe something because of something advertised or said as a flat statement. If we follow that logic then in the US a class action could be brought against them if they ever went third person. Now if we have any Canadian Lawyers or students would the this also apply in Canada seeing that it seems to be based there. Maybe that's the reason it is being developed there? Interesting food for thought I had not thought of it before. So we would like to hear from the Canadian side of things in legal matters. My Law firm says we would probably would win in US and all the money you spent would have to be returned. I am not a lawyer I just retain their services in legal matters. I still would play it anyway,sorry. I had forgot that much of Battlefield 1 was first person interesting. It may have for its time had one of the best openings of any game ever made. I still have the Opening music.

Edited by shotokan5, 30 November 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[Phatel]

Nothing will grow your community than upsetting half of it then dividing them into two groups. Followed by an buggy game play, crashes, lack of content, no matchmaking, crappy lobbys, bots, suicide farmers. None of the later needs to be addressed because if we just add 3rd person, people will come.

That's like taking a dump in a box and then saying. If I put this piece of corn on top, people will want it.

You want the community to grow? Fix existing problems, add content not mechs, mechs are not content. You have 4 maps. If I have 1 apple and I shut off the lights it's not a new apple, it's the SAME apple with no lights on. This is what you give us for maps. Hey guys, same map but look what we did..IT'S DARK! OOOOooooooooh. and it takes weeks to do it. We have one type of gameplay, we have items in game with no function at all (command console anyone), we still have CTD, Blackscreen, Yellowscreen, Overheat bugs and no community warfare. meanwhile in the Batcave some suit is thinking HEY if add 3rd person I'll get 50% more people to show up. 3rd person is gonna add to your problems not solve them.

Community is built by exisiting players bringing friends, since you seem to think ******* off existing players makes us want to drag buddies over to play.....well, I have no words.

[Firefly]

DaRep, on 30 November 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Founder's package, 120 bucks. More MC, maybe 2-300 bucks.

What does that make me?

A sucker.

I dunno about anyone else, but I fully intend to ask for my money back if this goes into the game for any reason outside of a tutorial, regardless of the functionality. My understanding is that refunds do happen, on occasion. After being told "we don't plan to add 3rd person" and "it is 100% first person view only", I intend to hold them to that. If that makes me a jackass, so be it. I really hate to quibble over stuff, but this is absolutely a line in the sand for me as a paying customer.

If I wanted to play a third-person 'Mech arcade game, I'd go play MW4 or Mech Assault.

[Phatel]

LordBraxton, on 30 November 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I wonder if they will lock this thread and make a new vague post in a few days about how they are still considering 3rd person.

Its like they keep hoping we will change our minds.

This community wants a first person only experience.

Lol...

Ya, right behind the huge demand for open beta to start. Since you know, all the closed beta guys were like wtf are you thinking? Closed beta fatigue had more to do with lack of fixes being implemented than burnout. Hey guys, still get stuck on this building? Yup..K, be back next week to see if it's fixed. Or the hey look they put a patch in and I CTD constantly...well no fix for a week, bbl (must be burn out).

[Pando]

http://nogutsnogalaxy.net/

Left side - NGNG #52, listen to Russ.

Pass this message on.

[Syncline]

As long as the people using 3rd person view have the same negative effects from screen shake, smoke, etc - basically any game mechanic that interferes with vision/targeting - as people using 1st person view, then I'm OK with it.

[HighTest]

Well, given that MWO is basically a (fictional) SIM, I think 3rd person view is a terrible idea. Forget cheating/advantages/etc, it just seems fundamentally wrong.

BUT -- I don't know how many times I've spectated a match and though "Wow, I wish I had a 3rd person view of this." Now that might actually be pretty cool. As long as you couldn't use it while physically playing.

And adding some sort of 3D rotatable view in each player's mechlab might sate some people's need to see their own mechs from afar.

My $.02.

[JadeViper]

Pando, on 30 November 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

http://nogutsnogalaxy.net/

Left side - NGNG #52, listen to Russ.

Pass this message on.

^^That

If you take the time to really listen, like listen to the whole segment despite if you agree with what you are hearing, they sincerely address concerns deeper in. He addresses a lot of things we say in here. From both sides.

minutes 19 to 30.

Edited by JadeViper, 30 November 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[ghos t in the shel l]

HipposChloros, on 28 November 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

Seriously bro. It sounds like you are stuck in the past. If you want MechWarrior 4 and your former glory days then start petitioning to get that game back up and running. We were promissed a "Sim" with first person only. Now that they have our money that is about to change. Of course people who already paid are going to be upset. This is not the game they paid for.

It's kind of hard to take your argument serious when your sig is an LP crop that you stole from me and using without my permission ,instead of simply asking me to make you one when I have been asking for requests in the Art section.

http://i1357.photobu...alin/stalin.gif

http://xxrenzokukenx...llery/#/d5jgiey

[Rejarial Galatan]

Dear PGI:

When I first heard of Mechwarrior 5 <the failed MW game from a few years back, I was stoked that the franchise was coming back, then wholly saddened when it was crushed to death. Almost a year or so ago, I heard of a tiny little company that was taking on a huge challenge of bringing back a beloved game, MechWarrior. What was more is that they were going to make this game online and multiplayer with a huge depth of stuff to do. I was skeptical at first, then found this obscure website that I find myself on writing this very letter. I instantly joined the website and the rest is history so to speak.

At first, I was reluctant to post anything on the website as I was still nervous about this game actually seeing daylight. Who can blame me after what happened to the last recent try at a MechWarrior game right? Well, as time went on, things seemed to start to gel and this tiny company gained speed and brought forth this very game. I was beyond ecstatic, I finally was seeing a dream made real, something that sadly does not happen a lot in my life. I saw some posts about the potential perspectives that could be used, and saw a trend start to form. Those for 1st person only and those who wanted both 1st and 3rd person. We divided into our camps. One day, PGI makes this post saying: MechWarrior Online puts MechWarriors into a first-person, team based tactical battlefield. That single line made me a happy player, it was going to be a pure first person tactical mech simulator. Something that was fresh, something that was new, a bold new direction. Something that other prior games did not do.

This was the nail in the 3rd person view issue as far as we were concerned. PGI made a bold statement, and in that statement, we were sold, we all <the founders> in a rush PGI and its payment system did not expect broke the system in June when Founders went on sale, we screamed: TAKE OUR MONEY, WE LOVE YOU! We all went to our corners and drooled over what we in Closed Beta were lucky enough to see. However, this one line stating the fact it is First person only did not seem to staunch the countless threads that kept popping up over the following months about the differing views. Finally, on July 17, 2012, PGI's own lead Program designer makes a post, that in its short and sweet simplicity shut down all the threads on the subject stating implicitly that this game was being designed as a 100% first person only game, as 1st person view is a key design pillar as 3rd person view breaks that KEY DESIGN PILLAR on multiple levels.

Then, in what has got to be the harshest slap to our faces we have ever experienced as gamers have ever known came at us. A single podcast by Russ Bullock as a guest on the NGNG Podcast effectively slapped us all in our collective faces by stating that 3rd person was being looked into. In what has got to be the largest single most unanimous moment in our history as the MWO forum and player base, we rose up, and still continue to do so, screaming that we do not want this, and yet, it seems it is still being pushed forward. So, it is with this open letter I would like to try to do my personal best to explain why this should not be done.

Firstly I direct you all to the poll we are all running, right here, and ask you to please, see how we as a group are voting. While, yes, this is NOT the entire registered forum population it is a statistically SIGNIFICANT percentage, as most of those of us opposed are FOUNDERS, with the majority of us being LEGENDARY Founders. While I am an Elite level founder, I trust my word carries as much as my Veteran and Legendary brethren here. You cannot argue against the fact that, first, you have a poll with 4182 votes <as of this threads genesis> with 219 votes for, or 5.24%, and 3797 votes against which is 90.82% of respondents. This is NOT a tiny fraction of players. We were sold on this game being 1st person Only, and then you double back on it, simply because some players cannot figure out something in game that is done on a daily basis in real life as you walk and talk to people or drive a car, which is staggeringly scary. It was also claimed that this is being considered because it was a 50-50% split in prior games. This is not a good way to make a decision on something that will effectively and fundamentally change the game. I will get into the 50-50 split thing in a moment, but, trust us, making a clone of other games is not a good way to do things. Look at the WoW clones out there, not many succeed.

Secondly, you say, that this is not set in stone, but, let's face facts, it is, it is all but done, and again, on behalf of all of us who say please do not do this, PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS. There are ways you can enhance the game play of this game that do not firstly break your word as a company and our trust, and make it so, that these players who, as stated above, cannot figure out torso facing versus direction of leg travel can easily figure out that do not give a single ounce of tactical advantage that is not otherwise available to those NOT making use of 3rd Person POV. Please observe the image below, it is a screen capture from MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat. Take note of the mech in the Lower LEFT Corner. It is a wire frame Hellbringer on a black visual field. This is a key thing, as instead of being a visual representation of the enemy, it could represent our own mech. As to displaying health? Blue = 100% Yellow: 75-99% healthy and Red being 1-74% healthy, with blacking out sections = loss of section. Picture:



Now, you say that you are making this choice, as I said above, based on the fact that the multiplayer of say MechWarrior 3 and 4 have a 50-50 split on 1st and 3rd person views. This is again, not a sound way to judge this. The reason for that 'equal' split is, not because we enjoy using such an immersion breaching view, but, because it is the ONLY way to remain competitive in such an environment. If you have a floating, INVISIBLE camera above and behind your mech, you can see above hills and around corners and target enemies like this at 0 risk to yourself. This is not a valid game play tactic as many will attest, it is a silly and shameful way to fight. It removes all mechs that cannot jump jet from being useful.

You also claim that you seek to grow the player base. I am all for this, as are, I am certain ALL of us. BUT, again, third person point of view is NOT the way to go about it. I am sure, you will see a brief rise in registered users and maybe a brief upswing in profits, but, the other side of this coin cannot be ignored. A large portion of us, especially those of us in the Founders bracket who supported a game solely on the '100% first person only' selling point will leave. Some will demand refunds, some wont, but, those that do, are taking capitol from you as employees of PGI and financial support from the company in and of itself which risks the future of this game.

My next point of contention on why not to do this, has been voiced by others, but, it is a genuine concern. Community Warfare. Russ, you say that the use of 3rd person and fighting against it will be a match making check box when this is done. That is all fine and well, BUT, again, what of Community Warfare? There will be House units, Mercenary Units, and when the Clans become a playable faction, even Clan units that will fight SOLELY in 3rd person, as it is all they know how to do. What happens when those of us, be us House, Mercenary or Clan wish to fight for a planet that is protected by units that ONLY use 3rd Person? Do not, please do NOT say this cannot happen, because, it can, and WILL happen, do not kid or fool yourself. How would this be done? I promise you, that to force us into fighting in one view or the other will handicap those who do not use said view and anger them. So, the only thing at that point, is to allow a mixed match. BUT, 'You will not be forced to play against one view or the other' you say, well, that breaks community warfare, as now, some planets are not capturable to a part of the player base. A division of players....

You guys state that you wish to NOT divide the players, but, this is exactly what will happen, you will effectively segregate your player base into Simulation and Arcade players. This is not a healthy choice for a game that needs more players, that wants more players. There is this old saying: A House Divided upon itself cannot stand. Well guys, this holds just as true for us here, as, well, you will divide us and that will end badly for the game, as one camp or the other will get frustrated and leave or both will get frustrated and leave.

Russ, you once said, you want to improve the initial experience of players? I can help with this. While it is not as simple as adding in 3rd person perspective, you really do, and must add in a Playable tutorial that covers all aspects of piloting a Battlemech. Movement, why when you turn your torso one way, the legs refuse to follow. Heat Management, Mech Experience Points, General Experience Points, target management and acquisition, how each weapon type works, the ideal ranges, how to use LRM versus Streak and the Modules. See, the videos you guys have up are rather useless in this department. Sure, they are nice to watch, but, you learn from doing, not watching. Part of the fun for us over the last near 30 years is the near vertical learning curve, and you are effectively removing it for a generation of players, that because this game is brutally hard to learn, will not stay or pay for things because, sure they can see their mech as they walk around, but, they still do not understand how to group weapons or why they die so fast. A playable, well thought out tutorial, better charts on key maps are needed, not third person views.

Once you implant the code that grants use of 3rd person camera's the time will come, when, even on the FFP servers <which, is what you would need to keep us separate, which, again, is division of players, which you dont want or didnt want atleast> it will become available as those who are good with code, find the code, then make mods or if you find away to prevent the use of mods, will simply be hacked into their own systems to cheat the system, and cheat they will, do not kid yourself. No company, no matter how big is immune to hacking. World Of Warcraft has hacking, even the US government has been hacked, and if THEY cannot stop it, what can a small company hope to do against it? There is no logical or positive way you can do this to us that will be benign enough to please us all. It simply cannot be done.

I wish to reiterate that while, yes the prior games HAD 3rd person views, and even I used them, but only in the SINGLE PLAYER Campaign, that is not reason enough to include it here. Again, the prevalence of 3rd person use in the other games is again, not by choice, but to remain competitive in an environment that is as arcade as it gets now. It is my hope that someone at PGI reads this long post and takes it to heart. I hope that this helps solve this problem before it becomes worse. You also stated, you wish to appeal to World of Tank's players...why? They HAVE World of Tanks, why try to turn a beloved BATTLETECH game into a Clone of a game people do not play if they left, and decidedly will not pull in players from a fully functioning and polished game, that IS WoT?

Regards,

Rejarial Galatan
PS: any players who wish to add, please add if I missed reasons why this should not be done.

edit: i really hate those color codes that copy paste bring you...

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 30 November 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[Agent of Change]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 November 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

..snip cause it's huge..

To paraphrase taryys I wish i could super-uber-mega like this.

You have said eloquently and in great detail what the opposition feels. thank you.

[Rejarial Galatan]

@Agent of Change <bow> Thank you sir. I tried my level best to make a calm, clear, post as to the best way to get around this crisis.

[Stone Wall]

Fact: 3rd person did not kill MechWarrior 3 or 4.

Fact: If someone is using 3rd person, you do not have to.

Fact: If you are "uber 1337" then it shouldn't matter if you are in 1st person and the enemy mech is in 3rd.

Quote

I wish to reiterate that while, yes the prior games HAD 3rd person views, and even I used them, but only in the SINGLE PLAYER Campaign, that is not reason enough to include it here.

This is not a fact. You could play in 3rd person in multiplayer in past games. Did the poster of this not play the past games? makes me wonder...

Quote

You guys state that you wish to NOT divide the players, but, this is exactly what will happen, you will effectively segregate your player base into Simulation and Arcade players. This is not a healthy choice for a game that needs more players, that wants more players. There is this old saying: A House Divided upon itself cannot stand. Well guys, this holds just as true for us here, as, well, you will divide us and that will end badly for the game, as one camp or the other will get frustrated and leave or both will get frustrated and leave.

This is also not a fact. The past games were divided between Unlimited Ammo/Limited Ammo players AND 1st/3rd person players. Neither game died because they were divided in two different ways. In fact MW3 was divided in a third way by having Ice Maps which had virtually no heat on them.

Quote

If you have a floating, INVISIBLE camera above and behind your mech, you can see above hills and around corners and target enemies like this at 0 risk to yourself. This is not a valid game play tactic as many will attest, it is a silly and shameful way to fight. It removes all mechs that cannot jump jet from being useful.

This is also not a fact. While two teams are faced off firing LRMs and pop-tarting, people without JJs can flank and backstab those mechs that won't get out of zoomed in sniper mode.

Edited by Stone Wall, 30 November 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Fact: once in game, it becomes the Go To POV.
Fact: once the CODE exists, hackers will find a way to FORCE it into Forced First Person.
Fact: it WILL kill THIS game, as, well, this was SOLD as: 100% FIRST PERSON ONLY.
Fact: Once fact 2 happens, and do not fool yourself, it will, we are FORCED to deal with it.

[Stone Wall]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 November 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Fact: once in game, it becomes the Go To POV.
Fact: once the CODE exists, hackers will find a way to FORCE it into Forced First Person.
Fact: it WILL kill THIS game, as, well, this was SOLD as: 100% FIRST PERSON ONLY.
Fact: Once fact 2 happens, and do not fool yourself, it will, we are FORCED to deal with it.

Having 3rd person as an option destroys the 1st person only universe some were hoping for. The past MW games did not sell "First Person Only" but still had a strong following.

So for the people who did play past MW games with 3rd person, do you expect them to leave the game in mass exodus because there is now a 2nd camera option? History shows that won't happen.

Edited by Stone Wall, 30 November 2012 - 07:13 PM.