2926 replies to this topic

[grayson marik]

Rad Hanzo, on 11 June 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Gray, have you looked into UI 2.0 thread ?
Everything you would like to see will most possibly be in there.
So anyone can choose against whom he fights and what perspective they are allowed to use (iirc and PGI keeps true) and so on and on .

http://mwomercs.com/...76#entry2425776

Nope, if you read bryans explanations carefully, you will come to the conclusion, that this lobby will NOT let you drop against a specific other team.
Sure, you will be able to gather your group in a room, prepare the drop, chat a little... but then you will be matched against a random other group, that has similar settings.
So it will be just like now in the 8v8 queue, just a little m ore convenient for your own team preparation .. but by far not what is needed.

This is the direct translation of Bryan's "Lobbies might not be implemented as anyone expects it" from one of the former ATD's.

Lobby, for your team yes, for team vs team manual matching -> NO WAY!

[Viper69]

Rad Hanzo, on 11 June 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Gray, have you looked into UI 2.0 thread ?
Everything you would like to see will most possibly be in there.
So anyone can choose against whom he fights and what perspective they are allowed to use (iirc and PGI keeps true) and so on and on .

http://mwomercs.com/...76#entry2425776

After the 180 degree stance regarding 3pv and coolant I take anything these smedleys say with a grain of salt.

[Gen0]

Noakei Siegel, on 11 June 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

You better be kidding....I, for my part, am not interested in any stoOpidmode gameplay in mwo:mercs !!!

3rd person is an absolute "no-go" when it comes to mechwarrior games.

respawn is an absolute "no-go" when it comes to mechwarrior games.

I would like to see repair-bays in certain gamemodes and on certain maps. In MW:4 it was always a blast when the forces started to fight over those spots.

And yet the last 2 mechwarrior games released had the former.

Look, I am not for nor against 3rd person view in battle.. I honestly don't see where this perceived cheating advantage that everyone is talking about comes from, especially with the massive flaws I can see coming of this (e.g how do you line up a shot when you are not looking down the barrel/ torso guns/ shooting from cover etc etc).

I just want to be able to look at my mech as it stomps toward people

Oh and take pictures.


If poptarting is the main perceived problem, then I honestly think that you guys are making the apocalypse out of a few scratches.

[Pando]

HAS UncleClint, on 10 June 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Please PGI don´t listen to whoever brought up this obviously crazy idea (most likely some guys in suits that don´t know s*** about the game) and leave your 3PV plans in the darkest room of your deepest cellars.

Guard em with rabid dogs and throw away the keys.


Thank you very much.

Instead I'll leave this here for everyone.

http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

Also this,

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Enjoy the new thread!

[Viper69]

Gen0, on 11 June 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

And yet the last 2 mechwarrior games released had the former.

Look, I am not for nor against 3rd person view in battle.. I honestly don't see where this perceived cheating advantage that everyone is talking about comes from, especially with the massive flaws I can see coming of this (e.g how do you line up a shot when you are not looking down the barrel/ torso guns/ shooting from cover etc etc).

If you dont know the bolded part then you NEVER played mechwarrior 4. You could shoot anything accurately from 3pv and I mean anything. in fact early on in mech 4 you could shoot through mountains as long as your crosshair was over it in 3pv. the way WOT does it is how I hope they do it since they are going to do it anyway. People drive in 3pv and have to line of accurate shots in 1st person view.

Pando, on 11 June 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

Instead I'll leave this here for everyone.

http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

Also this,



Enjoy the new thread!

Yeah Smedley strikes again.

[Jakob Knight]

Viper69, on 11 June 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

After the 180 degree stance regarding 3pv and coolant I take anything these smedleys say with a grain of salt.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Edited by Jakob Knight, 11 June 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[Coolant]

Noakei Siegel, on 11 June 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

You better be kidding....I, for my part, am not interested in any stoOpidmode gameplay in mwo:mercs !!!

3rd person is an absolute "no-go" when it comes to mechwarrior games.

respawn is an absolute "no-go" when it comes to mechwarrior games.

I would like to see repair-bays in certain gamemodes and on certain maps. In MW:4 it was always a blast when the forces started to fight over those spots.

Absolutely am not joking. Loved 3rd Person, respawn, HLA (Heat, Limited Ammo), Team Battle game type in MW4: Mercs. Had more fun in Mercs than any game I ever played and although MWO has it's own unique identity I would've been quite happy with continuing to play Mercs (ty Mektek for keeping it going all those years) but with a graphical upgrade. I will be unapologetic for loving 3rd Person and respawn. I sincerely hope I will be able to play both in MWO.

Edited by Coolant, 11 June 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[MWHawke]

Pando, on 09 June 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

I'll highlight something for you. Please, reading comprehension.


What I can't wrap my head around is the HOW it's an advantage if everyone has it, in the example that person used. How can you exploit something when everyone has the same access and the same intended functionality of that view. Simply put, its not an advantage and its not an exploit. The same would be true for MWO.

LOL!!! Don't even go into reading comprehension. Your argument is based on the fact that if everyone has it, then is is not an EXPLOIT and not an ADVANTAGE. You can say the same for wall hacks right? If EVERYONE HAS IT, how can it be an EXPLOIT or an ADVANTAGE?

Don't try to put people down and comprehend your own argument first.

[MWHawke]

Pando, on 10 June 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Instead I'll leave this here for everyone.

http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

Also this,



Enjoy the new thread!

LMAO! You have just reminded everyone the exact reason to not support PGI.

[Pando]

MWHawke, on 11 June 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

LOL!!! Don't even go into reading comprehension. Your argument is based on the fact that if everyone has it, then is is not an EXPLOIT and not an ADVANTAGE. You can say the same for wall hacks right? If EVERYONE HAS IT, how can it be an EXPLOIT or an ADVANTAGE?

Don't try to put people down and comprehend your own argument first.

Intended functionality. End of story. Thanks for playing You're comparing a videogame hack to a videogame feature and saying they're the same.


I'll leave this here for everyone.

http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

Also this,

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Enjoy the new thread!

Edited by Pando, 11 June 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[grayson marik]

1. it is an advantage
2. the "if everybody has it its no advantage anymore" is a very very very lame path of argumentation
3. why? because almost no one wants to have it! so if you force people to have it, because u need to have it to stay competitive --> that's leaving the track of reasonable argumentation as well as leaving the game dead to rot in the sun.

[Pando]

I'll make the comparison easy for you MWHawke,

Drop modes for example;

1st v/s 1st conquest
1st v/s 1st assault
3rd v/s 3rd conquest
3rd v/s 3rd assault
1st v/s 3rd conquest
1st v/s 3rd assault
any

In all of these game modes the player first has to select a game mode knowing what each game mode entails. If someone decides to play in a que where 3rd person is available it is in no way an advantage because everyone is playing by the same rules.

If you have a glock 20 and I have a glock 20 as far as equipment is concerned there is no advantage. The same is for MechWarrior: Online because the equipment IE; game mode is allowing everyone to play with the same rules. If everyone is playing with the same rules, the only advantage is in the ability to USE the equipment that is provided. Right? Is any of this sinking in?

grayson marik, on 11 June 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

1. it is an advantage
2. the "if everybody has it its no advantage anymore" is a very very very lame path of argumentation
3. why? because almost no one wants to have it! so if you force people to have it, because u need to have it to stay competitive --> that's leaving the track of reasonable argumentation as well as leaving the game dead to rot in the sun.

I'll leave this here for you.

http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

Also this,

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Enjoy the new thread!

[Viper69]

Pando, on 11 June 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

1st v/s 1st conquest
1st v/s 1st assault
3rd v/s 3rd conquest
3rd v/s 3rd assault
1st v/s 3rd conquest
1st v/s 3rd assault
any

And there it is, the reason it should not be done. Look at how divided the drop pool then becomes. Not to mention you then subdivide each one of those categories based on if its a full team or a pug.

[Pando]

Viper69, on 11 June 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

And there it is, the reason it should not be done. Look at how divided the drop pool then becomes. Not to mention you then subdivide each one of those categories based on if its a full team or a pug.

That was an example just for you! So you could grasp why it's not an advantage. It seems "why" it should or shouldn't be done changes with every reply....way to be....solid in your stance

[Viper69]

Pando, on 11 June 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

That was an example just for you! So you could grasp why it's not an advantage. It seems "why" it should or shouldn't be done changes with every reply....way to be....solid in your stance

I never said it was an advantage you goon. You must have me confused with Grayson.

[Pando]

grayson marik, on 11 June 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

1. it is an advantage
2. the "if everybody has it its no advantage anymore" is a very very very lame path of argumentation
3. why? because almost no one wants to have it! so if you force people to have it, because u need to have it to stay competitive --> that's leaving the track of reasonable argumentation as well as leaving the game dead to rot in the sun.

Hey, visit this thread it really wants to see you. It wants you to read it. I say, go there and read it I highlighted some stuff for you. Please show me your work. I want to know how any "vote here" thread with less than 4,000 votes cast is in any way, shape or form an accurate representation of over....480,000 members.

http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

Also this,

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

Viper69, on 11 June 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

I never said it was an advantage you goon. You must have me confused with Grayson.

[redacted]

Edited by miSs, 12 June 2013 - 10:12 AM.
unnecessary name calling

[Viper69]

Pando, on 11 June 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Crap, got you confused with MWHawke.

It is ok, I am not concerned so much with balance because I have a feeling it will be like WoT in that it will be external for shooting if you feel lucky but if you want precise you need to be in FPV. I am concerned with the fraction the community will be divided in the drop pool.

[Coolant]

Viper69, on 11 June 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

And there it is, the reason it should not be done. Look at how divided the drop pool then becomes. Not to mention you then subdivide each one of those categories based on if its a full team or a pug.

and there it is, using those examples of possible pairings, minimum 32,000 playing at any one time (see Bryan's Reddit answer), divided by 7, leaves a mere 4571 players to play against! Gonna have a hard time finding a match with only 4K+ in the que....

[Viper69]

Coolant, on 11 June 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

and there it is, using those examples of possible pairings, minimum 32,000 playing at any one time (see Bryan's Reddit answer), divided by 7, leaves a mere 4571 players to play against! Gonna have a hard time finding a match with only 4K+ in the que....

You are Assuming the queues are divided evenly and apparently Bryan is too. Also neither of you are even factoring ELO into the equation. So yeah...

Edited by Viper69, 11 June 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Third_eye]

But it seems that most true fans of the franchise are against this? Unfortunately, pro-3rd person players have money too. Maybe a third person view could work as a "death screen" of sorts, allowing you to view your teammates still alive in a close-up, out of cockpit view. Seeing as most proponents of this viewpoint will spend a lot of time on this screen anyway, it makes sense.