2926 replies to this topic

[Pando]

Dude42, on 17 June 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Exactly. And you see what it did for those games right? But this has been beaten to death, just go back a few dozen pages if you're curious about its effect on those games.

Personally, as long as I don't have to actually play with(or against) a 3PV kiddie it's all good. However, considering they now have a history of going back on their word, my hopes are very, very low.

If you don't actually understand the advantages 3PV offers, and why people might not wish to play against people with those advantages, well again, just read through this thread, it's quite thoroughly explained.

I'm not sure exactly why you're so up in arms for 3PV though. That I don't understand. If they left it in the Training Ground only, so you could take your screenshots and see your mech walking around, why is that so bad? They could even be really free with the camera movement as there would be no other players for it to have an impact upon. What is it about 3PV from the robot's view that you think would make combat between pilots using giant robots better?

Hmm what it did to those games? There has not been a single mechwarrior game released on the XBOX that didn't sell over 1,000,000 copies.

MW4 mercs was what kept the mechwarrior community alive for 10+ years

I'm a 3pv advocate because I believe in the mechwarrior IP. If you think all 3rd person view advocates are "CoD fans or Kiddys" you are going to have a rude wake up call.

I'll rip you so hard in 1st it will make your head spin. You need to get your **** straight and stop speaking out of your ***.

I'm not sure how comprehension regarding advantages or disadvantages would even come into play considering it would only ever be an advantage if the two were to fight each-other and be restricted to one or the other view. Otherwise, it's not an advantage because everyone is operating with the same equipment. If you can't grasp that, i'll be more than happy to explain it in dumb terms for you.

I'm up in arms for 3pV because it offers more people I can obliterate among other reasons.

3rd person view will probably make me a worse player, which is why i won't find myself playing it often if at all on this account. I enjoy being competitive, what is why I am in Clan Jade Wolf. What makes me a better pilot is fighting people who are better than me. Which might explain why I've never seen you on the battlefield in my highest played role (assault mech).

[Daelynkat]

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

I was here, let me repeat what I've said like 40 times.

In no way, shape or form....combined or separate is the two threads total voting members (5,000 give or take a few hundred) an accurate representation of 480,000 members.

In fact, 5,000 members out of 480,000 members means the total population that cast a vote is AT BEST (if no 1 person used a different account to cast multiple votes) is approximately 1.04% of the entire registered population.

How is it that the 1.04% of the population claims they are the "majority" of players and are so certain of that.

I am a proud owner of 4 legendary founder accounts and I am a proud owner of 6 different mechwarrior games and select tabletop miniatures. Third person perspective has been apart of nearly EVERY pc mechwarrior game to date. There is no reason it should be omitted now.

Funny thing about statistics, to get a 95% confidence in a result with plus or minus 1.78% accuracy the needed polling pool only needs to be 3012 out of 480000 people, so the several threads and places I have seen pointed out "3000, 4000, 5000 responses does not represent the total number" is actually wrong.

Granted its not a random poll, which will skew some numbers, but if we are using the 3000 is not enough of a number for 480000 users thats false. If its 5000 then the accuracy would move much higher.

EDIT: Lack of sleep my calculations are a bit off.

You have a point as it was not a random sample but a large group disenting, but it sounds like the devs are basing 3pv on a large majority, also not random, who vocalized. Neither are statistically viable in the long run, it would take a true random sampling to get an actual statistical analysis of for or against, as for numbers, even a 500 person truly random poll can give high a very high degree of accuracy in a group of 1.5 million. Especially if it is a clear yes/no polling. As middleground results lead to a low degree of accuracy.

Still, all being said 5000 out of 480000 users, using your numbers, does give quite a bit of credence to more not wanting it than wanting it in light of no actual numbers of this vaporous "large amount" being refered to by devs.

So to my original point, 5000 out of 480000 statistically does speak for majority IF it was a random polling.

Edited by Talasmanca, 17 June 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[Vaktor]

How about we call hardcore mode normal mode and call 3rd Person View mode what it is... Im not actually going to type it... just fill in the blank yourself.

*Blank* Mode

Edited by Vaktor, 17 June 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[Dude42]

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Hmm what it did to those games? There has not been a single mechwarrior game released on the XBOX that didn't sell over 1,000,000 copies.

MW4 mercs was what kept the mechwarrior community alive for 10+ years

I'm a 3pv advocate because I believe in the mechwarrior IP. If you think all 3rd person view advocates are "CoD fans or Kiddys" you are going to have a rude wake up call.

I'll rip you so hard in 1st it will make your head spin. You need to get your **** straight and stop speaking out of your ***.

I'm not sure how comprehension regarding advantages or disadvantages would even come into play considering it would only ever be an advantage if the two were to fight each-other and be restricted to one or the other view. Otherwise, it's not an advantage because everyone is operating with the same equipment. If you can't grasp that, i'll be more than happy to explain it in dumb terms for you.

I'm up in arms for 3pV because it offers more people I can obliterate among other reasons.

3rd person view will probably make me a worse player, which is why i won't find myself playing it often if at all on this account. I enjoy being competitive, what is why I am in Clan Jade Wolf. What makes me a better pilot is fighting people who are better than me. Which might explain why I've never seen you on the battlefield in my highest played role (assault mech).

So to summarize, the only reason you want it is to attract more new players? Newbies are gonna be like, "I just got roflpwned, but at least I can see my legs."?

I think better new player training is the solution to that one.

And there are lots of players I have never seen on the battlefield. But when matchmaker consistently does this, I don't have much confidence in the ELO system, and am hesitant to make assumptions about them based on the fact that I haven't seen them in a match. I also pretty much only PUG, just because when I want to play I don't usually feel like starting TS and finding some people currently playing before stomping around.

Should we meet on the battlefield tho, I will enjoy the challenge

[Pihoqahiak]

Dude42, on 17 June 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

We just have to stop paying when they push this garbage out. It's the only way to send a message that maybe the guy looking at spreadsheets all day making decisions about MWO based off potential CoD kiddies joining can hear. When all you care about is dumbing things down so you can hock it to as many people as possible we end up with games like "Sim City".
I swear I thought people literally gave this company 5 millions dollars so they could make the game... Oh well. Looks like they spent all of that money hiring analysts, PR guys, and the rest is probably a bonus for some CEO somewhere, who figured out that the solution to getting even more money was to dumb it down more. Greed.
Lesson learned about kickstarters, they can literally take the money and use it not to build the game, but to hire a bunch of people who do not want to build a game, but another EA. So glad I didn't find out about this game back then. I would have given them money, but after seeing what companies can do with the money they get from kickstarters and crowd funding, even when such funding is based on statements which will be reversed at the first sign of more money, nope. This has turned me off from crowdfunding and kickstarters in general.

GG

You are right on the money, pun fully intended. This will very likely be the first and only Founder type program I ever fall for, which has already cost MW Tactics a customer, because if it weren't for how terribly MW Online has soured me to the idea of Founder business models, I would definitely have already purchased a Founder package for that game. In contrast to the video game crowd sourcing model, if I had found out about the Robotech RPG Tactics Kickstarter even just a mere day before it ended instead of the day it ended (such bad timing, lol) I would've spent a healthy chunk of change on it just to have the miniatures alone. Why, because the product I would receive was already clearly stated and if they didn't deliver it I would definitely have easy grounds to get my money refunded. I wouldn't have to worry that they would completely change the terms of their product drastically as MW Online has. Basically, what has happend, is that PGI stated a vision for the game that drew in a lot of Founder's expecting a particular style of game to be developed. Repeatedly during development, that vision has been heavily changed and many of the people who invested into it are not pleased with the direction it's been heading. They voice that in various ways on these forums. PGI hasn't been too keen on it, hence the forum changes and heavy handed censorship we've seen far too often. Also, other players on the forums that have different tastes (partially due to it seeming that they are fine with settling for a lower quality product than was described in the initial vision and product goal for the game) have their feathers ruffled that many players do not agree with them that this is a great game, they often take criticism of the game very personally. Neither group will convince each other of anything, nor will they convince PGI of anything until something comes to a point where PGI becomes concerned that they will lose paying customers, or enough non-paying customers that it will threaten the play experience of paying customers.

I, personally feel this game is NOT worth spending money on in it's current form, and far too many decisions I have seen from PGI have not taken the game down a path that lead to a game I will enjoy enough to pay money for. That may or may not change down the road, and even though very little of what I've seen over the last year makes me think that will be the case, I still hope it does become a game that I enjoy enough to want to pay for. Everyone needs to make that decision for themselves, obviously. I just hope that enough players out there will keep from settling for something mediocre so that PGI will be forced to raise the bar and make a truly great game.

Edited by Pihoqahiak, 17 June 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[Pando]

Talasmanca, on 17 June 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Funny thing about statistics, to get a 95% confidence in a result with plus or minus 1.78% accuracy the needed polling pool only needs to be 3012 out of 480000 people, so the several threads and places I have seen pointed out "3000, 4000, 5000 responses does not represent the total number" is actually wrong.

Granted its not a random poll, which will skew some numbers, but if we are using the 3000 is not enough of a number for 480000 users thats false. If its 5000 then the accuracy would move much higher.

Presumably the problem with forum polls representing the majority in a videogame is for example flawed because;

The most accurate polls using gallup as an example are conducted in a place where people of all types are most likely found - in their homes. The problem with forum polls are the majority of players reside IN the game, and not on forums. In fact, a very small percentage of players have cast votes on this website forum in comparison to players who have played the game.

Instead, what you will find on the forums are people who have problems with the game. This leads you to find the majority of 1 type of player, the ones who have problems.

Follow me now.

Using this as an example, I can say without a doubt the polls reflecting 3,000 people voting NO for 3rd person view, are most likely comprised of players who share 1 thing; problems with the game. And, furthermore can say without a doubt those 3,000 players do not accurately represent the entirety of this games population.



That would be like Gallup conducting a poll on which political candidate might win a race and polling from the first 2,000 people let out from a nascar race in a heavy republican state. Instead of polling from all of the states at random. See the difference?

Edited by Pando, 17 June 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[Daelynkat]

I actually edited to adress that, though the condescending "Follow me now" I could have done without without my fourth cup of coffee being on board yet

.....Edit...As a matter of fact, without the fourth on board I may be misinterpreting tongue in cheek with condescending...

Edited by Talasmanca, 17 June 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[Pando]

Talasmanca, on 17 June 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I actually edited to adress that, though the condescending "Follow me now" I could have done without without my fourth cup of coffee being on board yet

.....Edit...As a matter of fact, without the fourth on board I may be misinterpreting tongue in cheek with condescending...

If i came across as condescending, sorry I was not, it was more of a "alright lets do this" kind of tongue in cheek

[Pando]

Talasmanca, on 17 June 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Funny thing about statistics, to get a 95% confidence in a result with plus or minus 1.78% accuracy the needed polling pool only needs to be 3012 out of 480000 people, so the several threads and places I have seen pointed out "3000, 4000, 5000 responses does not represent the total number" is actually wrong.

Granted its not a random poll, which will skew some numbers, but if we are using the 3000 is not enough of a number for 480000 users thats false. If its 5000 then the accuracy would move much higher.

EDIT: Lack of sleep my calculations are a bit off.

You have a point as it was not a random sample but a large group disenting, but it sounds like the devs are basing 3pv on a large majority, also not random, who vocalized. Neither are statistically viable in the long run, it would take a true random sampling to get an actual statistical analysis of for or against, as for numbers, even a 500 person truly random poll can give high a very high degree of accuracy in a group of 1.5 million. Especially if it is a clear yes/no polling. As middleground results lead to a low degree of accuracy.

Still, all being said 5000 out of 480000 users, using your numbers, does give quite a bit of credence to more not wanting it than wanting it in light of no actual numbers of this vaporous "large amount" being refered to by devs.

So to my original point, 5000 out of 480000 statistically does speak for majority IF it was a random polling.

I absolutely agree. If the 5,000 people were randomly and privately polled (which bryan ekman hinted it was and is done regularly) I would have no problem with even 2,000 representing the entire registered 480,000. However in this case, it is not the case.

Those polls that 1st only advocates cling to as if they were the last breath of life.... is basically useless for accurately representing the population on 3pV. It is however accurate to say there are at least 3,000 people who don't want it. That, is accurate.

It was an "ask the dev's" session I believe where Bryan Ekman clearly stated they do poll. This is where I think the basis for bringing 3rd person view before launch may have come from. They may have polled with current MWO population and non-mwo population. Who knows, only PGI

Edited by Pando, 17 June 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Commander Kobold]

Dude42, on 17 June 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Hard up for 3PV huh? Go. Play. Hawken.

Hawken doesn't have 3PV you nob

[Dude42]

Omni 13, on 17 June 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

Hawken doesn't have 3PV you nob

Still dumbed down you nob.

[Pihoqahiak]

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Hmm what it did to those games? There has not been a single mechwarrior game released on the XBOX that didn't sell over 1,000,000 copies.

Mechassault 2.

Pando, on 17 June 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

I'll rip you so hard in 1st it will make your head spin. You need to get your **** straight and stop speaking out of your ***.
I'm up in arms for 3pV because it offers more people I can obliterate among other reasons.
3rd person view will probably make me a worse player, which is why i won't find myself playing it often if at all on this account. I enjoy being competitive, what is why I am in Clan Jade Wolf. What makes me a better pilot is fighting people who are better than me. Which might explain why I've never seen you on the battlefield in my highest played role (assault mech).

First off, you make it seem like this game is hard to play or something Pando. There really isn't a whole lot to playing an assault mech, or most anything in the game overall right now. It's a pretty basic game, so you probably shouldn't get too full of yourself there Ace Mechwarrior Pando, lol. This isn't complex raiding like a large MMO and there isn't that much tactical or strategic depth to the game yet either. It's very much a stick together, and try to have your team point and click at the same enemy until they are taken down, rinse and repeat. I'm sorry if that bursts your ego bubble, but it has to happen sometime. Ooohh, you can take people down with your 4 PPC Stalker! Lol, it's not hard to point and click with those, they don't take much of anything special to do well with, which is why they are among the top of the current "meta" in the game currently. The fact that you don't recognize another player from the forums doesn't mean a whole lot. I don't either many times, since I don't play in an 8 person team, guild or unit. I only recognized people from the forums during the tournaments when I would play with or against them and they showed the top 15 or 25 players per category. Other than that, those players and I don't run into each other much, because while having had similar Elo, many of them are playing in teams so we never end up queued together.

Secondly...the competitive scene...there isn't really one yet in the game, and there can't be until some very core facets are implemented into MW Online. This has been discussed many times over the last year on the forums. There needs to be a rank structure of some type (more specific than the current Elo), a decent lobby to coordinate matches, better matchmaking, and sensible balance systems in place for having a reasonably level playing field for teams (as in preventing matchups of 6 assaults and 2 lights against 4 mediums and 4 heavies, etc). Oh yes, I know there have been "tournaments" that players like to work on by having to try and trick the game into sync dropping into and that sort of thing, but that is all very small scale compared to what is needed to really have a competitive game scene.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Quote

Instead, what you will find on the forums are people who have problems with the game. This leads you to find the majority of 1 type of player, the ones who have problems.

This is anecdotal assumption, not a fact. Frankly it's an over generalization in the extreme.

Now, while I'm not a fan of 3PV and don't want to see it in this game, I can't believe people believe games like MW4 died because of it. Again, in no way a provable fact and frankly, highly unlikely.

MW4 died because it was old, plain and simple. New games came along and got the public's dollars and attention. I played MW4 well beyond it's terminal date, simply because I enjoyed it and things like NBT-HC and other efforts to expand on the game kept it alive for a small niche playerbase that probably topped out in the hundreds.....a tiny sum in modern games.

There are plenty of reasons for both sides of the argument. The troubling thing is that PGI has shown zero way for it to have gleaned that there is some silent, non-majority forum base out there clamoring for 3PV. There is a very mixed population here on the forums. Haters, fanbois, PGI apologists, naysayers, read-only skulkers and regular folk to name a few and by a huge HUGE proportion they voted against 3PV, not once but multiple times.

That PGI has supposedly (and I say that because given PGI's trackrecord on so many things, I don't honestly have ANY reason to believe they've done anything of the sort), polled some mystery pool of players....NONE of whom have ever apparently spoken up on the forums about this (NDA's for email polls?) is something I find to be highly doubtful.

TBH I think someone at PGI/IGP merely made this decision to appeal to a more casual player base to make more money on the initial opening, whether it's good for the long term game or not. That's their choice as a business to make, but frankly, I think it won't help their game's staying power in the long run....which ultimately means less revenue for them.

[Pando]

Lukoi, on 17 June 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

This is anecdotal assumption, not a fact. Frankly it's an over generalization in the extreme.

Now, while I'm not a fan of 3PV and don't want to see it in this game, I can't believe people believe games like MW4 died because of it. Again, in no way a provable fact and frankly, highly unlikely.

MW4 died because it was old, plain and simple. New games came along and got the public's dollars and attention. I played MW4 well beyond it's terminal date, simply because I enjoyed it and things like NBT-HC and other efforts to expand on the game kept it alive for a small niche playerbase that probably topped out in the hundreds.....a tiny sum in modern games.

There are plenty of reasons for both sides of the argument. The troubling thing is that PGI has shown zero way for it to have gleaned that there is some silent, non-majority forum base out there clamoring for 3PV. There is a very mixed population here on the forums. Haters, fanbois, PGI apologists, naysayers, read-only skulkers and regular folk to name a few and by a huge HUGE proportion they voted against 3PV, not once but multiple times.

That PGI has supposedly (and I say that because given PGI's trackrecord on so many things, I don't honestly have ANY reason to believe they've done anything of the sort), polled some mystery pool of players....NONE of whom have ever apparently spoken up on the forums about this (NDA's for email polls?) is something I find to be highly doubtful.

TBH I think someone at PGI/IGP merely made this decision to appeal to a more casual player base to make more money on the initial opening, whether it's good for the long term game or not. That's their choice as a business to make, but frankly, I think it won't help their game's staying power in the long run....which ultimately means less revenue for them.

So you're saying the two polls which I was referring to is an accurate representation of the entire populous that is mechwarrior:online.

that makes me L O L

There are a lot of business opinions included in your response none of which I care to address. Likewise a number of assumptions. I believe we can we can both agree to disagree.

[Lukoi Banacek]

No Pando, I'm not saying the polls here represent the entire user base accurately. It is however more demonstrable in regards to the feelings of the playerbase than ANYTHING else we've seen so far.

What I am saying is that PGI's supposed source for the apparently huge groundswell of interest in 3PV is thus far been shown to be non-existent and in all likelihood a falsehood.

You certainly do come off pretty sanctimonious sometimes man.

Edited by Lukoi, 17 June 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Pando]

Pihoqahiak, on 17 June 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Mechassault 2.



First off, you make it seem like this game is hard to play or something Pando. There really isn't a whole lot to playing an assault mech, or most anything in the game overall right now. It's a pretty basic game, so you probably shouldn't get too full of yourself there Ace Mechwarrior Pando, lol. This isn't complex raiding like a large MMO and there isn't that much tactical or strategic depth to the game yet either. It's very much a stick together, and try to have your team point and click at the same enemy until they are taken down, rinse and repeat. I'm sorry if that bursts your ego bubble, but it has to happen sometime. Ooohh, you can take people down with your 4 PPC Stalker! Lol, it's not hard to point and click with those, they don't take much of anything special to do well with, which is why they are among the top of the current "meta" in the game currently. The fact that you don't recognize another player from the forums doesn't mean a whole lot. I don't either many times, since I don't play in an 8 person team, guild or unit. I only recognized people from the forums during the tournaments when I would play with or against them and they showed the top 15 or 25 players per category. Other than that, those players and I don't run into each other much, because while having had similar Elo, many of them are playing in teams so we never end up queued together.

Secondly...the competitive scene...there isn't really one yet in the game, and there can't be until some very core facets are implemented into MW Online. This has been discussed many times over the last year on the forums. There needs to be a rank structure of some type (more specific than the current Elo), a decent lobby to coordinate matches, better matchmaking, and sensible balance systems in place for having a reasonably level playing field for teams (as in preventing matchups of 6 assaults and 2 lights against 4 mediums and 4 heavies, etc). Oh yes, I know there have been "tournaments" that players like to work on by having to try and trick the game into sync dropping into and that sort of thing, but that is all very small scale compared to what is needed to really have a competitive game scene.

I've been in competitive gaming for years. I played halo 2 and was paid monthly to attend practice sessions in addition to all-expense-paid tournament rides from 2005-2006. I was present in almost all MLG tournaments those years and placed well. It was my first competitive experience certainly not my last.

However, I'm quite confident in my ability to pilot anything better than the majority of the population. I regularly prove that, daily even. This excerpt; I don't play in an 8 person team, guild or unit...pretty much ruined reading the rest of your opinion.

A pug player by choice lecturing me on competitive gaming or the lack there of. Referring to PGI run tournaments...making snide or coy remarks that there is no skill involved in piloting a stalker....HAH

Tell you what, find 7 other players who are interested in playing 8v8. Find me on NGNG, Comstar or message me for our private TS...I'll be glad to throw together 8 and show you where the competition exists in this game. Random people from my unit, not even who we consider our best. I can say you will be surprised at the level of play 8's offer over 4's.

I will say attempted sync dropping for me and my unit often involves long wait times. So, it might be a while before we are paired. It's not that there aren't other teams in the 8 man que...it's that comparatively speaking there aren't many on our level. Period.

Still, even if we are lucky enough to find a match they quickly dwindle down when they become tired of being roflstomped. I'm sure other top tier competitive teams running with assorted players face similar circumstances.

Often, I am certain my 4's grouped elo is so high at the weeeee hours of the morning it pairs us with 4 trial battlemechs....while the other team is comprised of good builds with "less than" pilots. The difficulty is still there. Often, our 4 engages a near fresh 8...our pugs wiped out...and we're still victorious.

But, none the less I'm so interested in hearing more of what you have to say about competitive gaming when you're a lone-wolf player scrubbing in 4's.

Edited by Pando, 17 June 2013 - 01:34 PM.

[James Montana]

Hyperbole and assumptions galore. Let us just invoke race and political ideologies to bring this inferno to its peak, and hopefully it will burn itself out and we can have a constructive conversation.

[Pando]

Lukoi, on 17 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

No Pando, I'm not saying the polls here represent the entire user base accurately. It is however more demonstrable in regards to the feelings of the playerbase than ANYTHING else we've seen so far.

What I am saying is that PGI's supposed source for the apparently huge groundswell of interest in 3PV is thus far been shown to be non-existent and in all likelihood a falsehood.

You certainly do come off pretty sanctimonious sometimes man.

Which is exactly what I said. Those polls represent 3,000 people who don't like/want anything to do with 3pV. It's the poll itself that is flawed for representing an entire player base. Already went over that

I'm not sanctimonious...wrong word. I'm more of an infallible person. If I were to classify myself as something negative, that would be it.

[Lukoi Banacek]

More representative than ether Pando.

And infallible is certainly not the right word, but again we'll agree to disagree.

[Pando]

Lukoi, on 17 June 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

More representative than ether Pando.

And infallible is certainly not the right word, but again we'll agree to disagree.

Infallible is the correct word. Just sayin'.