2926 replies to this topic

[ReaverLord]

Take a cue from Battlefield - the game is better in first person, optional 3rd person makes it into a crappy SoCoM

[Mystere]

Belorion, on 21 June 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

Holy Jumpin, are you people mental?

1. CW scheduled matches are FPV only.
2. Players will not be required to play against 3PV.
3. The "Regular" CW drops can be either 3PV, or 1PV.

You won't be required to drop against 3PV in CW. If someone wants to challenge you, they have to do it in a scheduled match. Regular matches are more for the Houses. If you drop in a regular match you have the option of FPV only or 3PV available. I am not sure what you people aren't getting.

You don't have to drop against 3PV. You don't have to drop against 3PV in CW. You don't have to drop against 3PV in Regular CW drops. You can't drop against 3PV in Scheduled drops.

Frankly, I think things are being made complicated just to satisfy people's personal biases. If 3PV has no advantage against 1PV, I say make things simple and more fun by letting people play however they want.

Edited by Mystere, 21 June 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[Mystere]

Mr Blonde, on 21 June 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

How about the camo spec tab in the Mechbay? Seems perfectly adequate to me to show people what my mechs look like from any angle. You can even post screenshots from there should you desire. It's certainly no reason to betray all their stated goals.

Well, I want to see my mech in action, not as a static display.

Ed Steele, on 21 June 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

My point is that the picture illustrates (in its own special way) the advantage a 3PV player could have if 3PV is implemented that eay. The picture was not "Dumb" as Pando so eloquently put it.

Well, this time I will be very blunt. That picture depicts a very dumb implementation of 3PV.

[CyBerkut]

Belorion, on 21 June 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

Holy Jumpin, are you people mental?

1. CW scheduled matches are FPV only.
2. Players will not be required to play against 3PV.
3. The "Regular" CW drops can be either 3PV, or 1PV.

You won't be required to drop against 3PV in CW. If someone wants to challenge you, they have to do it in a scheduled match. Regular matches are more for the Houses. If you drop in a regular match you have the option of FPV only or 3PV available. I am not sure what you people aren't getting.

You don't have to drop against 3PV. You don't have to drop against 3PV in CW. You don't have to drop against 3PV in Regular CW drops. You can't drop against 3PV in Scheduled drops.

If that is the way it ends up working, that sounds like a pretty good solution. I hope you are correct. As I posted in the message that you so graciously replied to... History here has led me to avoid making assumptions that old statements from the devs still hold true. Your statements in items 2 and 3 above match up with earlier dev statements that 1PV will not have to play against 3PV. If that is still their intention, and it comes to fruition, that's great.

What I pointed out, was that they didn't get into reiterating that stance during the "Ask the Devs 40 Answers", and that said omission opens the possibility that something else (ie. another change in position) could arise. I'm not claiming that something else IS coming. I'm merely wondering. I'd say in light of their previous flip flopping, I'm entitled to some cautious skepticism.

Have they posted anything in the last month or so, that supports your description in items 2 and 3, or was that answer based on the older postings and assuming that those older statements still hold true? Note: Those older statements may very well still hold true... I'm just inquiring as to where your understanding comes from. I'm not saying it is in error. In fact, I hope it is correct.

Hell, I may be able to start spending money on this game again...

[Grimmnyr]

Mystere, on 21 June 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Well, this time I will be very blunt. That picture depicts [i][b][u]a very dumb implementation of 3PV

Well, then I would not have had a problem with your original comment. If you had made your original comment less vague and seemingly intended just to insult the creator of the picture, then I would not have misunderstood you.

[Mr Blonde]

Mystere, on 21 June 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

Well, I want to see my mech in action, not as a static display.

Ok, so we're back to training grounds only. Even I would play 3rd PV then, because that would in fact be cool. You can go around goofing off, watching your mech blow stuff up, and not destroy the game. The only problem I would have with that is it lets the camel's nose in the tent, and we'd be right back here again. This is what happens when the people in charge can't play it straight.

[Skye Storm]

So this is what I've put money for then. Something very similar to this.

[Milocinia]

3PV and the optional opt-in/out will be fine... except the game just doesn't have the active population to support any more splitting.

The only thing I can think of is that PGI desperately think adding 3PV might increase the population.

[insert "LOL meme face" here]

[Grimmnyr]

Kyocera, on 22 June 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

3PV and the optional opt-in/out will be fine... except the game just doesn't have the active population to support any more splitting.

The only thing I can think of is that PGI desperately think adding 3PV might increase the population.

[insert "LOL meme face" here]

It is inevitable that they will combine the gaming modes, that sucks. I wish they would let us buy the game and run private games like COD, since they want to make this game like COD.

[MWHawke]

Belorion, on 21 June 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

Holy Jumpin, are you people mental?

1. CW scheduled matches are FPV only.
2. Players will not be required to play against 3PV.
3. The "Regular" CW drops can be either 3PV, or 1PV.

You won't be required to drop against 3PV in CW. If someone wants to challenge you, they have to do it in a scheduled match. Regular matches are more for the Houses. If you drop in a regular match you have the option of FPV only or 3PV available. I am not sure what you people aren't getting.

You don't have to drop against 3PV. You don't have to drop against 3PV in CW. You don't have to drop against 3PV in Regular CW drops. You can't drop against 3PV in Scheduled drops.

LMAO!!! Good point!!!! o.O

Edit: But what if people are defending in 3rd PV? Then, you just don't have to drop?

Abel, on 21 June 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

I've always used 3rd person view in previous Mechwarrior games just to take a sneak peak at my chassis during the boring bits of running to a conflict zone or nav point. Just the other day I was showing a friend MWO who has never played any Mechwarrior and she asked several times "what do you look like?". It would be nice to have the option to press C for camera and quickly pop out into a 3rd person view. I wouldn't play 3rd person though and I don't know anyone who's played 3rd person in previous games even though the option was there. +1 for the argument to add it in
.

You could get the same effect by running it ONLY in training grounds.. -1 for the argument to add in full game-mode.

Edited by MWHawke, 22 June 2013 - 05:17 PM.

[Mr Blonde]

CyBerkut, on 21 June 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

If that is the way it ends up working, that sounds like a pretty good solution. I hope you are correct. As I posted in the message that you so graciously replied to... History here has led me to avoid making assumptions that old statements from the devs still hold true. Your statements in items 2 and 3 above match up with earlier dev statements that 1PV will not have to play against 3PV. If that is still their intention, and it comes to fruition, that's great.

What I pointed out, was that they didn't get into reiterating that stance during the "Ask the Devs 40 Answers", and that said omission opens the possibility that something else (ie. another change in position) could arise. I'm not claiming that something else IS coming. I'm merely wondering. I'd say in light of their previous flip flopping, I'm entitled to some cautious skepticism.

Have they posted anything in the last month or so, that supports your description in items 2 and 3, or was that answer based on the older postings and assuming that those older statements still hold true? Note: Those older statements may very well still hold true... I'm just inquiring as to where your understanding comes from. I'm not saying it is in error. In fact, I hope it is correct.

Hell, I may be able to start spending money on this game again...

Guess that will have to make up for the rest of us demanding our money back...

[MWHawke]

Belorion, on 21 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/
http://mwomercs.com/...-external-view/
http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/
http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/
...etc/etc.

Ummm.. you just quoted posts that have so many arguments AGAINST 3rd person view. 4 posts asking for it does not justify having it implemented?

Mr Blonde, on 22 June 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Guess that will have to make up for the rest of us demanding our money back...

Please include me in asking for a refund. I will switch over to Warframe and Marvel Heroes.

[Mystere]

Mr Blonde, on 22 June 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Ok, so we're back to training grounds only. Even I would play 3rd PV then, because that would in fact be cool. You can go around goofing off, watching your mech blow stuff up, and not destroy the game. The only problem I would have with that is it lets the camel's nose in the tent, and we'd be right back here again. This is what happens when the people in charge can't play it straight.

"Training grounds" is not what I meant by "in action". Let people play the game as they want, in 1PV, 3pV, or both.

[Mr Blonde]

Mystere, on 22 June 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

"Training grounds" is not what I meant by "in action". Let people play the game as they want, in 1PV, 3pV, or both.

The two salient points are that there aren't enough people to split them up (the proposed system sounds absurdly complex compared to what would be needed for a FPV only game), and that the huge majority of people playing right now were strongly encouraged to believe that the game is a simulator and FPV only; no matter what weasel-words were in the posts, the intent was pretty clear. Now we get 3PV pushed to the front instead of CW, which should be the whole point of the game? To what end? Many people are going to leave over this, most of the best players IMHO. They won't put up with cheats, hacks, etc. and 3PV will open the floodgates. Finally of course, the disingenuous way it was done to us. The community clearly does not want this, yet it goes to the head of the line.

[Commander Kobold]

Mr Blonde, on 22 June 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Guess that will have to make up for the rest of us demanding our money back...

You can stamp your little feet and demand whatever you want you won't get your money back and the Devs don't look to be changing their minds.

[Mystere]

Mr Blonde, on 22 June 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

... there aren't enough people to split them up...

Simple. Don't split.

Mr Blonde, on 22 June 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

They won't put up with cheats, hacks, etc. and 3PV will open the floodgates ...

Here's the rub. We don't even have any implementation details yet and already people are so sure of what 3PV will look like.

I call this the "Mechwarrior 4 Syndrome".

[James DeGriz]

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

Hawken doesn't have 3PV you nob

Neither does Call of Duty. Whats your point.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

Mr Blonde, on 22 June 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Ok, so we're back to training grounds only. Even I would play 3rd PV then, because that would in fact be cool. You can go around goofing off, watching your mech blow stuff up, and not destroy the game. The only problem I would have with that is it lets the camel's nose in the tent, and we'd be right back here again. This is what happens when the people in charge can't play it straight.

as soon as they put "3pv" in client it will be everywhere players want it to be, exploiting "client side" features is a essence of cheating

[Pando]

Question, who here ATM is a 1pv only advocate? Additionally, you feel you represent the majority of players.

I has knowledge to unload on you, and questions to ask you. Please respond!

Unloading anyways......standby for huge post of hugeness.

Edited by Pando, 23 June 2013 - 02:52 AM.

[Pando]

This message is for anyone out there on the forums who clings to the 2 threads created which had the highest turn-out of any player created poll thread, and was created regarding 3pv. The message is, YOU ARE THE MINORITY. Those two polls are inaccurate for representing the 480,200 registered members and here's why!

If this poll were accurate 3,500 persons can accurately represent 480,000. However, it is very poor at best and can only say for certain that 3,000 persons out of 3,500 persons are against/ do not want 3rd person.

Out of 480,200 registered users 419,580 have never posted...leaving 66,620 that HAS visited the forums and posted for sure at-least once.

source - advanced search (http://mwomercs.com/...__1__st__419520)

Using ^ as a filter for helping find how accurate the the poll above is. All below numbers are *at time of writing*.

Begin with 486,200 unique accounts
Of those 419,580 unique accounts have never posted on forums @0 posts
So 66,620 members have posted on the forums @ 1+ posts
Of 66,620 members 3,500 voted in the 3pv poll
)86.29% of players have not posted (assume has not visited forums)
)13.71% of players have posted (assume has visited forums)
out of the 13.71% of the players that have posted, 5.25% voted in the 3pv thread
Out of 5.25% of the players that voted 85.7% said NO.
Are you seeing how you/we are the minority?

So, what does the 3pv poll thread prove? It only says with utmost certainty that there are 3,000 forum users out of 66,620 OR 4.50% of the total participating forum users that said "NO" to 3pv.

For the last time....minority.

Edited by Pando, 23 June 2013 - 02:59 AM.