26 replies to this topic

[dF0X]

Simply draw a hologram-textured version of the mech inside the cockpit.

This way, people having difficulty seeing which way their torso is pointed vs the legs can easily do so. Also, it's actually better than 3rd person due to not needing a fiddly camera, and no chance of obstructed vision.

I think this should be easier to code for as well.

Problem solved - have a 3d mech model in the cockpit to use as a mobility reference. No 3rd person necessary.

If we need 3rd person to see how cool our skins are, well, use the skin texture on the 3d in-cockpit model. Problem still solved.

[hashinshin]

An optional arrow pointing left and right when your feet are that way growing in severity the further away your legs are would help.

[dF0X]

hashinshin, on 21 November 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

An optional arrow pointing left and right when your feet are that way growing in severity the further away your legs are would help.

Well, to be honest, they have something similar already in that the hud shows what direction the legs are pointed with a dotted arrow, and what direction the torso is pointed with the highlighted view cone.

[dF0X]

The point I am trying to make is that a 3d model of the exterior of the mech placed inside the cockpit view gives all of the (legitimate) benefits of 3rd person view, none of the gameplay drawbacks, should be easier to implement, and has a few advantages of it's own.

[Taryys]

A robust tutorial and match maker is the answer.


Please sign here:

How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience

[dF0X]

Taryys, on 21 November 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

A robust tutorial and match maker is the answer.


Please sign here:

How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience

I've already signed that Yes, that's an excellent idea too.

[MrPenguin]

That is incredibly inefficient.

Taryys, on 21 November 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

A robust tutorial and match maker is the answer.


Please sign here:

How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience

Precisely.

[dF0X]

MrPenguin, on 21 November 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

That is incredibly inefficient.



Precisely.

Drawing an additional mech model is inefficient? You'd be drawing the extra model if you were to play in 3rd person anyway.

The mech model-in-cockpit is incredibly efficient in terms of runtime resources and development resources. PGI could certainly use a low poly model if they desire. Also, at some point the game is supposed to be 12v12, that's an additional 8 models out in the field, so I think we're pretty secure adding one.

Think of it as a slightly more complex bobblehead.

[MrPenguin]

Desrtfox, on 21 November 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

Drawing an additional mech model is inefficient? You'd be drawing the extra model if you were to play in 3rd person anyway.

Wrong. The models already exist(technically)
Adding a 3 dimensional, dynamic moving mesh of your mech in the **** pit will use more resources and cause more distractions then its actually worth. That, and most people won't even look at it.

This is not the same as a bobble head, which doesn't take nearly as much resources to do.

Its a nice idea OP, but its not actually worth doing since the cons far out weight any possible pros.

Edited by MrPenguin, 21 November 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[dF0X]

MrPenguin, on 21 November 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Wrong. The models already exist(technically)
Adding a 3 dimensional, dynamic moving mesh of your mech in the **** pit will use more resources and cause more distractions then its actually worth. That, and most people won't even look at it.

This is not the same as a bobble head, which doesn't take nearly as much resources to do.

And no, these aren't opinions. I'm just answering your questions.

Its a nice idea OP, but its not actually worth doing since the cons far out weight any possible pros.

Well, I disagree. Again, think of a bobblehead. The mech model is not difficult, and the models, textures, animations etc. already exist. It is the same as a bobblehead. All it needs to do is point the torso in the proper direction, otherwise it can even stand still. Games have been able to do this - easily - since the 80s

The tutorial idea, while nice, is far more work than PGI will ever be able to accomplish, and doesn't address the issue of PGI possibly wanting 3rd person to help promote sales of camo skins.

Edited by Desrtfox, 21 November 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[MrPenguin]

Desrtfox, on 21 November 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well, I disagree. Again, think of a bobblehead. The mech model is not difficult, and the models, textures, animations etc. already exist. It is the same as a bobblehead. All it needs to do is point the torso in the proper direction, otherwise it can even stand still. Games have been able to do this - easily - since the 80s

The tutorial idea, while nice, is far more work than PGI will ever be able to accomplish, and doesn't address the issue of PGI possibly wanting 3rd person to help promote sales of camo skins.

I know what you're saying. I fully understood. What you don't understand is that its no where near the same, and saying it is doesn't change that. I'm actually familiar with cryengine 3, I've used it before. (Still do technically)

What you need to understand is that a bobble head isn't what you think its is. Most of it is static, the rest is only moved around by the physics and even in that sense its incredibly limited to how it moves. What your asking is fully dynamic. It has to be rendered separately, it has to have its own sets of animation ect... I know you're asking for a far simpler one but theirs no way to actually make it simpler.

And that doesn't invalidate my other points either. Who would actually use it when it matters? The only time it would be useful is during combat. And I don't know about you, but looking around my cockpit is not something I do while I'm brawling. Unless you want it to show up in there face, then thats just in the way and a massive distraction. It would have to be placed somewhere a bit off to the side... and by then, its pointless.

Again, it is a nice idea OP. But theirs just too many problems and as a solution its not exactly efficiant. The arrow and view cone on the minimap is actually far more efficient and usable then what you're suggesting. Hence why its actually in there. Of course, its not perfect. But what we need is a more efficient solution, not something a lot more ambitious and resource demanding.

[dF0X]

MrPenguin, on 21 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

I know what you're saying. I fully understood. What you don't understand is that its no where near the same, and saying it is doesn't change that. I'm actually familiar with cryengine 3, I've used it before. (Still do technically)

What you need to understand is that a bobble head isn't what you think its is. Most of it is static, the rest is only moved around by the physics and even in that sense its incredibly limited to how it moves. What your asking is fully dynamic. It has to be rendered separately, it has to have its own sets of animation ect... I know you're asking for a far simpler one but theirs no way to actually make it simpler.

And that doesn't invalidate my other points either. Who would actually use it when it matters? The only time it would be useful is during combat. And I don't know about you, but looking around my cockpit is not something I do while I'm brawling. Unless you want it to show up in there face, then thats just in the way and a massive distraction. It would have to be placed somewhere a bit off to the side... and by then, its pointless.

Again, it is a nice idea OP. But theirs just too many problems and as a solution its not exactly efficiant. The arrow and view cone on the minimap is actually far more efficient and usable then what you're suggesting. Hence why its actually in there. Of course, its not perfect. But what we need is a more efficient solution, not something a lot more ambitious and resource demanding.

I've worked with the UDK, not Cry3, but let's be realistic here.

We only need the torso to twist based on the input of the mouse. That's it. That input data is already being collected.

If we can have the cockpit move around based on the mouse input (which already happens), and if we can have lights go on and off in the cockpit based on a button press, then we can have a mostly static bobblehead turn it's head to the left or right based on mouse inputs with virtually no resource usage.

The people who would use it are those who are having difficulty knowing which direction their mech is pointing. It would be obvious to use, even more so than the map indicators.

[MrPenguin]

Desrtfox, on 21 November 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

I've worked with the UDK, not Cry3, but let's be realistic here.

We only need the torso to twist based on the input of the mouse. That's it. That input data is already being collected.

If we can have the cockpit move around based on the mouse input (which already happens), and if we can have lights go on and off in the cockpit based on a button press, then we can have a mostly static bobblehead turn it's head to the left or right based on mouse inputs with virtually no resource usage.

The people who would use it are those who are having difficulty knowing which direction their mech is pointing. It would be obvious to use, even more so than the map indicators.

I see what you're getting at, I just can't possibly see anyone use it. And it just feels like a massive waste to even have it in there.
Like I said, this would only be useful in combat and in that case it would be in the way.

Edited by MrPenguin, 21 November 2012 - 09:08 AM.

[Havyek]

Does no one already realize that your mini-map already shows direction relative to torso facing?

Your arrow always points forward, your firing arc shows which way your facing. 3rd person will do nothing to help those who can't handle simple tasks.

[dF0X]

MrPenguin, on 21 November 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

I see what you're getting at, I just can't possibly see anyone use it. And it just feels like a massive waste to even have it in there.
Like I said, this would only be useful in combat and in that case it would be in the way.

Well, to you and me maybe. maybe even to most players on this forum. My point is that despite a 90% negative poll, PGI seems like they want to put in 3rd person view.

My suggestion, IMHO, is not resource or developer hungry and neuters any need to add 3rd person.

Now putting in a decent tutorial is an awesome idea, and should be done, but we're talking about 2 different things really.

PGI has stated that they think 3rd person will help new players understand the mech dynamics. They probably have unstated reasons for wanting it as well, like the aforementioned camo hawking. Putting a SIMPLE model of the mech in the cockpit itself effectively neuters any argument for full 3rd person during gameplay.

That's my point.

[MrPenguin]

Desrtfox, on 21 November 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Well, to you and me maybe. maybe even to most players on this forum. My point is that despite a 90% negative poll, PGI seems like they want to put in 3rd person view.

Not entirely correct. Just because they're talking about it, doesn't exactly mean they want it.
People forget that 3rd person mode has been a feature of the mechwarrrior games for a very long time. Its actually strange that mechwarrior online doesn't have it.

The reason to discuss it is to see if theirs a viable way to put it in. Because there probably was old players who preferred the 3rd person views.

They're trying to see if theirs a way to implement it with out giving it an advantage or segregating the community. If the end conclusion is that they cannot, then it won't be implemented. If they find a solution, they'll do even further testing on it before it ever reaches us. But thats a pretty big if.

Edited by MrPenguin, 21 November 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[FLes]

@OP

We already figured out that they are not putting in third person because they want to help some players in initial learning. They want third person as a default mode of play, to have all the kiddies and WoTplayers play MWO. First person will most likely be an option for the rest.

And why are you openning yet another thread about the same thing...

Edited by FLes, 21 November 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[River Walker]

I have a better idea why not put back the chex box that was in MW+2+3+4 to lock the legs to stay with the center torso.
if you wanted to play like a tank you used the arrow key to Twist more than 140 degrees Right or right.

The guys that love fighting with their Mechs feet just don't need to chex the box that locks them and we then don't need the 3rd person at all then.

[FLes]

River Walker, on 21 November 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I have a better idea why not put back the chex box that was in MW+2+3+4 to lock the legs to stay with the center torso.
(...)

Already been suggested in multiple other threads on 3rd person matter. And see my post above.

[dF0X]

So, as an example:

http://www.youtube.c..._fDH_zO4#t=104s


Anyway, I hope you're right MrPenguin, and I agree in principle with you, but if Mech 3 can do it, well, we have fallen far... (Also note the great zoom feature

Edited by Desrtfox, 21 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.