565 replies to this topic

[SilentFear]

Well i havent been much on the forums but i have played the game before the wipe and now i took up to it again. The game is a blast and 3RD person camera would kill the immersion for me.

Also 3RD person camera most of the time force you to use it becouse of the huge advantage it provides - to the point of players sticking crap on there monitors to have rectangles and crosshair if the game dont provide them whit one in 3RD person view.

So no i dont want that stuff in this game.

[Rejarial Galatan]

mwhighlander, on 29 January 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

The fact that a mere 85% are voting no is disturbing.

It should be 99% of the community voting no, we need to kill this virus that is 3rd person before it kills MW:O.

its a low vote because this poll is only starting to roll again. remember the other "glitched" itself into oblivion, so, I remade this one. Give it time, spread the word, lets crush this BS again shall we?

[FactorlanP]

Rejarial Galatan, on 29 January 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Its a low vote because this poll is only starting to roll again. remember the other "glitched" itself into oblivion, so, I remade this one. Give it time, spread the word, lets crush this BS again shall we?

You can't expect the same level of outrage the second time around. People become numbed after pouring out large amounts of emotion. Politicians have been taking advantage of this truth for quite some time.

It is no surprise that this poll is not garnering the same outrage.

Honestly, it was a mistake to resurrect this poll. There is no doubt that the Developers saw the outrage the first time around. They are business minded folks. They really don't need to be re-reminded again by this poll. In fact, this poll may do more harm then good. It may give the developers the idea that opinion is moderating on the topic.

I will be the first to tell you that I am 100% against a 3rd Person view in MWO. I really do believe that it will take this title back down a dark road that we really don't need to revisit.

But the strategist in me tells me to reserve my most vocal outrage for when PGI allows the 3rd Person view concept to start to resurface... There are other fish that we can fry right now.

Edited by FactorlanP, 29 January 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

this is one fish we MUST burn so deeply that even the quarks that make up electrons and the neutrons and the protons cease to exist. We must do that which even the black hole at the center of this galaxy may not be able to do.

[Runenstahl]

To copy myself from another 3rd person thread:

Hmm... I'm not sure if I would like it or not. 3rd person DOES work well in "World of Tanks". So why not try it ? After all, isn't the Beta for trying out stuff ?

I voted yes. Mostly because I want to try it out before I make a decision if I like it or not. And I have to agree with Garth that it sucks when your mech gets stuck on small obstacles. As for getting stuck on fences: I hope that one day a 100 ton warmachine will be able to walk through a fence

[Rejarial Galatan]

Runenstahl, on 29 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

To copy myself from another 3rd person thread:

Hmm... I'm not sure if I would like it or not. 3rd person DOES work well in "World of Tanks". So why not try it ? After all, isn't the Beta for trying out stuff ?

I voted yes. Mostly because I want to try it out before I make a decision if I like it or not. And I have to agree with Garth that it sucks when your mech gets stuck on small obstacles. As for getting stuck on fences: I hope that one day a 100 ton warmachine will be able to walk through a fence

First: the tactical advantage 3rd person gives is where this game is fundamentally altered from what was SOLD to us.
Second: IF we had Monthly subscription fees, then yea, this WOULD be a Beta still, but seeing as we do not, it is in FULL release, if broken.
Third: This game is intended to be 1st person ONLY.

[Barghest Whelp]

Yes, no, I mean NO! 3rd person view kills! Just say NO to 3rd person view.

Real men play in 1st person.

[Runenstahl]

Rejarial Galatan, on 29 January 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

First: the tactical advantage 3rd person gives is where this game is fundamentally altered from what was SOLD to us.
Second: IF we had Monthly subscription fees, then yea, this WOULD be a Beta still, but seeing as we do not, it is in FULL release, if broken.
Third: This game is intended to be 1st person ONLY.

1. Really ? Someone promised you "no third person view" when you bought your founder stuff ? If that was the case I would agree with you and you should get your money back when the finished product should have 3rd person view.
2. Hmm... that statement doesn't make much sense to me. It IS still a beta. If we would have to pay a subscription fee I would think it would NOT be a beta anymore.
3. Says who ?

Apparently the majority of people here seems to think that 3rd person is bad. And thats okay. Everybody can have his opinion. But don't forget that the decisions are still made by the devs. And I'm thankful for that. I wouldn't want "community votes" for important game features. Especially if the community is that shy to try out new stuff during a beta.

What would have happened if at the very start they would have asked "Do you want the original mech looks or can we make our own version of them ?" "Do you want the original weapon stats or can we tweak them for the game ?".

Remember: very often it's not good to get what you wish for

[Faldrin]

Ok a lot of the posters on here I don't agree with on many many things but this one is a big fat NO!

To Runenstahl

Runenstahl, on 30 January 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Everybody can have his opinion. But don't forget that the decisions are still made by the devs. And I'm thankful for that. I wouldn't want "community votes" for important game features. Especially if the community is that shy to try out new stuff during a beta.

What would have happened if at the very start they would have asked "Do you want the original mech looks or can we make our own version of them ?" "Do you want the original weapon stats or can we tweak them for the game ?".

Remember: very often it's not good to get what you wish for

How wrong can this be! Sorry but when 80%+ of any game community think this is a bad idea and gave many reasons why the dev's really should listen!

[Rejarial Galatan]

Runenstahl, on 30 January 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

<snip> <for space reasons>

1. go here: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
and here: mwomercs.com/game on that last link, scroll down, bottom section titled: How Does Game Play Work. First few sentences. THAT.

2. They CLAIM it is "Open Beta" to try to pass the buck on all the problems that have existed in this game since even I came into CLOSED BETA back in early JUNE. IF this game was to start charging us a monthly fee after "Open Beta" ended, then, yes, I would say we are in a FORM of Beta right now, but, as this is a FREE to play game and they ARE charging us money for our Micro Transactions and will NO LONGER reset anything save statistics, and NOT refund any MC purchases to re-spend said MC again, we ARE live. Deal with it.

3. Says who? PGI/IGP Paul Inouye Lead Designer and a whole slew of other PGI/IGP PAID EMPLOYEE'S acting on behalf of the companies. Next?

[xxREVxx]

PoisonWolf, on 25 January 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I voted no. However, if implemented I will without a shadow of a doubt use it and abuse it. Sliding up to the top of a crest and being able to line my reticle up on your mech before you can even see me,...sweet! Hitting reverse right before my weapons clear the top, alpha your a$$e$ as reverse engages and I drop back down behind cover. At that point I will wonder, "Hmm, did he see where I just shot him from?" Then I will manuever my camera angle so I can see over the obstacle to see which way you are looking and what you are doing. I will then decide from your reaction whether I will repeat said process or move to another spot and repeat process. Then there are my friends who I am in voice comms with and we will alternate amongst ourselves, picking you apart from different directions. And the PUGS, the poor, poor PUGS, think they have it bad now....God help them. The best part of all of this will be that you asked for it. You say if the devs don't implement this that it will drive away, alienate, or not attract fan bases....and wait til the old school aces put this tool back in their toolbox, I see rivers of tears coming.


Given time to think about this, I am changing my vote to "yes".

My god! I was just about to type out a bunch of ***** against it....AGAIN. Screw that. (besides, I changed my vote yes)
I say give em what what they want.
How many veterans do we have here that have prior experience with the tactics and advantages that came with TPP? A group in a firing line formation, alternating alpha strikes from the other side of a ridge or hill top (I believe the term was hill-humping) and a couple of pop-tarts (jump snipers) in the background cherry picking the engaged or unaware, and of course the brawlers up front....ahhh the good old days.

[Coolant]

same arguments for the umpteenth time:

1) As described you would have the option to never play against a 3rd person player (have yet to really here any legitimate counter-argument to this)

2) MW4: Mercs had the option for 3rd person or 1st person only servers. 1st person only would force everyone to play in 1st person. 1st Person servers were never full, often completely empty, often no 1st person team battle/destruction servers at all, while 3rd person was immensely popular.

3) Poll is biased...3rd person would appeal to a larger audience swelling the gaming population and bringing in revenue to improve the game. Try putting a poll on a popular 3rd person shooter site asking if they would be more apt to try MWO if it was a 3rd person or 1st person only.

Edited by Coolant, 30 January 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[xxREVxx]

Coolant, on 30 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

2) MW4: Mercs had the option for 3rd person or 1st person only servers. 1st person only would force everyone to play in 1st person. 1st Person servers were never full, often completely empty, often no 1st person team battle/destruction servers at all, while 3rd person was immensely popular.

spot on

and that is exactly what will happen to MWO if it is implemented.

[Coolant]

PoisonWolf, on 30 January 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

spot on

and that is exactly what will happen to MWO if it is implemented.

not according to the poll

[Sean von Steinike]

PoisonWolf, on 30 January 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

spot on

and that is exactly what will happen to MWO if it is implemented.

Previous poll had 5000+ NO votes. Why would anyone of them play that lame 3rd person ****** mode unless forced into it when they don't want it in the game, period?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sean von Steinike, on 30 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Previous poll had 5000+ NO votes. Why would anyone of them play that lame 3rd person ****** mode unless forced into it when they don't want it in the game, period?

Yeah 5k till the mods accidentally destroyed it. In a manner that they did the same thing with in CB several times and went "whoopsie looks like we broke it" in the same way too lol

[Rejarial Galatan]

Coolant, on 30 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

same arguments for the umpteenth time:

1) As described you would have the option to never play against a 3rd person player (have yet to really here any legitimate counter-argument to this)

my argument against this? simple, bottom of page on mwomercs.com/game AND http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
AND they would need to basically rewrite the entire game, line for line for line for line of code with the perspective OUTSIDE the mech. This game has ENOUGH problems as it is, a much BETTER use of their time? FIXING WHAT IS BROKE NOW, not complicating this crap more. IF all of that doesnt help the against this particular option, I proffer THIS again for the umpteenth time: Once the code is in the game to allow third person perspective, given the fact that by and large, a HUGE chunk of you know how to mode this game's code already by modding the user.cfg file and other similar files to make things work our selves that PGI has NOT gotten to either from being over taxed by other priorities or laziness, or BOTH. The chance for a malicious type to hack it and insert 3rd PP into a 1PP match is too high.

Coolant, on 30 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

2) MW4: Mercs had the option for 3rd person or 1st person only servers. 1st person only would force everyone to play in 1st person. 1st Person servers were never full, often completely empty, often no 1st person team battle/destruction servers at all, while 3rd person was immensely popular.

a fine option, but again, once it is is, the odds of players who are malicious enough to hack it, WILL mod it into 1PP and then thats it.

Coolant, on 30 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

3) Poll is biased...3rd person would appeal to a larger audience swelling the gaming population and bringing in revenue to improve the game. Try putting a poll on a popular 3rd person shooter site asking if they would be more apt to try MWO if it was a 3rd person or 1st person only.

the poll is biased because guess what, we do not want an arcade knock off of this game. This game was sold to us as a MECHWARRIOR TACTICAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. It is that bloody simple. A key design pillar is NO THIRD PERSON. See point one again please. This is not Call of Duty or an Assassins Creed game, this is a Mechwarrior game, where we are the bloody freaking pilots INSIDE THE BLOODY FREAKING MECHS, not some weak limp tech in a trailer piloting these things like drones.

[Bjorn Wolverine]

Utilyan - Sorry son the original was and always will be a 1st person shooter get your facts straight. The followons yes unfortunately they put in the 3rd person. Didn't care for it then sure not wanting it now.

[Autofire]

No...just...no. Anyone who has played league matches in the past games knows most leagues did not allow 3rd person. What happens when community warfare gets introduced and matches become official for territory? Rather that specific can of worms never get opened...ever

[Coolant]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 January 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

my argument against this? simple, bottom of page on mwomercs.com/game AND http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
AND they would need to basically rewrite the entire game, line for line for line for line of code with the perspective OUTSIDE the mech. This game has ENOUGH problems as it is, a much BETTER use of their time? FIXING WHAT IS BROKE NOW, not complicating this crap more. IF all of that doesnt help the against this particular option, I proffer THIS again for the umpteenth time: Once the code is in the game to allow third person perspective, given the fact that by and large, a HUGE chunk of you know how to mode this game's code already by modding the user.cfg file and other similar files to make things work our selves that PGI has NOT gotten to either from being over taxed by other priorities or laziness, or BOTH. The chance for a malicious type to hack it and insert 3rd PP into a 1PP match is too high.


a fine option, but again, once it is is, the odds of players who are malicious enough to hack it, WILL mod it into 1PP and then thats it.


the poll is biased because guess what, we do not want an arcade knock off of this game. This game was sold to us as a MECHWARRIOR TACTICAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. It is that bloody simple. A key design pillar is NO THIRD PERSON. See point one again please. This is not Call of Duty or an Assassins Creed game, this is a Mechwarrior game, where we are the bloody freaking pilots INSIDE THE BLOODY FREAKING MECHS, not some weak limp tech in a trailer piloting these things like drones.

Sorry but the fact that they originally said it would only be 1st Person is not a valid reason. At the time it was said and discussed by the team I'm sure they meant every word of it and never planned on changing their mind. I'm sure they were sincere. I don't think they meant to deceive anyone purposefully (go ahead and try to argue they did if you think you can). Companies are dynamic, adaptable and must allow for change if they are to be successful. Ask any manager or executive in charge of a company if they would be willing to change even a foundational principle if it meant the company would stay afloat and the families working for them would continue to be employed and see their response. It also doesn't mean that PGI can't be trusted. To the best of their ability and ethics when they say something I think many would agree that they mean it and will do their best to follow through, but circumstances may prevent them from doing so. Case given, patches. I'm sure when they plan on a patch to be released and they tell us so, they fully meant on it being released on the date mentioned. Same with features. So, no, I still haven't heard a logical argument against my first point.

The other point you mention is hacking. So you base your opinion of 3rd person based on what MIGHT happen if certain files were hacked. We could make arguments all day about every aspect of the game based on what MIGHT happen. Weak argument. Even if that happened and PGI became aware of it don't you think they would put a stop to it as it would be outright cheating? Go ahead and make your case that just because current user.cfg can be edited that would mean that it could be edited to cheat in POV. Interested to see your response.

Your final paragraph is a rant of your opinion about how a mechwarrior game should be without any valid arguments except the fact once again that the game was originally (and still is) a 1st Person game. Perhaps just the vocal community that doesn't want 3rd Person incorporated is enough to keep the game afloat, perhaps not. Maybe the game needs an influx of other players from 3rd person perspectives to ensure it's longevity. But, at the very least, those outside players would bring income that would keep development going for a long time to come which means new features, content, mechs, maps, CW etc, and I'm quite sure you would have a hard time arguing against that.