565 replies to this topic

[So who took Pilot Name as a name]

I wonder: if 5000 people think it's a bad idea but never thought of a way that it could be implimented right... does that mean the 1 person who'd think of a way to make it right... be wrong since he'd be ''an overwhelming minority''?

I voted yes. Because, while I think it would be a ''no'' if it's to be added without any penalty to who uses it as it clearly grants an easy abuse, I figured they wouldn't go on about the idea if it was to ''add it the wrong way''. Add damage-dealing penalty to whoever uses it for up to a certain amount of time after having used it and hell, maybe ''show up on enemy radar'' if within 180 meters or whatever of an enemy and it negates that 'advantage' . Done. Problem solved.

It's like anything, if you'd ask me ''Do you want LASERS to be in the game?'' and people would go ''NO! Lasers hit instantly no matter the range, it's unfair! It'll be brutal if they go and do 1000 damage instantly so NO! That'd be obviously easy to abuse'' then of course, I'd not want that either. But hey, they didn't make lasers ''exploit'' despite the fact that the hit-instantly-where-you-point-regardless-of-range (well up to their max range), now did they?

Wouldn't be fair to have the voice of 5000 outweight a single individual ''with the cure'' just because he was out-voted, now would it? While it would be democratic, how could you call that 'a sensible choice'? Democracy has its flaws, and of them is the very use of it in times and places where it shouldn't be.

Edited by So who took Pilot Name as a name, 23 January 2013 - 11:34 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Utilyan, on 23 January 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

It was in every mechwarrior before.

You don't remember "external camera.........engaged"?

Course you don't cause half ya'll are noobs and this is your first mech game.

And I want to see my pimped out mech.

Are you guys so scared of 3rd person? is that really gonna up the skill for the kiddies who can't handle 1st?

I thought this was Mechwarrior.........I must have accidently stumbled into MechWuss online.

If 3rd person could make any y'all better they oughta give you 4th and 5th person too.

I don't know how you can start whining over something you haven't even seen yourself, what they got in mind might be absolutely impressive, you don't know.

You lucky my printer is broke.......i'd print this thread just to have a list of wuss i got to spank in game.

you wish a system where you can look over and around objects with no risk to you? sounds like YOU are the wuss here, not those of us, who would rather walk around that corner or OVER that hill and run smack into that waiting Atlas or Dire Wolf <once/IF this game lives that long/ to see clans get here as playable> and not know it was there till it was too late. No, exploitable things like 3rd person views should be left OUT. Bad enough we have no radar <not counting the obscenely priced GXP/C-Bill radar they offer as an after thought> that works like every other MW title that came and went before.

So who took Pilot Name as a name, on 23 January 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

I wonder: if 5000 people think it's a bad idea but never thought of a way that it could be implimented right... does that mean the 1 person who'd think of a way to make it right... be wrong since he'd be ''an overwhelming minority''?

I voted yes. Because, while I think it would be a ''no'' if it's to be added without any penalty to who uses it as it clearly grants an easy abuse, I figured they wouldn't go on about the idea if it was to ''add it the wrong way''. Add damage-dealing penalty to whoever uses it and it negates that 'advantage' for up to a certain amount of time after having used it. Done. Problem solved.

It's like anything, if you'd ask me ''Do you want LASERS to be in the game?'' and people would go ''NO! Lasers hit instantly no matter the range, it's unfair! It'll be brutal if they go and do 1000 damage instantly so NO! That'd be obviously easy to abuse'' then of course, I'd not want that either. But hey, they didn't make lasers ''exploit'' despite the fact that the hit-instantly-where-you-point-regardless-of-range (well up to their max range), now did they?

Wouldn't be fair to have the voice of 5000 outweight a single individual ''with the cure'' just because he was out-voted, now would it? While it would be democratic, how could you call that 'a sensible choice'? Democracy has its flaws, and of them is the very use of it in times and places where it shouldn't be.

it is very simple dude, there is 0 way to implement an external view in terms of 3rd person that does NOT have exploitable written on it. I know a way we can have the external view, but 0 exploitable. My next post will have the way I speak of, but gotta google hunt the image I need.

[So who took Pilot Name as a name]

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

it is very simple dude, there is 0 way to implement an external view in terms of 3rd person that does NOT have exploitable written on it. I know a way we can have the external view, but 0 exploitable. My next post will have the way I speak of, but gotta google hunt the image I need.

I thought I did bring up a way to counter the 'exploitable' aspect right up there, here I even made it clearer somewhat at the same time as you did that post.

I'll post it again here:

So who took Pilot Name as a name, on 23 January 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

Add damage-dealing penalty to whoever uses it for up to a certain amount of time after having used it and hell, maybe ''show up on enemy radar'' if within 180 meters or whatever of an enemy and it negates that 'advantage' . Done. Problem solved.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Okay, this is what I am talking about. Look at the lower LEFT corner, where the image shows a Black Field of View with a wire framed Falcon Hellbringer.

So who took Pilot Name as a name, on 23 January 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

I thought I did bring up a way to counter the 'exploitable' aspect right up there, here I even made it clearer somewhat at the same time as you did that post.

I'll post it again here:

still exploitable, still a huge no. my post, with the mw2 picture, shows the only NON exploitable way to do it.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 23 January 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[Adrius ADI Manthays]

3rd View is a Part for **** Arcade Games with 360* degree Views without of Danger and Handicap and Suprise.
We have enough Games with 3rd View then Play this. A Ego-Shooter Game all plays also from 1st Person or not!
And what to **** have this thing with Democracy to have. MWO is more a 1st Person Cockpit Simulation Project. Accept this!

Edited by Adrak Manta, 23 January 2013 - 11:43 PM.

[Utilyan]

See your thinking the devs are just gonna slap any 3rd person view. It could still be coded where if its not in your pilots line of sight its then the nme mech isn't rendered at all.

We don't KNOW what they have in mind.

Lets see it, its exploitable, take it out. easy.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Utilyan, on 23 January 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

See your thinking the devs are just gonna slap any 3rd person view. It could still be coded where if its not in your pilots line of sight its then the nme mech isn't rendered at all.

We don't KNOW what they have in mind.

Lets see it, its exploitable, take it out. easy.

easier to NOT do it period.

[So who took Pilot Name as a name]

Well if that 3D HUD element is to be considered as 3rd person... we sorta already have that with our current HUD. But I see what you mean, though I doubt that counts as 3rd person.

Mind you, I fail to see how lingering damage-dealing penalties AND appearing on nearby enemy radars would STILL allow for 3rd person to be exploitable... perhaps by those who'd prey on those who'd USE 3rd person you mean, then yes, I can see how it could be exploitable, but hey, they want to play 100% 3rd person? Their loss! Let them deal with dealing x% less damage and always appear on enemy radar within y meters! ;p

Edited by So who took Pilot Name as a name, 23 January 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

So who took Pilot Name as a name, on 23 January 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Well if that 3D HUD element is to be considered as 3rd person... we sorta already have that with our current HUD. But I see what you mean, though I doubt that counts as 3rd person.

Mind you, I fail to see how lingering damage-dealing penalties AND appearing on nearby enemy radars would STILL allow for 3rd person to be exploitable... perhaps by those who'd prey on those who'd USE 3rd person you mean, then yes, I can see how it could be exploitable, but hey, they want to play 100% 3rd person? Their loss! Let them deal with dealing x% less damage and always appear on enemy radar within y meters! ;p

being able to see around or over obstacles is my issue, and until that is 100% prevented, then 3rd person is a no no. my above solution taking a page from MW2, is less distasteful, and honors a wonderful game from our collective pasts.

side note: carole ruggier, the VOICE of MW2 has lent her lovely voice to us, yet another lovely nod to our past XD

[Grey Ghost]

I'd only be for be ok with 3rd person if it could not circumvent Line of Sight.

Edited by Grey Ghost, 24 January 2013 - 01:07 AM.

[RapierE01]

nope i dont need third person but a vision of a ejecting Pod when you die would be nice

[Rejarial Galatan]

ejection systems, now THAT would be nice, but, that is pure fluff, and must wait sadly.

[Adrius ADI Manthays]

RapierE01, on 23 January 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

a vision of a ejecting Pod when you die would be nice

yes it's be a cool realistic feature + a eject button in the cocpit control options!
of course when you have enough time to put this before you DIE!

Edited by Adrak Manta, 24 January 2013 - 12:03 AM.

[Xavier Davion]

No...just...don't.

[Zylo]

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

Okay folks, here we go again. As we all already know, they <PGI/IGP> are 'considering' the addition of third person views. We had a poll in which over 5000 people voted and said no. That poll has well, been altered to remove the poll itself. So, vote again.

No to 3rd person in any form within the actual combat matches.

While not against it in any sort of training arena I think it would lead to bad habits so it's probably best to remain forced 1st person everywhere.

I seem to remember PGI claiming the need for 3rd person was based on players not understanding the whole torso twist vs turning concept. A proper tutorial would handle this, maybe link the cadet bonus to completion of the tutorial.

[Strajen Marez]

How about we get a political scientist to construct the poll? There are so many ways you can (even unintentionally) skew poll results by how you frame the question and supply the answers.

Like in this poll for example, the NO option adds on that it will break the game. Breaking the game is inherently bad, this might imply a bias of the pollster that adding 3rd person to the game will break it and thus make it worse. And noone here truly intends to make the game worse, not even those who support third person view.

While the YES answer is worded as "Let us have our 3rd person" implying entitlement, selfishness, etc. All qualities usually regarded as negative traits to have further possibly skewing your answers to the poll.

Your neutral/undecided answer choice seems fine though.

Something to think about.

I voted no btw but if I wanted 3rd person I wouldn't be very inclined to vote in this poll because it would require I vote in a way that I might myself have to adopt negative traits to support my view or feel as if my opinion is wrong (which may or may not be in this case). This is one example of how you might not be getting as accurate a response pool as you may beleive.



-SM

Edited by Strajen Marez, 24 January 2013 - 12:13 AM.

[sunprice]

I will quit the game if they add 3rd view !

This game is going DOWN , DOWN , DOWN if they add stupid 3rd view . LOL . NOOBS should go play Arcade game not these game like MECH WARRIOR . You have to play as a Mech Warrior !

Edited by sunprice, 24 January 2013 - 12:43 AM.

[Strajen Marez]

sunprice, on 24 January 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

I will quit the game if they add 3rd view !

This game is going DOWN , DOWN , DOWN if they add stupid 3rd view . LOL . NOOBS should go play Arcade game not these game like MECH WARRIOR . You have to play as a Mech Warrior !

Might need to make a few more edits to this post, homie. If legibility is your goal.

[Glythe]

I want a 3rd person view. It's a work around fix for not being able to have double rendering.

I don't care about the immersion factor when my Atlas gets stuck on a 10 foot fence. If a 3rd person camera fixes that then I'm for it.

[Rift Hawk]

Rejarial Galatan, on 23 January 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

Okay folks, here we go again. As we all already know, they <PGI/IGP> are 'considering' the addition of third person views. We had a poll in which over 5000 people voted and said no. That poll has well, been altered to remove the poll itself. So, vote again.

So because a mass majority of the community voted against this stupid idea, they deleted the poll ? As I just stated in another "3rd person view" thread before I saw this one....This is ultimately what will make me stop playing this game completely. Its not that its coming, its that apparently 5000+ people said no. We all learned these game mechanics and none of us were so stupid we couldn't figure it out. A separate game mode, which is stated in the other post, just takes people away from the current 1st person view mode. Why would separating your player base in any way seem like a good idea ? I'm baffled over this....

Edited by Imperial X, 24 January 2013 - 01:00 AM.