565 replies to this topic

[Ramses2020]

Biased poll is biased. One option represents a doomsayers' viewpoint, the other a self important viewpoint. There is no rational option except the token IDGAF at the bottom. Fail.

Here is an equally "valid" poll:

• This is a GOOD Idea, as it will enrich the game, so YES. <- Pollyanna.
  
• This is a BAD idea, as I only want to play MWO in 1st person, so, NO. <- Selfish
  
• IDGAF... I mean "Do not care or as of yet undecided" <- Irrelevant.

I've got a good idea. Replace the current poll with this one. It represents the "valid" viewpoints of both doomsayers and pollyannas.

• WOW FUN! What can go wrong? YES!
  
• God is dead. And MWO is dead too. NO!
  
• Let me use more than a brain stem's worth of synaptic activity to reserve judgment and see if it can be done right. If it can be, good. If not, no deal.

Plz replace? My intelligence is under attack by allowing the current poll to exist.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lheo, on 24 March 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

If you like 3d, play it , if you dont like 3 d dont play in 3d view? Whats the prob?

when later on down the road PGI makes it so that both of the supposedly split ques arent split and says (of their "you will never have to play together") "that was our position then" like they did with putting it in the game at all and theyre saying now.

IE if you dont learn from the past, youre doomed to repeat it.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 02:03 AM.

[protoKol]

DeeSaster, on 24 January 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

The amount of prejudice in this (and the others like this) thread is mind-boggling.

3rd person view will NOT render more, then you would be able to see out of your cockpit. Plus you very likely CAN VOTE NOT TO PLAY WITH 3RD PERSON VIEWERS in the matchmaker.

Listen to the NGNG podcast in question and stop the uninformed rambling, guys...

Lets say that they make it so that it wont render mechs past what you can see in your cockpit and that people enjoy seeing mechs materializing next to them. Going beyond that, what about cockpit shaking, flamers?

Taking 3 uac5s, 4 ac2s or 2 ac 10s/20s lb10s shot in chain in the face is debilitating. this CC is critical to the game and seeing the battlefield from outside of your mech is a serious advantage, you would most likely still be able to see the mech or flames wouldnt be in your face(less so because flamers arent very useful atm). Also how about getting face hugged by an atlas? you cant see anything due to its colossal body. atlases would lose that benefit

[F lan Ker]

S!

3rd person view ONLY to replay option, like mentioned above and Training Grounds. On actual combat, NO. Give anything extra and it will be abused to hell and back by certain groups of players. On training grounds it could used for helping you with Mech movement, torso and leg coordination etc.

Edited by F lan Ker, 24 March 2013 - 02:25 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

F lan Ker, on 24 March 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

S!

3rd person view ONLY to replay option, like mentioned above and Training Grounds. On actual combat, NO. Give anything extra and it will be abused to hell and back by certain groups of players. On training grounds it could used for helping you with Mech movement, torso and leg coordination etc.

theres no question as to if its gonna be used in combat. it is. Theyve already determined that. They dont care what the minority of people here think.

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

This thread is not about whether or not 3rd person should it exist. Rather, we want your feedback on how it should be implemented. Understand we're not debating the merits of having 3rd person or not.

third (ironically) reply in this thread:
http://mwomercs.com/...095-3rd-person/

polls are useless, protests are useless. Input (other than how to do it - and then I question that's usefulness if we're only the minority and the majority are talking to them through means that are not the forum) are useless.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 02:30 AM.

[F lan Ker]

S!

Well..umm..OK. Seems I will have the option "Against 1st person only" ticked while playing. Broader audience my arse, catering to those who can not chew bubble gum and walk at the same time..*sigh*

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

F lan Ker, on 24 March 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

S!

Well..umm..OK. Seems I will have the option "Against 1st person only" ticked while playing. Broader audience my arse, catering to those who can not chew bubble gum and walk at the same time..*sigh*

my personal worry is the people coming here that only want to play 3rd person. While, yes, there will be some crossover into 1st person, third person will be what drew them here (supposedy). What is the bottom number theyre gonna be willing to have a first person que? If all the new players are coming here for third person, not first person, there may come a time when there are more people playing 3rd than first. Especially now that theyre planning on segmenting the playerbase in at least THREE ques.

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

You will have the following options as a player:

• Play against 1st and 3rd person players. - one que
  
• Play against 3rd person players only. - two que
  
• Play against 1st person players only. - three que

How long till the combined que is bigger than the other two? Cause Im betting there are a lotta players in that majority clamoring for 3rd person who'd rather play 3rd person with 1st person players so they can get advantages over them. Wouldnt be nearly as fun having a fair fight.

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 March 2013 - 02:42 AM.

[Moonsavage]

PGI are, I believe, in a bit of a dilemma.

They want a huge game with millions of players AND probably want to convert it onto the forthcoming XBOX and PS3 consoles.
As such, it is imperative that it conforms to the usual console format (3rd person view, Controller driven etc).

What I do not think they gather, is that 99% of the earth's population will not give a damn about this game, regardless of how generic they make it look and feel. Seriously - I have not managed to convert one of my friends *not one* to play this game, as without the "mechwarrior bug" all this is is a second-rate first person shooter. It's too slow for the COD crowd, too far-fetched for the "BF3" crowd and too shallow for the Gears of War / HALO crowd.

TL:DR
PGI want more money, they believe 3rd person will bring them more money, it will, but we don't want that to happen because the already shaky game will become unredeemably cheap and tacky. It will become Hawken, but without the fun.

STL:DR
No.

[Stewie23]

Training Mode only

[DirePhoenix]

Lheo, on 24 March 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

If you like 3d, play it , if you dont like 3 d dont play in 3d view? Whats the prob?

The problem is that it splits the playerbase even further than the already necessary splits.

Let me outline this for you. Say you live in a region where third-person arcade games are much more popular than first person sims (I know... CRAZY, right? But for this example, let's just say you live in a part of the world where more people enjoy playing games like Dynasty Warriors: Gundam than say, DCS: A-10C Warthog)

Being that Mech games are kind of already a small niche, lets say in this region only 200 players are guaranteed to be online at any time in MWO for this region. Now, from this you split the players into whatever game style preferences they have. Remember, in what they've proposed so far, no one is FORCED to play with others of a different view perspective, and in your this region, more people like playing third person arcade games. So, out of these 200 players online in MWO for your region, 80 are playing third person against other third person players, 80 are playing in combined first and third person, and 40 are taking the hardcore superleet sim-only stance. Let's say one of those people are you.

Now enter: Community Warfare. From the only information we've gotten here so far about Community Warfare, Faction players play against other faction players for Faction Worlds to gain loyalty points, ranks, and unlocks; Merc Corps (player guilds) play against other Merc Corps for control of Border Worlds to gain Reputation, unlocks, and control the prices of items; and Lone Wolves who don't align themselves with a faction or Merc Corps are filler for everyone else's battles.

So now out of these 40 online players in your region that are playing 1st-person only, 16 are playing in Merc Corps, 10 are playing as Clan VatFodder, 8 are playing as House Kurita, and 6 are playing as House Liao. Now do you see a problem?

Splitting the playerbase any more than we already have to is not a viable option. The Merc Corps players in this instance MIGHT be able to play each other if they are in 2 different Merc units, but even then they're stuck always playing against the same people. The Clan players will always outnumber the IS players, and while Kurita can field a whole 8-person team, Liao players won't even be able to field a match at all. (Not to mention the other factions just don't exist at all without any players). The only way faction players in this region under 1st-person only would be able to get some play in MWO is if they drop their factions and play as Lone Wolves, but then they don't get their Faction unlocks. Or, they have to drop their preferred view perspective and play with others who may be playing in the other style.

If they've already settled on putting in a third-person view regardless of the initial game vision, they need to do it in a way that is fair and DOES NOT split the playerbase any more than they're already doing, AND does not give one perspective view a significant advantage over another. Some might say that's impossible, I would say they're not trying hard enough to find a solution. I've come up with at least three ways to do this.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 24 March 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Landslide victory.

[Corbon Zackery]

The only real reason why people want 3rd person is the extra 180 degree's of vision in front of you also you can see people who are running behind you depending on if the third person is over the shoulder or not.

[SouthernRex]

PANZERBUNNY, on 24 March 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

Landslide victory.

Money hungry IGP isn't going to listen though. Bush lost the popular vote, and look how great of an idea he was... thanks electoral collage/IGP.

[Alienfreak]

DirePhoenix, on 24 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

The problem is that it splits the playerbase even further than the already necessary splits.

Let me outline this for you. Say you live in a region where third-person arcade games are much more popular than first person sims (I know... CRAZY, right? But for this example, let's just say you live in a part of the world where more people enjoy playing games like Dynasty Warriors: Gundam than say, DCS: A-10C Warthog)

Being that Mech games are kind of already a small niche, lets say in this region only 200 players are guaranteed to be online at any time in MWO for this region. Now, from this you split the players into whatever game style preferences they have. Remember, in what they've proposed so far, no one is FORCED to play with others of a different view perspective, and in your this region, more people like playing third person arcade games. So, out of these 200 players online in MWO for your region, 80 are playing third person against other third person players, 80 are playing in combined first and third person, and 40 are taking the hardcore superleet sim-only stance. Let's say one of those people are you.

Now enter: Community Warfare. From the only information we've gotten here so far about Community Warfare, Faction players play against other faction players for Faction Worlds to gain loyalty points, ranks, and unlocks; Merc Corps (player guilds) play against other Merc Corps for control of Border Worlds to gain Reputation, unlocks, and control the prices of items; and Lone Wolves who don't align themselves with a faction or Merc Corps are filler for everyone else's battles.

So now out of these 40 online players in your region that are playing 1st-person only, 16 are playing in Merc Corps, 10 are playing as Clan VatFodder, 8 are playing as House Kurita, and 6 are playing as House Liao. Now do you see a problem?

Splitting the playerbase any more than we already have to is not a viable option. The Merc Corps players in this instance MIGHT be able to play each other if they are in 2 different Merc units, but even then they're stuck always playing against the same people. The Clan players will always outnumber the IS players, and while Kurita can field a whole 8-person team, Liao players won't even be able to field a match at all. (Not to mention the other factions just don't exist at all without any players). The only way faction players in this region under 1st-person only would be able to get some play in MWO is if they drop their factions and play as Lone Wolves, but then they don't get their Faction unlocks. Or, they have to drop their preferred view perspective and play with others who may be playing in the other style.

If they've already settled on putting in a third-person view regardless of the initial game vision, they need to do it in a way that is fair and DOES NOT split the playerbase any more than they're already doing, AND does not give one perspective view a significant advantage over another. Some might say that's impossible, I would say they're not trying hard enough to find a solution. I've come up with at least three ways to do this.

Point on good sir!
Splitting the already small playerbase of MWO will only lead to its demise. Nobody will find anything to do in matches or RvR and will just quit the game.

[Joseph Mallan]

So who again are these silent majority that the DEVs are listening to???

[Team Leader]

Well said Dire Phoenix, I think that's exactly the problem. Unless there's some super huge player base which they won't release numbers on, this should be a huge concern. Not to mention the division of game types and Elo! It would be more broken than a glass vase made in china in a hurricane!

[Ilwrath]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 March 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

So who again are these silent majority that the DEVs are listening to???

[Team Leader]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 March 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

So who again are these silent majority that the DEVs are listening to???

*ghost voice* we'll neveeeerrrr knnooowwwwww!

[Teralitha]

The poll choices are skewed, and do not reflect the knowledge that 3rd person will be a separate game mode and that no one will have to play it if they do not want to, but assumes that it will be a forced choice when it is not. This is why PGI ignores you. The poll choices are very poorly worded and totally inaccurate to the truth.

Re write the poll with proper unbiased poll choices and start with a fresh one.

Edited by Teralitha, 25 March 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[Captain Wolfsburg]

I find it funny not that the no vote vastly outnumbers the yes vote, but that the "I don't care" vote even outnumbers the yes vote. There are more apathetic people that won't care one way or another than there are people who actually, actively want this feature!

Come on PGI, don't listen to the 10% that actually want this terrible idea!

Edited by A5mod3us, 25 March 2013 - 05:35 AM.