Will vehicles only have a first person view?

[Jownzorz]

Would definitely make for some interesting battles.

[TacosWLove]

Im p sure they said vehicles would be the only things that will have 3rd person, infantry will not

[Malorn]

They said vehicles *might* have third person.

If they're putting guns for drivers on most vehicles then 3rd person doesn't have much value since you can't aim the gun in that mode. (well they could add a reticule for it...)

Seems to me the only vehicles with 3rd person optional driving would be ones that don't have driver guns or have varients without driver guns. One example might be ATVs, AMS, Galaxies (to make landing that pig easier).

That said the BF games don't have 3rd person and I don't really miss it. But my tank also rarely gets stuck on a rock, nor do I have to worry about running over friendlies.

Avoiding little things that stop your vehicle or avoiding friendlies (particularly those behind you) are reasons for 3rd person.

The avoiding friendlies bit could be handled a different way - assume that Planetside has some of the same features that at least exist in modern automobiles, namely parking cameras. Some BMW's even have a "top down" view of the car and you can see exactly how you are positioned for parking. Many cars have parking sensors telling you that something is behind you.

Its not too far of a stretch to have proximity sensors specifically for friendlies as an alternate radar view of a tank or other vehicle.

That's really all you're after in third person- seeing your immediate vicinity. If you have that with a radar or proximity view then you don't need third person. If modern cars can do it I think its OK for Planetside vehicles to have such a feature.

(Yes, I'm calling for a "parking view" on tanks.)

[Traak]

Third person for vehicles will be needed, I agree. You have to know why you are high-centered in a tuft of grass or a pebble, after all.

[MooK]

I prefer in-seat first-person. I understand it would require more time to create and implement the graphics, but it would really add to the depth.

[Raymac]

You know, of all the questions that they've answered recently between Napalms thai food interview and the twitter Q&A, I'm actually surprised this question didn't get asked. This is a fail on us.

[NapalmEnima]

You know, of all the questions that they've answered recently between Napalms thai food interview and the twitter Q&A, I'm actually surprised this question didn't get asked. This is a fail on us.

INDIAN food. I had saag paneer with nan, and some tandoori chicken.

And yeah, there are several things I would have liked to have answered if I could go back and do it again.

[Raymac]

I had saag paneer with nan, and some tandoori chicken.


Dude, I think either your keyboard is broken, or you are having a stroke. That jibberish doesn't make any sense. Might want to call 9-1-1 if you are losing feeling in your arm. :p

[NapalmEnima]

Dude, I think either your keyboard is broken, or you are having a stroke. That jibberish doesn't make any sense. Might want to call 9-1-1 if you are losing feeling in your arm. :p

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p213/yerfdog65/Junk/EastwoodMyLawn.jpg

http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data/500/633518421146213483-Seriously---Get-off-my-lawn---Motivational-Army-Poster.jpg

[FIREk]

Good ol' basmati rice > nan. :P

That being said, vehicles will likely have 3rd person view, but with no aiming capabilities. I believe it was made very clear during one of the first interviews that 3rd person in vehicles, if implemented, will be useless for combat.

Don't vehicles have 3rd person in BFBC2, though? You 100% sure? I haven't played the game in months, so I don't remember this bit... I think there was a stationary 3rd person camera available, like in the previous Battlefield games.

[Accuser]

Don't vehicles have 3rd person in BFBC2, though? You 100% sure? I haven't played the game in months, so I don't remember this bit... I think there was a stationary 3rd person camera available, like in the previous Battlefield games.

There is indeed. And it's very useful to keep from being C4'd. It's pretty useful, so I'd expect it to be in PS2.

[Malorn]

Like the parking camera concept.

Just give us a top-down, immediate-vicinity camera like a parking camera in some part of the vehicle HUD. No need for 3rd person. We could use it to better avoid running over friendlies and better aim to hit hostiles.

[Erendil]

Like the parking camera concept.

Just give us a top-down, immediate-vicinity camera like a parking camera in some part of the vehicle HUD. No need for 3rd person. We could use it to better avoid running over friendlies and better aim to hit hostiles.

I'm having a hard time picturing how a "parking camera" would be different than 3rdPV. Can you elaborate a bit?

If it's what I think it is - namely a near-field, stationary, top-down view from directly above your vehicle - as a dedicated Lightning driver, I disagree that that is all that would be needed. In a Lightning, since your POV follows the direction your turret is pointing, that type of parking cam would be next to worthless since you can already turn 360-degrees to look all around you.

However, as a Lightning driver I find 3rdPV in PS1 to be invaluable and I use it as much as I do when in Rexo - that is to say, all the time. 3rdPV has saved my life many many times especially in uneven terrain since it allows me to keep track of any bigger, badder vehicles in my immediate vicinity by looking over/around hills and ridges without exposing myself direct view or fire. Having 3rdPV which follows my turret allows me to constantly watch a big vehicle or group of softies that is trying to hunt me down from one direction, whilst I move in another, all the time staying hidden from the enemy's view should terrain allow it.

And, since it seems that all vehicle drivers in PS2 will be gunners as well (which btw is a terrible idea IMO and I hope they reconsider doing it), I think 3rdPV would become invaluable to most people once they figure out how to use it effectively.

[Traak]

I agree that having no third-person view except top-down immediate-vicinity view is a good idea.

How about cameras that have a couple screens to your sides on the lower parts of your HUD that show views around your vehicle? FROM your vehicle, not the floaty miracle-technology-cam views?

If you want to know if there are enemy vehicles around, get out and look or listen. You're in a vehicle, you can't have ALL the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

[BorisBlade]

Not having third person is stupid and pointless, its bad enough the driver=gunner. Just dont have a reticule in 3rd person, let it be there for driving around or maneuvering. No reason to not have it.

And lets not compare this to bf3, we have enough things ruined from them copying that game. I dont personally like the game and its mechanics dont, and would not, work in a PS world anyway, so no point in comparing or tryin to be like that game with its very very limited scope.

And definately dont give the immersion excuse, we already magically get in and out of vehicles among other things, first person immersion factor doesnt even remotely outweigh what you give up. Driving in first person over rough terrain thru trees etc blows monkey nuts, esp if you are driving somethin where you are purely the driver. Its enough to make me not drive those either. And when in a gunner slot in the awful driver=gunner tanks, its bad enough my driver will suck because he's tryin to gun too, lets not limit his view massively and make him suck when he's tryin to drive while not shooting as well.

[Erendil]

I agree that having no third-person view except top-down immediate-vicinity view is a good idea.

How about cameras that have a couple screens to your sides on the lower parts of your HUD that show views around your vehicle? FROM your vehicle, not the floaty miracle-technology-cam views?

That'd be an interesting idea. It'd be nice to have a little camera window anyway that points in the opposite direction of your turret so you could see where you're driving when firing behind you while being chased.

In the end though, if so many people can't even handle driving and gunning at the same time I suspect multiple simultaneous views might make things even more difficult/frustrating for them. 3rdPV is a much simpler solution.

If you want to know if there are enemy vehicles around, get out and look or listen. You're in a vehicle, you can't have ALL the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

Now you're just being obtuse. Get out of your vehicle every time you want to look around? Really? That kinda defeats the purpose of being inside all of that armour.

And being in a tank isn't all roses ya know. Softies have lots of advantages over tanks. A tank is a big, noisy target that draws lots of enemy fire. A softie is small, quiet, and can quite easily go unnoticed and sneak up on the enemy. A tank is on a timer but a softie is not. A tank can only be pulled from a vehicle term, a softie can spawn at the nearest spawn point. At tank can't heal itself, can't go indoors, can't go on catwalks, walls or other battlements, can't rez friendlies, can't fly, can't turn invisible, can't setup passive defenses, can't do any one of a number of things that softies can and do perform on a regular basis.

Softies have a huge advantage over tanks in the form of versatility. In exchange they are relatively weak and can die quicker, but they can also respawn and get back into the battle quicker as well. Tanks give up their versatility and quick re-engagment time to be faster, have more armour, and more firepower.

I don't think giving vehicles 3rdPV is unbalancing given that they can't sneak up an anybody and can be attacked by softies on walls, catwalks, cliffs etc from angles the tank can't even return fire at.

[Traak]

I don't see why planes would need 3PV, unless it was to more effectively attack relatively helpless targets with greater impunity.

3PV and camping are almost synonymous. No 3PV encourages movement. 3PV got abused by encouraging corner-slobbering.

[SKYeXile]

Unless everybody plays with a joystick and has a hat switch, you need 3rd person for peripheral vision in vehicles or its going to be a friendly TK feast as you back the fuck over them.

[Erendil]

I don't see why planes would need 3PV, unless it was to more effectively attack relatively helpless targets with greater impunity.

3PV and camping are almost synonymous. No 3PV encourages movement. 3PV got abused by encouraging corner-slobbering.

Then I'm guessing you didn't fly very much in PS1. 3PV is flickered on and off during dogfights to get a better view of the planes circling around you. Most of the time it has very little bearing on how effective Air Cav is in attacking ground targets... :rolleyes:

3PV and camping AS INFANTRY are almost synonymous. 3PV camping was very rare for vehicles because most crews kept on the move. Attempting to sit still long enough to camp in a vehicle usually got you killed due to the prevalence of Air Cav and the fact that you were a big hunk of metal making lots of noise (from the engines). The fluidity of the front lines, the sparse amount of concealment available, and the high frequency with which you showed up on enemy radar didn't lend itself very well to ambush tactics for vehicles. The vast majority of the time 3PV camping was a non-factor in vehicle combat.

[FastAndFree]

Erendil you described perfectly why some of us want 3rd person view from vehicles gone ;)


If they removed 3rd person view from vehicles as well the forums would explode, but I would prefer it that way.

And if you want to know what's around your vehicle use freelook if in a cockpit/open vehicle or some external camera like what's on the Liberator

In fact that liberator style camera might be a great idea. For example you could turn it to your rear, and then glance at what you are about to reverse into between shots

[Hamma]

I am unsure if it was mentioned already, but they have already said 3rd person on "Certain Vehicles" (ie not all) and no 3rd person in Infantry mode.

[Xyntech]

The thing about removing third person from vehicles would be that all drivers/pilots would be at the same disadvantage. You may lose some of the ease of looking around yourself in a dogfight, but so would the other pilot. 3rd person vehicles is certainly an advantage, but it was never so grossly exploited as infantry 3rd person view.

With aircraft, 3rd person gave neither pilot the advantage if they both used it. With infantry, it gave the ambusher the advantage. It was just a cheep use of a mechanic that was only included because every other MMO had a third person view.

As long as 3rd person infantry view is gone, I'll be happy, whether vehicles can third person or not. I pretty much just don't care about vehicle third person view, one way or the other.

Wait. Now I'm bitching about 3rd person infantry view. I really must be a whiny n00b who can't adapt. Let's keep 3rd person infantry then. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, still don't fix it, just bite your lip and deal with it. :D

[Erendil]

3rdPV also introduces another tactical element available to drivers/pilots and as such IMO its removal would "dumb down" (I know I hate that overused phrase too but it's the only one that comes to mind) vehicle combat.

Since you don't have a targeting reticle while in 3rdPV (IIRC Higby stated they if they did give vehicles 3rdPV it wouldn't have a reticle), you can't effectively attack your opponent while in 3rdPV if they are moving at all so you run the chance of missing an opportunity to put a few rounds into them as they fly/drive by. Efficient and well-timed use of toggling between the 2 views can often mean the difference between exploding in a ball of fire and coming out on top with 10% armour left.

This is obviously more true for A2A dogfighting than ground vehicle combat but it can have an impact on GVC as well.

And as already stated by others above me, some people have difficulty driving ground vehicles in 1stPV, either due to lack of visibility or the jarring nature of your FoV bouncing around at high speed which over time could potentially cause dizziness/nausea/headaches.

A good example of this is gunning for BFR's. I can't gun for one because - aside from my horrendous distaste for the things - the screen jumps around so much that it'll give me a migraine if I look at the screen in 1stPV for more than a couple of minutes.

So, since 3rdPV for vehicles doesn't heavily favour one side, isn't very exploitable, adds a little more tactical complexity and variety to combat, can help alleviate the discomfort of driving in 1stPV for longs periods of time at high speeds, and quite frankly is a helluva lot of fun to use, I think it should be included (without a targeting reticle of course) for all ground vehicles.

[Zulthus]

IMHO flying would be better without 3PV, it makes you search for each other after a pass, and since you both can't toggle third person, it would be balanced. I just think that since you can't magically appear out of your cockpit to look around in real life, you shouldn't be able to in-game. I know game =/= reality, but it makes sense to remove it.

[SKYeXile]

yea that erendil, said, 3rd person in aircraft is used to track other acircraft, we could always not have it and the ground spammers would ahve an easier time farming infantry since its easier to evade other aircraft, sounds good to me, LET THE INFANTRY FARMING BEGIN!

But this is a demo i made of using 3rd person for tracking, also making use off afterburners and banking to stay on somebodys tail, no turreting here laides...only manly ramming....i mean love taps.

skyvsn00bs - YouTube

[SKYeXile]

IMHO flying would be better without 3PV, it makes you search for each other after a pass, and since you both can't toggle third person, it would be balanced. I just think that since you can't magically appear out of your cockpit to look around in real life, you shouldn't be able to in-game. I know game =/= reality, but it makes sense to remove it.

in real life you can look to the sides for unlimited distance,ontop and somewhat behindof you you because of the raised cockpit and clear veiw out the back, even with 3rd person veiw your veiw is more limited than what you have IRL.

:/

[Furret]

Rear view mirrors and fuzzy dice it is.

[Erendil]

I am unsure if it was mentioned already, but they have already said 3rd person on "Certain Vehicles" (ie not all) and no 3rd person in Infantry mode.

Yeah I remember Higby saying that. I think he mentioned then that "air and certain vehicles" might be getting 3rdPV. The only other thing I remember hearing about 3rdPV was this quote from the Reddit discussion back in July:

If we do allow 3rd person for vehicles it would be for maneuvering only, you wouldn't have a targeting reticle in 3rd person.

Have they said anything more besides this?


IMHO flying would be better without 3PV, it makes you search for each other after a pass, and since you both can't toggle third person, it would be balanced. I just think that since you can't magically appear out of your cockpit to look around in real life, you shouldn't be able to in-game. I know game =/= reality, but it makes sense to remove it.


For me this is one of those gameplay > realism situations. For me, using 3rdPV is FUN. It's not unbalanced towards one side or the other, and doesn't give you so much of an advantage that you'd be crippling yourself if you didn't want to use it. I know there are a few pilots/drivers who almost never use 3rdPV in a vehicle in PS1.


in real life you can look to the sides for unlimited distance,ontop and somewhat behindof you you because of the raised cockpit and clear veiw out the back, even with 3rd person veiw your veiw is more limited than what you have IRL.

:/

Very good point. Combat vehicles nowadays also have numerous sensing instruments (thermal sights, long range radar, etc) that realistically should be given to vehicles but for gameplay purposes are not included. Even with 3rdPV vehicles in PS1/2 have a lot less sensory capabilities than they would in RL.

[Xyntech]

in real life you can look to the sides for unlimited distance,ontop and somewhat behindof you you because of the raised cockpit and clear veiw out the back, even with 3rd person veiw your veiw is more limited than what you have IRL.

:/

Yeah. At the speeds and distances that aircraft travel with, the things that you can unrealistically see in third person view aren't very major. This is part of why I don't have a problem with third person view.

I wouldn't mind it's removal or inclusion. It does help track enemy air craft, but not as much as having a real life cockpit would, so the loss of 3rd person wouldn't be the biggest blow in the world.

It's probably more important to include it on ground vehicles though, for the aforementioned bouncing and headache/nausea issues.

[Traak]

For me this is one of those gameplay > realism situations. For me, using 3rdPV is FUN.

It was unbalanced, and will remain so, because it is and advantage, in PS2, over infantry who do not have it, and should not have it.

I think rearview cameras would be better.

[EASyEightyEight]

Rear view cameras on ground vehicles... and smarter infantry that know to keep away from large rolling hulks of metal that can't see them.

Aircraft should get an actual radar system that can pick up other aircraft around them. That should be leagues better than 3rd person which... frankly, if they're that close to you, it's amazing they haven't hosed you yet. I'm hoping we won't see repeats of the circle-around-each-other "dogfighting" we saw in PS1 reiterated in PS2 since there will be full on physics this time around anyway.

Actually, since players can do loops this time around, a 3rd person camera would have to be loose to not be easy to aim with. It certainly can't work like it did in PS1 (always level,) that's for sure. Ground vehicles maybe, they're not designed to flip over on demand without the aid of high-yield explosives or a cliff face.

[Erendil]

What do you mean by "loose?"

[Baneblade]

TPV is what separates people who are good at VehicleSide and those who should put their asses in the passenger seat.

I drive my Vanguard in FPV nearly 100% of the time.

[CutterJohn]

TPV is what separates people who are good at VehicleSide and those who should put their asses in the passenger seat.

I drive my Vanguard in FPV nearly 100% of the time.

Magriders have a locked in forward view because of the gun. They don't get 180 like the rest of the vehicles.

3pv gives you a bit of extra view around your vehicle so you can do such crazy things as not hit friendly cloakers running in front of you, or not stop dead because you grazed an invincible sapling.

Plus, with the technology of the day in ps, there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have a 360 camera installed somewhere.

[Zulthus]

It's the cloaker's fault he didn't look both ways before crossing the road. After all, he's invisible.

360 cam is fine, but not the kind that is looking down at your vehicle and spins around. It should be sort of like a submarine. You can see around you by turning the handle, but you don't have a magical flying camera showing you everything you shouldn't physically be able to see.

[Erendil]

It was unbalanced, and will remain so, because it is and advantage, in PS2, over infantry who do not have it, and should not have it.

I think rearview cameras would be better.

This is faulty logic. Please read my post again at the top of the previous page (post #16). Look at all of the advantages infantry have over vehicles, things that vehicles don't have. Do you think any of those should be removed because it's "an advantage" over vehicles? Or are you suggesting that the presence of 3rdPV for vehicles would somehow tip the scales overall in favour of vehicles making them OP'd, and that its removal would be just what it needs to suddenly make infantry vs vehicles balanced?

If you're going to use game balance as justification for 3rdPV's removal from vehicles you have to look at how it affects infantry vs vehicles overall, and not just under a microscope in piecemeal fashion.

Giving vehicles 3rdPV is not going to make them OP'd compared to infantry overall. Not even close. Is it and advantage? Sure. Is it fun to use? Hell yeah! :cool: But the tactical advantage that it gives over infantry is minor when looking at the overall picture. Aspects like vehicle armour, top speed, cannon range/accuracy/damage output, etc have way more impact on balance than 3rdPV will probably ever have.

It's the cloaker's fault he didn't look both ways before crossing the road. After all, he's invisible.

360 cam is fine, but not the kind that is looking down at your vehicle and spins around. It should be sort of like a submarine. You can see around you by turning the handle, but you don't have a magical flying camera showing you everything you shouldn't physically be able to see.

So you're okay with infantry having magical suits that allows light to bend around or pass through them rendering them invisible but yet somehow still allows them to see even though light shouldn't be able to reach their eyes? Or how about things like rebirthing, medkits that instantly heal and med tools that resurrect, the ability to decon in a spawn tube and reappear somewhere else, ammo that magically fills up a weapon on reload without us having to keep track of separate clips, etc, etc?

There are many different mechanics present in the game that we all just suspend our disbelief for and casually accept in the name of better gameplay. Why not 3rdPV for vehicles as well?

In PS2 we're dealing with technology that is several hundred years more advanced than our own. Whether it's nanotechnology, a cloaked flying camera, or using photon entanglement interferometry (http://www.scribd.com/doc/61245105/Remote-Sensing-Quantum-Hyperspace-by-Entangled-Photon-Interferometry) to remotely detect photons moving through a fixed point in space-time (that link is a fascinating read btw :cool: ), 3rdPV would seem to me to be child's play compared to some of the game mechanics we accept offhand without question. And given that 3rdPV's potential for exploitation/abuse is minimal, it's not unbalancing or OP'd overall by a long shot, and it greatly increases the fun factor for a lot of people I don't see what the problem is.

Or are you concerned about it breaking your sense of immersion in the game? I know for example that seeing people use Quake-style bunny-hopping or jump scoping would break the immersion for me enough to detract from my enjoyment since a lot of people would be doing it. ADADA strafing in PS1 (at least the speed at which it could be done) was like that for me for a long time as well. But I have a hard time imagining that 3rdPV would break your immersion so much for you to want it removed since you can only see it directly being used when you do it yourself.

So seriously, why are you picking on poor 3rdPV and denouncing it in the name of realism? :p

[Coreldan]

My thought on this is that as long as vehicles can't aim while in 3rd person mode, it's OK. I'm not sure if it should be fixed like PS1 had or should it be free spin if you go into 3rd person mode.

But overall I'm ok with vehicle 3rd person view as long as it can't effectively be used while in combat, so it would only be to maneuver. If you wanted to shoot at something, you'd need to go back to FPS.

[FastAndFree]

My thought on this is that as long as vehicles can't aim while in 3rd person mode, it's OK. I'm not sure if it should be fixed like PS1 had or should it be free spin if you go into 3rd person mode.

But overall I'm ok with vehicle 3rd person view as long as it can't effectively be used while in combat, so it would only be to maneuver. If you wanted to shoot at something, you'd need to go back to FPS.

Except it can be used in combat - lots of pilots "abuse" 3pv to get a slightly better view when flying tight circles

Or to spot cloakers around your vehicle easier

Neither of those "tricks" require you to have a crosshair

[Traak]

Yeah. If the tanks want protection, they can work in a group with other tanks. How's THAT for teamwork? You know, the same thing they tell me when I note how cowardly it is to only attack unarmed AMS's and ANT's.

There. Back at you. Want to know what is near your tank? Ask someone in a nearby tank. Teamwork, like YOU recommend, back in your face. How do you like it now?

[CutterJohn]

Oh, and infantry don't have to deal with terrain damage, and can instantly stop/accelerate/reverse direction/etc.

Thats why 3rd person is useful for vehicles, because it makes it far easier to judge distances.

[Zulthus]

So seriously, why are you picking on poor 3rdPV and denouncing it in the name of realism? :p

I don't like it :(

[CutterJohn]

Others do, and it doesn't give much of an advantage for vehicles. Just a bit better view of the terrain immediately around the vehicle.

[Xyntech]

Others do, and it doesn't give much of an advantage for vehicles. Just a bit better view of the terrain immediately around the vehicle.

Yeah. I like flying mostly first person in Planetside. I do use third person in dogfights (which may be less needed in PS2), but I never feel like I'm at a complete disadvantage if I don't.

But flying is generally a very smooth experience, without as much in the way of obstacles, tree dodging aside. If anything deserves third person, it's land vehicles for sure. If anything needs to not have third person, it's infantry. Aircraft occupy a middle ground between the two.

[CutterJohn]

Yeah, infantry gain large advantages from it because of the whole lack of physics thing, where they can pop up or out of cover instantly. A tank could use 3rd person a bit to see from behind cover, but they'll still take a few seconds to accelerate and get out of there. Its even less useful for aircraft.

[Xyntech]

Yeah, infantry gain large advantages from it because of the whole lack of physics thing, where they can pop up or out of cover instantly. A tank could use 3rd person a bit to see from behind cover, but they'll still take a few seconds to accelerate and get out of there. Its even less useful for aircraft.

Not to mention the whole thing that has been mentioned already about how vehicles tend to die when they stop moving.

In indoor environments, sitting still was fine for infantry, especially since third person had the added advantage of showing any cloakers if they tried to sneak too close behind you.

A vehicle could absolutely find a spot where they could use 3rd person to set up an ambush. But the fact that outdoor environments provide a lot less cover (especially since a rock only hides you from one direction, leaving you exposed from every other angle), as well as the fact that sitting around in one spot is just begging to get spammed by an aircraft, means that the ability for a vehicle to ambush would be severely offset by it's disadvantages.

[Baneblade]

Magriders have a locked in forward view because of the gun. They don't get 180 like the rest of the vehicles.

And... ?

3pv gives you a bit of extra view around your vehicle so you can do such crazy things as not hit friendly cloakers running in front of you, or not stop dead because you grazed an invincible sapling.

I don't stop for any infantry. It's their fault my tank killed them every time. As for the sapling, you can see that just fine in FPV... unless you are trying to drive backwards?

Plus, with the technology of the day in ps, there is absolutely no reason you couldn't have a 360 camera installed somewhere.

With the technology of the day in PS, there is absolutely no reason you need infantry, tanks, guns, missiles, soldiers, or airplanes. But that wouldn't make a very fun war game would it.

[Erendil]

So, from the new game footage it looks like 3rdPV is confirmed for Air Cav anyway. This of course begs the question, "Do ground vehicles get a 3rdPV mode too?"

[Bittermen]

So, from the new game footage it looks like 3rdPV is confirmed for Air Cav anyway. This of course begs the question, "Do ground vehicles get a 3rdPV mode too?"

I didn't see any HUD markers when it was in 3rd person.

[Erendil]

I didn't see any HUD markers when it was in 3rd person.

....and? Just an observation? I'm not trying being a smartass or anything. I'm just wondering about your thoughts on it.. As a side note I see the 1stPV infantry shots didn't have a HUD either.

I'm pretty sure that if included the 3rdPV view for vehicles would require different HUD elements (like no crosshair) so maybe it's not complete yet. Or maybe they just had it turned off..

[Azren]

....and? Just an observation? I'm not trying being a smartass or anything. I'm just wondering about your thoughts on it.. As a side note I see the 1stPV infantry shots didn't have a HUD either.

I'm pretty sure that if included the 3rdPV view for vehicles would require different HUD elements (like no crosshair) so maybe it's not complete yet. Or maybe they just had it turned off..

It was stated earlier that vehicles would get 3rd person view, but would not be able to target from that view.

The videos really don't count as they can be edited any way they want to make them look cooler....

[Erendil]

It was stated earlier that vehicles would get 3rd person view, but would not be able to target from that view.

Source? I know that Higby said in the reddit thread that if ground vehicles got 3rdPV it would be without a reticle. I've seen no confirmation that they actually will get 3rdPV tho. If he/they have confirmed it in some other place tho that'd be fantastic! :D

The videos really don't count as they can be edited any way they want to make them look cooler....

Both Higby and TRay have said on numerous occasions that unless they explicitly say otherwise, all game screens/videos they show us will be 100% natural, no artificial colors or flavors straight up Forgelight. So yes, videos can and do count. :cool: