Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: [Insert funny hamma quote here]
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
View Poll Results: Do you want 3rd person on ground vehicles? | |||
Yes, full 3rd person on ground vehicles please, situational awareness is key in driving | 76 | 43.93% | |
Yes, but like in World of Tanks, only show those units that have actually been spotted | 16 | 9.25% | |
Maybe, but under very specific conditions: [...] | 11 | 6.36% | |
I don't really care either way | 16 | 9.25% | |
No 3rd person at all: remove it from aircraft also, otherwise it's an unfair advantage. | 28 | 16.18% | |
No 3rd person for GV: I'll gladly get run over by/collide with friendlies and stuck on terrain | 23 | 13.29% | |
Other | 3 | 1.73% | |
Voters: 173. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-05-25, 12:17 AM | [Ignore Me] #170 | ||
Brigadier General
|
I'll accept 3rd person on infantry if it is exclusively a vanity view, as in: No seeing enemies, even if they would ordinarily be visible in first person. That includes enemy vehicles and deployables. If deployables aren't specifically identified as friendly, they are invisible.
I am strongly against 3rd person view on infantry that can provide anything but a nice view of your character. I don't really feel strongly either way about vehicle 3rd person. I think it will be possible to drive/pilot without it, but I also don't think it will be hugely exploitable thing if 3rd person is included. |
||
|
2012-05-25, 10:47 AM | [Ignore Me] #171 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
Both meaning first person view is far less of a problem for aircraft. Till you come across a bridge, fly close to a building or try to do a canyon / trench or forest run and have no good perception of distance and dimensions of your aircraft. Similarly for landing. Ask TotalBiscuit. Watching yourself is nice as well, not just for the cosmetics though. Especially as a cloaker there's a bonus to survivability, as it provides you a check to see if you can be easily spotted against the background (particularly when moving). This helps you in decision making a lot. |
|||
|
2012-06-08, 07:58 AM | [Ignore Me] #175 | ||
Sergeant
|
My opinion: 1st person view with a periscope like frame that can move around with decent speed (1 sec for 180 degree), and the turret follows it slowly. Can press an extra key to lock the turret in place. Like WoT's FPS view. About bumping issues, we can get a stabilizer on our tanks. So thats smooth out spikes.
So you can easily check the surrounding, but wont see 360 all time. About WoT's visibility checks and propagation... idea is ok, but it's current form so broken, that's a joke.Wargaming said they got problems with the number of scanline checks needed in a 15 vs 15 battle, so i don't think it's ok for 2000 players. |
||
|
2012-06-09, 02:46 AM | [Ignore Me] #180 | |||
Brigadier General
|
I lol'd. I was previously okay with the idea of 3rd person only for aircraft (although I still had prefered it be the same for land and air vehicles, both having 3pv or neither having it), but that shit was hilariously bad. Please, give 3rd person to all vehicles to prevent this shit. As Higby said, chaos is fun, but that shit is probably taking it too far. Still no to infantry 3rd person of course. Fuck the few people who think that's a good idea. It's bad and you should feel bad. Speaking of 3rd person, I'd love to have a little spycam that is easily destroyed, but can allow players to scout around without directly exposing themselves. Maybe as a high tier Infiltrator sidegrade with some heavy tradeoffs. I'd like to see two variants of it. One that hovered around more at infantry speeds, and another one that flew at faster speeds that could keep up with aircraft. Of course the true purpose of the device would be as an additional tool that people could use to make PS2 videos. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|