Ability to toggle 1st/3rd person

[Naz The Eternal]

I really like the idea of having no 3rd person on vehicles or infantry and strictly to aerial vehicles...but my questions is...

What happens to infantry currently in the air, are they considered aerial whilst flying?

[Knocky]

Originally Posted by Naz The Eternal

I really like the idea of having no 3rd person on vehicles or infantry and strictly to aerial vehicles...but my questions is...

What happens to infantry currently in the air, are they considered aerial whilst flying?

We saw the POV when Higgles was jumping around with the jump jets.

It is safe to say you will be looking outward after a Gal drop rather then the forced third-person we have now.....maybe.

[RNFB]

Originally Posted by Shogun

some others start their psu carreer with questions that have been discussed to death several times and that evolved into serious flamewars. like " will we get bfrs in the game? i want them"

I c wut u did thar

And my topic was just fine for discussion because I did not see any topic about BFRs in relation to Resources

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by texico

Seems to me that the annoying deaths from people popping out from corners to kill you is just going to be replaced with annoying deaths from people coming up behind you, maybe while healing, and killing you.

Also, I don't see why an aircraft needs more situational awareness than a tank or soldier.

Tanks don't have the risk of crashing into the ground. "Coming into contact with the ground" for a tank is called "driving," and does not carry with it catastrophic results. Also, presumably a tank will be able to survive grazing a tree because you misjudged how wide your footprint is; presumably, aircraft will not have the same luxury. Thus, when seeking to create a "fun" game, 3rd person is a tool that can remove "unfun" deaths for aircraft without being all that useful in dealing "unfun" deaths to others.

As for people coming up behind you, maybe while healing, and killing you? That's called "tactics." It's deemed a "fun" feature, because it is not only not immersion breaking (in other words, it's a time-honored strategy in combat and warfare between homo sapiens), but it is much less one-sided. Because, quite simply, corner-camping benefited certain types of weapons much more than others, and the availability of the type of weapon benefited was frequently a matter of empire.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Tanks don't have the risk of crashing into the ground. "Coming into contact with the ground" for a tank is called "driving," and does not carry with it catastrophic results.

Its not the ground I'm worried about, its trees, and softies in bases who love to not look where they are going and get run over by me giving me grief. Running into a tree at an inopportune time does carry catastrophic results.

3rd person is in only minimally 'exploitable' by ground vehicles. Its very rare to find a spot you can hide behind in PS1 and still see. 99% of the people who used it were just drivers who wanted a bit better view of the immediate terrain and how they fit in it.


Infantry is the only type of unit that needs it restricted.

[Cosmical]

Has anyone said that in a game that is about character progression and customisation, its abit silly your perception of your own character is going to be on your equipment select screen.

Because they should have.

I mean i dont want third person, because ambushing sucks. But how are you going to be able to get a screen shot of your character in world? Have your mate print screen and send it to you? Its an MMO after all.

Perhaps we should talk about alternatives, like the minecraft character view. Where you character looks up at the camera, which could still be used for ambushing. But would require a 180 to get you back into attack possition.

Or perhaps something to do with it only being allowed in safe areas. Or increases damage taken for a few seconds, much like most MMO's resting mechanic.

I know its not important, and im one the first people to say forget it move on. But saying i will never be able to take a screenshot of myself next to my Gal, is abit upsetting.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by headcrab13

I will miss my infantry 3rd-person view, but I think they're going in the right direction. First person will be more immersive and promote more standard-FPS tactics, which is a good thing.

I would like to see it on large vehicles though; tanks, Sundies, and air vehics.

I'd rather see it on all non-combat vehicles where the driver doesn't have a gun. Or where they have a gun, but can't aim horizontally with it. I never enjoyed driving in 1st person view, and if I'm forced to do so then I probably won't drive.

Also, drivers gunning tanks is indeed still a bad idea...

Actually I could (and have) made more use of 3rd person to peek over hilltops and the like in aircraft then any other vehicle. Just saying it's not a foolproof way to cut 3rd person abuse.

I think it would be best to limit it to ALL vehicles, or cut it completely. Just allowing aircraft has no real reason behind it, and does provide a far more useful abuse tool then vehicles have.

[cellinaire]

I also think they're heading to the right direction on this one. Just no to infantry 3rd-view...

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Cosmical

Has anyone said that in a game that is about character progression and customisation, its abit silly your perception of your own character is going to be on your equipment select screen.

We need spawn room mirrors!!!

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by Cosmical

Has anyone said that in a game that is about character progression and customisation, its abit silly your perception of your own character is going to be on your equipment select screen.

Because they should have.

I'm sure being able to see yourself in the customization menu and possibly some death-cam action will be enough. IMO a good trade off for the first-person immersion factor.

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by headcrab13

I'm sure being able to see yourself in the customization menu and possibly some death-cam action will be enough. IMO a good trade off for the first-person immersion factor.

damn it, i want a feature to pose next to my vehicle, hit a button and get a fully detailed 3d file of the whole scene to do some rapid prototyping with it to get a shelf model or whole diorama of my customized character

and on topic: make the third person view available only inside the footholds.
so posing for screenshots will be possible there and nobody will be harmed by the magical flying all seing eye.
you leave the safe zone, you get forced into 1st person view.

another thing that hit my mind: give third person view back to vehicles as well. driving a fast vehicle through uneven terrain was more fun in 3rd person view. make the camera shift around like with aircrafts to make it useless for fighting. the cornerview never was a peoblem with vehicles. it was mainly used for staircamping with infantry.

[Erendil]

Personally I'm ecstatic that they removed 3rdPV from infantry since it's potential for abusive exploitation is far too great.

However, I think it's a HUGE mistake to remove it from ground vehicles. I read the reasons Matt gave for its removal and I'm not convinced that they hold up to much scrutiny. Basically he said:

• You can see behind walls and around corners with ground vehicles just like you can with infantry, but presumably you can't in aircraft so easily
• Aircraft need it for situational awareness, for how high off the ground they are, how far away from any nearby obstacles, for trying to escape while dogfighting, or maneuver through obstacle. But ground vehicles presumably don't.

But here's why 3rdPV should be included not just for aircraft but for all vehicles, both air and ground:

• You can peek around walls and over hilltops even easier in aircraft since it doesn't matter how high or steep the side of the obstacle is you're hiding behind.
• 3rdPV for ground vehicles is nothing like it is for infantry since there's almost no element of surprise and thus little opportunity for abuse. Vehicles are large (compared to infantry), loud even at idle, and always show up on the minimap, so its use as a surprise tactic is relatively limited vs someone who's paying attention.
• I agree that 3rdPV is important for aircraft so they can fly at low altitude in amongst the trees and buildings without clipping their wings on every obstacle they fly near. But the Magrider in particular needs it just as much as aircraft do. Its main cannon is fixed forward so you have no way to see either side of your vehicle so I suspect it won't be an uncommon occurrence for Mag drivers to sideswipe rocks, trees, etc while trying to escape and get stopped, slowed to a crawl and/or spun about because it'll be easy to misjudged the amount of clearance you have from obstacles on either side of you. Even basic maneuvering inside base cy's and in ravines could be tricky for it to overcome.
• With aircraft you always have the option to fly over whatever obstacles are in front of you, no matter how tall or closely packed together. Ground vehicles have no such option.
• Removing 3rdPV would be a huge spatial awareness nerf to the Lightning, since in PS1 its 3rdPV camera swiveled with the turret (unlike MBTs whose camera was fixed forward) and extended out farther than most other vehicles so it could see larger, tougher enemy vehicles sooner and better than they could see it. Being able to spot the enemy first and maneuver around into position before being seen was vital in its role as a hit-and-run vehicle. It was also essential to use while escaping since you could better watch pursuing enemies to see where they were headed and if you were losing them or not
• Removing 3rdPV would be a nerf to ATV's since they move so fast they could be hard to control at top speed while in 1stPV
• driving purely in 1stPV over uneven terrain, while moving fast or for long periods can cause eye strain and headaches/nausea for some players. 3rdPV can alleviate that.
• 3rdPV is hell fun to use in ground vehicles, especially on the Lightning, ATV's, and Buggies. Can you say "Need for Speed: Auraxis?"
• Removing 3rdPV from the Sunderer might make it difficult to get into the right spot to setup a forward repair base

ltdr; 3rdPV should be included for both air and ground vehicles because its potential for abuse is minimal, it's hella fun to use, driving in 1stPV for extended periods can be uncomfortable or literally nauseating for some people. Plus the Magrider has the same fixed-forward camera view as air so it needs 3rdPV for situational awareness just as much. Removing it is also a nerf to faster vehicles because they can be hard to control in 1stPV

[Bonius]

Originally Posted by Erendil

...

You just listed all the points why 3rd person view shouldn't be available to ground vehicles.

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by Bonius

You just listed all the points why 3rd person view should be available to ground vehicles.

fixed this typo for you

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Bonius

You just listed all the points why 3rd person view shouldn't be available to ground vehicles.

So you think it's perfectly okay for Mag's to get stuck on rocks and bushes while fleeing or simply driving in cramped quarters because they they can't see the sides of their vehicles? Or that aircraft get 3rdPV but ground vehicles don't even tho it's easier for air to use 3rdPV to look over/around objects? Or that Higby's reasoning for its removal is that it can presumably be used for ambushing when a vehicle's size, noise, and continual radar image makes that near impossible? Or that, even though there is almost no opportunity for abuse since vehicles can't really hide, it's okay to have a large part of the fun taken away from vehicle driving? Or that some people won't even be able to drive vehicles for long periods because the 1stPV while driving causes them eyestrain or even makes them nauseous?

Seriously, your 10-second overused sound byte may sound catchy, and such flippant responses might work in the realm of politics, but it only shows that you are blatantly ignoring most of my post and are instead condemning a game mechanic simply because you don't like it instead of providing an actual game-breaking reason for its exclusion.

So can you please expound a bit on your actual reason(s) for not wanting 3rdPV for ground vehicles but apparently thinking it's okay for aircraft?