Cockpit View - [Now Forced per Higby]

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Lower FOV = less visibility. Some tournament players play at 90. Some play at 120. That's almost 30% more visibility. Many still play at 4:3, some play at 16:9.

Cockpit blocking part of your view = less visibility.

We're still talking about visibility being the factor of balance that changes, right?

Hard to imagine how you could have missed the parallel.

Even if forced, FOV changes will still include the model.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by elfailo

I guess id Software doesn't understand something is seriously wrong when they hand out millions of dollars in cash prizes to the highest level competition players in the world when they allow them to change their FOV's during tournaments then.

Has it really come to a point where people are so obsessed with balance that even something as insignificant as this causes a stir? If it doesn't matter to players who compete over millions of dollars as a full-time profession, I can't imagine why it would matter to people here, in a relatively casual game that will most likely not feature tournaments.

Forcing one view mode doesn't "add" anything besides an almost imaginary level of fairness. It subtracts. You have fewer options.

Fairness isn't imaginary, and also, if you can choose to change to a 3rd person cockpit view, why wouldn't you be able to choose to turn off vehicle animations? That way people who consider themselves immersed by them can have them on and those who don't have them off? Answer: the affect on balance is not insignificant.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Forcing one view mode doesn't "add" anything besides an almost imaginary level of fairness. It subtracts. You have fewer options.

It's not imaginary. The presence of the cockpit obstructs vision. Allowing some to opt out of it gives those who do an advantage over those who don't. And its a significant advantage of at least 25-30% more visibility. It's particularly advantageous against ground targets/threats. That's why it could be an intentional balance decision.

The only mistake I believe the PS2 devs made is showing us flight without the cockpit. If it was always there we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[atone]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The only mistake I believe the PS2 devs made is showing us flight without the cockpit. If it was always there we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This is PSU man! we would.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Lower FOV = less visibility. Some tournament players play at 90. Some play at 120. That's over 30% more visibility, way more than what the cockpit in that picture blocks. Many still play at 4:3, some play at 16:9.

FOV is an advantage for the same reason. Whether a tournament recognizes that is irrelevant to the discussion because it also isn't an identical scenario.

They may have their own justification of why they allow it (such as it compressing the objects in view, possibly balancing out the expanded viewspace). I'm speculating but point is that FOV and obstruction are not exactly the same scenario. There's tradeoffs with FOV changing, there isn't a tradeoff with disabling something that obstructs vision.

This is especially true when the obstruction occurs on the lower 25% of your screen, which for a pilot is an area that is highly likely to contain threats. All ground-based AA will originate from that area, as well as potential targets.

As a ground-based player knowing the view angles of an aircraft can help you better hide from them. There are many gameplay consequences to have that obstruction. No player should be able to simply toggle it off just because they don't like it. Good players will have to make do.

[Trolltaxi]

Force on.

1. It looks great.
2. Veichles will have more realistic flight model in PS2. A great flight model sucks without a cockpit view. They can make it "arcade" like PS1 with HUD or 3rd person, or they can take it serious and add cockpit. Cockpit is the real men's choice.
3. Immersion - already discussed
4. Balance - already discussed
5. Forces more realistic tactics and manouvers. It isn't like a flying camera anymore, it is an aircraft where you can't see what's under your nose. So you need to pitch down - loosing height, gaining speed etc. That makes aiming harder. That works agains hoover-farming. This way flying will finally require skill.

[Nobel]

The same experience for everyone.

This is like asking in PS1 if we should allow people I skip to exit/enter animations and go right into your vehicle.

[lolroflroflcake]

You might find it silly but I find having a cockpit makes it easier to judge distances and speed then just your bog standard flying camera. That and when your talking about aircraft speeds and maneuvering characteristics the extra field of view from the lack of a cockpit will give you maybe an extra second worth of visibility, not really worth it at all. I mean if someones going to go shooting past you, don't need to to have that extra space to know they are going to end up behind you if you don't start turning. As for blind spots, just lower the nose every once in a while it's a very very tiny blind spot and would take some very precise flying to stay in so chances are you really wouldn't have to worry about it.

I would absolutely love to have some sort of free look function in a cockpit though. Free look is much more important for visibility then a toggle-able cockpit. The first thing they teach you when flying an actual plane is to maintain a good look-out for other aircraft and there is no reason this shouldn't apply here either.

[SniperSteve]

I never liked cockpits, so I would vote that they be toggle-able.

Edit, I am also worried that aircraft are going to be stupid-OP, so maybe forcing them would be helpful to the infantry as it would introduce blind spots.

[Yutty]

i hate cockpit view. I would be ok with cockpit view being forced onto the gunners but its a no for pilots.

[Mr DeCastellac]

My vote goes for forced, from a realism standpoint. In real life, you can't disable the dashboard in front of you.

[MrBloodworth]

Wow PvP is not PvP. Its won by attrition ( Player VS. Gear ). Your argument is invalid. RPGs are playing the interface, the rendered world is mostly irrelevant.

[Baneblade]

Low visibility should be a con to operating a vehicle. PS's flying cameras gave too much of the infantry advantage away.

[Malorn]

Whether other institutions choose to be consistent with their fairness is not a reason for PS2 to ignore it.

The things I want to see reduced are not the lower obstruction but the middle/side obstructions. I think a blind spot is good. But its tactical value is lost if it isn't consistently enforced. Infantry can't rely on being in a blind spot if it isn't a blind spot for some pilots. And every pilot with a brain would disable them, rendering the entire feature worthless. It would serve only as an idiot/newbie check. Not the result I think they are going for.

Considering they changed the flight HUD to move the speed/altitude indicators into the cockpit I expect it is not optional. They also said how they didn't like the "floating camera" aspect of flight from PS1. And since roughly 85% of the poll respondents seem to agree with forcing it I don't think you're going to win this one.

You could embrace it and learn to overcome the disadvantages that the obstruction provides and use it as a skill differentiator. That's something I heard many times as a complaint in PS1. This is opportunity for skill differentiation. That and games like battlefield have had cockpits for a long time with obstructions and people learned to deal with it.

[MrBloodworth]

What ever makes you feel better.