Poll: What should be our next stretch goal? What about 3rd person camera?

[Dr3adN0ughT]

So just from the economic standpoint the trade off between the time it will take us and the income it could generate seems to be very good and will allow us to improve some other stuff, which is not as much attractive to be a stretch goal.

That’s what I thought and I think therefore this stretch goal is a very good one. But, I think the “problem” is that you seem to have the feeling that there has to be an attractive stretch goal in the first place. I mean of course improving core mechanics and stuff isn’t something new and fancy but it’s still important and the results can be as amazing as adding something new.

There were quite some posts where: we don’t need stretch goals and new stuff was the general tone. We wanted you having more resources for the core stuff. While adding 3rd person as you mentioned would actually help achieving this, I’m wondering if there couldn’t be an option to have a “improve core”-stretch goal:

• whenever you have the feeling that there is a need of more time for core mechanics
• when new stuff could be too much because of current work load

[Asgo]

I think this is a marketing issue. I don’t know the kickstarter statistics enough to answer the question if having a goal is better than not having a goal after the last one is reached strictly in terms of getting more backers over time.
But I think if you want to have an additional goal it should promise something new to have an effect. Using there something like “improve core” sounds simply like “do more work” which is not necessarily something new or not already expected.

(that’s independent from the discussion if TPV is a good choice or not)

[LordCrash]

So no matter what we do, we will piss someone. Ooops.

Yeah, you opened that Pandora’s box. The world will never be the same again.

[Asgo]

As you say TPV might be worth it financially if it is very easy to implement and will likely entice more players (= extra money for development), but I think it could quite easily open a can of worms if not careful and possibly limit what you can do going forward - When you know you only have to consider first person in all situations, your options are much more open. If you go first and third person then everything you do will have to be tested and considered in that mode as well (where applicable) and I’d be amazed if it doesn’t eat up a reasonable amount of time and money.

if they follow this:

Its still going to be 1st person game, with 1st person view as the primary way how it should be played. Period.

for their implementation strategy most of your concerns should be addressed and the time/gain for the needed work should be reasonable. In the end it depends on whether both perspectives should be handled on on equal terms or if the TPV should be just an addendum with a clear secondary role, which seems to be the idea behind the proposal.

just let us not fall into the internet trap of immediately expecting the worst possible implementation for a concept.

[Seir]

Options mean more playstyles and certainly doesn’t affect anyone’s given playestyle. If you wish to use only first person view, then do so. I like having some options and enjoy being able to see more than my shoes at times

Bonus: I would bet it attracts a larger fan base.

[Helena]

Dan, it sounds like you’re very keen on the idea at this point, so if you want it that much I think you should just go ahead and do it. It’s your game, after all. There’ll always be some people who can’t bear the idea of a third-person mode, even if it’s totally optional - but as you say, whatever you decide is going to anger someone at this point. So you might as well follow your heart.

That said, people like LordCrash and RGS have made some good points about the potential effects on gameplay (for instance, would stealth gameplay be simplified by the ability to look round corners?), and addressing those points would probably go a long way towards reassuring the naysayers. There’s also the issue, which I raised in another thread, of how long you go on adding new features before saying “enough is enough, time to lock things down”. I remember the Kickstarter updates where you mentioned having concerns about overstretching yourselves, and I don’t want that to happen again.

[Flashfire]

Because if you design a game to be played specifically in 1st person because of your “vision” and later on you let the players have 3rd person (and as it seems the majority at least according to the poll [which is only a tiny little fraction of the whole backers!] want to use 3rd person), your “vision” will be lost on them.

The “tiny little fraction of the whole backers” part didn’t seem to cause a stir when @Hellboy polled people on how they should handle being able to kill anyone vs. limiting it and most of the ones who answered preferred no restrictions. Just saying.

If they’re going to poll people, we can’t pick and choose how much validity we give it when the results don’t fit our own personal preferences.

[CybrSlydr]

I agree with the sentiment that this was supposed to be “realistic”, so the notion of First-Person only is fine with me. However, we are a vain people and having a Third-Person option would make for taking better screenshots to share with people.

I’m pretty sure I’d never use it for battle or the like, but it’d be a lot easier to admire that new armor I bought/earned/gifted in Third-Person.

[Cerberus]

Nice try going for the sub sub point mentioned in the bracket of a bracket. It’s just a side information.
Why don’t you actually say something about the main concern I raised?
Of course you don’t say something to that because pulling a strawman is more fun, right?

[Flashfire]

Nice try going for the sub sub point mentioned in the bracket of a bracket. It’s just a side information.Why don’t you actually say something about the main concern I raised?Of course you don’t say something to that because pulling a strawman is more fun, right?

I already made my points elsewhere in this long thread, if you care to search my name and read them. Of anyone here, you’ve been acting the least reasonable when it comes to handling the possibility of TPV being part of the game.

Part of the point is you’re upset that this is even a potential thing, and you’re upset more people who have taken the poll are in favor of it than not. Now you’re trying to dismiss it by playing the “it’s not even a majority of backers!” card, but I think it’s safe to say you’d have been just fine with the poll if the majority who answered said “no” to a TPV.

If you’re so offended by Dan and the rest adding an optional TPV that won’t really impact your ability to play the game the way you like, feel free to demand your money back for ruining what you thought you were pledging for, even if you’ll still be able to play it all in FPV.

[Cerberus]

Of anyone here, you’ve been acting the least reasonable when it comes to handling the possibility of TPV being part of the game.

It’s simply.
The question was: 3rd person, yes or no?
My answer: No!

So having a spine, sticking to one’s view on things and don’t bow to the wishes of an allegedly majority is considered “unreasonable”, I see!

---

I think it’s safe to say you’d have been just fine with the poll if the majority who answered said “no” to a TPV.

Because then they would have been actually sticking to their words.

[PhanTom_CZ]

All the practical points of this choice do really sound very reasonable, at least to people willing to listen to reason.
The only real problem here is that a lot of the opposition is (as always) getting way too emotinal about it and sees a bigger threat in this than it actually is.
Or some others of them are even utterly disinterested in seeing any alternative features (even rather minor ones) that they would not have any use for and so no one else should be able to use them either… which is only selfish and hypocritical, imo.
(Btw… it may not be nice and polite to put it this way, but if someone wants to prevent someone else from having a choice only because he personally dislikes it, that is neither…)

If the 1st person gameplay experience remains primary and majority of the gameplay stays focused on that (with 3rd person remainig only a limited “necessary evil” side option), than there doesn’t really seem to be any objective problem.

The only valid counter-arguments anyone can use here are the around-the-corner issue and release delays. The first can surely be dealt with game-wise and the other doesn’t really matter, as any and all possible development delays are very unpredictable and the general game development itself will very probably produce more and longer delays on its own.
The Star Citizen development has already shown more than enough (to those of us who follow it) how pointless it is to optimistically count with particular release dates while not really being able to meet them, because delays just happen, everytime.

Anyway, I think that @Freix made a very good point in his initial post to maybe send this out as a new major update to possibly bring in more people to the poll. Lots of claims are going around about “majorities” and “masses” and what side they are supposed to be on, but the poll is what really does tell us something. And only some 400 people voted so far.
That’s a lot, but not really too much in a community of 40 thousand.
The more we bring in, the better picture we get.

[Flashfire]

It’s simply.The question was: 3rd person, yes or no?My answer: No!

So having a spine, sticking to one’s view on things and don’t bow to the wishes of an allegedly majority is considered “unreasonable”, I see!

Not really as simple as that, given you ARE complaining that more people are for the TPV than against it based on the poll. And, as it’s been said countless times already, this is still Warhorse’s game. If they decide to add the TPV for any reason, they’re free to do so. We can debate the hows and whys and maybe it IS enticing enough to some to make it a stretch goal in such a way that the extra money does make it easier for them to improve other mechanics of the game, but the fact remains it is an option, it’s not going to be forced on anyone, and it won’t alter the whole FPV experience you and many others still wish for.

I even said I’d still play it primarily in FPV, but allowed as to how there may be some times where it’d be nice to have the TPV. Maybe for a screenshot, but I’d rather do the rest in FPV. However, it doesn’t bother me if others may want to use a TPV more.

The problem is not you sticking to your FPV-only view. It’s you being openly aggressive and insulting toward others who don’t see it your way.

[Cerberus]

Or some others of them are even utterly disinterested in seeing any alternative features that they would not have any use for and so no one else should be able to use them either… which is only selfish and hypocritical, imo.

According to this we should add every bullshit feature that has been demanded since the beginning of this forum, because otherwise, you know, we would just be a bunch of selfish and hypocritical assholes, just because you don’t have use for something somebody else is demanding, who are you to deny them their wishes, right.

Somewhere has to be drawn a line.

[Flashfire]

Who’s making strawman arguments now, @Cerberus?

[Cerberus]

I learned from the best¹.

¹ that’s you, just to state the obvious

[PhanTom_CZ]

Somewhere has to be drawn a line.

Very true. I corrected my statement already.

[LordCrash]

All the practical points of this choice do really sound very reasonable, at least to people willing to listen to reason. The only real problem here is that a lot of the opposition is (as always) getting way too emotinal about it and sees a bigger threat in this than it actually is.

And you do it again. You do know that “reason” isn’t exclusive to you?

I do get emotional when I read such passive aggressive posts like yours but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

@Hellboy
It all depends on what you want. Do what you really want to do and follow your vision. One of the core traps of open development is listening to the community too much (just ask Swen Vincke about that…). You should only use the community to test your own ideas but you should never try to cater to an omnious demand of people being vocal there. If someone raises a good point and you like it evaluate it and maybe implement it. But not because somebody demanded or requested it but because you think that the game will benefit from it.

This 3rd person perspective seems to me like pure “fan catering” without any real benefit for the game itself and its vision like you initially presented it. With every line you write about 3rd person perspective you just reassure that this perspective is neither mandatory nor your personal favorite to play the game. So you even acknowledge yourself that you don’t think it’s something that will benefit the game the way you see it working. Really, it’s your game and your craft. I guess there was a certain idea behind 1st person in the first place and maybe you should ask yourself why you proposed this 3rd person perspective here. Is it because you think it will make the core game better and enhance and strengthen its vision or is it because some people requested it and you just lack a better idea for earning some more crowdfunding money? If the latter plays a substantial part in your reasoning you should really dump the idea for the sake of the game and its vision and its uniqueness. The best you could and probably should do is giving people the opportunity to mod stuff like that in themselves. That way these people can play the game in a way “it isn’t meant to be played” without compromising the basic ideas of your initial game design.

[Flashfire]

I learned from the best¹.

¹ that’s you, just to state the obvious

Not really, but good job, good effort. Or something.

[Cerberus]

This 3rd person perspective seems to me like pure “fan catering” without any real benefit for the game itself and its vision like you initially presented it

I just can imagine, wandering around in 3rd person then enter buildings or the castle and all of a sudden it switches to 1st person. At this point motion sick people would have to deal with it anyway. And I think in interiors maybe it will be even worse because it adds a claustrophobic feeling to it.

Also, I think it will be just half-assed. 1st person here, 3rd person there.

With every line you say about 3rd person perspective you just reassure that this perspective is neither mandatory nor your personal favorite to play the game

Yeah, so what’s the point.

---

Not really, but good job, good effort. Or something.

Uh-huh?
Just because I actually replied to the point he made and you picked some sub sub point which was only some side information to go along?
Right, whatever makes you happy.

Btw, he corrected himself because he saw a flaw in his statement.
The part which I quoted.