I still think the main issue is still the question of perspective, how to relay an external view in a VR game to the player without making him feel "disembodied". Tactical advantages are just a side show. And that will probably become a "research problem" for all VR games.
My preferred solution is still a 3D monitor / holographic projector inside your ship's cockpit. So you move your head to switch between cockpit and focusing on an external view
seamlessly.
but also magically 'hide' all other ships from the person in 3rd person mode to keep 3rd person view from being used in that way.
I disagree it would be "magical". There is nothing magical about a flying smartphone. It's here in 2014, flying from a store near you
But kidding aside: The OP proposal suggest that anything not on your scanner isn't shown in 3rd person view. Not rendering something is easy to implement. So you would still be able to see a convoy of anacondas, but not someone running cold and out of your cockpits view.
Also I've been convinced that a "virtual representation" is more realistic than a physical drone. And would be logical if it's not a real drone but a virtual representation your ship sensors and hull cameras that pick up all the info and create a holographic live 3D view of the available info.
, every single point you try to make here I answered already, asking the same questions over and over despite already having been given my answers is a waste of time.
No you didn't. Counter arguments against 3rd person view have been answered in the OP. If you disagree with those, it's not enough to reiterate the same arguments ignoring the OP. You have to point out flaws in the counter argument or show examples how the OP proposal gives a combat advantage. This way the discussion advances.
For example your picture about the wall in FPS has been addressed in the OP. You wouldn't be able to see the enemy if your scanner doesn't see him. But even without that functionality, FPS examples are hardly applicable for a space game. Asteroids are round, not flat, and offer a lower ration of hiding / lookout range. Furthermore that the OP suggest you "run hot" and would therefor be unable to hide. That is three things that address your argument that all have been mentioned in the OP but you ignored them.
It has been pointed out again an again that,
1. Even a non combat view could and will be used to gain a combat advantage even if the devs attempt ways to stop it
For example here, you gave 1 single counter argument in your post and it's a non sequitur. Just because a feature is theoretically exploitable doesn't mean the feature is bad.
Add up the no votes in the poll and you will see third person fans are in the minority, thus getting third person view WOULD spoil the game for the majority that dont want it by giving an advantage to those who do.
A multiple choice poll is a bad idea of course. But it still clearly shows the majority favours a non combat external view. 315 have voted, 523 votes in all.
159 in favour for non combat external view (5)
116 is the highest of the "no" votes (2, concern about immersion)
Most against the idea will have voted all 3 "no" options, so you can't just add them up. You can see this in the high similarity of the no votes, 116, 102, 103 (low variance). You can also see that 315 voters - 159 pro external view = 156 against.
So it's 159 against 116 and the poll didn't even offer a good solution to the problem but was attached later to this thread.
Yet another obligatory "Make it a feature of the groups system" post.
My problem with that is it makes the feature absolutely unusable. I want to play in the all group, and want to occasionally admire a spectacular view. I'd have to relog and fly again to that position which obviously would make it unusable.
Of course you can be of the opinion that you don't trust the measures in the OP to negate gameplay advantages and that you don't want it in the all group, but it doesn't solve anything for us
If this is to be a truly definitive discussion then your opening post should be more balanced in my opinion.
True, but AFAIK no arguments have been brought fourth to counter the OP (you said there are arguments and examples, but you haven't posted them). As soon as someone does it ought to be included in the OP of course.
If game don't offers this then you have no right to demmand
The "shut up and give me your money" fallacy
It's up to the devs to listen to feedback, opinions and rational arguments.
There is no need to argue about combat because it's impossible as you point out. The proposal simple doesn't offer any advantages to combat in general (heat, slow, only show what's on scanner)
IMHO - an external view must never be present because it will render gameplay techniques like that described in this video, obsolete
In what way?
