Bungie has mentioned it is at present discussing Future 2’s “3-peeking” subject, however made no guarantees adjustments will likely be made.
3-peeking, or third-person peeking, is the act of forcing the usually first-person digital camera into third-person, giving PvP gamers a bonus as a result of they’ll peek round corners safely.
3-peeking is a long-standing subject in first-person shooters which have some third-person components, nevertheless it’s significantly troublesome in Future 2’s aggressive multiplayer. Future 2 is a recreation filled with reliable mechanics that pull the digital camera again into third-person, together with swords and emotes, and a few gamers use this to realize an higher hand within the Crucible, Future’s PvP area.
This week noticed a vociferous name for change from high-level Future gamers, significantly on social media, in response to the long-running prevalence of 3-peeking and exacerbated by its use within the ultra-hardcore PvP Trials mode.
In response, Bungie’s lead neighborhood supervisor Cozmo took to Twitter to say the event group was discussing the problem of 3-peeking, however couldn’t promise adjustments could be made.
“The group is conscious of the suggestions round 3-peeking and at present discussing potential choices,” Cosmo mentioned.
“No guarantees – as we’re nonetheless investigating what adjustments are viable since it is a sophisticated subject that impacts each emotes, swords, and any potential, future third-person weapons.”
As Cozmo suggests, it is a tough subject. It appears unlikely Bungie will wish to pull the usage of swords from the sport – the weapon is well-established and highly effective a part of the general Future 2 PvP meta. And they are often enjoyable!
And it appears much more unlikely Bungie will pull emotes from PvP. Gamers spend real-world money on emotes to be able to showcase out within the discipline, and in PvP they’re usually used for taunting. Prohibit their use, and fewer individuals will purchase them.
So, what’s to be performed? Redditor jdewittweb prompt an answer I’ve seen pop up a couple of occasions as a part of this debate: lock the participant into an emote animation as soon as they begin it (at present in Future you may cancel an emote’s animation at will). Whereas this resolution would imply 3-peeking stays, there could be fairly the danger concerned, significantly if Bungie made open-ended emotes final for at least 5 seconds. Within the warmth of battle, 5 seconds of locked in emote time may imply sure loss of life.
Trickier, although, is the problem of swords. Swords are thought of heavy weapons in Future 2, and so their use is restricted by the shortage of heavy ammo. One resolution prompt is to make swords unattainable to wield except they’ve ammo, though there are issues right here, too. Would the camera-switch upon ammo pick-up be tough to cope with once you’re contesting the heavy ammo? In all probability.
It is a tough design problem for Bungie, and little doubt all these choices could have been mentioned sooner or later already by the studio’s multiplayer designers. Whereas there was clearly sufficient of an outcry this week to spark a response from Cosmo on the problem, how vital is the portion of gamers affected by 3-peeking within the first place? It will be fascinating to see if 3-peeking stays as it’s, or if the developer comes up with some option to hold the high-level PvP neighborhood proud of a change that additionally retains the broader playerbase on board.