Drakkaar

[DISCUSSION] - FOV and It's Pros / Cons

47 posts in this topic

Hello everyone!


I have created this topic in hopes to get people talking about Field of View in a controlled environment where we can have a very civil discussion about the Pros and Cons of Field of View. It's taken me a bit of time to get to writing this topic, I have been mulling it over for the last week or so. I was hesitant to start it because I know this can be a very touchy subject for a large range of people for varied reasons, thus why I made this topic.

I will not be putting my direct input about how I feel about FOV, as it could skew others opinions of it; I will be answering questions, posting facts, getting replies from Devs if necessary or other Mods/Emissaries.

So, I don't really have much to say to start the topic, I will post some links in regards to the topics. Looking at Reddit you will notice a lot of Negative comments in regards to FOV, I expect this topic to get a bit heated but DO NOT STRAY FROM THE TOPIC; do not personally attack others or otherwise post to provoke an aggressive response/feeling.

What does Field of View look like? - 

Spoiler

3RwPXXx.gif



Content To Review
Reddit -- FOV Topics
The plans for the Remainder of 2016 -- Dev Posted Topic -- User Reply
Petition for UW Monitor Support


A lot of topics that are posted about FOV are unfortunately inside the Alpha restricted section of these forums, so I will not post links as any user without access will get a dead link, I will be sticking to only topics posted in the open forums.

Reddit is probably the best area to check for this issue as a lot of users have strong opinions about it there.

 

Against FOV Increase

Reply with links to why FOV increase is not an easy 'fix' - Link

For FOV Increase

One user 'AdayDr1en' has a lot of details and information regarding why the FOV should be increased, Motion Sickness being the main reason. - Link

-A few members agree that locking the FOV while in a Raid would best, to avoid any abuses(ADS Zoom?)


Update #1

This is my first update since creating the thread, I apologise for taking so long to get back to it, the discussion had a bit of momentum but mostly it was repeated instances of having options available and being fair.  In the end, it's best to read through the posts as they can be quite informative.
I must remind everyone to Stay On Topic, I will try and see if I can get any information on Devs progress with FOV or current plans, as last was said on Reddit was that they were internally playing around with FOV.


I encourage all to participate and discuss this sensitive topic, but please lets keep it civil, please provide facts and sources if you are arguing For or Against and why.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Personally, my only issue with fov, is when it affects the amount of zoom someone gets in their weapons. DayZ had an issue in the past where people would use scopes and bump their FOV up to increase the zoom on weapons. Since then they added a fix to where all weapons ehn you ADS have a locked FOV, including optics and scopes. But since we have Post In Picture optics, I don't believe this affects scope zoom. I am personally for a some-what open setting for FOV. Settings that go beyond 120 vertical seem a little ridiculous for me, as I am someone who plays in the 90-100 range. 

  My biggest concern is that whatever FOV style they choose to implement or change, is that it is not something that can be abused by people, and that it fits that, real and hardcore vibe this game has. 

 

Edited by Kleanuppguy
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer higher FOV for a number of reasons. 1 - I like being able to see to my sides 2 - motion sickness 3 - This might just be me being used to high fov, but it seems like lower fov messes with mouse movement

 

2 hours ago, Kleanuppguy said:

  Personally, my only issue with fov, is when it affects the amount of zoom someone gets in their weapons. DayZ had an issue in the past where people would use scopes and bump their FOV up to increase the zoom on weapons. Since then they added a fix to where all weapons ehn you ADS have a locked FOV, including optics and scopes. But since we have Post In Picture optics, I don't believe this affects scope zoom. I am personally for a some-what open setting for FOV. Settings that go beyond 120 vertical seem a little ridiculous for me, as I am someone who plays in the 90-100 range. 

  My biggest concern is that whatever FOV style they choose to implement or change, is that it is not something that can be abused by people, and that it fits that, real and hardcore vibe this game has. 

 

I don't mind people using a narrow fov to get some zoom, because they will have tunnel vision and might not be able to see a flank.

 

Another note, in most games I would be disgusted to only have a max of 75 FOV, but EFT does it well.

Edited by TheOtherSlug
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TheOtherSlug said:

I prefer higher FOV for a number of reasons. 1 - I like being able to see to my sides 2 - motion sickness 3 - This might just be me being used to high fov, but it seems like lower fov messes with mouse movement

 

I don't mind people using a narrow fov to get some zoom, because they will have tunnel vision and might not be able to see a flank.

 

Another note, in most games I would be disgusted to only have a max of 75 FOV, but EFT does it well.

I hear you. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to switch to a high FOV, but more rather people going into the settings screen and changing the FOV in game in order to get more zoom, and there for exploiting it. Maybe lock the FOV setting just in the main menu screen so you can't exploit it and change it on the fly. 

Edited by Kleanuppguy
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kleanuppguy said:

Maybe lock the FOV setting just in the main menu screen so you can't exploit it and change it on the fly. 

I like this idea.

Btw I meant higher fov as in wider. I can not stand being that zoomed in all the time.

Edited by TheOtherSlug
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue I have personally with high FOV settings is that anyone who plans on being competitive will be forced to keep the highest FOV possible in order to win. 

The other issue I have is that it will give a false impression about what the other player can see, currently when you see someone facing forward, you can come up to their side and know for sure they do not see you, once FOV gets over 90 degrees, you will no longer be able to say "hey, this guy can't see me as I approach from the side" you will now be unsure of whether this player can see you. This is the same reason other competitive shooters have locked FOV. To create a fair and competitive environment in their game, it creates consistency and removes the advantage a user might have with higher FOV on multimonitor setup.

Normally a player with higher FOV trades off being able to see detail at a distance, but players with 1440p, or multimonitor setups do not share this same issue, they get a wider aspect ratio which fills out the FOV and they get a clean wide-screen with no disadvantage, thus allowing them to literally pay for a huge advantage in game.

There is also the design issue that the maps, weapons, scopes, peripherals (such as night vision) are made with a certain FOV in mind and that some or all of these might have to be changed in order to support higher FOV settings.

Edited by Ozymandias
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2016 at 9:14 AM, Kleanuppguy said:

I hear you. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to switch to a high FOV, but more rather people going into the settings screen and changing the FOV in game in order to get more zoom, and there for exploiting it. Maybe lock the FOV setting just in the main menu screen so you can't exploit it and change it on the fly. 



I have an ultrawide 3440x1440 panel.
All tactical and strategic rah rah aside, I want the full price-per-pixel to performance capability of my monitor.
Having the ability to change settings on the fly is what will avoid player discomfort and the ability to change their setting to suit the play-ability they require should an issue occur, this will prevent the loss of progress/gear etc by needing to quit to menu to rectify.

Most gamers will have a low tier intel or amd cpu with a "60" series or equivalent gpu according to jul 2016 hardware survey.
These are the players who need quality and resolution sliders on the fly. Not saying that these systems are all applicable to this titles but the average gamer thinks the pc platform is indeed plug and play. Hell, you will find most alpha participants dont report on forum topics, dont report bugs and play the game as a "game." Settings like the aforementioned cater mostly to those people, to ensure that no matter the time or place in the title of their choice they will still have the ability to remain in the instance of the game they are playing and adjust the quality to suit the performance of their needs.

With all that said having stated the monitor platform I am on, I would not want to see an FOV slider absent as I will rely on this for troubleshooting and testing as part of content creation, performance analytics and the overall ideal meta for performance vs hud/uid.

 

 

On 12/11/2016 at 9:34 AM, Ozymandias said:

The main issue I have personally with high FOV settings is that anyone who plans on being competitive will be forced to keep the highest FOV possible in order to win.

Normally a player with higher FOV trades off being able to see detail at a distance, but players with 1440p, or multimonitor setups do not share this same issue, they get a wider aspect ratio which fills out the FOV and they get a clean wide-screen with no disadvantage, thus allowing them to literally pay for a huge advantage in game.

 

Highest FOV does not favor at all in games like CSGO played competitively at 4:3 and sometimes 4:3 stretched, eliminating that necessity or per-disposed notion. These games are played mostly at very low mouse dpi and would artificially increase the dpi setting should the player increase FOV.

There are very many ways to get around detail at distance. In this era of gaming technology players can bind macros to perform [win]+pgup or pgdown on windowed applications to temporarily increase zoom in great increments.

As far as paying for a huge advantage in a game, if a monitor costs hundreds or thousands of dollars, then you should expect to get that performace and aspect out of that particular monitor. Samsung, LG and BenQ are now pushing hard at the frontier of pro gaming to get ultrawide monitors as the new precedent in gaming. Should this be the case, FOV will likely become standart at 110-120 leaving obsolete 1080/1440 monitors behind just dvd did to vhs and bluray is doing to dvd. It's all part of the natural curve.

The ability to experience the technology of high FOV is something we should be excited for and as older technology becomes cheaper and more viable, it will soon be more affordable for people with lower end setups like i3's paired with <4gb gpu to span triple monitor @ 1080 to see the same fov on a budget that someone with a higher end would get with a UW panel.

These are good things and nice things are nice.

 

 

On 12/11/2016 at 8:41 AM, TheOtherSlug said:

II like being able to see to my sides

Agreed. I dont walk around in the real world with toilet roll cylinders on my eyes so I only have 16:9 vision. That would be weird. FOV~max is the closest thing to peripheral vision atm (bar triple monitor setups)

Edited by SucoVidya
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2016 at 5:00 AM, SucoVidya said:

I have an ultrawide 3440x1440 panel.
All tactical and strategic rah rah aside, I want the full price-per-pixel to performance capability of my monitor.
Having the ability to change settings on the fly is what will avoid player discomfort and the ability to change their setting to suit the play-ability they require should an issue occur, this will prevent the loss of progress/gear etc by needing to quit to menu to rectify.

As far as paying for a huge advantage in a game, if a monitor costs hundreds or thousands of dollars, then you should expect to get that performace and aspect out of that particular monitor. Samsung, LG and BenQ are now pushing hard at the frontier of pro gaming to get ultrawide monitors as the new precedent in gaming. Should this be the case, FOV will likely become standart at 110-120 leaving obsolete 1080/1440 monitors behind just dvd did to vhs and bluray is doing to dvd. It's all part of the natural curve.

@SucoVidya I'm glad you can afford a monitor which costs anywhere from the average person's computer to twice that much, but the average person can't afford a high end computer, and a high end monitor. And I'm also glad that you have confidence that prices will go lower, but the prices of ultrawide monitors aren't coming to match the price of a standard 1080p monitor any time soon, and most definitely not within the lifetime of Escape from Tarkov. 

I would like to be realistic here and say the average person is going to be able to run this game on Medium-High at 1080p not even 1440p or some ultrawide resolution. You can't argue that allowing ultra-wide resolution on a game that has any intention of being competitive just allows people to pay for an advantage, way more so than buying EOD, as some people would like to believe even that is pay-to-win. Also, there are a lot of people here who don't live in high-value countries whose median wage can allow them to afford rigs that even support the game on Medium settings. They squeeze every dollar they can to meet just the minimum budget, and these people are always left out on Hardware surveys.

On 12/12/2016 at 5:00 AM, SucoVidya said:

CSGO played competitively at 4:3 and sometimes 4:3 stretched, eliminating that necessity or per-disposed notion. These games are played mostly at very low mouse dpi and would artificially increase the dpi setting should the player increase FOV.

Also for the analogy of CS:GO, you completely forget the fact that you're talking about pros only, those pros who only stay at 4:3 because they have thousands or tens of thousands of hours practicing their muscle reflexes at a specific resolution and can't play at anything else otherwise they would not be able to play. 90%+ of CS:GO players play at a 16:9 resolution, and are locked to the standard FOV. 

On 12/12/2016 at 5:00 AM, SucoVidya said:

Most gamers will have a low tier intel or amd cpu with a "60" series or equivalent gpu according to jul 2016 hardware survey.
These are the players who need quality and resolution sliders on the fly. Not saying that these systems are all applicable to this titles but the average gamer thinks the pc platform is indeed plug and play. Hell, you will find most alpha participants dont report on forum topics, dont report bugs and play the game as a "game." Settings like the aforementioned cater mostly to those people, to ensure that no matter the time or place in the title of their choice they will still have the ability to remain in the instance of the game they are playing and adjust the quality to suit the performance of their needs.

With all that said having stated the monitor platform I am on, I would not want to see an FOV slider absent as I will rely on this for troubleshooting and testing as part of content creation, performance analytics and the overall ideal meta for performance vs hud/uid.

I'm not arguing against graphic sliders in this thread either, just that being able to adjust your FOV over certain maximum constraints forces an illogical requirement on people playing on standard monitors to play at higher FOV and distort their viewing experience in order to remain competitive. Also some settings need to be locked during gameplay. Many, many games have proven that certain settings being allowed to change during the game is not conductive to fair play, such as brightness, shadows, and other such things. I've had bad rigs, while being able to change settings on the fly is nice, nearly all games (including tarkov) require you to restart them in order to change the settings that really matter, and you can't change that.

On 12/12/2016 at 5:00 AM, SucoVidya said:

The ability to experience the technology of high FOV is something we should be excited for and as older technology becomes cheaper and more viable, it will soon be more affordable for people with lower end setups like i3's paired with <4gb gpu to span triple monitor @ 1080 to see the same fov on a budget that someone with a higher end would get with a UW panel.

These are good things and nice things are nice.

Again, I'm glad you would like to be able to utilize your nice toys, but not every game needs to be built to accompany the fanciest hardware out there like ultra-widescreen monitors with 120 comfortable FOV settings, just as every game out there doesn't need to have VR support. If you want a game that supports your fancy hardware, go buy a fancy game that supports it. If you're going to buy bleeding edge $1000+ rig set-ups, you should also be prepared for the fact that most games aren't going to be able to take advantage of it. Only those large scale games with large markets have the time and manpower to focus down those specialized features, big companies that make games like Battlefield. Some other game companies have started to pick up the slack when it comes to supporting ultrawide or VR or other things like that, but for most games, it just doesn't exist.

Edited by Ozymandias
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I don't sound ignorant but in my opinion the only thing high end hardware does it just make the application load. I've yet to beef up my graphic settings through control panel and see any form of an increase or beauty as developers program to run everything application settings. I hate to say it but this is why I prefer consoles at times because its 1 hardware across the board where's my mid range test pc I am using this game on out performs higher end computers so my lurking verdict. How's that fair?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

I'm glad you can afford a monitor which costs anywhere from the average person's computer to twice that much, but the average person can't afford a high end computer, and a high end monitor. 

....the prices of ultrawide monitors aren't coming to match the price of a standard 1080p monitor any time soon, and most definitely not within the lifetime of Escape from Tarkov. 

01.jpg

For reference most people can easily afford an ultra wide monitor and yes it is a preference but just because I have "nice toys" and you don't does not mean that one aspect ratio or the other deserve to not be included because you feel that way. Allowing an aspect ratio to work is a much less complicated task than you may imagine.

To compare the affordability of monitors here are the most popular monitors by purchase rate from amazon at current. If you do your research you will find most of these monitors less suitable for gaming applications. Price to performance even, an UW monitor is affordable, therefore negates any 'pay to win advantage' because it comes down to research and choice at a very competitive price point.

02.jpg

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Also for the analogy of CS:GO, you completely forget the fact that you're talking about pros only, those pros who only stay at 4:3 because they have thousands or tens of thousands of hours practicing their muscle reflexes at a specific resolution and can't play at anything else otherwise they would not be able to play. 90%+ of CS:GO players play at a 16:9 resolution, and are locked to the standard FOV. 

Simply not true. I am experienced professional level competitive FPS player. Tens of thousands of hours is not merely necessary to achieve a professional level of skill. 200 hours even is enough for more players on very average systems. Professional players whom choose to use that aspect ratio do it by choice. The thread topic at hand is made considering the notion of allowing players to have a choice. Your point made above fails to acknowledge the indifference here in EFT. Besides, most low level players aspire to play at high level mmr/elo skill ratings, they emulate the eclectic curve and follow the competitive trends. I would not be surprised to find your 90% estimate to be wrong with players places in the top 20% and above of regular ranked matches.

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

being able to adjust your FOV over certain maximum constraints forces an illogical requirement on people playing on standard monitors to play at higher FOV and distort their viewing experience in order to remain competitive.


And what if I said
"being unable to adjust your FOV/aspect ratio forces an illogical requirement on people playing on NON-standard monitors to play at lower FOV and distort their viewing experience in order to remain ENJOYABLE."

This argument offers nothing of substance to the topic.

If competitiveness is by far your most concerning point then you will likely be playing at all level and graphical details at low and minimums to ensure reaction times and delivery of rendered frames have zero delayand you would be forking out enough money to afford peripherals with minimal input lag with a monitor that is more expensive than one that would utilize a full FOV slider @120 degrees because you would be concerned about achieving the maximum playable frames per frame rendered to be displayed.
 

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Again, I'm glad you would like to be able to utilize your nice toys, but not every game needs to be built to accompany the fanciest hardware out there like ultra-widescreen monitors with 120 comfortable FOV settings, just as every game out there doesn't need to have VR support. If you want a game that supports your fancy hardware, go buy a fancy game that supports it. If you're going to buy bleeding edge $1000+ rig set-ups, you should also be prepared for the fact that most games aren't going to be able to take advantage of it. Only those large scale games with large markets have the time and manpower to focus down those specialized features, big companies that make games like Battlefield. Some other game companies have started to pick up the slack when it comes to supporting ultrawide or VR or other things like that, but for most games, it just doesn't exist.

The WSGF community has 27 pages.... that is 1904 games almost 2000 titles that have ultrawide support.
This is a community dedicated to embracing the latest monitor-platform's technology. These number are only the documented (user reported/added) games with support.
source:  games with ultrawide support

It just sounds like a long-winded, uninformed list of complaints because you do not understand the topic.

I am sorry you feel that the developers should not cater to people who have hardware like mine. I on the other hand would like to see lowest end support for the current development platform systems and support through to and beyond todays current highest end systems, leading to longer and more fruitful life-cycle of this particular release.

Just to leave a response in the thread on a positive note:
google pictures in ultrawide resolutions, like a view of paris or new york or something.
look at the pictures in 1280x960, 1920x1080, 2650x1080, 3440x1440


03.jpg

The difference is astonishing and if you have a pc that can rendering you should be able to enjoy the game..... the developers deserve for people with high end hardware to be able to appreciate the work and effort they made to create this game, that appreciation is their reward and being able to enjoy it is ours. That is the reason why there are so many different aspect ratios, graphical quality settings, resolutions and FOV's. The only way around this is to force everything the way a console does and then if that was the case I'd be opting for a refund because I own a personal computer, personal + computer. It should be able to run what I want the way I want to so it is enjoyable, as should be the experience, as best as possible, with the resources and hardwarte available to all participants.


And on that note I thought I'd open a petition to show the interest in UltraWide support for EFT
http://www.petitions24.com/customers_wanting_ultrawide_monitor_support__escape_from_tarkov#form
xD

Edited by SucoVidya
http://www.petitions24.com/customers_wanting_ultrawide_monitor_support__escape_from_tarkov#form
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suco for President, a foul mouthed Head of State that still get the job done, the perfect ruler of the World.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, .Motorola. said:

Suco for President, a foul mouthed Head of State that still get the job done, the perfect ruler of the World.

 he def got my vote on this one ^^

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SucoVidya said:

It just sounds like a long-winded, uninformed list of complaints because you do not understand the topic.

You can try to attack me personally, but really your argument sounds like a long offtopic rant on someone who is throwing a tantrum because someone has a differing opinion. I would please ask stick to the topic at hand and stop trying to derail the FOV thread with personal attacks.

Furthermore, if you wish to claim that I am uninformed, you might want to do some actual research beyond a quick google search before attacking my points. I have 20 years of knowledge in computer hardware, peripherals, and their usage. For example, you quoted that you can find a monitor for 250$. This is an abysmal 5ms IPS screen. It is completely unfit for gaming and anyone with experience would not post this screen for anyone looking to play dedicated gaming. You would want ultimately low latency gaming, something which you said:

2 hours ago, SucoVidya said:

If competitiveness is by far your most concerning point then you will likely be playing at all level and graphical details at low and minimums to ensure reaction times and delivery of rendered frames have zero delayand you would be forking out enough money to afford peripherals with minimal input lag with a monitor that is more expensive than one that would utilize a full FOV slider @120 degrees because you would be concerned about achieving the maximum playable frames per frame rendered to be displayed.

One would not buy a 5ms IPS monitor for this, nor would you want a TINY 25" monitor, for ultrawidescreen, this is tiny and your eye relief would be much too close to game comfortably for most people. Furthermore, if  you want LOW LATENCY GAMING as  you said, you would want to buy either high refresh rate (144hz) or FreeSync/GSYNC. Going with JUST the cheapest Ultrawidescreen at 26" or above, you are looking for at least 500$ (200$ off, a great deal I would recommend), if not more. Even FURTHER, you would not need to play on low to achieve this as the freesync/Gsync technologies are designed to be rendered as they are produced, you do not need to throw high refresh rates at a screen just to see smooth results, all things someone who, again, has experience would know. With a moderate graphics card (280x) and a moderate CPU (3.10Ghz) I was able to achieve average of 110 FPS on what would be an average gaming system, maybe slightly above average, on Medium-High. This is more than enough for a good freesync monitor, where you would want to run around ~75FPS average with no dips below 60 for 60Hz FreeSync.

Again this brings up the fact that these monitors are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. A cheap 2ms Freesync monitor @ 1080p is only 139$ by comparason! Much cheaper than the 250$ model you posted and with much better response times for gaming! Even if you can find a cheaper model  than 500$, it still will not touch the 139$ monitor.

2 hours ago, SucoVidya said:

I am sorry you feel that the developers should not cater to people who have hardware like mine. I on the other hand would like to see lowest end support for the current development platform systems and support through to and beyond todays current highest end systems, leading to longer and more fruitful life-cycle of this particular release.

This is not about catering to your high end system, it's about keeping the playing field fair to the vast majority who does not have access to a 500$ monitor, or three of those 150$ monitors and a high end GPU capable of running a QHD display setup.

One last thing, regarding this point here:

2 hours ago, SucoVidya said:

Simply not true. I am experienced professional level competitive FPS player. Tens of thousands of hours is not merely necessary to achieve a professional level of skill. 200 hours even is enough for more players on very average systems. Professional players whom choose to use that aspect ratio do it by choice.

You are not a professional compared to the real professionals if you think this. You are disgracing anyone who has spent thousands of hours getting to a professional level in any E-Sport. A SMFC or even Global Elite in CS:GO (the top rank) does not make you a professional. That is only the top 5%. Professionals are the top 0.01%. That's like saying someone can start playing Football and be a professional in a few months. These people spent years, (myself included but I no longer can play at that level due to time restrictions), playing CS 1.6, Source, and CS:GO, honing our reflexes on a 4:3 display ratio. You should take a look at that list and apologize to those people who play on those resolutions by requirement, not choice. The fact is that on 4:3, the mouse movement to crosshair movement size is different and they play like that because switching makes their game worse.

 

2 hours ago, SucoVidya said:

And what if I said
"being unable to adjust your FOV/aspect ratio forces an illogical requirement on people playing on NON-standard monitors to play at lower FOV and distort their viewing experience in order to remain ENJOYABLE."

This argument offers nothing of substance to the topic.

This is the only part of the argument you quotes which actually relates to FOV and you chose to dismiss it without even giving a reason why.

AGAIN: Anyone who wants to remain competitive must force high FOV and distort their viewing angles to match those on Ultra Widescreen FOV monitors in order to remain competitive, you are FORCING the average person to play at your specification by allowing large FOV (over 90/100) to match the perspective that an ultra widescreen or multimonitor setup allows (up to 150-160). This is the MOST relavant part of the topic, and you chose to ignore it and instead attack me.

Again I also would like to stress that I am NOT against raising the FOV to a set maximum around 90 or 100, but that allowing free, unrestricted FOV changes to above those levels will cause lots of issues for the game both development wise and balance wise and it is much better off leaving the game at those levels.

Edited by Ozymandias
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

I would please ask stick to the topic at hand and stop trying to derail the FOV thread with personal attacks.

1. No personal attacks - quotes supplied and sourced for reference
2. You're derailing this thread with filler and emotional pre-occupation. Please stop.

You are welcome to PM me if you want to continue your debate.

Back on topic;
FOV is as relative as

low end system with :

  • grass/obscurities off
  • level of detail: lowest
  • aa off
  • pp off
  • shadows off


VS high end system with:
 

  • grass/obscurities max
  • level of detail:max
  • aa max
  • pp max
  • shadows max

    b.jpg

Assuming these two systems were running the same resolution, frame rate and shared and equal optimization for cpu/gpu verhead to achieve the same reactiveness and frame delivery, the low end system would come to an advantage with a lower level of detail being able to show a more revealed area of play.

Developers have found ways to action around this problem by forcing certain sampling or tesselation but in doing so raises the entry level technology required for minimum system specifications. This is a good example of showing that gimping to ensure fairplay causes concern on low income gamers wishing to participate.


The opposite and equal relevance can be found in the argument that people who have high end systems should be gimped out of handy options and game settings that are quite standard in FPS games just to suit customers, whom based on their investment into their system performance, arent able to achieve the same "level playing field."


c.jpg
Developers need to think very hard to be able ti find a balance between fairness and mediating occuring issues that affect the community. If implementations or revokations are done in the wrong manner consequences can be more drastic for the community than expected.

Being the devil's advocate, this is one things consoles actually do right.
Same hardware, same processor and same quality settings.

d.png

                                         You can teach someone how to farm an apple but you cannot teach them to like the taste.

I could bark on all day about how one person's choice in ram speed or processor generation or vram~to~scale would effect them and how its wouldn't be fair ( with the infinite possibilities of cpu/gpu/mobo/ram/disk combinations ) in the way it would  or wouldnt affect the overall outcome of the system performance.
The point anyone opposed to FOV slider option needs to see is that we are on PC and all PC's are different. Just like all people's opinions are different, some are gold and some are just trash.

Being that all PC's are different, developers have a responsibility to the success of their product to ensure that customs are happy and that their code and engine are compatible with the minor and major market shares to ensure;

  1. good reviews
  2. customs satisfaction
  3. return of business (ie: see #1)


"But Suco, how is on topic?"
a.jpg

This is where the consoles have their market share.

  • People who want to play where everyone needs to be like them and their settings or simply people who know nothing about computers and components and just want to plug and play so everything is fair and dandy should make a conscious decision to buy a product that reflects their views. (With absolutely nothing to do with economics most people playing on consoles end up doing so out of convenience of not having to learn anything about a pre-built system, which works in most cases)
     
  • People interested in the Personal Computer platform should make a conscious decision that when entering the PC market there is an abundance of information and disinformation out there and neither can lead you to achieving a good result ~long term ~ without your own personal research and understanding.

    Every single hardware purchase can and will affect the applications you can use but not all applications can and will support your hardware, but here's the kicker... with a little bit of tweaking (or should I say performance 'sliding') you can trouble shoot and find optimal settings for your pleasure or performance, whatever your prerogative.

e.jpg

Imagine a world of games without quality and performance options, everything would look weird perform weird, almost as if we were playing on .... consoles.

Or how about... some people have more money than me. Personally I got a regular life, I'm like a regular dude doing regular poop.
Would it be fair for me to profess that I don't think its fair that some people were born into wealthy families that were able to educated them to become more wealthy and pull up to me at the traffic lights in a 2016 Bently GT?
Should I complain and be an activist to disallow them having pay to win at life?

Let the people have their options, this is me at 140 degrees for your viewing pleasure.
f.jpg

Edited by SucoVidya
typos, freaking typos EVERYWHERE
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a lot of awesome information to read through here so I hope my day is relaxed and I can catch up with this thread. On my mid test computer with 1080p 23 inch led monitor end I play with 55 FOV and if I raise it higher it looks pretty bad and way too stretched out for my eyes as I had a few operations and have to wear glasses (not when I'm in front of a computer though) but all that aside from that I do just want to point that being competitive is a double edge sword and I don't think you can be really competitive in EFT because you can always get shot from the back so no I do not view EFT as a competitive game by any means as this game has way too many negative variables to be one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yah too random variables to be competitive, but maybe for the Arena mode people will give a shot at it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, .Motorola. said:

yah too random variables to be competitive, but maybe for the Arena mode people will give a shot at it.

Arena for this type of game seems unnecessary unless there is a big open area that has say a outdoor theater or something where all players travel to just come and designate it an unofficial pvp zone with "rules" how it's in dark souls for instance but those hardly work out. I know for me I usually ruin those for a laugh but if this game adds an actual Arena area you can pick like when you pick a raid it will be a huge step backward. How will arena even be fun if it's just attrition really? Technically raids are like arenas as the maps are so tiny and bordered and linear. Factory can be an arena because its so tiny.

I really want to refrain from using the term that's becoming more and more popular on minecraft but that's how I would view a EFT arena. LOL.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be multiple game modes for the game, team deathmatch and team vs team probably, i  wouldnt call it a step backward, the game probably will just  try to be tasteable for a different playerbase pool, definitly not my taste tho, i am here for the survival aspect of it.

Edited by .Motorola.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know, thats probably what a sizable portion of russian potential customers want to be added to the game, so the devs included multiple game modes, like Survarium(that game is cancer tho).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anybody would want to do arena even if the game has fluid movement and good gun play because a 1v1 wont last long. Fighting games are different in 1v1 but shooters? *shrugs* If they like it they like it its cool with me. I'll stick with instance :( and open world I guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the open world will still be instanced like Stalker, a big giant session where you have to pass through all the maps to call it a day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can be ok with that but a sweeties arena mode is just really funny if you think about it. I'll be more open to the idea if there was a place on the map that you have to travel too in open world was designated as a pvp hot spot but if you select it from raid menu it would be hand holding.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i honestly dont mind a classic deathmatch and team vs team, i will probably play team vs team from time to time just to take a small break from the unforgiving and tense survival mode, you know as an anti-stress thingy, anyway we still dont know how  those modes will shape up, maybe they  will be even good considering that BSG are veterans in  programming these gamemodes.

Edited by .Motorola.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, .Motorola. said:

I believe the open world will still be instanced like Stalker, a big giant session where you have to pass through all the maps to call it a day.

You are going to spawn somewhere totally random and it will be its own session bro , so the only people that can join after the PMCs have joined.....are scavs presumably (since they can also join mid raid , this might be why we have endless scavs they could be testing the in game spawn)

Theres gonna be exits all over the place , all the ones in the story raids(guessing here may change) and possibly some out of the way free roam only exits.There may be additional areas added (I truly believe there will) or the story exits.....will become the transition areas to the next zone (factory to customs lets say) and again im assuming if thats the case they will lead to different parts of customs.

Makes sense thinking about it actually , youd already know where every 'exit' is when you start free roam after playing all the raids...but then.....those are probably the places you literally have to walk through to get to the next area.......OR they could open up areas like the blocked off sniper alleys/minefields etc.....I think the first is more likely and there will be free roam specific exits

 

Edited by CptBluemax
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites