Jump to content
Drakkaar

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

Recommended Posts

After going from a 35" screen to a 34" screen and now my latest 49" with 3840x1080 resolution I can't help but to wish that people with non-standard displays would be taken in to consideration with proper FOV adjustments. I did spend one night testing Tarkov out on a 19" 1440x900 75hz display for the fun of it and even though I enjoyed the experience I do understand why something like 120 FOV would just ruin it completely.

I understand the point of people not wanting to allow for "competitive advantage" to people who are "well off" enough to enjoy these big displays with massive aspect ratios, but rather than just deciding on against support we should find middle ground or ways of enjoying the game without having to lose just because someone has a better screen, but just as much we need for people to be able to enjoy fully the fruit of their labor.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'm seriously bummed out and regret buying the early access. I though for sure the dev's would allow us to To play the way "I" want to play which is having a minimal 120 horizontal FOV.

I'm still hoping these Devs will listen to their backers and allow backers to play the game they need or desire...when it come to basic options / preferences like FOV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for keeping FOV low, but if it is to change, keep it around 90 MAX, and have it locked once in-game or give a player 30 seconds to adjust in-game settings, then settings become locked.

I believe keeping FOV low is good because it keeps all players within a limited range of each other, giving no distinct advantage to any player since there will be no large gaps between players and their FOV sliders.

In my opinion, the game only plays better when all players see the same things and no players can tweak/adjust settings on the fly for better performance/view. 

We can use the middle mouse button to free look for a reason.

On 12/3/2017 at 12:53 PM, Electromech said:

90-95 max. I don't see how this is an advantage if everyone can do it.

 

Because once you get to a certain FOV, if you want to remain competitive, you are essentially forced to change to a higher FOV to keep up with other players. So long as we stay around 90 and no higher, we shouldn't have too much of an issue.

Edited by BudBro
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the increased FOV would enable me to see more of my weapon (like the FOV glitch did, which they "Fixed"), then I'm all for this change. Otherwise I don't care much as I stopped playing after the new patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this will probably be a RADICAL opinion to some people, but here goes.

First of all, FOV should be based on your monitor aspect ratio and resolution (as detected/set in the game) - with only a +-5 leeway.
This is not such a crazy idea, it's the same as not including an ingame gamma slider. Keeps the playing field fair for all players, mostly.

The next thing and A MORE IMPORTANT thing is keeping the FOV at the same value at all times.
No increasing FOV when you're aiming down sights.
No increasing FOV when you're scoped in. Etc.

I think this is super important for a game that tries to capture realism. Why?
Take for example a scope that has a x4 and x1 magnification settings.
-
For example: While not aiming, some thing 10 meters away from the player will be 50 pixels tall on the monitor.
Then he aims down the scope, on the x1 magnification setting and it's suddenly 100 pixels tall on the monitor.

Not only is this not consistent, therefore not realistic(because reality is always consistent in relation to itself unless you're high af) it also makes the game look and feel like poo, when you look through a scope and everything is pixelated.

I really don't think it matters at all, if the FOV is 50 or 120, aslong as it is always a single value and not jumping up and down.
It's not even like EFT needs to do this stuff, since it has PiP scopes. And they would look super nice, too, if the fov stayed the same when you take aim.

 

On 3/5/2018 at 9:38 PM, KarlFooknTanner said:

If the increased FOV would enable me to see more of my weapon (like the FOV glitch did, which they "Fixed"), then I'm all for this change. Otherwise I don't care much as I stopped playing after the new patch.

Exactly, this is basically the issue for me. Although as I am saying I think the core issue here is that the game keeps switching FOV values around. Basically if you never saw your weapon from that high fov, ie if you were always restricted to for example 50, then it wouldn't bother you because you never got used to it. It'd be a consistent, authentic experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a widescreen 35' curved 2560x1080 i'd appreciate the option for 95 FOV it has always been my comfortable setting

I seen a good share of FOV arguments and have yet to see a good reason why it shouldn't be an option for the player. Tarkov is a very dense game when you increase FOV you do see more but that can help you just as much as hurt the one with a higher FOV. If this was quake or unreal where there is very little objects other than other players in a more competitive vs game then yeah I understand how it could give you in that game an advantage. 

In tarkov you get a bigger advantage if you have a better sound set up then another players. Not game breaking by any means nor should they revise it in anyway but that has more affect then increasing the FOV cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 6:16 PM, Peerun said:

Ok this will probably be a RADICAL opinion to some people, but here goes.

First of all, FOV should be based on your monitor aspect ratio and resolution (as detected/set in the game) - with only a +-5 leeway.
This is not such a crazy idea, it's the same as not including an ingame gamma slider. Keeps the playing field fair for all players, mostly.

The next thing and A MORE IMPORTANT thing is keeping the FOV at the same value at all times.
No increasing FOV when you're aiming down sights.
No increasing FOV when you're scoped in. Etc.

I think this is super important for a game that tries to capture realism. Why?
Take for example a scope that has a x4 and x1 magnification settings.
-
For example: While not aiming, some thing 10 meters away from the player will be 50 pixels tall on the monitor.
Then he aims down the scope, on the x1 magnification setting and it's suddenly 100 pixels tall on the monitor.

Not only is this not consistent, therefore not realistic(because reality is always consistent in relation to itself unless you're high af) it also makes the game look and feel like poo, when you look through a scope and everything is pixelated.

I really don't think it matters at all, if the FOV is 50 or 120, aslong as it is always a single value and not jumping up and down.
It's not even like EFT needs to do this stuff, since it has PiP scopes. And they would look super nice, too, if the fov stayed the same when you take aim.

 

Exactly, this is basically the issue for me. Although as I am saying I think the core issue here is that the game keeps switching FOV values around. Basically if you never saw your weapon from that high fov, ie if you were always restricted to for example 50, then it wouldn't bother you because you never got used to it. It'd be a consistent, authentic experience.

Cool Story bro. I like how you Say "Should" a lot. instead of your preference........

 

So everyone "SHOULD" play the game according to "your" preferences? 

 

I Don't think so dude.......... People should be able to the play the game they want to play. with whatever FOV they desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Hitman_Actual said:

Cool Story bro. I like how you Say "Should" a lot. instead of your preference........


Nice argument brah

Obviously it's my opinion. My preference.

I am not saying everyone should play at the same fov, because I say so. I am saying fov shouldn't increase and decrease when you aim and I give reasons of why I think that would make more sense.
 

20 hours ago, Hitman_Actual said:

I Don't think so dude.......... People should be able to the play the game they want to play. with whatever FOV they desire.


Maybe you should think about why the game doesn't let you play at 15 FOV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 9:12 AM, Peerun said:


Nice argument brah

Obviously it's my opinion. My preference.

I am not saying everyone should play at the same fov, because I say so. I am saying fov shouldn't increase and decrease when you aim and I give reasons of why I think that would make more sense.
 


Maybe you should think about why the game doesn't let you play at 15 FOV.

your words "First of all, FOV should be based on your monitor aspect ratio and resolution (as detected/set in the game) - with only a +-5 leeway."

 

"should be"

 

uhuh.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 10:16 PM, Hitman_Actual said:

your words "First of all, FOV should be based on your monitor aspect ratio and resolution (as detected/set in the game) - with only a +-5 leeway."

 

"should be"

 

uhuh.....

Yeah, it should be like that, in my opinion. Personally I think that's how it should be. Should it be like it is now? I don't think it should be that way. Should you disagree, then at the very least you should try to make sure to understand how language works first, shouldn't you?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I am getting to this post a bit late but after wasting my time reading all of this and not being swayed in any particular way. Ill just add my 2 cents to the mix... Or at least how i see each side of discussion and allow those whom support that particular side of it to kinda address some of each others/my own  concerns.

From what i've been reading here seems to be a difference in competitive vs luxury.

Competitive aspect requires equality, No bias based on performance like a pro tournament. Same rig, same specs etc removing any variable. (whens the last time you seen a pro walk in with a 35'' monitor? lol) While i agree with this as an idea and usually in practice. Not everyone plays a hardcore/soft core game to be competitive and expecting/enforcing that to me seems like a bad idea due to essentially leaving people out and making the game crap for high end users OR crap for the low end users. (will address this more below)

The luxury aspect (If you can afford it, enjoy it!) is wonderful for the 'haves' and not the 'have nots'. While i completely understand your perspective on it and to some aspects agree with. It doesn't fit within the format of competition. (you don't see pros using 60hz monitors now do you?) I don't think anyone here is arguing that a guy on 60F.o.V vs a guy on 120F.o.V is at a considerable disadvantage essentially offsetting the 'competitive' aspect But due to either health reasons (motion sickness which effects me dearly in this game) or personal preference. People want what they want that makes them comfortable. You have every right to enjoy what you purchased.

Summary: I don't like calling it that but this is kinda where ill boil things down a bit into my own opinions based on things said in this thread and what my idea of the "fair" action is. Fair of course being what I consider fair.. which some may not...           If we bring the comp vs luxury arguments together. There's very little crossover to be had. While some people may find it enjoyable to play maxed out with all settings and some may find it the opposite, That's not for me or really any of us to decide. But a way to potentially please both crowds i would like to offer up a potential solution. Two game modes. Ranked and Unranked, Or even call it something else like Strict mode and Open Mode.  Strict mode is a set of highly locked settings, Locked F.o.V, standard aspect ratios, very low ping allowance. the whole bit to reduce as many variables as possible and put everyone on the exact same playing field and these settings can be the same for everyone. Be it a very HIGH system requirements or Low. Whatever the developers see fit. If you cant afford to run it, then to bad. bring your system up to the par that is set fourth by EFT. No other standards matter here.      Now the alternative to that is the "Open" mode, Which essentially allows the weakest of weak and highest of highs in PCs to play here and tinker with your settings as you see fit, within the confines of what is allowable in the T.o.S/E.u.L.a and in-game options etc etc. If the game can run on your machine and you personally are ok with it. Then u play Open and enjoy the hell out of it. If you want a hyper competitive feel, you play Strict.

 

Something that wasnt exactly related to this exact argument but was said during it was referencing things like "affordable", "Cheap", "Budget" which are three EXTREMELY subjective words that is highly unlikely to be a direct value or translation of definition from each individual person. Example being, my idea of budget is a $60 Monitor, Which most people wouldn't even consider to be playable. While someone else may consider $150 to be budget.          I would like to note that i am not shaming those whom i am mentioning, I am just noting it as in my opinion, the only one that should be concerned with cost of entry (To play the game, to run the game, to view the game at high end or low end specs) is the devs. Lots of work goes into pinning down price points and optimization. 

Also comparing this game in anyway to CSGO is quite irrelevant especially in terms of aspect ratios due to how the games are played. CS:GO (especially CT Side) has a very very small 'cone' of vision that is required to do your job effectively and pixel spotting is far more important that being able to whip a 180 because someone stuck up behind you. Its very rare especially at higher levels of play which allows for smaller aspect ratios/F.o.Vs. Here is actually an example of two pros using 4:3 (you can find their settings online) where if one was using 16:9 or higher, would have resulted in a different result. From 1 second to 20 seconds in this video. <--- More of a random thing but this conversation made me think of it.

 

Also to address some of the "settings should be locked" people. I havent forgot about you. Its actually a pretty good idea. As someone else mentioned, the biggest concern would be a setting getting messed up and players having to forfeit everything to adjust the settings. I would be interested in hearing some of your rebuttals to this as i really do find it to be a good idea. Something that first came to mind would be a 30 seconds match-start settings check. that way all players 'start' at the same time. It gives 30 seconds for players to mess with settings, adjust if needed before match starts and anyone can move. Sorta like an FPS freeze time. This would also combat the issue of players loading into matches 5 or 20 seconds late as a player. Everyones already camping good spots and your just a slow-loading duckling ripe for losing all your kit. This also being a bit of a mild case of players whom have better rigs getting an advantage but not what this topic is for =P

 

PS. Sorry for the walls of text, First post here and I haven't really got the formatting down and I also apologies for typos.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I found out I could turn up the FOV it the made a huge difference for me, I can't go back now to that worthless side-blinded vision. I would probably stop playing the game altogether if this option was to be somehow locked at a lower value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×