Jump to content
ahmetcakiroglu135

There has to be a "toggle" focus

Recommended Posts

Shooting without aiming down sights, is still pretty damn accurate. Try it on the firing range, if you lie down you can easily shoot the small circles on the 200m mark.

So, I say, let us set the FOV for when you aim down sights and when you don't exclusively. (within some sane limits ofc)

 

edit: I meant 100m mark, sorry

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

500 meters with iron sights in combat? Yeah, absolutely common targets for rifleman.

 

I obviously don't like the idea of implemeting 2 unrealistical mechanics (zoom+breathing) to support unrealistically long distance of effective shooting.

 

On 500 meters AK frontsight completely blanks out a human figure, like it does on 300 meters in Squad. But it doesn't mean that shooting at 500 meters as easy as in Squad at 300 meters, because in Squad aiming consists of "wave" catching only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DesmoLocke said:

I for one wish the focused POV was the standard one.The standard one just feels too far back from the rear sights. Especially on the AKs where the front post is pixels thin.

 

Mostly agree, though I think the amount of zoom would have to be toned down just a bit. But other than that, yes, this is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ZiGreen said:

500 meters with iron sights in combat? Yeah, absolutely common targets for rifleman.

 

I obviously don't like the idea of implemeting 2 unrealistical mechanics (zoom+breathing) to support unrealistically long distance of effective shooting.

 

On 500 meters AK frontsight completely blanks out a human figure, like it does on 300 meters in Squad. But it doesn't mean that shooting at 500 meters as easy as in Squad at 300 meters, because in Squad aiming consists of "wave" catching only.

 

The reason the zoom is needed is not because of anything to do with shooting mechanics. It's to do with visual mechanics. The visual acuity on a monitor without any zooming will be far lower than what the average person is capable of seeing in real life. Without zoom, a person~200m away in Squad seems like he is really far away. However in real life seeing a standing person at 200m is really quite easy. Unless you want Squad to be about the struggles of combat when suffering from short-sightedness, you need a mechanic to counteract this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yedrellow said:

 

The reason the zoom is needed is not because of anything to do with shooting mechanics. It's to do with visual mechanics. The visual acuity on a monitor without any zooming will be far lower than what the average person is capable of seeing in real life. Without zoom, a person~200m away in Squad seems like he is really far away. However in real life seeing a standing person at 200m is really quite easy. Unless you want Squad to be about the struggles of combat when suffering from short-sightedness, you need a mechanic to counteract this issue.

 

That is why you can use zoom only while ADS on certain guns, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ZiGreen said:

 

That is why you can use zoom only while ADS on certain guns, right?

 

Personally I'd prefer the zoom to be available at all times regardless of whether you're ADS. However, I think as it shares a button with sprint, and the Squad developers want to avoid reaching the same number of required keys as Arma, they can't really do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yedrellow said:

 

Personally I'd prefer the zoom to be available at all times regardless of whether you're ADS. However, I think as it shares a button with sprint, and the Squad developers want to avoid reaching the same number of required keys as Arma, they can't really do this.

 

You will never achieve the same sharpness of vision in game you have in reality, if you don't want ingame zoom to be 8-10x. But current unzoomed shooting possibilities in Squad compared with real ones. As average rifleman, you are not supposed to make accurate shots at 300+ meters. It is job for machine guns, mortars and scoped rifles. Observation? With 1080p you are able to notice a running soldier at 500 meters. That's enough for scale of Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yedrellow said:

 

Personally I'd prefer the zoom to be available at all times regardless of whether you're ADS. However, I think as it shares a button with sprint, and the Squad developers want to avoid reaching the same number of required keys as Arma, they can't really do this.

 

You can assign focus/zoom to any key you like. I chose to double assign it with sprint as I am used to it from other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the focus/zoom function is there to give an advantage to a stationary player and the only alternative is to increase gun sway on a player who is moving (please no)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The focus is there to emulate that sense of "focus" you  get when you are staring hard out into the distance. I agree that it should be usable outside of ADS as well, but definitely don't let it be used while on the move, that would defeat half of its purpose. You can't stare intently on a spot while you are moving because your head/body is moving about and it disrupts your vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-06-02 at 5:58 PM, Major Trouble said:

Sorry guys but I don't think op was asking if focus should be included in the game or not but that he should have a choice how the key function works.

 

With the op's request in mind I am happy with the hold key function rather than toggle but I am also in favour of allowing the games functions to be tailored to how individuals want it to work.

 

+1 for toggle focus OPTION.

Right you are! : D Having an option to toggle instead of hold Focus should be easy to implement, so if someone wants it then I'd say go ahead.

 

Back to the tangentially off-topic:

On 2016-06-02 at 9:07 AM, VarenykySupreme said:
On 2016-06-01 at 5:09 PM, 3e58i said:

@bilsantuActually I think the slight zoom fits well. It's hard enough as it is to pick apart pixels and see things with the FOV/resolution that I have at this point. My opinion is that the Focus mechanic serves as a natural bridge between the cramped nature offered by PC gaming and real life visibility. It also serves as another drawback of depleting your stamina, since you can't engage Focus when below 1/3 stamina.

No, it really doesn't. I agree as much as anyone else that the lack of AA makes it rather hard to aim right now, but once it gets fixed up this mechanic needs to go. The devs have stated many times that they want to keep engagement distances rather short, so this is counter-intuitive. They've actually gimped quite a few other aspects of the game yet have kept this, and for what reason I don't know. 

Actually, I still think the slight zoom fits well. :\ Is your argument against it that it extends the engagement ranges? Or that the "gimped aspects" could be done away with if they just left out the Focus mechanic?

 

On 2016-06-02 at 9:07 AM, VarenykySupreme said:
On 2016-06-01 at 5:30 PM, 3e58i said:

... Important to note is that I am a low-end user, so no Anti-Aliasing or other softening.

...

Hate to say it dude, but that's your problem. The devs absolutely should not ruin the game in an attempt to cater to low-end players. You might not be able to afford a better computer, but I shouldn't have the value of my purchase fucked over because someone else chose not to upgrade their PC. Might that sound cold and harsh? You're damn right, but at the same time, that's how the world is. Maybe rather than buying a $40 game You'll save up another $160 and get a high end GPU. 

"Hate to say it,"

"ruin"

"Might that sound cold and harsh?"

"my purchase fucked over because someone else"

 

Err... what?

Look. Judging by the tone of your text, I understand that you care deeply about the "high-end v.s. low-end" trend. But you should know I am not particularly invested in holding back the game for the sake of low-end users. Which I think is the stance you are arguing against. :L

To elaborate, I agree that the developers should not feel forced to cripple their game to cater to low-end users. So I would not hold it against anyone if I couldn't play any more if they added some great feature that my hardware can't cope with. At the same time, I feel that the assumption that they would even have to hold back may be unwarranted based on my view of game development. At least if we are including most graphical post-processing effects, e.g. light shafts through foliage. A lot of those are relatively expensive to render but don't really affect game play in any meaningful manner.

We could discuss such things if you want. It's actually quite interesting. :3 But I don't hold the stance I think you believe I do.

 

I actually think that this may be more of a matter of geometry and reasonable precision when it comes to monitors and mice.

I consider my setup (1920×1080 without Anti-Aliasing, with a medium sized monitor and medium-sensitivity gaming mouse) is a reasonable setting to test your game play with. I wanted to compare my experience and specifications to that of @Makiso I could gain a better understanding of the underlying factors of the problem and why people don't like it. So I tried to test my assumptions; was it reasonable, or does @Maki's experience reveal things I had not considered?

 

So maybe it is a matter of hardware (that's why I made an effort to find out). But I suspect that it is really a matter of the objects on the monitor being artificially small compared to IRL. And that an ergonomic/comfortable movement distance of the mouse is at odds with the varying requirements of the game. I will try to give you an idea of what I mean:

  • If I recall correctly, human vision has a field of view of about 120º. The game has FOV settings in the range of [90,120] degrees. The resolution in the most sensitive part of vision also has a higher "resolution" than what is offered by typical computer monitors. So unless you sit pretty close to a very wide and high-resolution monitor (which is likely unhealthy), you will not get a very realistic FOV. Instead you will typically be looking at a medium-sized screen which represents an enlarged FOV to aid you as a player.
  • I think that a reasonable and comfortable mouse sensitivity for an FPS should give you a good trade-off between ease of turning your character (to navigate the game world), while still allowing fine-tuning and adjustments for aiming. To aid muscle memory the aiming should also be predictable and constant between games. Ideally you would only use one sensitivity setting for all tasks, but this runs into problems when you simulate a game world with high demands on both precision and movement.
    • You may run into a situation where you are the worst of both worlds. The target is within reasonable range, but your sensitivity is such that it is unreasonably hard to make minute adjustments. So you lower the sensitivity. Then you go into close quarters combat and need to make a lot of sharp turns, but the sensitivity is so low that you have to move and pick up your mouse an unreasonably much. By "unreasonably" I mean that it is unreasonable for "common sense" reasons; such as ergonomics, what skills you can reasonably expect of the average player v.s. what will be expected of them in-game, whatever hardware you are expecting of your audience (which you can restrict to high-end users only, if you wish).
    • One way to solve this is to have multiple sensitivity settings on your mouse. But this shifts the solution to novel hardware features. (And it may also work against the "predictability" aspect mentioned above, since your muscle memory now has to practise two skill sets for the same visual stimuli. But I can't formulate well what I mean here at the moment.)
    • Another, now very common way is to have an alternative "precision mode" in the game. This often manifests itself as Aim Down Sight coupled with a slight zoom increase. (The zoom can actually help the "predictability" thing if implemented well. Again, I feel that I can't formulate my explanation of why this is so at the moment of writing.) This allows you to use one mode for turning and the other mode for fine adjustments when aiming.
Edited by 3e58i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we removed the temporary focus and made a slightly lesser focus permanent with ADS?

 

We could combine this with another feature people want, the ability to lower your weapon. So we would have three positions for our guns: Low ready, high ready and aiming down the sights. 

 

We could then use high ready more appropriately. A moderately accurate, quick reaction stance useful in CQC and panic situations. Muzzle leading is fairly accurate for the ranges I'm considering.

This would then force aiming down the sights to only be used when stationary. The zoom bonus would counteract the mobility negative. Besides, people keep saying that the zoom is used to simulate the focus one has when aiming down the sights. But shouldn't we have that all the time? I don't know about you guys but when I shoot and aim I am extremely focused on the target past my sights.

 

Anyway, good convo. This is just a spur of the moment idea that popped into my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×