Jump to content
Para

Focus (zoom) for Humvee and Dushka 50 cals.

Recommended Posts

Gews   

 

20 minutes ago, VarenykySupreme said:

Do you seriously believe that being able to see an enemy at only 100m is myopia?

 

Absolutely. You can already see them several times further without even shift-zoom.

 

21 minutes ago, VarenykySupreme said:

Sure, in real life you can see slight movements out to 500m

 

*cough* kilometres.

 

16 minutes ago, VarenykySupreme said:

The monitor is smaller than the human eye's field of view and doesn't have depth and will always be a certain distance from your eyes. Because of this, the monitor will never be your eyes. The only reason to try and skate around this fact is if you plan to make the game have realistic engagement distances, but to do this you have to include an unrealistic feature that allows the monitor to do what the human eyes simply cannot do under any circumstances. This is simple, right? Seems pretty simple to me. 

 

It improves the realism of your character's visual capabilities, which is the deciding factor in whether or not something is "realistic": how well can you see in-game compared to an average person in real life? ... with variable FOV your capabilities are closer to real vision than with a fixed FOV... and that makes the feature... wait for it... realistic.

 

17 minutes ago, VarenykySupreme said:

You're, once again, making the incorrect assumption that Squad is meant to be a realistic game with realistic engagement distances. Why would they make seeing out to longer distances easier when they don't want long range engagements? Seriously, this is so simple and I'm so incorrect so just prove it already. I'm just sitting here, dying for my simplicity to be revealed.

 

This isn't ArmA. They don't want 400m engagements like there are in ArmA. This game is Squad. This game doesn't want to emulate real life engagement distances. This is simple. This is a fact. 

 

Nope, I made no assumptions. I'm aware of their intentions. Have read their statements. It's not relevant to my argument. I didn't say ARMA-level zoom is right for Squad. There's a fair chance it would even hurt the gameplay. 

 

I'm taking objection to the fact you say a variable FOV is "unrealistic".

Share this post


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

 

 

Absolutely. You can already see them several times further without even shift-zoom.

 

 

*cough* kilometres.

 

 

It improves the realism of your character's visual capabilities, which is the deciding factor in whether or not something is "realistic": how well can you see in-game compared to an average person in real life? ... with variable FOV your capabilities are closer to real vision than with a fixed FOV... and that makes the feature... wait for it... realistic.

 

 

Nope, I made no assumptions. I'm aware of their intentions. Have read their statements. It's not relevant to my argument. I didn't say ARMA-level zoom is right for Squad. There's a fair chance it would even hurt the gameplay. 

 

I'm taking objection to the fact you say a variable FOV is "unrealistic".

 

Which is fine, so why would you need shift zoom? No reason to engage at that distance; it's not intended.

 

No, you cannot see slight movements at 500km in real life. 

 

Right, as stated, it's an unrealistic way of creating realistic engagement ranges. Squad does not want realistic engagement distances, so it does not need this feature. This feature has been used as a reason to hinder shooting mechanics, as stated in previous weapon handling threads. This game is not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be authentic.

 

You clearly have or else you wouldn't still be pushing the idea that we need longer engagement distances based on realism alone. It does hurt gameplay. It was cited as the reason for exaggerated M4 recoil by several of the developers.

 

Take objection to whatever you want, but you haven't proved my simple point objectively wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTR   

While human eye is a lot better than what we get on the monitor, real life environment is infinitely more complex in topography and detailing than what we see in game. Using "muh eyes have X amount of better resolution that muh monitor" is only really a valid argument if in-game graphical fidelity approaches real life. No such thing here or in any game, and thus whole concept of bionic zoom in any FPS doesn't really hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gews   
21 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

Which is fine, so why would you need shift zoom? No reason to engage at that distance; it's not intended.

 

Shift-zoom is intended. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be here. They are also adding it to machine guns.

 

21 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

No, you cannot see slight movements at 500km in real life. 

 

Haha.

 

21 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

Right, as stated, it's an unrealistic way of creating realistic engagement ranges. Squad does not want realistic engagement distances, so it does not need this feature. This feature has been used as a reason to hinder shooting mechanics, as stated in previous weapon handling threads. This game is not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be authentic.

 

Taken by itself, eyes "zooming" (variable FOV) is unrealistic. However, the visual capability created by eyes "zooming" (variable FOV) is realistic. The defining factor here is "what can you see and how does it compare to real life?" Therefore, the feature as a whole is realistic and belongs in realistic games. Does it belong in Squad? Well, I don't really care.

 

21 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

You clearly have or else you wouldn't still be pushing the idea that we need longer engagement distances based on realism alone. It does hurt gameplay. It was cited as the reason for exaggerated M4 recoil by several of the developers.

 

Did I say we needed longer engagement distances in this game?

 

17 hours ago, BTR said:

While human eye is a lot better than what we get on the monitor, real life environment is infinitely more complex in topography and detailing than what we see in game.

 

Correct, I mentioned it earlier as well:

 

On 8/27/2016 at 6:03 PM, Gews said:

You can make an argument based on gameplay (don't want long engagement distances and people sitting sniping from hills) or even realism (given that you can see them, it's usually far easier to both hit targets and to spot enemy movement in a game)

 

 

However this absolute statement...

 

17 hours ago, BTR said:

No such thing here or in any game, and thus whole concept of bionic zoom in any FPS doesn't really hold.

 

...does not hold water. Games can pick a suitable minimum FOV that is a balance between realistic relative sizes and identification of objects based on average hardware with the consideration that it will be easier to spot movements and figures in the game world. We already have adjustable FOV, just not in game. 

 

ARMA 3 was changed, now zooms 3x to 37° FOV. This is the same as in ARMA 2. Looking at distant objects, I think that's a bit too much for 20-24" 1920x1080.

 

Previously it was only a 2x zoom to 53°, which I thought was better. Soldiers were smaller and harder to see, but not too much so. DayZ has a minimum 58° FOV, less zoom than A3, which the devs have played around with in various patches.

 

See how "eye zoom" can be so greatly different?

m8TZwy4.png

 

In those games, on the standard maps, I think 50-60° is a very suitable level of zoom.

 

Squad? Well, there is hardly a zoom at all compared to any of those BIS games. I don't see how Squad's current shift-zoom "ruins" the gameplay or is supposedly against dev wishes or "unintended". Engagement distances are already quite short.

Edited by Gews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gews said:

-snip-

 

Just because it's an intended feature doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed for dropping in the past. If you had been here before a week ago, you'd know that. Sure proved that 500km point.

 

An unrealistic feature to get around an unrealistic input method so that you can have realistic engagement distances. Correlation is not causation. It's an unrealistic feature.

 

The current engagement distance is longer than the intended engagement distance. If you are supporting the current system (which you're backing off it now? ha) then you're supporting longer engagement distances. 

 

Talking about how ArmA does zoom has nothing to do with Squad. Squad might have less zoom than ArmA, but that's because it isn't meant to have 400m engagement distances. It's meant to be 100m or less. I've told you over and over again how it ruins the game, so actually read it this time: they've willingly made the game less realistic in other features to compensate for this feature. Recoil has been exaggerated for the M4 series of rifles, followup shots have been made harder with crap like the "control your own recoil!" system and so on and so forth. Overall gun handling has been made more difficult in all the wrong areas so that we can have this "feature". 

 

 

Edited by VarenykySupreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gews   

 

3 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

An unrealistic feature to get around an unrealistic input method so that you can have realistic engagement distances. Correlation is not causation. It's an unrealistic feature.

 

Subjective at best. It depends on your definition of what is "realistic". If features are introduced that make the gameplay more closely mimic real life, then those features can be said to be "realistic". Very specific point of realism: eyes don't have variable zoom. Okay. Big-picture, over-arching realism: engagement distance and visual capabilities closer to real life. Which, overall, provides more realism to the game? Same thing with any suppression mechanics. Any HUD features whatsoever, even pain/wound indication. Etc.

 

Yes, looking only at the very basic "eyes don't zoom" it's "unrealistic". Yet—those features belong in realistic games. Unrealistic feature providing more overall realism? Does that make the feature, as a whole, unrealistic?

 

3 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

The current engagement distance is longer than the intended engagement distance.

 

3 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

it isn't meant to have 400m engagement distances. It's meant to be 100m or less. 

 

Provide sources for these statements, please. I don't think that's an achievable reduction for a game that gives ACOG, 1P29, SVD or M110 to each squad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gews said:

 

 

Subjective at best. It depends on your definition of what is "realistic". If features are introduced that make the gameplay more closely mimic real life, then those features can be said to be "realistic". Very specific point of realism: eyes don't have variable zoom. Okay. Big-picture, over-arching realism: engagement distance and visual capabilities closer to real life. Which, overall, provides more realism to the game? Same thing with any suppression mechanics. Any HUD features whatsoever, even pain/wound indication. Etc.

 

Yes, looking only at the very basic "eyes don't zoom" it's "unrealistic". Yet—those features belong in realistic games. Unrealistic feature providing more overall realism? Does that make the feature, as a whole, unrealistic?

 

 

 

Provide sources for these statements, please. I don't think that's an achievable reduction for a game that gives ACOG, 1P29, SVD or M110 to each squad.

 

 

 

So now you're going to say it's subjective to deflect the argument? Yeah, okay. This is getting tedious. The game is made more realistic through a feature that is unrealistic. That's it, end of discussion. You can admit you're wrong or argue with yourself from here on out at that point, because frankly to me it seems like you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

 

I'll get right on confirming a source, but rest assured it's something that has been talked about before with devs like Z-Trooper, Sgt Ross, and others. You can look at older posts here on the forums and find out tons of stuff about what the devs have said if you don't care to wait. From actually stating the intended engagement range to the delayed implementation of features like marksman classes because "they're not the focus of the game"; it's pretty clear to see what the devs don't want. 

 

It's simple to achieve. Currently (and possibly permanently) the ACOG, 1P78 (1P29 is not in game), PSO-equipped SVD, and ACOG-equipped M110 are all extremely limited weapons, both to the amount per squad (4 per squad at most for the M4A1 w/ACOG) and per team (3 per team for DMR classes) so that medium range engagements are kept in the scope of possibility but aren't the main focus. Even if they made ACOGs unlimited, we'd still see engagement distances hover at the same distances/shorter ranges because the zoom gives people what they need to hit properly now and is good for engagements as clost as 25m if you know how to work with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gews   
17 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

The game is made more realistic through a feature that is unrealistic. That's it, end of discussion. 

 

If the effect this feature has on in-game visual capability is "net positive" for realism, how does that make the feature unrealistic? Clearly everyone knows human eyes do not have a variable zoom. And why does that matter? It's not a human eye we have. It's beside the point, which is very basic: what can I see, and how does it compare to real life? You can say at same time, zoom is unrealistic, yet also zoom provides a more realistic vision. Which is why it is "subjective at best"... but I find any realism-based argument for "no zoom" is quite weak.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gews said:

 

If the effect this feature has on in-game visual capability is "net positive" for realism, how does that make the feature unrealistic? Clearly everyone knows human eyes do not have a variable zoom. And why does that matter? It's not a human eye we have. It's beside the point, which is very basic: what can I see, and how does it compare to real life? You can say at same time, zoom is unrealistic, yet also zoom provides a more realistic vision. Which is why it is "subjective at best"... but I find any realism-based argument for "no zoom" is quite weak.

 

 

If you lose 30,000 dollars this year and gain 50,000, then is that loss of 30,000 dollars considered a gain? No, it's a loss. You can find the argument weak all you want, but you haven't even made an argument that you can stick with yet, so what you consider weak means nothing to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IrOnTaXi   

and locked for meaningless flame discussion. thanks as always varenkysupreme. You might want to consider some counselling or a few light therapy sessions. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×