Jump to content
Hvolute

Please Fix the visibility.

Recommended Posts

Let us keep it civil.. So yes i get that you are clearly not happy with the way it is now, and i agree in some way. But having firefights at 1000 metre range is just not something this game is made for. And it seems that most people here simply do not agree with your views.

So how about compromising ideas instead? Something inbetween that would improve it for you, and the other guys in this thread?

 

This is not PR, in PR people mostly stayed together because the shooting mechanics (accuracy and stuff) were complete shit, they almost felt like muskets. So yeah, people stay together there, because it's a way more niche and small community, and because shooting with completely inaccurate guns like that is simply most effective in a group (musket lines anyone?)

Edited by Guan_Yu007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'd like to see some increases in visibility. I do get where the OP is coming from, having an iron sight feels like you're squinting the whole time, increasing visibility would push engagements out to further distances, which would then decrease accuracy (remember visibility and accuracy are not the same thing) which would in turn, lower casualty rates and lead to more enjoyable and squad based fire fights. I know the game isn't going for realism so I won't go down that route, I'll argue that longer gun battles at increased ranges are more realistic and thus, more FUN. For me, well, during my combat tour, we'd regularly be in contacts that would last the good part of an hour or sometimes much, much, longer. Again, I only mention this not because of realism for the sake of realism,  but I think sometimes, realism can also mean more fun.

 

The longer the gun battle, the more intense the situation and the more fun it gets. Hell, once the devs introduce fire teams, it will be THAT much more important to lengthen contacts and increase the range to give way to tactics such as Delta fire teams providing cover while Charlie go right or left flanking. Maybe "contact front" is shouted out and the LMG or the GPMG actually has time to get some bipod legs deployed and return accurate suppressing fire instead of just getting head shotted the moment the bipod legs are deployed. Under fire team attack type styles, the iron sights would still be needed, they would form part of the Charlie fire team who would bound forward to close with, and engage with, the enemy in close quarters while delta (optics and lmg's) could suppress.

 

Just sounds like a hell of a lot more fun to me. But that's just my humble opinion. Squad in it's current state is also fun.  (Optics on gun emplacements when that happens is going to change the game too, for the better)

 

Just to be clear, I'm not arguging for more optics.... and thus more accuracy. Quite the opposite. I think by increasing the visibility (and also the suppression feature which I haven't mentioned above) you will increase the range at which contacts take place with current weapon systems and optics which in turn is going to lead to less accurate fire, thus prolonging contacts (longer range = less accuracy)

 

TheGeneral.

Edited by TheGenera1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

Let us keep it civil.. So yes i get that you are clearly not happy with the way it is now, and i agree in some way. But having firefights at 1000 metre range is just not something this game is made for. And it seems that most people here simply do not agree with your views.

So how about compromising ideas instead? Something inbetween that would improve it for you, and the other guys in this thread?

 

This is not PR, in PR people mostly stayed together because the shooting mechanics (accuracy and stuff) were complete shit, they almost felt like muskets. So yeah, people stay together there, because it's a way more niche and small community, and because shooting with completely inaccurate guns like that is simply most effective in a group (musket lines anyone?)

This is the spiritual successor to PR. Close enough.

 

And second, PR guns are incredibly accurate. The problem you had was that about half the community was too stupid to realize that there was an invisible delay when you brought up the sights to simulate the time it takes to get a sight picture. If you waited until that finished the gun was spot on accurate. 

 

And no I wont compromise, because I dont give a hoot'n hell about how many people disagree. Squad and PR and oriented towards realism, and it is therefore illogical as hell to not have reasonable vision. Im tired of being half blind in game. Arcade games like Battlefield 4 have more realistic vision. What in the hell in the point of having squad based mechanics, more realistic guns, and all the other realistic things squad and PR do compared to other shooters if you are going to also have vision that is less realistic than bf4. 

 

It is illogical and pointless to implement realistic mechanics if you make a mockery of them by not giving the vision necessary to make them matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hvolute said:

PR guns are incredibly accurate

No lol the guns are not accurate at all in PR and yes I'm talking about settled deviation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, banOkay said:

No lol the guns are not accurate at all in PR and yes I'm talking about settled deviation.

Yes they are. You can practically laser people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hvolute said:

Yes they are. You can practically laser people

What the hell are you on about, what's the last time you even played PR? Seriously, the guns are incredibly inaccurate, people very rarely even go for headshots because of how unreliable it is due to inaccuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, banOkay said:

What the hell are you on about, what's the last time you even played PR? Seriously, the guns are incredibly inaccurate, people very rarely even go for headshots because of how unreliable it is due to inaccuracy.

Id as you the same question to be frank. Once you wait for the invisible crosshair to narrow, the PR guns are spot on. I have absolutely no difficulty landing shots exactly on target so long as I wait for the aim to steady. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hvolute said:

Id as you the same question to be frank. Once you wait for the invisible crosshair to narrow, the PR guns are spot on. I have absolutely no difficulty landing shots exactly on target so long as I wait for the aim to steady. 

I played it 2 days ago, I'm assuming you haven't played it for 2 years at least, that's how long we've had deviation indicator, so no invisible things to wait for. Pointless discussion anyway, the game's visibility problems have nothing to do with design choices, it's just horrible rendering/ post processing that other games simply don't have, nothing to discuss, complain and fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, banOkay said:

I played it 2 days ago, I'm assuming you haven't played it for 2 years at least, that's how long we've had deviation indicator, so no invisible things to wait for. Pointless discussion anyway, the game's visibility problems have nothing to do with design choices, it's just horrible rendering/ post processing that other games simply don't have, nothing to discuss, complain and fix.

That is everything to discuss, complain, and fix. If its a problem, it needs fixed. IF they cant fix the rendering issues, they will need to do something else to compensate. Like a zoom, for example. Like ARMA's 50 degree or something one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 8:25 AM, Hvolute said:

Please fix the vision in this game. We need either a ARMA like zoom that can be used at any time or we need major adjustments to rendering scale at range.

LOL git gud kid.

 

Stop trying to fight at long ranges.

Get in close range.

Flank, maneuver around, pop smoke.

There is always another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 4:17 PM, Hvolute said:

No shit. You really think so? I wasnt sure if the request to fix vision indicated dissatisfaction with the status quo or not....

 

You know what else we could do that would be unrealistic but would keep squads from separating? Tethers! We could just tie everyone together! Or we could just make all the maps so foggy that everyone has to huddle. Or we just kill people who stray too far from the group....

 

PR had decent spotting, and it didn't result in lone wolf syndrome. You dont enforce player behavior at the expense of game mechanics. PR, the predecessor to squad, enforced team play by strict team enforcement. Dont want to play in a squad? You get booted form the server. Join a squad and dont stay with your team? You get kick from the squad and then booted for not being in one. Simple.

 

But hey, I think I am starting to like the idea of just chaining everyone together instead....

Pro Tip: This isnt PR.

Share this post


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

Pro Tip: This isnt PR.

Pro Tip: This is the spiritual successor according the the PR. It is intended to be PR in all but name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hvolute said:

Pro Tip: This is the spiritual successor according the the PR. It is intended to be PR in all but name. 

no, it is not.

"in all but name" and "spiritual successor" are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LaughingJack said:

no, it is not.

"in all but name" and "spiritual successor" are not the same thing.

semantics, and its the developers choice of words. " we are seeking to make Squad the spiritual successor to PR in everything but name."

 

 

Edited by Hvolute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Squad and PR are shooters whose goal is to be as realistic as possible. I am not hearing any decent arguments as to why we should continue with this nonsense vision as we have now. I have a suspicion that if the devs changed the vision most of the opposition in this thread would be just fine being able to see alot better, as most of the counter arguments thus far amount are nonsensical drivel about "game-play" coming before realism.  If that were the goal, then you could eliminate just about 90% of the mechanics in this game that have nothing implicitly to do with team play and are there exclusively to increase their analogue to a real world entity. 

 

The team work in this game would not be at all affected if you increased the view range. You could see an order of magnitude better in PR and the team play there was better than it is in squad so far. And alot of you are missing the point, that the teamwork factor of this game exists because that is itself realistic, not because "teamwork" is some kind of game-play gimic. 

 

Edit: IF ANYTHING, teamwork would increase with more realistic vision. Better vision means better situational awareness, both of the enemy and of your own squad and team. You would have alot less "squadleader of the blind" going on. 

Edited by Hvolute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you are complaining about @Hvolute, from your OP, is that visibility is poor due to lack of contrast and, presumably, poor AA.

 

unfortunately the engine(UE4) AA and Rendering in general is entirely Epics problem, so there is no point in complaining in here that the Devs can't computer - and the AA as it stands is woefull, absolutely, along with shadows.

contrast could be easily adjusted outside of the game, along with colour saturation (vibrancy), via monitor/vidcard settings.

 

On 16/02/2018 at 7:26 AM, Hvolute said:

Just about everything over 250m disappears or is too hard to pick out without optics or unreasonable observation times. There are arcade shooters that do a better job

because i can't remember one, could you quote some "arcade shooters" that have reasonable visibity over 250+m (where i can spot and hit someone), let alone maps that big?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LaughingJack said:

what you are complaining about @Hvolute, from your OP, is that visibility is poor due to lack of contrast and, presumably, poor AA.

 

unfortunately the engine(UE4) AA and Rendering in general is entirely Epics problem, so there is no point in complaining in here that the Devs can't computer - and the AA as it stands is woefull, absolutely, along with shadows.

contrast could be easily adjusted outside of the game, along with colour saturation (vibrancy), via monitor/vidcard settings.

 

because i can't remember one, could you quote some "arcade shooters" that have reasonable visibity over 250+m (where i can spot and hit someone), let alone maps that big?

 

It is not a UE4 issue. Vision in games never stacks up direcly to human vision, which is why games very frequently use various methods to compensate. It is particularly crucial in games where realism is the goal. Contrast can only partially be fixed by the things you listed. And AA is not in my opinion the major issue when it comes to seeing, although I could be underestimating it. The game needs either a zoom feature like in arma, or modifications to how lods render at long ranges. Or some combination of the two. 

 

As for your list of arcade shooters: pretty much any entry in the battlefield series. They are arcade as all get out, but I can see much better in them. The issues of vision in games are general, but Squad right now is a particularly extreme example. 

 

There are alot of things that could be done to make the vision better in this game, and it really should be done given the games orientation. From a list of things I would like to have changed before final release, a fix for vision takes up all ten of the top slots. Vision affects everything. It makes and breaks many other critical game mechanics because practically everything is tied to it. 

Edited by Hvolute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LaughingJack said:

because i can't remember one, could you quote some "arcade shooters" that have reasonable visibity over 250+m (where i can spot and hit someone), let alone maps that big?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AA is a major issue - many peolple comlaining about it and how it essentially destroys distant visibility by blurring everything - unless v10's UE4 updates have fixed it. atm (pre v10(SDK)) i prefer no AA at all, so i can see distant pixels instead of then being blended into obscurity.

 

iirc (remember i was playing in 1024 back then) in any BF the only way to see & hit someone from more than 200 or so meters was to use an optic. can't recall BF:BC2 having a map that big, or ever needing to or having to make a shot that long in any bf/bf:bc2 games iv'e played, except when being a sniper. also, Frostbite: engine made specifically for one game, unlike UE4 which is trying to be the jack of all trades and master of none.

UE4 is poor at doing large scale/long range stuff and i agree it does not look as good as one would expect of a new engine - but it's all we have.

shadows are crap, dynamic lighting needs work and any version of AA looks good close up but poor at distance because it blurs things into the background.

colour grading and various other PP settings can be adjusted by Devs.

 

Share this post


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

AA is a major issue - many peolple comlaining about it and how it essentially destroys distant visibility by blurring everything - unless v10's UE4 updates have fixed it. atm (pre v10(SDK)) i prefer no AA at all, so i can see distant pixels instead of then being blended into obscurity.

 

iirc (remember i was playing in 1024 back then) in any BF the only way to see & hit someone from more than 200 or so meters was to use an optic. can't recall BF:BC2 having a map that big, or ever needing to or having to make a shot that long in any bf/bf:bc2 games iv'e played, except when being a sniper. also, Frostbite: engine made specifically for one game, unlike UE4 which is trying to be the jack of all trades and master of none.

UE4 is poor at doing large scale/long range stuff and i agree it does not look as good as one would expect of a new engine - but it's all we have.

shadows are crap, dynamic lighting needs work and any version of AA looks good close up but poor at distance because it blurs things into the background.

colour grading and various other PP settings can be adjusted by Devs.

 

You cant definitely see people farther away is most other titles, including for some of the reasons you mentioned here. 

 

But additionally some of this is the fact that as game engines have improved things like shaders and lighting, they have gotten alot worse at distance vision. This issue is due to the fact that alot of time the abstraction that is graphics can look real pretty up close but the increased complexity can reduce visual clarity when you dont also have the human eyes contrast and resolving power. It has been a major issue in many of the newer flight sims, since the newer and pretter graphics often do not line up with realistic vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 5:49 AM, _randombullet said:

Didnt know combat engineers would be targeting enemies at 1000m. I do agree though. Fix the visibility.

I could with an Iron sight from My M60 when I was in, and I could see those damn cows from out to 1000 meters.

 

and in this game I can't see a human figure out to 1000 meters. I can with Binos on.

Edited by 71st_Mastiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hvolute said:

But additionally some of this is the fact that as game engines have improved things like shaders and lighting, they have gotten alot worse at distance vision. This issue is due to the fact that alot of time the abstraction that is graphics can look real pretty up close but the increased complexity can reduce visual clarity when you dont also have the human eyes contrast and resolving power. It has been a major issue in many of the newer flight sims, since the newer and pretter graphics often do not line up with realistic vision. 

YOU, dear sir, are onto something here. I suspected the problem in this game isn't exactly the AA, but the excessive graphical information the engine is trying to convey you, even though it can't. Maybe the solution lies in smarter lods, I dunno.

 

As a real life pilot, I have to say though: spotting small aircraft beneath you, against the background of a cluttered city, is quite hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest fix in my opinion would simply be a Arma-style 45-50 degree zoom that can be used at all times, so no need to be in iron sights or something. This would mostly fix the problem and I would imagine that it wouldn't not be hard at all to patch into the game. If so inclined the devs could also fix all the rendering issues as well, although I suspect that will take alot of time. Things like the AA etc. Smarter lods that shift color based on FOV and distance would also be nice. For example, a solder over 300m away could in rendered as black instead of whatever natural color he is. This is similar to how real vision interprets long rang objects as well, and would also alleviate some of the issues with 1 to 1 color in games not having the same contrast as real life. 

Edited by Hvolute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/02/2018 at 7:37 AM, virusman said:

2007 game looks better and sharper than 2018 squad  . 
life goals

2005 game actually, and the BF2 engine is from 2001, lol

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

×