Jump to content
moeppling

Balancing different Monitors (yup, it's zoom/FoV all over again [with a twist])

Recommended Posts

Hey,

after OWI banned reshade for the zoom exploit, i'm curious to how far they are willing to go to balance for different monitors? It seems close to their heart.

As we know, OWI isn't going to implement a natural FoV (ArmA style) and Squad will continue using a mostly fixed Field of View (with the exception of mounted weaponory, the available scopes and the rare binoculars).

This way the limiting factor in long distance firefights isn't the inaccuracy of weapons, but the resolution and size of you monitor.

 

I recently had a oppurtunity to borrow a huge Acer XB1 32" 4k 60Hz Monitor (compared to my 24" FullHD 144hz monitor). Again, it's a huuuuuge monitor and a superb piece of equipment.

 

And all of a sudden i had a what felt like a immense advantage. I had issues powering it with a single 980ti, but 30-50fps had to suffice.

Even though the FoV didn't change, it did fix my biggest spite with Squad: Visiblity.

 

  1. Distant enemies are now being rendered by 4-8 pixels instead of 1-2.
  2. Kicked up dust from missed shots finally become (more) visible and it's easier to compensate for the bullet drop/choose the correct zeroing.
  3. You can trace your outgoing and incoming tracer with ease!

= It's pretty much like the reshade zoom-tool as described by OWI in a statement some time ago. Without the blurriness.

 

In my own opinion, the ability to identifying the enemy first decides a lot of the powerdynamics in gunfights straight away. Oldest trick in the book is taking the enemy by suprise.

By using a greater resolution, a bigger screen and the lowest FoV possible (=90°) at the same time effectively straps an Acog to your forehead. With all the advantages (and perhaps and disadvantages?). 

(edit: here comes sarcasm) For two weeks i had a blast and felt a little dirty inside. How is that even legal? o.O  

 

At the same time i did not notice as much of an advantage in ArmA3. The powerful stock "zoom" and the variety of equally powerful scopes is enough to compensate for the lack of clarity to some extent. It simply did not bother me as much. This could be my imagination.

 

There are two (plus one) solutions (that i can think of):

  1. A zoom function (the ability to decrease the FoV on the spot, similar to ArmA).
  2. A depth haze on all maps and layouts.
  3. A Binocular for every nation and class.

 

(1) OWI mentioned multiple times that a realsitic zoom is not in the works for Squad. That is because they are not aiming to produce a hardcore MilSim and are going for a more casual approach. I myself can't connect the dots between a realistic FoV and a hardcore MilSim experience.

(2) I'm sure that a depth haze would be overwhelmingly unpopular in the community, but it could be the right step in terms of balance.

(3) Would be a compromise. It would be the most conservative solution i can possibly imagine with the least work required.

 

All three option have the potentionall to reduce some of the frustation, going from the best (1) to worst (3).

 

I've been thinking about this for months and i've heard similar sprites from people i play with regulary. The implementation of a zoom function should not be merely based on preference, but balance.

 

 

Again, huge 4K Monitors are legal! But why is this not being talked about? Neither by the Community nor the Developer.

 

Anyway - those are my opinions. 

 

 

Greetings,

moep

 

Edited by moeppling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheaters make up a small percentage of any given multiplayer game. Should they not be dealt with as well?

Same goes for glitchers and bugusers, should we ignore patching the game?

 

This is a interresting statistic, but what does it proof or disproof?

Edited by moeppling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear more about the "natural FoV (ArmA style)". What's the difference compared to Squad's FOV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dislike these type of threads that 'criminalise' those with progressive hardware because they may have an advantage. What next you want us all caped to 60fps because those with higher end gpus have the advantage of frame rate. I am sure your 980ti is already giving you an advantage over other players.

 

Having the best hardware is not about gaining an advantage but getting the best experience for your finances. The only way you're going to have a somewhat level playing field is if you game on console. Even now that's getting messed up with keyboard & mouse support and tweaked version of the current gen console

Share this post


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

This is a interresting statistic, but what does it proof or disproof?

Not trying to proof/disproof anything.

I meant to post it as some input. - So that you can answer the question " [...] why is this not being talked about?" by yourself.

 

My train of thought:

Spoiler

1920 x 1080 is used by 65.22% of steam users

2560 x 1440 by 2.95% (*)

3840 x 2160 by 1.15% (*) Acer XB1 32"

 

Q: "[...] why is this not being talked about?"

A: as of today, only a small percentage is using "exotic*" resolutions/monitors. therefore there is not a big discussion

 

 

also, IMHO.

a high pixel density (PPI) is more important than a big screen. - especially in Squad.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're basically saying that running Squad on a 32" 4K monitor at 4K Resolution gave you a significant advantage over your 24" 1080P monitor? Yeah makes sense.

 

But now you're suggesting a zoom similar to ARMA III to help those with full HD res players compensate against those with 32" 4K? The advantage gap will remain the same though. 32" 4K players will have their monitor's advantage on top of the zoom which will be implemented across the board here...

 

I'd like to add to your list:

1 hour ago, moeppling said:

There are two (plus one) solutions (that i can think of):

  1. A zoom function (the ability to decrease the FoV on the spot, similar to ArmA).
  2. A depth haze on all maps and layouts.
  3. A Binocular for every nation and class.

            4. Maps & game design (layers) tweaks to make long range (500m+) engagement nearly impossible on cap points. This is something Axton, Chance and Fuzz will need to take into consideration when the're working on their stuff. Adding foliage/trees, other types of natural barriers and buildings to force engagements to occur within a given parameter.

 

Basically think of Fool's Road, It's almost impossible to engage an enemy that is on FOB Papanov from Hilltop because there's natural barriers in your way regardless of what optic or monitor you're rocking. Now take that same distance and look at Yehorivka with all the open fields and high mountains. 

 

 

Share this post


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

So you're basically saying that running Squad on a 32" 4K monitor at 4K Resolution gave you a significant advantage over your 24" 1080P monitor? Yeah makes sense.

 

But now you're suggesting a zoom similar to ARMA III to help those with full HD res players compensate against those with 32" 4K? The advantage gap will remain the same though. 32" 4K players will have their monitor's advantage on top of the zoom which will be implemented across the board here...

You're implying that increasing zoom also increases your weapon accuracy. That is not correct. Like i said. Weapon accuracy has to be the limiting factor if you want a even playing field in this matter.

 

1 hour ago, beginna said:

Not trying to proof/disproof anything.

I meant to post it as some input. - So that you can answer the question " [...] why is this not being talked about?" by yourself.

 

[...]

 

also, IMHO.

a high pixel density (PPI) is more important than a big screen. - especially in Squad.

 

Sorry, but i still think that 1k+ 4k Users and OWI Game Testers would've noticed something. I didn't get what youre saying at first.

 

1 hour ago, Major Trouble said:

I really dislike these type of threads that 'criminalise' those with progressive hardware because they may have an advantage. What next you want us all caped to 60fps because those with higher end gpus have the advantage of frame rate. I am sure your 980ti is already giving you an advantage over other players.

 

Having the best hardware is not about gaining an advantage but getting the best experience for your finances. The only way you're going to have a somewhat level playing field is if you game on console. Even now that's getting messed up with keyboard & mouse support and tweaked version of the current gen console

Never said that we should take away or ban 4k monitors. That is what you thought. I actually states some solutions that have nothing to do with penalizing 4k monitor players.

144Hz vs 60Hz does not compare to this, since you're not actually gaining additional detail through a higher refresh rate. It's also not a matter that can be easily solved or improved, like in this case.

 

1 hour ago, MultiSquid said:

I'd like to hear more about the "natural FoV (ArmA style)". What's the difference compared to Squad's FOV?

Lets take a 24" Monitor: 530mm wide and 300mn high. You're sitting 720mm away from it.

 

Now take a wall, make a 530x300mm hole in it and position your head 720 away from it.

Your visible horizontal FoV now decreased from ~114° (human eye) to ~41°, but the proportions of objects behind the wall stayed the same, right?

Now, do the same ingame: reduce fov to 41° and remain at a distance of 720mm.

 

Now objects in real life and in the virtual world are excactly proportional to each other. Compared to default the picture appears zoomed in.

If you now park a toyota hilux at a distance of 1km in game and in real life, they will appear to have the excact same size in both cases. You now have a natural FoV.

 

i could've copied the mathematical formula to calculate the natural FoV, but i thing this makes it clearer.

 

In Arma you can switch between a defautl FoV (which factores in your periphery) and a natural FoV (which is not perfect, since it does not accout for monitors of diffrent sizes and therefore simply takes a median FoV.).

 

This natural FoV makes it much easier to approximate distances and is therefore very important for Simulations in particular. This is excactly what the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive is doing to prevent nausia.

 

edit: To get the lowest possible FoV in Squad (i think its 90°) to appear natural, you'd have to position your head ~260mm away from the monitor. Just so you can get a sense of the relations.

 

edit2: I also did not say that i want a natural FoV by any means possible. It's just one of the options, which i would prefer.

I also tidied up the quotes.

Edited by moeppling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, moeppling said:

You're implying that increasing zoom also increases your weapon accuracy. That is not correct. Like i said. Weapon accuracy has to be the limiting factor if you want a even playing field in this matter.

I'm implying that slapping an ARMA III style zoom won't give the 1080P players any compensation against those playing in 4K as the gap will remain the same. If anything you would just be amplifying the problem, not solving it. 

 

1+2 = 3

2+2 = 4

 

Thing is, at the end of the day you want to instill cooperation between the classes especially those with and without optics. The moment a basic rifleman is able to engage (either accurately or not) at longer distances without the need of his comrade's optic or SL's binos for fire angle correction is when this game will turn into shit and we'll get an abundance of lone wolfs doing their own thing. Or not...I have been wrong before but I'm pretty sure about this one...No thanks.

 

But like I said before, if the map and layer design is made in such way so that long range engagements (500m+) is impossible or at the very least not beneficial to those with superior gear then there you go :) it won't matter who's rocking a 32" 4K monitor or not, the map should be designed with some assets acting as obstacles to allow long range engagement to take place on areas of the map that are not anywhere near important cap points. 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm implying that slapping an ARMA III style zoom won't give the 1080P players any compensation against those playing in 4K as the gap will remain the same. If anything you would just be amplifying the problem, not solving it. 

[...]

Alright, let's try it another way. Do you know the effective range, maximum effective range and the "comfortable" range of a AK-47, Colt M4 or any Assault Rifle is?

 

edit: I'm asking because i need to be sure what gap you're talking about.

Edited by moeppling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, moeppling said:

Alright, let's try it another way. Do you know the effective range, maximum effective range and the "comfortable" range of a AK-47, Colt M4 or any Assault Rifle is?

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong question. Squad never stated they want a 1:1 ratio to real life. If you want something like that then there's ARMA III which is a simulation game. The reason for this common confusion is because Squad sits in a very strange place on the Realism/Arcade spectrum. Squad is still in Alpha because it's still trying to establish itself somewhere on that spectrum. Simply put, Squad doesn't know what Squad is. 

 

I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that OWI plans to promote teamwork over individualism. They can achieve this by either giving incentives or blocking certain things. This is why the ARMA III zoom hasn't been implemented because the game aims (pun intended) to encourage individuals to work together therefor the roles with the correct gear (SL binoculars, Scout Binoculars, ACOG rifleman, MG M145, Marksmen, etc...) are useful for long-range engagements and target acquisition whereas the red dot/iron sight would have an advantage in CQB and could follow the tracers of the command and support roles. Simply put -> working together. 

 

Let's look at it from a different perspective, if you want realism than consider these:

 

- The torque settings on the vehicles (trucks) at the moment are higher than they would normally be in real life to compensate for the steep terrain. 

- Spawn mechanic is unrealistic. We should all be driving/walking not magically appearing on a rally/FOB.

- Not being able to pick up weapons. 

- Not being able to share ammo. 

- Trucks slamming into buildings like nothing happened. 

- Can't shoot the tires of a truck although compartmental damage is coming only for armored I believe as the first iteration.

 

We can go on....

 

So you see using "realism" as an argument, or insinuating it, is tricky because there's other things you would lose if Squad was a 1:1 representation of reality. 

 

Also:

And lastly:

1 hour ago, moeppling said:

I'm asking because i need to be sure what gap you're talking about.

 

6 hours ago, CptDirty said:

32" 4K players will have their monitor's advantage on top of the zoom which will be implemented across the board

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're constructing a strawman argument. I never advocated for a 1:1 ratio to real life.

 

I stated my experience with a 4k 32" compared to a 2,5k 24" monitor in Squad and ArmA3 and then proposed possible solutions to a real problem. It may not be a common occurence but it's non the less a problem disrupt the balance of the whole gunplay.

 

Limiting the maximum fighting range by level design is certainly not an option. This is a combined arms Game, not a pure Infantry game. By doing so,  you would inevatably nerf all vehicles even further. They are already not as effective as they should be / countered easily by above avarage players.
 

22 hours ago, CptDirty said:

Let's look at it from a different perspective, if you want realism than consider these: [...]

5 out of 6 of your examples aren't implemented yet due to time constraints and the fact that this game isn't released. Those feature will inevitable become more realistic and complex. That was the plan anyway.

 

Why the torque of vehicles is increased compared to real life counterparts? I don't know. I'm not a Dev. But i can tell you that that is not limiting me as a player in any case.

 

One Example: Wheeled vehicles are too fast in comparison to tracked vehicles and are disrupting the gameplay. You have two solutions.

  1. removing every fourth wheel from every wheeled vehicle (cripeling the vehicle)
  2. reducing the power output of those vehicles (balancing the vehicle)

 

The Developer chooses option 1). Now, since the Developer isn't aming at a 1:1 realistic game, this should not be a issue, right? Why is taking away the ablility to see propperly diffrent?

In a game like Battlefield, this would be less of a prolbem. Tracked vehicles could get a hover function as a solution and nobody would bat an eye. Battlefield is neither realistic nor authentic. Squad is.

 

The only thing the lack of zoom accomplishes is artificially making ironsighted weapons inferiour to sighted weapons and increasing demand of third party zoom tools.

 

The maximum engagement distance for iron sighted weapons is around 200-250 meters. = comfotable range for ironsighted weapons

The maximum engagement distance for sighted weapons is between 400-500 meters. = comfotable range for sighted weapons

 

Doubleing the zoom won't make it possible to hit targets at 800 meters. This is because of ballsitics and weapon system limitations.

 

How Assault Rifles Ballistics work in the real world (simplyfied):

Spoiler

 

Assualt weapons like the Colt M4 and Ak 74 have an effective range of right around 450-550 meters. This changes depending on who you ask but it's somewhere around 500.

-> This is the maximum distance at which the weapon system is able to produce an acceptable grouping.

 

At 600 meters and above 5.56x4/5.45x39 bullets are starting to do doing funky things due crosswinds and other factors.

-> Groupings are starting becoming unacceptable/ineffective.

 

At 800 meters those caliblers are basically useless. This is the range, at which it is theoretically possible to hit stuff. 

-> This is the absulte maximum effective range of those calibers.

 

These are the limitations of the Rifle, not the Sight.

 

 

Increasing the zoom to 2x (90° -> 45°) wouldn't change sighted weapons much, because of the given limitations of the weapon system. There simply isn't enough room for improvement.

What would increase, is the ablity to make out enemies i.e. spotting them. 

 

Additionally to the limitations of the Rifle, limitations of the ironsights and optics play another role. Some iron-sights wont allow a zeroing up to 1000meters. Example: L85a2 iron is limited to 200 meters. Increasing zoom won't affect the maximum engagement distance for this weapon in any kind.

 

The maximum egangement distance would probalby change on a whole as following:

iron-sighted weapon: 200-500 meters. 

sighted weapons: 400-600 meters.  (1P29 optical sight on AK's is limited to 400 meters)

 

^This is still short of real life figures. This would not make the game into a simulation. Ironsights in reality aren't as frustrating as they are in Squad and many older games. Optics are not supposed to convert a Assualt Rifle into a Marksmen Rifle. Thats why the russian Military - up to this day - is still mostly using iron sighted ak-74m's. It's not because they are poor or don't care about the regular soldier. It's because ironsights work quite nicely with Assault Rifles.

 

sighted weapons will retain a advantage over iron-sighted weapons in firefights at the maximum engagement distance. Additionally it'll still be easier to make out enemies with sighted weapons. The overall engagement distance  would increase by ~ 20% tops. 

Rapid (fully automatic) fireing at anything but close range would still be much easier with sighted weapons.

 

If you now use a 32" (4k) over a 24" (FullHD) monitor you'll get an additional zoom of ~1.5x. This would correspond to a 30° FoV on a 24" (FullHD) monitor

You wouldn't get a significant benefit from either iron sighted nor sighted weapons. They are already close to their limit.

 

 

Now you can artificially increase or decrease this limit by adjusting the bullet spread and thus reducing the maximum effective range.

 

This - in my Opinion - is how things should be balanced in a realisitc shooter. Reducing the ablity to see or taking away basic features is a less elegant way to do it in a above avarage realistic Shooter.

 

Now, this is one of the three suggestions i made. No opionions to the other two?

 

 

 

Edited by moeppling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, moeppling said:

One Example: Wheeled vehicles are too fast in comparison to tracked vehicles and are disrupting the gameplay. You have two solutions.

That's the first time I hear anyone complain about a truck/jeep being faster than an armored vehicle. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

 

5 minutes ago, moeppling said:

Now, you can artificially increase or decrease this limit by adjusting the bullet spread and thus reducing the maximum effective range.

If you've ever played the original bf2 you would remember the horrible spread weapons had in that game except for the sniper rifles. No thanks. Still have nightmares from it as much as I loved that game it was a love/hate relationship. 

 

9 minutes ago, moeppling said:

Reducing the ablity to see or taking away basic features is a less elegant way to do it in a above avarage realistic Shooter.

But isn't a depth haze on all maps and layouts a way of reducing visibility? That's what you're suggesting here right?

On 8/19/2018 at 8:15 AM, moeppling said:

A depth haze on all maps and layouts.

Something like this here:

kerkythea-fog-sample.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Yes it sounds crazy and illogical. Just like focing the player to wear fisheye glasses. That's an example/analogy.
  2. I did play bf2 and you're right. Such a harsh bullet spread isn't nececary in Squad to balance out a 20% increase in maximum engagement distance.
  3. Depth Haze is realisitc and can actually occure in reality, fisheye glasses most likely not.
  4. Yes. This is depth haze. Unnecessarily stronk depth haze for that matter.

Share this post


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

stronk

Strong with a K....that's seriously strong....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.8.2018 at 12:22 PM, embecmom said:

im confused... does it really matter how big my screen is if im only 60mhz refresh rate? 

can you elaborate your question?

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

×