Iron Sights Zoom (Merged)
- Thread starter Kurtz
- Start date
I was just about to write something similar. Gotta love people who jump into a thread, repeat everything that has been said already and fling insults at everyone who disagrees with them.
Upvote
0
Yes, you do, it alerts you to the fact that the thread is based on a disagreement where 2 arguments about how things should work exist. There is nothing more to bring to the argument than further explanations for why one sides views do not hold up to examination.
Here is this thread seems to boil down to:
Agument 1: The game should represent the human eye's incredably high resolution.
Agrument 2: The game should represent human perepheral vision and the fact that closing 1 eye or concentrating harder doees not change the light that hits the retina, which means that the image percieved by the eye remains the same size.
There are a number of arguments for why either side is more realistic, but if you simply look at the statment of the arguments, implementing the realism of argument 1 negates (for the average user, who is the only person this thread can realistically concern) argument 2. Argument 1 as stated only provides 1 point of realism, argument 2 as stated provides 2 points of realism. Simple math tells me that you get more realism from the implementation of argument 2.
Feel free to lengthen argument 1 or 2, I dont think I did justice to argument 1 so my analysis might be off.
Upvote
0
Forget it Hyperion. I did the same thing a few pages back. I summerized who wants what and said that this should be carried out on the basis of gameplay-arguments and not on realism-arguments because both sides are partly right in the latter and its just a matter of opinion, playing style, and evaluation. It didn't work, to say the least.
It doesn't matter anyway, because the devs decide how the game works, and as far as I can tell they made the right desicion some time ago and its not likely to be changed anytime soon.
Philosophical offtopic question:
Who argues on a more personal level without delivering facts, points or opinions?
The one who sais:
"It works like that because... , b!tch!"
Or the one who sais:
"Yeah, god, I hate those guys who just come along and smacktalk, man."
It doesn't matter anyway, because the devs decide how the game works, and as far as I can tell they made the right desicion some time ago and its not likely to be changed anytime soon.
Philosophical offtopic question:
Who argues on a more personal level without delivering facts, points or opinions?
The one who sais:
"It works like that because... , b!tch!"
Or the one who sais:
"Yeah, god, I hate those guys who just come along and smacktalk, man."
Upvote
0
Wasn't this what I've been saying a couple of times? With you disagreeing? Seems like the last pages were all over nothing.
Please show me where I or Dyslecxi said anything personal that comes even close to "laziness and lack of mental power."
Upvote
0
I'd say it's more
1) The game should represent the human eye's distance vision
2) The game should represent the human eye's peripheal vision
I'm am argueing for both. IMO, going to zoom during IS should not be forced or automatic, but you should have the option of going between 90 and 45 degrees FOV at all times (IMO it shouldn't even be tied to IS).
Upvote
0
I would love for that to be the case too if it werent for the fact that what most people call reducing FOV to 45 is equivalent to zooming in 2x. Its just a limitation of renderers which happens to produce a nasty unrealistic sideeffect. Black out the outter fourth of the screen on each side? Sure that works for me but I dont think many people would enjoy that.
Upvote
0
Agreed. The reasoning that has been used both in this thread and by certain developers (I won't name names, but he knows who he is) is faulty at best, and it has contributed towards gameplay that keeps me well away from RO these days.It's a pity this thread got dragged into the mud and mire of opinion and hysteria by a few Trolls, as this is an important design issue obviously poorly understood by much of the RO Audience and it's Developer(s)...
I would love to take someone who feels that the current FOV is "realistic", bring them to my work environment, and then see how they'd explain the FOV we end up using on massive three-screen setups in VBS2 to get things to scale properly to real life, with real weapons. Is that a perfect apples-to-apples comparison? No, but it's a hell of a lot closer than some of the wacky non-arguments used in this thread.
Upvote
0
The most disappointing thing is that while the game has fairly realistic FHD (first hit decisive) and accurate weapons -- we are limited to pixel draw distances that wouldn't even test a pistol ammunition weapons range and accuracy limitations due to FOV and pixelation.
If this were intended to be a CQC or arcade shooter this would be well and fine, but RO's render draw distances, and play area distances on LSS maps well exceed pixelation draw distance even for the most expensive 2048 * 1536 displays (and real world vision acuity by many orders of magnitude). Even worse: the player with the higher resolution display will always see and be abile to identify the player with the lower resolution display well before he is seen by that player on large maps...
Good realism game design (where the objective was realistic play as well as a good realism paint job) has always resorted to means to assure that either the play area did not exceed the pixel draw distance limitations of the mean resolution/FOV that a player was likely (or able) to use.
In RO not only can I not identify a three pixel blob that's supposed to be a man-target at even a small fraction of the distance I could clearly recognize him as someone I knew in the real world; I will be able to spot and identify him as a friend or foe before he is even able to me if he has a lower resolution display then mine (or vice versa).
The outcome is obvious; instead of a realistic emphasis on marksmanship and maneuver -- we see the typical arcade emphasis on speed, use of infinite turning speed, spam, and 'Rambo' tactics. It's no wonder the two busiest servers play the same CQB map over and over and RO's brilliant LSS infantry level designs go under appreciated and almost completely unplayed.
If this were intended to be a CQC or arcade shooter this would be well and fine, but RO's render draw distances, and play area distances on LSS maps well exceed pixelation draw distance even for the most expensive 2048 * 1536 displays (and real world vision acuity by many orders of magnitude). Even worse: the player with the higher resolution display will always see and be abile to identify the player with the lower resolution display well before he is seen by that player on large maps...
Good realism game design (where the objective was realistic play as well as a good realism paint job) has always resorted to means to assure that either the play area did not exceed the pixel draw distance limitations of the mean resolution/FOV that a player was likely (or able) to use.
In RO not only can I not identify a three pixel blob that's supposed to be a man-target at even a small fraction of the distance I could clearly recognize him as someone I knew in the real world; I will be able to spot and identify him as a friend or foe before he is even able to me if he has a lower resolution display then mine (or vice versa).
The outcome is obvious; instead of a realistic emphasis on marksmanship and maneuver -- we see the typical arcade emphasis on speed, use of infinite turning speed, spam, and 'Rambo' tactics. It's no wonder the two busiest servers play the same CQB map over and over and RO's brilliant LSS infantry level designs go under appreciated and almost completely unplayed.
Upvote
0
I think the fact that the sprites camoflage & HUGE pink face shows up easily in the map, level the problems with pixelation & real life view distance. There's no real way to hide in RO apart from peeking round an obstacle. IRL unless charging across an open field the only thing you'd see would be muzzle flash. So i think the 2 things even out in the end. PLEASE NO SIGHT ZOOM or "BOOM HEADSHOT" will be seen!!!!
Upvote
0
Jeez. Read the thread first and then comment by either insulting someone for little to no reason or bring new ideas into it. Don't just post your opinion in a sentence without an argument. Oh, and no: "Because I say so" is not an argument. Neither is "imo/imho" even if sounds suspiciously like one...
[/notmeantasharshasitmightsound]
[/notmeantasharshasitmightsound]
Upvote
0
