I cant help but think by making maps larger and weapon sway more realistic allot of the issues people bring up in this thread would be solved. we shouldn't have to butcher a perfectly realistic and working gameplay feature just to make the game closer to what Ro1 was like.
The Definitive Zoom Thread (Illustrated)
- Thread starter GnaM
- Start date
If only things were quite that simple. There's an awful lot of grey area as people like X and Y from one mode, but not N and M, and they don't like Q and R from the other mode, but enjoy Z very much.
I just noticed that this thread is actually about removing all zoom, including the Classic one. So my post is invalid anyway.
No its not, it started out as an explanation why zoom is in the game.
Just because a few people post about wanting zoom removed should not deter any discussion!
It's unfair in a sense that zoom gives more benefit to stationary players as compared to moving players, even when zoom would be available all the time, due to the fact that walking around zoomed is hard as hell.
Hmm, disagreed, you die because of an artificial side effect/downside of zoom, that is not present IRL or games with no zoom.
Eh, walking around zoomed isn't that hard, don't knock it till you've tried it. It really depends on how much "head bob" is simulated, and how much mouse movement is scaled down when zoomed... which is up for debate.
There are also artificial limitations to the 90 degree FOV - you can get killed by snipers you would have seen and avoided if you had true-to-scale distance vision, you can get killed by SMG's you would have seen and shot with your rifle before they got within effective range. The 90 degree FOV also fails to cover the extra 90 degrees (out to 180) of peripheral vision you have in real life, and you can die in situations you would have spotted the enemy in the corner of your eye.
Forcing people to the 90 degree FOV doesn't eliminate artificial limitations, it just forces everyone to the same limitations rather then allowing them to choose based on their situation and preference.
In real life, you don't have to make the choice, but real life doesn't happen within a computer monitor. That's just the deal. Maybe when VR goggles become standard we can have both at once, but for now it's what we have to work with. Just like any choice you make in a competitive game, there are advantages and disadvantages to the 90 and 30 degree fov which can have either positive or negative consequences based on the situation your performance. One might even argue that this additional choice enhances the competitive skill and strategy of the game, and since it can't really be called unrealistic, how can that really be a bad thing?
Opposition in this area equates to whining "I don't like getting shot by people using their distance vision when I'm busy using my peripheral vision". Too bad. Even in real life, there are limits to what the human brain can focus on at any given time - if you aren't paying attention to things in the distance, you may not "see" them even if there is no artificial limitation making them smaller.
The "camp-friendly" argument is also old. WWII was camp friendly. No one wanted to go charging into bullets if they didn't have too. The americans were notorious for camping when they should have charged sooner. They also won the war. The solution to solve stalemate-prone camp-friendly play is to create scenarios and objectives that support and necessitate mobility, rather than impose artificial limitations to players' basic vision, shooting, and moving ability.
In other words, it's a much more realistic solution is to say "your superiors want you to cap the objective NOW and we're giving you air support with which to do it" rather than "we don't want you to camp, so we're magically making you blind past 50 yards".
There are also artificial limitations to the 90 degree FOV - you can get killed by snipers you would have seen and avoided if you had true-to-scale distance vision, you can get killed by SMG's you would have seen and shot with your rifle before they got within effective range. The 90 degree FOV also fails to cover the extra 90 degrees (out to 180) of peripheral vision you have in real life, and you can die in situations you would have spotted the enemy in the corner of your eye.
Forcing people to the 90 degree FOV doesn't eliminate artificial limitations, it just forces everyone to the same limitations rather then allowing them to choose based on their situation and preference.
In real life, you don't have to make the choice, but real life doesn't happen within a computer monitor. That's just the deal. Maybe when VR goggles become standard we can have both at once, but for now it's what we have to work with. Just like any choice you make in a competitive game, there are advantages and disadvantages to the 90 and 30 degree fov which can have either positive or negative consequences based on the situation your performance. One might even argue that this additional choice enhances the competitive skill and strategy of the game, and since it can't really be called unrealistic, how can that really be a bad thing?
Opposition in this area equates to whining "I don't like getting shot by people using their distance vision when I'm busy using my peripheral vision". Too bad. Even in real life, there are limits to what the human brain can focus on at any given time - if you aren't paying attention to things in the distance, you may not "see" them even if there is no artificial limitation making them smaller.
The "camp-friendly" argument is also old. WWII was camp friendly. No one wanted to go charging into bullets if they didn't have too. The americans were notorious for camping when they should have charged sooner. They also won the war. The solution to solve stalemate-prone camp-friendly play is to create scenarios and objectives that support and necessitate mobility, rather than impose artificial limitations to players' basic vision, shooting, and moving ability.
In other words, it's a much more realistic solution is to say "your superiors want you to cap the objective NOW and we're giving you air support with which to do it" rather than "we don't want you to camp, so we're magically making you blind past 50 yards".
Last edited:
I never got the head bob thing. My brain over the years has compensated my vision so when I run in real life, my eyes still stay focused on what I am looking at, hence I don't need the view on screen to bounce around.
I'm guessing its that way with most people?
I'm guessing its that way with most people?
What I mean is: it's harder because you use mouse movement both for steering where you are walking, and looking around. When you are zoomed in and walking, getting a good look of your surrounding heavily impacts your movement. (ie you zig zag just because you want to look around). Free-look helps, but still: the stationary player is not affected by all the above extra challenges introduced by zoom.
Yes, but no more discrepancy between moving and stationary targets.
That's true, we are dealing with an environment (monitor) that is heavily handicapped compared to real life. So the big (partly rethorical) question is: aren't there too many downsides to zoom? Isn't it wanting to achieve things that are not yet possible with our hardware? Shouldn't we let go of the goal to mimic real life vision when our monitors are so small, and instead try to provide the best gameplay possible, not being burdened by unrealistic goals?
Maybe zoom is good, but you have to be careful no to overdo it? Maybe RO2 has too high of a zoom level?
So many questions...I like to think about the deeper impacts zoom has on a game
I think you're overestimating the difficulty in switching between zoomed and unzoomed views based on the lag time in Ro2 and Arma - you have to hold a key and wait. If zoom were properly implemented, it could be an instantaneous single click process, and using either the peripheral or distance views would not be such a heavy-handed commitment.
Think of the way players roam around with Pistols or BR's in large Halo maps...constantly clicking in and out of the zoom view as they scan the horizon, drop a close glance at suspected target locations, and re-scan the horizon. If you're zoomed and suddenly hear something in your peripheral area, you can click once to instantly check - if it turns out to be nothing, you can immediately click back to the thing you were zooming on. The same applies to suspected targets in the distance when you're in the unzoomed view - it should only take 1 second to click in, check, and click again to zoom out.
While Halo makes this process appear robotic via a camcorder-like zoom animation and sound effect, it could be given an organic feel by leaving it as a silent process with maybe a slight transitional blur to smooth things our and simulate your eye muscles contracting.
I honestly don't think the zoom view has a bias toward stationary targets, because it's a double-edged sword. It magnifies both the advantages and disadvantages of camping equally; the more time you spend zoomed, the more exposed you are to players sneaking in on your blind sides.
In fact, when I play LMG on "Realism" servers, my technique is usually to wait with my view unzoomed until an enemy shows up in my lane of fire. Otherwise I risk missing a target who ran by just outside of my zoomed view. Even during sustained long distance firefights, I try to zoom out once for 1 seconds after every 10-15 seconds I spend zoomed to ensure I'm not missing anything.
This might sound robotic, but it's just a basic technique for situational awareness. In real life, there is no "zoom" but, driving instructors tell you to constantly scan everywhere for hazards rather than fixating on one point right in front of you or in the distance forever until you zone out.
What downsides? You just have to remember to be alert and always check for enemies in both your peripheral radius and at suspected locations in the distance. It's not a big deal, it's something basic that should be ingrained in all FPS players.
Like I keep saying, it only seems robotic in RO2 because it's implemented in a needlessly robotic way. Your avatar may as well freeze like statue, assume a Dalek voice, yell "ENGAGING DISTANCE VISION" and project a telescope from a trap door in his forehead. If it were an instantaneous process you could engage while moving, it would appear totally natural and almost go unnoticed to the casual observer.
Last edited:
I am not talking about the transition time to zoom (not in the part you quoted anyway). I'm talking about how low FoV and movement are bad partners.
You talk about hearing enemies. But's that's only a weak substitute for vision. Vision, which you lose while in narrow FoV. There are always going to be targets (friendly or enemy) that you miss due to low FoV. You cannot react to things you do not perceive. You can ofcourse unzoom from time to time to check your surroundings, but it's not the same as actually seeing these targets the moment they appear.
Increased blind sides is indeed one of the downsides of zoom I'm talking about. However, on top of that, a moving player gets extra penalties from zoom, as he cannot zoom as often as a stationary target. (or he can try, and be desorientated/be hindered in his movement due to moving around in low FoV). As mentioned above, it is comparable (fundamentally the same, with multiple differences, as metioned) to the sniper situation: more effective while stationary.
That is kind of how zoom forces you to play, and I dare say it's not a positive thing gameplay wise. It introduces an extra, kind of paranoid action not found IRL or in games with no zoom. (or to put it more correctly: IRL or games with no zoom, this action is performed by your eyeballs, and on reaction). This preventive zooming out is both more cumbersome and slower than actually using your eyeballs to detect targets.
Again, the big difference is, using your eyes vs pressing buttons/moving your mouse. The former is way more preferable gameplay wise, imo.
There are upsides to zoom: further engagement range/target identifcation, and downsides, see above.
We cannot pretend that having a zoom factor of 'X' in a game is qualitatively equal to having no zoom and having screens / resolutions that are 'X' times bigger, ie, the latter is superior in every way.
Zoom remains a patch, a shortcut, for a the problem that is limited monitor size.
For me the big question is: do the upsides outweigh the downsides. The way zoom is implemented in RO2 (realism or classic), I'm leaning towards 'no'.
Zoom implementation in RO2 is certainly open to improvement, as has been suggested lots of times, but I cannot get behind that last statement
Last edited:
I don't think it's that disproportionate to the disadvantages of moving in real life. If you are taking a liesurely walk across a field, you can afford to gaze off into the distance and focus on far away objects. If you are making a b-line for cover (i.e. during a paintball match) you're only focused directly on the play you're trying to get to.
After all, how often do you find yourself gazing at scenery when going for a jog, vs taking a walk? There is a reason "taking the scenic route" has become a metaphor for taking a long time or showing up late.
Comparably, in games which let you zoom on the move, you can spend plenty of time strafing or using freelook to scan for targets when you're not in immediate danger (Track IR makes this process even easier). It's only when you need to sprint for cover that zooming on the move goes out the window.
Again, you're overestimating the ease of real life. IRL, if you're staring down the sights of a machinegun, you will occasionally have to lower the weapon or raise your head to get a better view of your surroundings - it's not entirely a function of your eye movement. In other instances, I think you have to chalk it up to the fact that games, by their very nature, make some things a little more difficult and some things a little easier than in real life.
For example, when shooting, you might have to juggle zoom/unzoom modes to maintain awareness of both your peripherals and things in the distance, but the game also gives you consistently perfect sight alignment and trigger pull - two things which are highly prone to human error IRL. The game also provides consistently perfect management of cumbersome actions like reloading, and transitioning from rifle to grenade, pistol, binoculars - actions which a human will often perform with inconsistent speed, fumbling, lagging behind, or dropping things on occasion - particularly under stress.
Compared to burden of those tasks in real life, clicking a key to toggle between distance and peripheral vision is an infinitesimally small inconvenience.
Well it's worth mentioning, we haven't even discussed the biggest downside of zoom in RO2, which is that RO2 forces you to zoom whenever you go to ADS. Obviously, that is a huge mistake and never should have happened, and it is clearly a big penalty in CQB manuevering. But I thought everyone already agreed that should be changed, and that it was a moot topic.
I also disagree with shift zoom in the sense that you can't do it instantly and while moving, but that's been discussed.
Beyond that, assuming we're discussing a theoretical future, amended version of RO.... as far as other downsides...players who can't be bothered to tap one extra key to toggle views will suffer compared to those who can. That's pretty much the only downside. Compared to the proper representation of distance rifle combat and rifle accuracy vs SMG accuracy, its a small price to pay, particularly considering the game depicts WWII, where the emphasis on long range marksmanship, and the differences between rifles and assault weapons, were both much higher.
Big difference in your examples vs zoom in game: if you focus on some object IRL, you will still pick up movement in your peripheral vision. This is not the case when you are zoomed in in a game. Ofcourse we have the peripheral indicators, but they are only a patch, an approximation to proper vision (and they can use some improvement, but that's not the point). Also note that the very existence of the peripheral indicators is proof that zoom has downsides, and the indicators try to remedy those downsides (but can never completely undo them).
Also note that this kind of 'eye' focusing also happens in a game (with no zoom): you focus on one small part of your screen, but like in real life, you will still pick up on targets outside of that focal point. In an ideal game, that is the only kind of focusing players would do, and screens would be massive.
The last part of your post leads me to believe you do not fully understand the downsides of zoom in a game and why some people are bothered by them (some more than others apparently).
I'll try to put it in different words one more time:
If you go down to the very core, zoom is nothing more than a fancy, invisible scope: in both cases you go from your base FoV to a lower FoV on command. Some people really don't like that transition. Note: ofcourse there are a lot of differences on the surface, but in essense they are the same.
Zoom isn't the be-all end-all answer, solving the issue of limited monitors as if by magic, with no undesirable side effects.
So in the end, it's a matter of taste. For some people the benefits of zoom outweigh the downsides, for others, they don't. I don't go: "you cannot like zoom, it's bad!", so please don't pull a "you have to like zoom, it's perfect with no downsides!"
Different people, different tastes, and that's fine! Let's all respect each other's tastes.
Note that I am not totally against zoom, as I am fully aware of the downsides AND the upsides of zoom. I just feel that the amount of zoom in RO2 is too much.
Dang.. that turned out longer than I hoped again...
Last edited:
I really don't buy any of the complaints against zoom. It's just whining. Yes, you loose peripheral vision when you zoom...deal with it. If you don't like losing peripheral vision, then don't zoom. If you say it shouldn't be in the game, then you are essentially saying "you cannot like zoom" and "no one should be allowed to use it". It's not perfect, but neither is the 90 degree FOV, nor the real life 180 fov, so it doesn't make sense to force everyone to the same imperfect solution.
If we are going to start removing every feature that isn't exactly like real life, we're going to end up with no game at the end of it all. In real life, you don't reload with perfect speed every time, guess no one should be allowed to reload. In real life, you don't automatically get perfect trigger squeeze or sight alignment...guess guns should be removed from the game.
Unless we embrace creative solutions to these problems, things will never improve. By your argument, Track IR shouldn't be allowed in games, since it gives some players an unfair advantage. Damn, there goes the entire future of controls in the simulation genre. Mouse and keyboard has major downsides, I guess we should disable that too.
If we are going to start removing every feature that isn't exactly like real life, we're going to end up with no game at the end of it all. In real life, you don't reload with perfect speed every time, guess no one should be allowed to reload. In real life, you don't automatically get perfect trigger squeeze or sight alignment...guess guns should be removed from the game.
Unless we embrace creative solutions to these problems, things will never improve. By your argument, Track IR shouldn't be allowed in games, since it gives some players an unfair advantage. Damn, there goes the entire future of controls in the simulation genre. Mouse and keyboard has major downsides, I guess we should disable that too.
Last edited:
Opinions are opinions,what arguments weight more strongly for one might weight less for others. Anyway a summary of this post is at the bottom .
A simple list of facts is
Positives:
- Zoom makes it easier to fight at realistic ranges
- Zoom makes it possible to have realistically sized maps
- Zoom makes it easier to judge distances
- Zoom makes enemy recognition better
Negatives
- Zoom gives you a view transition that can take you out of the immersion
- Zoom does force you to choose to use either a realistic size or a wide fov forcing you to switch between modes.
- Zoom in RO2 does force you to stop all movement if you want to have a realistic size.
- Zoom forces you to look around with your arms by moving your mouse instead of scanning the horizon with only your eyes.
- Zoom makes it that depending on what character class you have or what stance or state you are in how far you can see.
- If enemies use zoom you need to use it as well as otherwise they will always see you first and kill you first, if you as a player don't use zoom you end up at an disadvantage. (and remember you have zoom when you press shift, but you get zoom as well when you go to ironsights).
Now what you find more important is of course your opinion as where I have mine. Personally I primarily look at it from a gameplay perspective. Where the zoom in RO2 is very similar to the sniper scopes in games without zoom, together with the inability to zoom while moving makes the gameplay a bit similar to sniper only maps in other games.
Personally I never liked sniper only maps, and am a guy that liked to really push into the capzones and take objectives. Zoom makes it take much longer to scan the environment as only a small section of the environment is covered forcing you to use your arms to move around. And zoom can not be used when on the move which constrains your movement.
Defending should always be advantageous to the defenders, but I feel with zoom that it makes it more advantageous for the defenders than it should be which impacts my enjoyment. I much rather have fights between guys that have seen each others but have more issues killing each other, and getting more duels and firefights on. Than most of the time getting killed by someone I did not notice.
Now while I still hope for a classic version with no zoom. But as that is probably not going to happen what I hope for that I think is attainable would be the following.
- Make it possible to zoom anywhere at any time at my control. Indoors I do not want zoom not in ironsights. And outdoors looking at a building I do want zoom even when sprinting. Even though I absolutely love that there is less zoom in classic, the inability to control the zoom that is there still makes me dislike the zoom states of classic more over what realism shows.
- Allow people to always see things equally. Currently in classic while the zoom is somewhat reduced rifleman can see further than smg users. I think that the functionality of your eyes should not depend on what weapon you are using.
- Somewhat reduce the maximum zoom at least for classic. Currently MG's in classic have 2.3x zoom rifles 1.9x zoom smgs 1.7x zoom. It would be nice if at least for classic there would be a max zoom ceiling.
- Increase the general visibility in maps. I think some of the new custom maps have shown like Bridge or Red Assault and many others. That by having less fog and those kind of effects. That it actually becomes much easier to spot and take down enemies. And although of course you can see much further when zoomed the general engagement ranges often stay below 200m. Making the general experience for me much more fun.
So in short, my zoom wish list (if zoom stays):
- Ability to control zoom any time anywhere.
- Limiting the max zoom ceiling
- Same max zoom regardless of weapon or character state
- More general visibility in maps (less fog, blur etc like in red assault or bridges custom maps).
.A simple list of facts is
Positives:
- Zoom makes it easier to fight at realistic ranges
- Zoom makes it possible to have realistically sized maps
- Zoom makes it easier to judge distances
- Zoom makes enemy recognition better
Negatives
- Zoom gives you a view transition that can take you out of the immersion
- Zoom does force you to choose to use either a realistic size or a wide fov forcing you to switch between modes.
- Zoom in RO2 does force you to stop all movement if you want to have a realistic size.
- Zoom forces you to look around with your arms by moving your mouse instead of scanning the horizon with only your eyes.
- Zoom makes it that depending on what character class you have or what stance or state you are in how far you can see.
- If enemies use zoom you need to use it as well as otherwise they will always see you first and kill you first, if you as a player don't use zoom you end up at an disadvantage. (and remember you have zoom when you press shift, but you get zoom as well when you go to ironsights).
Now what you find more important is of course your opinion as where I have mine. Personally I primarily look at it from a gameplay perspective. Where the zoom in RO2 is very similar to the sniper scopes in games without zoom, together with the inability to zoom while moving makes the gameplay a bit similar to sniper only maps in other games.
Personally I never liked sniper only maps, and am a guy that liked to really push into the capzones and take objectives. Zoom makes it take much longer to scan the environment as only a small section of the environment is covered forcing you to use your arms to move around. And zoom can not be used when on the move which constrains your movement.
Defending should always be advantageous to the defenders, but I feel with zoom that it makes it more advantageous for the defenders than it should be which impacts my enjoyment. I much rather have fights between guys that have seen each others but have more issues killing each other, and getting more duels and firefights on. Than most of the time getting killed by someone I did not notice.
Now while I still hope for a classic version with no zoom. But as that is probably not going to happen what I hope for that I think is attainable would be the following.
- Make it possible to zoom anywhere at any time at my control. Indoors I do not want zoom not in ironsights. And outdoors looking at a building I do want zoom even when sprinting. Even though I absolutely love that there is less zoom in classic, the inability to control the zoom that is there still makes me dislike the zoom states of classic more over what realism shows.
- Allow people to always see things equally. Currently in classic while the zoom is somewhat reduced rifleman can see further than smg users. I think that the functionality of your eyes should not depend on what weapon you are using.
- Somewhat reduce the maximum zoom at least for classic. Currently MG's in classic have 2.3x zoom rifles 1.9x zoom smgs 1.7x zoom. It would be nice if at least for classic there would be a max zoom ceiling.
- Increase the general visibility in maps. I think some of the new custom maps have shown like Bridge or Red Assault and many others. That by having less fog and those kind of effects. That it actually becomes much easier to spot and take down enemies. And although of course you can see much further when zoomed the general engagement ranges often stay below 200m. Making the general experience for me much more fun.
So in short, my zoom wish list (if zoom stays):
- Ability to control zoom any time anywhere.
- Limiting the max zoom ceiling
- Same max zoom regardless of weapon or character state
- More general visibility in maps (less fog, blur etc like in red assault or bridges custom maps).
Last edited:
I'm sad you don't seem to grasp the issue, you can not simply choose not to zoom, as you will be at a huge disadvantage. Also, you cannot say tastes are wrong. Saying people not liking zoom are wrong, is .. ah.. how can I say this.. not so constructive and does not make me see you in a positive light. Ah well, I tried.
Over and out.Zetsumei, thanks for that clear overview of the situation. Let it be a beacon of light in future zoom discussions.
Only thing in your post am not 100% agreeing with, is that visibility should be increased.
Last edited:
So we agree, great.
Not so constructive? What isn't so constructive is attempting to disable progressive features for everyone based on your own minor complaints. Tactical shooters have always been a progression of ideas which attempt to solve the limitations of previous FPS to the best ability of a game played through a computer monitor. If we were to start removing things every time someone whines i.e. "I don't like iron sights, it's hard to see behind the gun even though in real life I could shoot with eyes open and see everything" then RO would be just like Day of Defeat.
Absolutely no feature in any tactical shooter is perfect. They all have limitations. In order for the genre to progress, we have to embrace features which minimize the limitations of the genre. Allowing the player to swap fov's addresses the limitation that NO fov displayed on a computer monitor between 180 and 30 represents the whole scope of human vision, even though it lands somewhere within it. What is best within that range in any given situation is entirely personal preference, and one cannot claim any one fov is entirely more realistic than another. If you say "I want the whole game to suit my personal preference, and no one else's, because then otherwise my preference puts me at a disadvantage" then you're just being a baby and limiting genre progress in the process.
As I've already explained, the limitations of a proper zoom feature would be extremely minimal - 0 time taken to execute, 0 restrictions on when and where you can do it, 0 restrictions on what amount you want to zoom. The alleged "transition which breaks immersion" would not break any more immersion than features like the HUD, map, tactical view, text messages, non-3D VOIP, and many others already in-game. The only real drawback is its up to the player to make successful decisions about when and where to use it, just like every other feature in adversarial games.
Next you'll be telling me no one should be allowed to use this, this or this.
Last edited:
You are totally out of line there Gnam. You made a thread about zoom. Zets and me explained in well written posts how there are downsides as well about zoom. Never was there anything even close to 'forcing our preference on everyone else', only an attempt to have an intelligent discussion. I guess you can't handle that.
But hey, I guess I no longer feel gameplay is negatively impacted by zoom, because Gnam told me feelings were wrong. What a relief.
But hey, I guess I no longer feel gameplay is negatively impacted by zoom, because Gnam told me feelings were wrong. What a relief.
Its not exactly a stretch to think, given the posts here, that you guys want zoom gone entirely across the board. I mean several pages of "zoom is killing immersion, I hate it", what is he going to think? You guys want zoom to stay? God forbid people make reasonable inferences. Also I really don't see where he was out of line any more than you were, there were no insults slung and he gave his points with evidence.
Well, I don't want zoom to go. I wanted to discuss what zoom does to a game by laying out the up- and the downsides. See how it can be improved.
Gnam cannot even seem to conceive that anyone would not like certain aspects of zoom. How would you feel if you said you don't like feature X, and I told you the below statement. Not really constructive now is it.
Last edited: