What do YOU think about zooming in?

[Cyper]

So, what do you people think about the ability to zoom in while aiming down the sight, and zoom in with your eyes?

Personally, I don't like it. It makes it away to easy to spot the enemies and it makes the already easy-to-handle weapons even more easy to handle since you can zoom in and easily spot enemies. Doing this on bigger maps would be devastating since it would be even harder to hide for snipers, at-soldiers, gunners since the player can use this ability. After playing RO ost today, I realized how much harder it was spot and kill down enemies in open fields due to the fact that I cannot zoom in with my eyes.

 

[Actin]

I love to be able to actually shoot someone at engaging range.
It totally crushes the immersion if you cannot shoot someone at 150 meters, while the average engaging distance was 300 meters... (discovery info btw)

They need to increase the size of the maps (where possible), not deleting zoom.

 

[Josef Nader]

I would much rather have the ability to engage at realistic distances than to be forced to ruin my eyesight by squinting at pixels an inch away from my monitor trying to determine whether or not they're other players.

 

[bobsynergy]

I would much rather have the ability to engage at realistic distances than to be forced to ruin my eyesight by squinting at pixels an inch away from my monitor trying to determine whether or not they're other players.

Exactly, having something that is harder doesn't mean it is essentially realistic, the point of zoom is to show how it would in real life if you looked through the sights so I like it. It's more realistic and gets rid of the pixel hunting RO1 was which was bad.

I think when we get the even bigger maps from Tripwire and the community you guys will appreciate the zoom more as with small maps you don't really see it's advantage but in the bigger maps you would rather prefer it then having to pixel hunt.

 

[Sir Roderick]

The point is that the zoom is representing the image as you would see them in real life. You're unrealistically zoomed out all the rest of the time, because else you would have way too narrow a FoV.

 

[DiedTrying]

I never understood the resistance against zoom.

I spent a few years running on tracks, 100 meters in real life seemed like 300-400 in RO1 (im sure someone could do proper calculations and figure this out)

 

[Proud_God]

Zoom is nice, only thing that should be added is zooming while moving (free-look button)

 

[Warishell]

I love to be able to actually shoot someone at engaging range.
It totally crushes the immersion if you cannot shoot someone at 150 meters, while the average engaging distance was 300 meters... (discovery info btw)

They need to increase the size of the maps (where possible), not deleting zoom.

Hmmm average engaging distance of 300 meters for infantry... lol in Stalingrad! get back to the books my friend. More like 0-100 meters. And i do mean that 0.


As for OP:

The zoom feature just makes so much more sense, i'm not sure i can go back to many FPS's without it. I tried battlefield 3 out and kept on pressing shift lol. Dam why did i even install that sh**. The rights they ask in the EULA is just ridiculously arrogant. Who do they think they are!?

Anyway as it has been said on the forum zooming actually give you a more realistic perspective. Add the peripheral indicators and its a great alternative to a "realistic" perspective, why would you want to walk around looking through binoculars the wrong way, seriously!

 

[Josef Nader]

Anyway as it has been said on the forum zooming actually give you a more realistic perspective. Add the peripheral indicators and its a great alternative to a "realistic" perspective, why would you want to walk around looking through binoculars the wrong way, seriously!

Because RO1 did it!

 

[bazookatooth]

I think the idea is ok, but that the zoom effect is too strong. I say cut it in half. I also think that the distance at which a soldier disappears from your vision is way too short.

 

[Sufyan]

I fully support the zoom as a realistic feature, but I understand and partially agree with the opposition against it. While it allows for realistic battlefield awareness, this is still a game and people will not act like soldiers would. With a realistic amount of information at hand, players are able to make ridiculously dangerous decisions that no intelligent man would have the nerves to follow through in the real world. Popping your head up to kill a machine-gunner or sniper, rushing someone at 30m with your bayonet raised because it appears he is looking the other way, is something a real life soldier would only do if he did not know all the details and thought he was in no great danger.

in RO1 you couldn't really see what was going on and the game didn't help you much understanding what was going on. This uncertainty makes you play it more safe and slow, which makes it feel more real. You were artificially handicapped (actually, you were rather severely limited in ability) in very unrealistic ways but it made the game flow very realistically, or at least that's how it felt.

RO2 removes almost all kinds of artificial handicap and gives you complete control over an excellent soldier. You can see what a fully able soldier should see, move unhindered in ways a fully able soldier should be able to and you can use your weapons as efficiently as a trained soldier should be able to. This excludes the fatigue, fear and doubt that complicate a soldier's existence. RO1's clunky and limited controls slowed you down so that your actions appeared more human. RO2 allows you to be a perfect soldier who'se only weakness is that he is very vulnerable to lead poisoning, other than that he is the perfect fearless trained killing machine

RO2's high level of realism is easily exploitable by gamers. RO1's lacking realism made it hard to exploit the game, and so it played out more realistically. The "zoom" could very well be a case of too much realism.

 

[Gary 17]

On 21 inch monitor... yes it is good, on 50 inch screen... then there would be no need for this zooming. I imagine it as human eye foucsing on aiming.

 

[Knochensack]

It's bad. At least zoom should be reduced to DH level. This is just ridiculous.

 

[Cyper]

I fully support the zoom as a realistic feature, but I understand and partially agree with the opposition against it. While it allows for realistic battlefield awareness, this is still a game and people will not act like soldiers would. With a realistic amount of information at hand, players are able to make ridiculously dangerous decisions that no intelligent man would have the nerves to follow through in the real world. Popping your head up to kill a machine-gunner or sniper, rushing someone at 30m with your bayonet raised because it appears he is looking the other way, is something a real life soldier would only do if he did not know all the details and thought he was in no great danger.

in RO1 you couldn't really see what was going on and the game didn't help you much understanding what was going on. This uncertainty makes you play it more safe and slow, which makes it feel more real. You were artificially handicapped (actually, you were rather severely limited in ability) in very unrealistic ways but it made the game flow very realistically, or at least that's how it felt.

RO2 removes almost all kinds of artificial handicap and gives you complete control over an excellent soldier. You can see what a fully able soldier should see, move unhindered in ways a fully able soldier should be able to and you can use your weapons as efficiently as a trained soldier should be able to. This excludes the fatigue, fear and doubt that complicate a soldier's existence. RO1's clunky and limited controls slowed you down so that your actions appeared more human. RO2 allows you to be a perfect soldier who'se only weakness is that he is very vulnerable to lead poisoning, other than that he is the perfect fearless trained killing machine

RO2's high level of realism is easily exploitable by gamers. RO1's lacking realism made it hard to exploit the game, and so it played out more realistically. The "zoom" could very well be a case of too much realism.

That's a great post. You pretty much explained my thoughts. The most important thing imo is that players that doesn't pay attention and think tactically will be punished for not doing this.

You can make any game extremely realistic but if the player isn't punished for mistakes there is no reason for this player to be careful or pay attention.

 

[John Browning]

I never understood the resistance against zoom.

I spent a few years running on tracks, 100 meters in real life seemed like 300-400 in RO1 (im sure someone could do proper calculations and figure this out)

Absolutely! (Project Reality doesn't seem to get this) The problem is, the calculation as such, is not like some people on here are saying, the screen size so much as the resolution. The human eye has a resolution of, as close as we can estimate, 10-12,000 x 10-12,000 "pixels" so even 1080p is pretty bad considering the resolving power of the optics of the human eye. I think zoom should be slightly reduced from what it is now with the steady button, but I also think instead of your FOV being a choice of 70-75 it should be like 80-85. Anything smaller than 80 looks like you are viewing the world through the viewfinder of a 3x zoom camera. If the fov was 80-85, I think the magnification level of steady zoom would be on par.

What cracks me up is that people think a 4:3 ratio or a 16:10 ratio does not need as big of a FOV as 16:9 to work well. Fact is people, the FOV is not 2 dimensional, its not just 70 or 80 degrees wide, it is also 70-80 degrees tall. so people with 16:9 monitors are just getting a more squished vertical view with large FOVs. Optimally, your screen should be a circle, just like a camera, or your eye (go figure) or a just slightly wider elliptical (two eyes horizontally) to be the most accurate.

 

[Vesper11]

I pretty much dislike zoom, I especially dislike focus zoom (except on t-34, where its necessary for hull mg). It gives too much accuracy beside other things (there's whole (bloated) thread about "too much accuracy")...

-It makes easier to shoot thus snipe and camp, remember all those AWP kids from CS. Speaking of camping, camper has the advantage of choosing a concealed position and staying still there thus making it hard for enemy to detect him with peripherial vision. Good enough without zoom, zoom only makes it better.

-Attacking forces dont use zoom unless they get into cover allowing the camper to get clear x4 zoom shots at the advancing forces while the attackers have a hard time figuring out where the camper is.

-Zooming allows the "perfect soldier with augmented vision (who never asked for this)" to check possible camping spots like possible MG nests, making machine gunner useless as long range support (MG is a fully automatic sniper rifle in RO2).

-Zooming allows the same future soldier to feel safe because he's just checked some windows and saw no enemy there. If there were no zoom, the unfuturistic solder would have to guess if there is or isnt a sniper in a window and risk (oh the thrill of uncertainty, wouldnt you enjoy it?), but at the same time it'll be harder to shoot him providing him some safety.


I wish there was less zoom on all weapons (almost no zoom on SMGs (Mkb included) some zoom for rifles and MGs) and H/focus/sprint/iSnipeButton zoom removed.

 

[Veers5]

Stalingrad was not your average battlfield action in WW2-the constant gunfire-night attacks-brutal disipline(mostly Soviet)never ending fires-all of this made the battle insane.Your typical defensive rifle line with 30% of players attacking an objective did not go in Stalingrad-it was waves of men armed with close quarter assault weapons(after 2 weeks of fighting in city)attacking admist a huge barrage of smoke and arty rounds.

 

[Graphic]

It's been explained 623,276 times why its more realistic. Leave it in.

 

[Leto Atreides]

I don't care if it's supposed to be "realistic". Hundreds of FPS games have been fine without it up to now, I don't see why all of a sudden it is needed.

I don't like the idea of a shifting viewpoint within the game.

If the zoomed view is realistic then why isn't the whole game zoomed no matter what you do?

 

[Josef Nader]

I don't care if it's supposed to be "realistic". Hundreds of FPS games have been fine without it up to now, I don't see why all of a sudden it is needed.

I don't like the idea of a shifting viewpoint within the game.

If the zoomed view is realistic then why isn't the whole game zoomed no matter what you do?

Do a little experiment. Take a cardboard box and cut a hole in it the size of your monitor. Now, go outside, put the box on your head, and look around. You'll notice that you can't see anything in your peripheral vision, but you have quite a good view through your "monitor". One that looks suspiciously similar to the zoomed FoV in-game.

However, you'll also notice that you don't have any peripheral vision. Not sure how I can demonstrate what most FPSs do with a cardboard box, but they take all that peripheral information and squish it into the sides and corners of your screen, giving you a distorted view of the playing area.

The FoV toggling, quite simply, lets you have the best of both worlds. You get as much peripheral vision as you can hope for on a 2D square 19"-36" across, yet you can get as much detail as your normal human eyes would see by simply cutting out the peripheral that has been squished into your vision.