Zoom

[Forssen]

It's immensely important, tactically speaking. Under your idea, if the enemy soldiers were to charge your position, you would have half the amount of time in which to shoot them. People complain enough of run-and-gun tactics, yet this idea would effectively double running speed relative to the defender's ability to engage them.

You think there would be more run and gun in RO2 without zoom?

And that's on top of the fact that it would look ridiculous to anyone who expects the guns to behave realistically. It's particularly bizarre to see this proposed by people who complain that zoom is unrealistic, apparently seeing one unrealistic system (That doesn't let you match what you can do in real-life) as better than another "unrealistic" system (That does).

In what way would it look ridiculous? It would look exactly like when not using zoom in RO2.

That design is what results in things like arthritic old man movement, Parkinson's sway, slow bullets, grenades that throw like bags of cement, SMGs that kick into the ceiling on the second round, and so on. The worst part is, it still doesn't solve the problem, because as long as just one weapon still has any ranged effectiveness at all, you still get the same sedentary behavior that makes movement a huge liability. All of that, just to avoid a simple mechanic that allows a proper simulation to work? How is that a net gain?

I don't see why it would effect movement. Movement doesn't feel that much faster/slower with or without zoom.
A lot of people seem to prefer the Classic weapon behavior than the more realistic weapon behavior in realism.

RO2 doesn't even zoom to realistic levels. For that it would need a lot more zoom. You wouldn't have to change the game as much as you think for it to feel realistic without zoom.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

You mentioned you couldn't see any problem with the LoD system

In the context of giving a disadvantage to the person not zoomed in. As pointed out, it's the exact opposite case (And in either case, is something to be fixed).

You think there would be more run and gun in RO2 without zoom?

With the neutered weapons proposed to go along with it. Lack of zoom isn't the only thing you're proposing, and reducing the weapons' ability to hit targets is going to make moving in the open much more viable. Right now, it's pretty safe to run through the open at 200m. If you halve the range of accurate fire, that means it'll be pretty safe to run through the open at 100m.

Compare the difference before and after adding client-side hit-detection. Before, you'd see people do little jinks and zig-zags that reduced shots at them to random chance, and moving soldiers were at an advantage over stationary ones at short-to-mid ranges. After it was added, exposing yourself is a risk, and running through the open is a good way of committing suicide. Alterations to weapon handling have large gameplay consequences, and the harder you make it to hit a target, the more freely they can move about.

In what way would it look ridiculous? It would look exactly like when not using zoom in RO2.

Except with weapons that are dramatically poorer than they should be, resulting in you missing shots you clearly should have made at the ranges you're shooting at - and you will still be able to tell about how far away you're shooting, even if the game lies to you. You seem to be focusing only on a single aspect while ignoring the rest of the gameplay effects.

I don't see why it would effect movement. Movement doesn't feel that much faster/slower with or without zoom.

I thought I'd already explained this. You're talking about gutting weapon accuracy, to make them as effective at, say, 100m, as they had been at 200m. That means that, relative to your effective range, people are moving twice as fast. That's going to have serious gameplay effects, even if you don't alter the zoom at all.

RO2 doesn't even zoom to realistic levels. For that it would need a lot more zoom.

You're right, it probably could use more.

You wouldn't have to change the game as much as you think for it to feel realistic without zoom.

Ah. "Feel" realistic. Some people seem to have a curious standard for the aesthetic of realism. It's stuff like that which results in "clunky" being called "realistic."

Wouldn't have to change as much as I think? On the one hand, you've got reducing bullet velocity, increasing bullet drop, decreasing accuracy, increasing sway, probably increasing recoil, and give up at any attempt at realistic combat ranges... Or you could have zoom, and realistic weapon handling.

 

[Sarkis.]

You think there would be more run and gun in RO2 without zoom?



In what way would it look ridiculous? It would look exactly like when not using zoom in RO2.



I don't see why it would effect movement. Movement doesn't feel that much faster/slower with or without zoom.
A lot of people seem to prefer the Classic weapon behavior than the more realistic weapon behavior in realism.

RO2 doesn't even zoom to realistic levels. For that it would need a lot more zoom. You wouldn't have to change the game as much as you think for it to feel realistic without zoom.

Oh forssen, please just give up, you don't even understand the full implications of your ''idea''. Or it is other people who have interpreted your idea too seriously. What I understood at first was that you would turn off the information of distance, and then remove the zoom. But Panzer Jager's suggestion goes a lot further, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or has any real reason to be implemented, or any gain:

I think they should remove the "zoom" but then scale the range reports, increase bullet drop, and reduce accuracy appropriately; so that something which shows up as 200m in-game will now represent and also display 400m in-game. Even with the zoom right now, a man-sized target at 300m is way smaller than it would be in real life. So instead of keeping or increasing zoom, just re-scale the way the game works. Sure, from overhead view in the game it would be the equivalent of 300m, but due to the nature of engine restrictions and the field of view we need to suggest that when looking at it from the ground level it looks like it's 600m away.

Yeah that suggestion is a train wreck. The better thing is to increase the zoom until everyone looks the same as they should, or even almost as well detailed. And with that, like Yoshiro and Ross, and me as well suggested: Decrease accuracy based on realistic motives, like character sway, real weapon accuracy, maybe wind, and rear sight parallax, and stuff like that. So we end up with a more realistic, pleasant, believable game.

Or you could have zoom, and realistic weapon handling.

Ah! Ninjaed

 

[r5cya]

In the context of giving a disadvantage to the person not zoomed in. As pointed out, it's the exact opposite case (And in either case, is something to be fixed).



With the neutered weapons proposed to go along with it. Lack of zoom isn't the only thing you're proposing, and reducing the weapons' ability to hit targets is going to make moving in the open much more viable. Right now, it's pretty safe to run through the open at 200m. If you halve the range of accurate fire, that means it'll be pretty safe to run through the open at 100m.

Compare the difference before and after adding client-side hit-detection. Before, you'd see people do little jinks and zig-zags that reduced shots at them to random chance, and moving soldiers were at an advantage over stationary ones at short-to-mid ranges. After it was added, exposing yourself is a risk, and running through the open is a good way of committing suicide. Alterations to weapon handling have large gameplay consequences, and the harder you make it to hit a target, the more freely they can move about.



Except with weapons that are dramatically poorer than they should be, resulting in you missing shots you clearly should have made at the ranges you're shooting at - and you will still be able to tell about how far away you're shooting, even if the game lies to you. You seem to be focusing only on a single aspect while ignoring the rest of the gameplay effects.



I thought I'd already explained this. You're talking about gutting weapon accuracy, to make them as effective at, say, 100m, as they had been at 200m. That means that, relative to your effective range, people are moving twice as fast. That's going to have serious gameplay effects, even if you don't alter the zoom at all.



You're right, it probably could use more.



Ah. "Feel" realistic. Some people seem to have a curious standard for the aesthetic of realism. It's stuff like that which results in "clunky" being called "realistic."

Wouldn't have to change as much as I think? On the one hand, you've got reducing bullet velocity, increasing bullet drop, decreasing accuracy, increasing sway, probably increasing recoil, and give up at any attempt at realistic combat ranges... Or you could have zoom, and realistic weapon handling.

i was on the fence about whether removing zoom and death notices would make that much of a difference. you convinced me it's a bad idea with that post though.

 

[Forssen]

Oh forssen, please just give up, you don't even understand the full implications of your ''idea''. Or it is other people who have interpreted your idea too seriously. What I understood at first was that you would turn off the information of distance, and then remove the zoom. But Panzer Jager's suggestion goes a lot further, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or has any real reason to be implemented, or any gain:

I just don't think the changes in accuracy etc would turn out as drastic as people are suggesting. Might be wrong about that though. I'm just comparing to how a game like RO1 played that didn't have zoom.

 

[r5cya]

I just don't think the changes in accuracy etc would turn out as drastic as people are suggesting. Might be wrong about that though. I'm just comparing to how a game like RO1 played that didn't have zoom.

it's not accuracy that's the problem. re-read PhoenixDragons last post. it's pretty convincing material to explain why just eliminating zoom and disctance notifications is too simple of a cure.
it was ok in RO-OST and i'm not sure why, but this game has the chance to be so much better. they just have to work out details like this.

 

[ro_sauce]

there's a server option to disable iron sight zoom.
i havent read any of this thread, but i'm guessing thats what you guys are talking about.

 

[Atomskytten]

I did not ask what you like, I asked what you think.

Which of both games puts you closer to being a soldier on the Eastern Front? I know you love Ostfront, and I do too. But we have brains, and logic and so on. Stuff has to survive argumentation. So don't go ''republican'' on me.

I'm trying to explain you something about zoom. I hope you will understand.

RO:OST is the more realistic of the two for one huge reason: Due to the no-zoom the individual soldier avatar has a very hard time getting a clear overview of what is going on on the battlefield which adds the 'fog of war' that makes each map played chaotic and more unpredicable than what RO2 has to offer. The zoom feature in RO2 gives each and every soldier too much situational awareness and tactical overview of the battlefield than the real life counterparts ever could and that is the feature that makes RO2 more unrealistic than RO:OST and which for me is my biggest gripe with RO2.

BTW the zoom in RO2 is still not realistic as the soldiers, but not the weapons and everything else on the battlefield which are displayed at the proper size, are still only 1.2 meters tall meaning that no matter what level of zoom is added the soldier in your sights will always be too small...

 

[PhoenixDragon]

The zoom feature in RO2 gives each and every soldier too much situational awareness and tactical overview of the battlefield than the real life counterparts ever could

A narrow FoV gives a clearer view of a smaller area, while blocking out a wider area. That is the exact opposite of situational awareness.

What zoom does give is the ability to make out details at a range closer to real-life. Compare some real-world distances; I can easily make out my friends clearly (Including carried equipment and general expression) at 100m, and can distinguish most of them at 200m. Major equipment is still easily visible past 300m. And I know from my commute to work that I can pick out individual people at 900m+ (Further if they contrast sharply with the background). None of these are true in-game without zoom. In fact, none of them are true even with the zoom we do get.

BTW the zoom in RO2 is still not realistic as the soldiers, but not the weapons and everything else on the battlefield which are displayed at the proper size, are still only 1.2 meters tall

Where do you get that number?

 

[Sarkis.]

Where do you get that number?

I would also like confirmation on this. Is it this that old old problem that people were reporting about players being too small in relation to the maps? Can I panic again? Because I paniced that time around, but it was a long time ago and I forgot about it

 

[Sensemann]

I can easily make out my friends clearly (Including carried equipment and general expression) at 100m, and can distinguish most of them at 200m. Major equipment is still easily visible past 300m. And I know from my commute to work that I can pick out individual people at 900m+ (Further if they contrast sharply with the background). None of these are true in-game without zoom. In fact, none of them are true even with the zoom we do get.

So you are able to determine who's who on distances like 900 Meters? Let's say there is a group of 40 people, 900 meters away and you want to tell us that you are able to pick out your friend?

I am working on the 40th floor (I guess that's about 100 meters height) and at that distance, I can say that a person down on the road is male/female and of course notice which colour their clothes are. With "taking a closer look", I can see if the girl is carrying a handbag or other details.

And when I am thinking of 900 meters distance, I surely can see that a person is walking along the road when there is huge space in the background (like a field). Let that person walk in front of a house and it's getting difficult to spot. Now add cars, trees, plants, windows and any other differen color from the person in the background and it will be relly tough to spot anything.

I am not a blind person, but I am surprised about many having Eagle's Eyes as you would think, reading their posts. Unluckily, I am not blessed with this gift and might want to check out if I need glasses.

 

[r5cya]

he said he could pick out individual people. he meant he could distinguish them from innanimate objects. not pick a friend out from that distance. he stopped claiming he could determine friends from strangers at 200 meters.

 

[Sarkis.]

he said he could pick out individual people. he meant he could distinguish them from innanimate objects. not pick a friend out from that distance. he stopped claiming he could determine friends from strangers at 200 meters.

Yes, that is what he said. And I can vouch for it. Did the tests my self with the help of Google Earth, and the results are pretty much the same

At 1.6 Km was the limit at which I could make out a person or something of its size, moving across an easy, one colored bright background. People moving in front of a yellow wall in this case. No more than little dots.

Flying in a plane at 400m height, not properly looking at 90 degrees down, but some 30 degrees, that would be the equivalent of looking at people from 460m. And of course, looking at that angle from above, people's visible area becomes much smaller. And with the Earth providing background. I could no longer make out people so clearly, or easily. What was most visible would be their stretched shadows, and that was the give away. Making the assumption that I would be able to see roughly 85cm of visible area, half a person's height at that point. It would be the equivalent of beginning to not see people properly at double that distance if it was on land... 460x2 = 920m

But of course the plane example was from memory. In game, however, using the 2.3x zoom, enemies become mostly invisible at 500m, full body exposed, with a good clear background. Nezzer and me did the tests long time ago. 400 meters in game and it was already too difficult to spot someone standing at a distance, in the open. We were testing the rifle bullet damage and so on...

A soldier in cover will be extremely hard to see at 250 meters, using 2.3x zoom, somewhat because of the game fog. In a very foggy map, like Bridges of Druhzina, soldiers will blend perfectly with the blue fog at some 180 meters. Which is kinda good to make up for the lack of vegetation.. but doesn't fix that at all of course.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

he said he could pick out individual people. he meant he could distinguish them from innanimate objects. not pick a friend out from that distance. he stopped claiming he could determine friends from strangers at 200 meters.

Yes, thank you. And of course, this was someone standing in the open, though it was at least with a moderately-busy backdrop. Range would be shorter with an even more cluttered backdrop or partially-concealed person, or longer with a more vividly-contrasting backdrop.

By picking out individual people, I simply meant that I could still perceive them, and if in a group, I could tell the number of people (And any major color differences between them). Incidentally, judging from the distances I can identify major colors and patterns of clothes, I would estimate that uniforms should be distinguishable around 300-500m depending on the situation and backdrop.

 

[Sensemann]

Yes, thank you. And of course, this was someone standing in the open, though it was at least with a moderately-busy backdrop. Range would be shorter with an even more cluttered backdrop or partially-concealed person, or longer with a more vividly-contrasting backdrop.

By picking out individual people, I simply meant that I could still perceive them, and if in a group, I could tell the number of people (And any major color differences between them). Incidentally, judging from the distances I can identify major colors and patterns of clothes, I would estimate that uniforms should be distinguishable around 300-500m depending on the situation and backdrop.

Oh man, I have to say sorry here. I didn't sleep at all the night before writing my post and I have totally misunderstood what you were saying (doesn't help not to be a native English speaker in this case).

Anyway, no offense meant, I hope you didn't take it that way.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Anyway, no offense meant, I hope you didn't take it that way.

Nah, not offended. Just a little confused :>

 

[Atomskytten]

A narrow FoV gives a clearer view of a smaller area, while blocking out a wider area. That is the exact opposite of situational awareness.

What zoom does give is the ability to make out details at a range closer to real-life. Compare some real-world distances; I can easily make out my friends clearly (Including carried equipment and general expression) at 100m, and can distinguish most of them at 200m. Major equipment is still easily visible past 300m. And I know from my commute to work that I can pick out individual people at 900m+ (Further if they contrast sharply with the background). None of these are true in-game without zoom. In fact, none of them are true even with the zoom we do get.

That doesn't apply in the field under combat conditions where soldieres are doing their best not being seen by using camouflage and terrain.
Due to the games fast turn rate the relative small FOV doesn't matter as the player can scan the entire 360 degrees in a second or two negating any negative feature of the lower FOV at higher zoom. Zoom plus high turn rate gives players a higher situational awareness than no zoom and the same turn rate and much more so than in real life under combat conditions.

Where do you get that number?

http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/w..._screenshot_redoctoberfactory_german_mg_b.jpg

Look at a german machinegunner behind the emplaced MG34, that gun is approximately 1,2 meters long and it is clear that the soldier behind is only just slightly taller than the gun's length. I haven't seen any official TWI announcements telling us that avatar size have been scaled to the right size.

 

[Sarkis.]

http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/w..._screenshot_redoctoberfactory_german_mg_b.jpg

Look at a german machinegunner behind the emplaced MG34, that gun is approximately 1,2 meters long and it is clear that the soldier behind is only just slightly taller than the gun's length. I haven't seen any official TWI announcements telling us that avatar size have been scaled to the right size.

No that is not clear. That soldier is all crouched. If that MG34 has 1.2 meters in length, the soldier must have 1.8 in height, or close.

 

[Ducky]

---SNIP---
[url]http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/wp-content/gallery/nov-2010-screenshots/ro2_pr_screenshot_redoctoberfactory_german_mg_b.jpg[/URL]

Look at a german machinegunner behind the emplaced MG34, that gun is approximately 1,2 meters long and it is clear that the soldier behind is only just slightly taller than the gun's length. I haven't seen any official TWI announcements telling us that avatar size have been scaled to the right size.

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=842876&postcount=128

 

[Atomskytten]

[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=842876&postcount=128[/URL]

Thx.