<!--quoteo(post=1795488:date=Aug 20 2010, 01:51 PM:name=Delphic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Delphic @ Aug 20 2010, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Surely it's relative to the numbers of monitors the average player has, in which I'd guess widescreen would have overtaken 4:3 by now what with all the laptops... Negligible numbers of people have 17 monitors in a sphere around them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, and the average screen-space a player has is always changing. NS2 isn't even out yet. The use of multi-monitors is becoming more and more viable. No one can really predict what gamers are going to have 3 years from now. You don't purposefully punish people for being on the cutting edge of technology. That gets us nowhere.
Limiting emerging technology in an overt manner is counter-productive. It's easy to support multi-monitors because all you need is to have your FOV system work on Hor+ instead of Vert-.
Having multiple monitors might sound a little ridiculous to you now. But think back to the pre-2000's. Only movie theaters had widescreen. Who in the right mind would have thought <b>everyone</b> would have widescreen TVs and monitors. That was crazy talk. Or hell, having voice chat back then! That would be totally unfair if you could just tell your teammates whats going on without having to take your hand off the mouse. What an unfair advantage!
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1795487:date=Aug 20 2010, 08:46 PM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 20 2010, 08:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->*stuff*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not stubborn, you are just conveniently ignoring some quite obvious points of MULTIPLAYER! And you're also ignoring the fact that increased FoV of this on a single monitor will give you blurry zoom vs 2 extra monitors that kinda negate the zoom, when using a higher FoV... About that widescreen vs 4:3... That was still a much smaller increase then having two extra dedicated monitors running on a native FoV of 120+ -> 20% is not 33%
Things need to be fair and supporting this feature in a multiplayer environment where most players are still on 75 or 90 FoV is giving an unfair advantage vs the masses (who still are the most important)
Also, I never said make the FoV a hard limit in Spark (of course the engine should support), just make sure it is a server variable for NS. Which is a multiplayer game...
In fact... <b>Now</b> you're done here <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
Yeah, I just had to say that. statements like "I'm done here annoys me" annoy me <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> Where'd you get that smiley I wonder <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
having 3 monitors at ultra high resolutions greater than 1920x1080 and higher than 90° is fine. however once you start going over 150° is when it starts to get to be a problem, over 180° should be pretty much hard coded to not happen (i don't think most people can even see 180° very well.). and i think there should be server settings the admins can set. i think a default max should be around 100-130, if admins care to change it they can.
changing fov on a single crappy monitor wont do much good unless you adjust well.
Make it a fair playing field all you want, at the end of the day someone will always be better than you, and you will likely rage at that person. The problem being you can't nurse your ego on a fair playing field by using his 'unfair advantage of x y or z' as a reason as why this person is better than you.
More to topic the fov should change according to the type of resolution chosen. 4:3 16:9 and 16:10 should not use the same FOV's. As it stands just now normally its those on the 4:3's that get the advantage as on the others vertical view is reduced to 'emulate' widescreen while keeping such a narrow horizontal view.
I have a solution, as he states that is unfair the use of eyefinity lets ban laser mouse, because it gives you and unfair advantage on the movement over players that use an old mouse (ball); lets ban wireless keyboard and mouse because is unfair that someone can play comfortable on a couch and others only use wired hardware; lets lock the key binding so everyone plays with the same keys because changing the keys to another position is more comfortable for them and is not fair; lets ban all the video cards over an nVidia 9800 GTX (don't know the model for ATI) because having a better video card gives you an unfair advantage; lets ban everyone that have more than 3Gb download and 256Kb upload speed on their Internet connection because it is unfair that they can have a better fps; lets ban anyone with a better computer than main because it is unfair they can buy a better set; lets ban all the players that are really good at this game because is unfair to the ones that suck...
And lets ban all good technology, is unfair because it gives you an unfair advantage over people that lives in the middle of the desert and don't even have electricity.
Yeah! Please, free us of all the good things.
And finally, don't let me play anywhere because with my relatively old computer I own you all. Is unfair for anyone because I'm too good.
Mouseball mice are obsolete. That is a terrible argument. Your whole argument is terrible. "Let's do something stupid. Oh wait, but if we do that, it's stupid! So doing this is stupid! (Even though this and that are unrelated.)" is your argument.
For the love of god, just keep FOV a variable. Locked FOV is a retarded restriction characteristic of consoles and dismal PC ports. Yet another measure to unify players. FOV locked so low on wide screen 24" is atrocious. You can only max FOV so far anyway, let people have custom settings - why the f*ck is this even up for debate?
Just make it a server setting and im fine with it...
It's sad that ppl dont wanna understand Kouji_San.
I got a 24'' 16:9 and had 0 problems with cod:mw2 with locked fov of 65? 75? - Of course UWE shouldnt force ifinity setups to a 1monitor fov, but thats not the point.
the point is, why do we need so much "config-games"?
Were a good config is a huge inpact on gameplay? Eliminating ambients sound, fog, tuning fov, switch textures, autoshoot scripts, and so on... if you need this stuff, make it a server setting that allows players to apply their config files.
The majority of players doesnt know shizzle about config tuning, and until you reach a cenrtain point its not needed, but until then u have to make sure you are on the same lvl as others with your config too, because usually there is TOO MUCH possible with configs. Making your ingame-life(wtf?) easier with commands you have to search a few hours in the web for is...
I ve never played a game where i thought wtf? i need to tweak the fov, this and that setting - its unplayable.
I ve played games where i thought wtf? i can adjust so much? - i need to get sure i get an advantage out of it.
Config tuning is partly why you game on PC and not consoles, Koruyo. And I don't know how to can stand gaming at 75 FOV on a 16:10, that gives me a headache/makes me nauseous.
<!--quoteo(post=1795816:date=Aug 22 2010, 09:26 PM:name=yourbonesakin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yourbonesakin @ Aug 22 2010, 09:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795816"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree that adding support for Eye-finity would be imbalanced.
Wait a few years for it to catch on, then consider adding it to NS3 or NS2 version 5. Then it won't be as imbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> -headdesk-
I can see having a server variable... but purposefully not supporting it at all is just stupid.
BTW: To make a point, I'm pretty sure <b>no</b> game right now that has support for eyefinity limits it's use in multiplayer.
<!--quoteo(post=1795815:date=Aug 23 2010, 04:21 AM:name=WhiteZero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteZero @ Aug 23 2010, 04:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795815"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Config tuning is partly why you game on PC and not consoles, Koruyo. And I don't know how to can stand gaming at 75 FOV on a 16:10, that gives me a headache/makes me nauseous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I play on PC because i can do a LOT more things on a pc than just playing games or surf the web. + input devices + hardware fetish...
I dont care if you play with a tunnel fov of 90° or 180° where ya gun gets 3m long and the enemys 5m in front of you 10pixels high - its all about familiarization.(every shooter these days got a fov of ~75° btw)
I just wanted to say the more options you give the player the more can be abused. Serverside settings all the way.
But in the end - guys... what really matters is muscle memory and your ears. Im outta here.
@WhiteZero: You have the most fail arguments in this thread. Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE Pro and trackball mice arguments at the door and get your logic updated. Read my post where I said <b>baseline</b> system.
Until you can provide substantial statistics that Eyefinity users are above a small minority, then silence is your better argument. In the meantime, here is an accurate notion of what <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/" target="_blank">baseline system</a> means.
Arguments targeted towards widescreen are negligible since this has already become standardized tech (even though I personally game on a CRT) and gives little advantage. The same with dual monitors, since few gamers actually game with the second monitor (due to awkward positioning and lack of support), and even still offers little more advantage. Eyefinity on the other hand gives two times the viewing radius and is probably as substantial an advantage as mono vs. stereo sound.
"Prerogatives" to spend money on technology near or around baseline are equally inclined and can be expected as a game requirement; however those that are far beyond this mark (i.e. GPU + monitors to support Eyefinity = additional $1000) should not be given such a substantial gameplay advantage over baseline (such investments should grant aesthetics only).
No one is saying NS2 should remain stagnant, and if and when triple monitors become the norm, a patch unlocking FOV can easily be dropped. Until then, keeping FOV locked is the only responsible gameplay decision (and a server-side option to toggle Eyefinity is about as silly as a server-side option to toggle surround sound).
Being able to customize everything to your liking is what PC gaming is about. Why would you want to take that away?
<!--quoteo(post=1795836:date=Aug 22 2010, 10:07 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Aug 22 2010, 10:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dont care if you play with a tunnel fov of 90° or 180° where ya gun gets 3m long and the enemys 5m in front of you 10pixels high - its all about familiarization.(every shooter these days got a fov of ~75° btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Console first person shooters are actually 65 FOV, which is horrendous. I couldn't stand playing Modern Warfare 2 because the FOV is capped at 65. Modern Warfare 2 is a terrible PC game.
Also, 90 FOV will cause very little fish eye and it's not even noticeable as long as you're playing on a widescreen monitor.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(every shooter these days got a fov of ~75° btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the majority of them can be fixed, even console ports. The low fov (which goes as low as 65 on some games btw) is also, as I am lead to believe, to allow for playable frame rates on an outdated, 5 year old console, which didn't even have very impressive hardware on release.
To say eyefinity is unfair is as proposterous as paisand saying laser mice are unfair.
Renegade's crt monitor gives him a rather large advantage over an equal sized tft monitor, as the crt will more than likely refresh at a very high rate - my last one did 150hz - which gives far easier tracking and smoothness of gameplay. But to say that his advantage is unfair would be idiotic.
They can though their response times, contrast ratio, or whatever they like into whatever marketting bull they want, tft monitors are to crt monitors, what CD's were to vinyl, or what digital radio is to fm radio. Just not as good, in any respects bar convenience.
<b>It would really be a shame if FOV modification weren't supported, even halflife 1 supported it.</b>
And for the "unfair" advantage of eyefinity let me laugh..
So what about 3D and depth localization advantage ? What about the 1ms keyboard and screen, should they be locked to ? it's an unfair advantage for people who have a bad computer..
Seriously... let people who purchased 3 screen to have a more immersive experience to use it properly..
When you get more FOV, you get less depth analysis. So it's totally fair.
And one thing is sure here : _If FOV modification is not supported, I'll make a really , really bad reputation about NS on the web. you don't joke with something this important.
<!--quoteo(post=1795848:date=Aug 23 2010, 01:48 AM:name=DarkFrost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DarkFrost @ Aug 23 2010, 01:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795848"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To say eyefinity is unfair is as proposterous as paisand saying laser mice are unfair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People keep using this argument, and it's a bad one, as can be easily seen if we take it the other way:
Suppose ATI came out with a card directed specifically at the hard core gamer. In addition to its many other functions, it would give the ability for players to toggle whether walls in any game they were playing were opaque or translucent, all that a game company needs to do is set up their game so that walls are clearly identified. Directed for an extremely niche audience, the card will run you about 5 grand or so.
Would using this ability be unfair?
Would you be asking UWE to support this ability?
Fairness is something which, almost by definition, is reliant upon the greatest portion of the population having equal <i>and reasonable</i> access to. Laser mice are something which it can be assumed that the greatest portion of the NS2 audience has reasonable access to. Widescreen monitors, similarly. Eyefinity, not so much.
Now, that said, I don't actually have a dog in this race, because I don't care one way or another, I just wanted to point out how whether hardware is available or not is a poor argument if what you're discussing is fairness.
I don't have an Eyefinity setup myself but the support, if possible, should definitely be there. If you want everyone to be on even terms go get a console.
flintlock, have you added your suggestion to getsatisfaction? If so link it and I'll vote for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1795854:date=Aug 23 2010, 08:34 AM:name=Kwil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kwil @ Aug 23 2010, 08:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795854"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People keep using this argument, and it's a bad one, as can be easily seen if we take it the other way:
Suppose ATI came out with a card directed specifically at the hard core gamer. In addition to its many other functions, it would give the ability for players to toggle whether walls in any game they were playing were opaque or translucent, all that a game company needs to do is set up their game so that walls are clearly identified. Directed for an extremely niche audience, the card will run you about 5 grand or so.
Would using this ability be unfair?
Would you be asking UWE to support this ability?
Fairness is something which, almost by definition, is reliant upon the greatest portion of the population having equal <i>and reasonable</i> access to. Laser mice are something which it can be assumed that the greatest portion of the NS2 audience has reasonable access to. Widescreen monitors, similarly. Eyefinity, not so much.
Now, that said, I don't actually have a dog in this race, because I don't care one way or another, I just wanted to point out how whether hardware is available or not is a poor argument if what you're discussing is fairness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because seeing through wall is not something a marine can do. But seeing at a 120° FOV is realistic.
If you dont want to have the FOV, you have to disable the entire "option" menu. It's unfair that some people play in 1920*1080 where others are in 800*600 it's unfair that some people have improved 5.1 sound or EAX when others dont. It's unfair that some people have AA and improved graphical effect when others don't.
And more over :
It's unfaire that's some people have a 20ms ping when others have 300ms ping. So, everyone should be at 300ms.
Is that your mentality ?
FOV is just a graphical option like another. And yes, like every hardware-friend settings, the most you have, the better your game look likes, the most advantage you have.
And the most FOV you have, the less precision/depth you have. It's just more realistic for multi screen systems.
No shortage of fail arguments in this thread. Ping is something that a) is mitigated by lag compensation b) is expected that the majority of players can find a decent ping server.
For the last time, people making arguments based around laser mice and ping need to get it through their heads what a baseline system is. And I already long ago offered the example of being able to see through walls:
If every wall in NS2 is textured with a subtle transparency that can only be rendered properly by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise it shows up opaque, is this a fair advantage for the minority that have this setup to be able to see through walls? And now you have your answer for Eyefinity users.
Most games lock FOV for this reason to prevent it from giving advantage. In some games (such as Quake) it matters little, but for NS and stealth/tactical games it's as simple as this: in NS good marines could often be found "spinning" through entrance ways checking all sides/corners for hiding skulks. If an eyefinity user now can walk through a doorway able to check both sides merely through peripheral vision, while everyone else is left frantically spinning side-to-side I see this as no less an advantage than stereo sound vs. mono. The difference is stereo headphones are easily attainable by the vast majority and don't cost you thousands of dollars.
<!--quoteo(post=1795845:date=Aug 23 2010, 02:11 AM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Aug 23 2010, 02:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795845"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@WhiteZero: You have the most fail arguments in this thread. Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE Pro and trackball mice arguments at the door and get your logic updated. Read my post where I said <b>baseline</b> system.
Until you can provide substantial statistics that Eyefinity users are above a small minority, then silence is your better argument. In the meantime, here is an accurate notion of what <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/" target="_blank">baseline system</a> means.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good of you to rejoin the discussion Renegade. But I think you might have confused some things in your skimming over of the topic. I was also never addressing you directly, so I don't know where you anti-rage rage is coming from specifically aimed at me.
Anyway, I never once tried to argue anything against what <b>baseline</b> systems are. Again, especially because that is all relative. Locking FOV on purpose is just turning a blind-eye to the possible future. Shrugging it off as "oh just patch it later" has been the folly of emerging tech for years. I'm not arguing for what the majority have, I fight for what could be the future.
In the end, it's going to be up to UWE what they want to do. So we can all prove how little lives we have posting about this or just wait and see what happens with the game. I trust them to make the right decision. If they decide not to support it at all, I will be terribly disappointed. If they put in a server option to restrict it, I'll be fine with that, especially since 99% of servers probably won't bother with it.
"Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE", seriously, you want to make this that kind of thread? Spare me.
Renegade, you're arguments talk about technology abuse, and we are talking of technology use.
If the technology is there, get ready because you'll be out of date in about 1 year. For me is simple, I have a better challenge to beat.
And you don't take into consideration that a person can't have more attention than 3 or 4 things at a time on a game (or life), it's focus is on a reduced FOV, no matter how wide is the FOV on the screen(s). <b>Is how your brain can process information</b>. So, yeah, you can see more, but your focus is on the front or the sides, not all at the same time.
With 1 monitor your focus and full attention is in front, with 3 monitors you have an spread attention, and then you have to turn your head to see on the sides, losing attention on the other ones. So, 1 monitor you move the mouse and look at sides, but your head is focus on 1 point; with 3 monitors you move your head and lose attention on the other monitors. Yes, on a video game half a second is a sure death.
For me if others use this technology is an advantage to me, they have more dispersed attention and I don't.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
Obviously that is not how eyefinity is going to be used PaiSand... You see something move on one of your extra side-positioned monitors using your IRL peripheral vision. something you can't see when using a lower FoV, sure sound can make you detect it, but that can be muffled when in heavy combat due to explosions and gun fire/melee sounds...
it would be quite silly if you'd move your head from monitor to monitor, completely defeating this enhanced looking to the sides thing eyefinity provides...
<i>Off-topic sidenote on lasermice, I'd take my MX518 over lazors anytime...</i>
<!--quoteo(post=1795930:date=Aug 23 2010, 06:08 PM:name=PaiSand)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PaiSand @ Aug 23 2010, 06:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795930"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->nd you don't take into consideration that a person can't have more attention than 3 or 4 things at a time on a game (or life), it's focus is on a reduced FOV, no matter how wide is the FOV on the screen(s). <b>Is how your brain can process information</b>. So, yeah, you can see more, but your focus is on the front or the sides, not all at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much. The actual focal field of the human eye isn't that wide. Its slightly worse than that of a 50mm lens of a camera. Easy way to test is to bring your pointer-finger and thumbs to make a box several inches in front of your face. Like <a href="http://fotosa.ru/stock_photo/free/p_2674465.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> (finger frame). That is pretty much a rough focal field an average person. Anything outside of this range will be out of focus but is highly sensitive to movement (Outer cells of the retina are more sensitive to movement).
I still believe that eyeinfinity should be supported. Or at least the FOV for the supported resolution (Add some FOV blur and lock it to 3:1 resolutions). Again, three screens, 3x the amount of information to focus on.
<!--quoteo(post=1795932:date=Aug 23 2010, 02:22 PM:name=MaLaKa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaLaKa @ Aug 23 2010, 02:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795932"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, three screens, 3x the amount of information to focus on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly my point. The brain can't process that much information. Sure you can see movement on the sides but it takes about half a second to focus on it... dead...
Comments
Right, and the average screen-space a player has is always changing.
NS2 isn't even out yet. The use of multi-monitors is becoming more and more viable. No one can really predict what gamers are going to have 3 years from now. You don't purposefully punish people for being on the cutting edge of technology. That gets us nowhere.
Limiting emerging technology in an overt manner is counter-productive. It's easy to support multi-monitors because all you need is to have your FOV system work on Hor+ instead of Vert-.
Having multiple monitors might sound a little ridiculous to you now. But think back to the pre-2000's. Only movie theaters had widescreen. Who in the right mind would have thought <b>everyone</b> would have widescreen TVs and monitors. That was crazy talk. Or hell, having voice chat back then! That would be totally unfair if you could just tell your teammates whats going on without having to take your hand off the mouse. What an unfair advantage!
I'm not stubborn, you are just conveniently ignoring some quite obvious points of MULTIPLAYER! And you're also ignoring the fact that increased FoV of this on a single monitor will give you blurry zoom vs 2 extra monitors that kinda negate the zoom, when using a higher FoV... About that widescreen vs 4:3... That was still a much smaller increase then having two extra dedicated monitors running on a native FoV of 120+ -> 20% is not 33%
Things need to be fair and supporting this feature in a multiplayer environment where most players are still on 75 or 90 FoV is giving an unfair advantage vs the masses (who still are the most important)
Also, I never said make the FoV a hard limit in Spark (of course the engine should support), just make sure it is a server variable for NS. Which is a multiplayer game...
In fact... <b>Now</b> you're done here <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
That is cute and all but it's really just going to come down to what UWE puts or does not put in the game.
Good luck. <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/youreallwrong.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
It's a secret. <img src="http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d93/WhiteZero/ssh.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
//setfov [0-179]
I dont recommend using any of 160+ lol...;)
And yeah it works.
changing fov on a single crappy monitor wont do much good unless you adjust well.
A new technology to rage at!!!
You killed me because you have eyefinity!!
I oppose your communist views on fairness.
Make it a fair playing field all you want, at the end of the day someone will always be better than you, and you will likely rage at that person. The problem being you can't nurse your ego on a fair playing field by using his 'unfair advantage of x y or z' as a reason as why this person is better than you.
More to topic the fov should change according to the type of resolution chosen. 4:3 16:9 and 16:10 should not use the same FOV's. As it stands just now normally its those on the 4:3's that get the advantage as on the others vertical view is reduced to 'emulate' widescreen while keeping such a narrow horizontal view.
And lets ban all good technology, is unfair because it gives you an unfair advantage over people that lives in the middle of the desert and don't even have electricity.
Yeah! Please, free us of all the good things.
And finally, don't let me play anywhere because with my relatively old computer I own you all. Is unfair for anyone because I'm too good.
[EOT]
"Let's do something stupid. Oh wait, but if we do that, it's stupid! So doing this is stupid! (Even though this and that are unrelated.)" is your argument.
It's sad that ppl dont wanna understand Kouji_San.
I got a 24'' 16:9 and had 0 problems with cod:mw2 with locked fov of 65? 75? -
Of course UWE shouldnt force ifinity setups to a 1monitor fov, but thats not the point.
the point is, why do we need so much "config-games"?
Were a good config is a huge inpact on gameplay?
Eliminating ambients sound, fog, tuning fov, switch textures, autoshoot scripts, and so on... if you need this stuff, make it a server setting that allows players to apply their config files.
The majority of players doesnt know shizzle about config tuning, and until you reach a cenrtain point its not needed, but until then u have to make sure you are on the same lvl as others with your config too, because usually there is TOO MUCH possible with configs. Making your ingame-life(wtf?) easier with commands you have to search a few hours in the web for is...
I ve never played a game where i thought wtf? i need to tweak the fov, this and that setting - its unplayable.
I ve played games where i thought wtf? i can adjust so much? - i need to get sure i get an advantage out of it.
And I don't know how to can stand gaming at 75 FOV on a 16:10, that gives me a headache/makes me nauseous.
Wait a few years for it to catch on, then consider adding it to NS3 or NS2 version 5. Then it won't be as imbalanced.
Wait a few years for it to catch on, then consider adding it to NS3 or NS2 version 5. Then it won't be as imbalanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-headdesk-
I can see having a server variable... but purposefully not supporting it at all is just stupid.
BTW: To make a point, I'm pretty sure <b>no</b> game right now that has support for eyefinity limits it's use in multiplayer.
And I don't know how to can stand gaming at 75 FOV on a 16:10, that gives me a headache/makes me nauseous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I play on PC because i can do a LOT more things on a pc than just playing games or surf the web. + input devices + hardware fetish...
I dont care if you play with a tunnel fov of 90° or 180° where ya gun gets 3m long and the enemys 5m in front of you 10pixels high - its all about familiarization.(every shooter these days got a fov of ~75° btw)
I just wanted to say the more options you give the player the more can be abused. Serverside settings all the way.
But in the end - guys... what really matters is muscle memory and your ears. Im outta here.
You have the most fail arguments in this thread. Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE Pro and trackball mice arguments at the door and get your logic updated. Read my post where I said <b>baseline</b> system.
Until you can provide substantial statistics that Eyefinity users are above a small minority, then silence is your better argument. In the meantime, here is an accurate notion of what <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/" target="_blank">baseline system</a> means.
Arguments targeted towards widescreen are negligible since this has already become standardized tech (even though I personally game on a CRT) and gives little advantage. The same with dual monitors, since few gamers actually game with the second monitor (due to awkward positioning and lack of support), and even still offers little more advantage. Eyefinity on the other hand gives two times the viewing radius and is probably as substantial an advantage as mono vs. stereo sound.
"Prerogatives" to spend money on technology near or around baseline are equally inclined and can be expected as a game requirement; however those that are far beyond this mark (i.e. GPU + monitors to support Eyefinity = additional $1000) should not be given such a substantial gameplay advantage over baseline (such investments should grant aesthetics only).
No one is saying NS2 should remain stagnant, and if and when triple monitors become the norm, a patch unlocking FOV can easily be dropped. Until then, keeping FOV locked is the only responsible gameplay decision (and a server-side option to toggle Eyefinity is about as silly as a server-side option to toggle surround sound).
<!--quoteo(post=1795836:date=Aug 22 2010, 10:07 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Aug 22 2010, 10:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dont care if you play with a tunnel fov of 90° or 180° where ya gun gets 3m long and the enemys 5m in front of you 10pixels high - its all about familiarization.(every shooter these days got a fov of ~75° btw)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Console first person shooters are actually 65 FOV, which is horrendous. I couldn't stand playing Modern Warfare 2 because the FOV is capped at 65. Modern Warfare 2 is a terrible PC game.
Also, 90 FOV will cause very little fish eye and it's not even noticeable as long as you're playing on a widescreen monitor.
And the majority of them can be fixed, even console ports. The low fov (which goes as low as 65 on some games btw) is also, as I am lead to believe, to allow for playable frame rates on an outdated, 5 year old console, which didn't even have very impressive hardware on release.
To say eyefinity is unfair is as proposterous as paisand saying laser mice are unfair.
Renegade's crt monitor gives him a rather large advantage over an equal sized tft monitor, as the crt will more than likely refresh at a very high rate - my last one did 150hz - which gives far easier tracking and smoothness of gameplay. But to say that his advantage is unfair would be idiotic.
They can though their response times, contrast ratio, or whatever they like into whatever marketting bull they want, tft monitors are to crt monitors, what CD's were to vinyl, or what digital radio is to fm radio. Just not as good, in any respects bar convenience.
Sorry for the digression.
An my opinion is :
<b>It would really be a shame if FOV modification weren't supported, even halflife 1 supported it.</b>
And for the "unfair" advantage of eyefinity let me laugh..
So what about 3D and depth localization advantage ?
What about the 1ms keyboard and screen, should they be locked to ? it's an unfair advantage for people who have a bad computer..
Seriously... let people who purchased 3 screen to have a more immersive experience to use it properly..
When you get more FOV, you get less depth analysis. So it's totally fair.
And one thing is sure here :
_If FOV modification is not supported, I'll make a really , really bad reputation about NS on the web.
you don't joke with something this important.
People keep using this argument, and it's a bad one, as can be easily seen if we take it the other way:
Suppose ATI came out with a card directed specifically at the hard core gamer. In addition to its many other functions, it would give the ability for players to toggle whether walls in any game they were playing were opaque or translucent, all that a game company needs to do is set up their game so that walls are clearly identified. Directed for an extremely niche audience, the card will run you about 5 grand or so.
Would using this ability be unfair?
Would you be asking UWE to support this ability?
Fairness is something which, almost by definition, is reliant upon the greatest portion of the population having equal <i>and reasonable</i> access to. Laser mice are something which it can be assumed that the greatest portion of the NS2 audience has reasonable access to. Widescreen monitors, similarly. Eyefinity, not so much.
Now, that said, I don't actually have a dog in this race, because I don't care one way or another, I just wanted to point out how whether hardware is available or not is a poor argument if what you're discussing is fairness.
flintlock, have you added your suggestion to getsatisfaction? If so link it and I'll vote for it.
Suppose ATI came out with a card directed specifically at the hard core gamer. In addition to its many other functions, it would give the ability for players to toggle whether walls in any game they were playing were opaque or translucent, all that a game company needs to do is set up their game so that walls are clearly identified. Directed for an extremely niche audience, the card will run you about 5 grand or so.
Would using this ability be unfair?
Would you be asking UWE to support this ability?
Fairness is something which, almost by definition, is reliant upon the greatest portion of the population having equal <i>and reasonable</i> access to. Laser mice are something which it can be assumed that the greatest portion of the NS2 audience has reasonable access to. Widescreen monitors, similarly. Eyefinity, not so much.
Now, that said, I don't actually have a dog in this race, because I don't care one way or another, I just wanted to point out how whether hardware is available or not is a poor argument if what you're discussing is fairness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because seeing through wall is not something a marine can do.
But seeing at a 120° FOV is realistic.
If you dont want to have the FOV, you have to disable the entire "option" menu.
It's unfair that some people play in 1920*1080 where others are in 800*600
it's unfair that some people have improved 5.1 sound or EAX when others dont.
It's unfair that some people have AA and improved graphical effect when others don't.
And more over :
It's unfaire that's some people have a 20ms ping when others have 300ms ping.
So, everyone should be at 300ms.
Is that your mentality ?
FOV is just a graphical option like another.
And yes, like every hardware-friend settings, the most you have, the better your game look likes, the most advantage you have.
And the most FOV you have, the less precision/depth you have. It's just more realistic for multi screen systems.
For the last time, people making arguments based around laser mice and ping need to get it through their heads what a baseline system is. And I already long ago offered the example of being able to see through walls:
If every wall in NS2 is textured with a subtle transparency that can only be rendered properly by a triple SLI CUDA configuration, otherwise it shows up opaque, is this a fair advantage for the minority that have this setup to be able to see through walls? And now you have your answer for Eyefinity users.
Most games lock FOV for this reason to prevent it from giving advantage. In some games (such as Quake) it matters little, but for NS and stealth/tactical games it's as simple as this: in NS good marines could often be found "spinning" through entrance ways checking all sides/corners for hiding skulks. If an eyefinity user now can walk through a doorway able to check both sides merely through peripheral vision, while everyone else is left frantically spinning side-to-side I see this as no less an advantage than stereo sound vs. mono. The difference is stereo headphones are easily attainable by the vast majority and don't cost you thousands of dollars.
You have the most fail arguments in this thread. Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE Pro and trackball mice arguments at the door and get your logic updated. Read my post where I said <b>baseline</b> system.
Until you can provide substantial statistics that Eyefinity users are above a small minority, then silence is your better argument. In the meantime, here is an accurate notion of what <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/" target="_blank">baseline system</a> means.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good of you to rejoin the discussion Renegade. But I think you might have confused some things in your skimming over of the topic. I was also never addressing you directly, so I don't know where you anti-rage rage is coming from specifically aimed at me.
Anyway, I never once tried to argue anything against what <b>baseline</b> systems are. Again, especially because that is all relative. Locking FOV on purpose is just turning a blind-eye to the possible future. Shrugging it off as "oh just patch it later" has been the folly of emerging tech for years. I'm not arguing for what the majority have, I fight for what could be the future.
In the end, it's going to be up to UWE what they want to do. So we can all prove how little lives we have posting about this or just wait and see what happens with the game.
I trust them to make the right decision. If they decide not to support it at all, I will be terribly disappointed. If they put in a server option to restrict it, I'll be fine with that, especially since 99% of servers probably won't bother with it.
"Please check your 10-year-old tech RAGE", seriously, you want to make this that kind of thread? Spare me.
At the end of the day, I cannot see a lot of people playing at 5760x1080 with amazing FPS.
Another idea is to simply add a shader that makes the screen blur out past 90 degrees. Similar to REAL peripheral vision.
If the technology is there, get ready because you'll be out of date in about 1 year.
For me is simple, I have a better challenge to beat.
And you don't take into consideration that a person can't have more attention than 3 or 4 things at a time on a game (or life), it's focus is on a reduced FOV, no matter how wide is the FOV on the screen(s). <b>Is how your brain can process information</b>. So, yeah, you can see more, but your focus is on the front or the sides, not all at the same time.
With 1 monitor your focus and full attention is in front, with 3 monitors you have an spread attention, and then you have to turn your head to see on the sides, losing attention on the other ones. So, 1 monitor you move the mouse and look at sides, but your head is focus on 1 point; with 3 monitors you move your head and lose attention on the other monitors. Yes, on a video game half a second is a sure death.
For me if others use this technology is an advantage to me, they have more dispersed attention and I don't.
it would be quite silly if you'd move your head from monitor to monitor, completely defeating this enhanced looking to the sides thing eyefinity provides...
<i>Off-topic sidenote on lasermice, I'd take my MX518 over lazors anytime...</i>
Pretty much. The actual focal field of the human eye isn't that wide. Its slightly worse than that of a 50mm lens of a camera. Easy way to test is to bring your pointer-finger and thumbs to make a box several inches in front of your face. Like <a href="http://fotosa.ru/stock_photo/free/p_2674465.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> (finger frame). That is pretty much a rough focal field an average person. Anything outside of this range will be out of focus but is highly sensitive to movement (Outer cells of the retina are more sensitive to movement).
I still believe that eyeinfinity should be supported. Or at least the FOV for the supported resolution (Add some FOV blur and lock it to 3:1 resolutions). Again, three screens, 3x the amount of information to focus on.
Exactly my point. The brain can't process that much information. Sure you can see movement on the sides but it takes about half a second to focus on it... dead...
@Kouji_San: we talk about use, not abuse.