Support NeoGAF

[Flandy]

*But it's shit

Overwatch has 21:9 support on the PTR now, it seems.

EDIT :

As I feared. Instead of gaining image on the side, you lose image on the top and bottoms. Playing in 21:9 reduces your field of view.

16:9

21:9

It's not a minor drop in FOV either. You lose a significant portion of the image; almost up to 30% of it at the same FOV.

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20746784507?page=3#post-54

 

[Fahzgoolin]

It's almost like they don't want you to have an advantage or something.

 

[Escalario]

Good job Blizzard. Goooooooooood job.

It's almost like they don't want you to have an advantage or something.

16:9 players have advantage over 21:9 ones.

 

[Flandy]

It's almost like they don't want you to have an advantage or something.

144hz is okay though?

 

[KINGofCRA5H]

Jeff isn't wrong there.

 

[backflip10019]

So you see less of the screen in 21:9? And that's a good thing?

 

[Phu]

Unless 21:9 becomes the new standard I'm not sure what else they could really do.

 

[23qwerty]

So you see less of the screen in 21:9? And that's a good thing?

Did you read the OP at all

 

[CarbonFire]

Bioshock'd

 

[low-G]

Fully support Blizzard here. Better to basically disallow cheating than to give people another potential hardware advantage.

 

[Sendou]

That's kind of garbage especially considering how much there is vertical movement. I wonder why they even bothered. Nobody that asked for the support will be satisfied with this. And yes having recently gone from 60 to just 100Hz that alone gives a lot bigger advantage than 16:9 to 21:9 gives.

If you want everyone to have the same hardware setup don't release your game on PC lol.

 

[antitrop]

Soldier's Ult with an increased FoV would be crazytown.

 

[Orayn]

144hz is okay though?

Well, that has some diminishing returns when you put it up against human response time. I don't think it's nearly as large an advantage as a greater field of view.

 

[Jimrpg]

Wouldn't people with 21:9 screens rather play with black vertical bars in that case?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Jeff isn't wrong there.

With regards to the fear of being accused of moving the goal post; I really think this argument is bizarre. between how powerful your hardware is, the refresh rate of your monitor, your internet connection and so on, I'd say there are dozens of "advantages" imposed on those with certain hardware.


21:9 is a natural way to display games. It feels natural IMO. We perceive things on a horizontal plane and having the corner of your view take up physical screen real estate give a sense of immersion that doesn't as much feel advantageous, but just natural.

 

[RandomExpletive]

Soldier's Ult with an increased FoV would be crazytown.

I just realized that 76 and McCree ults would benefit the most from this... now I sorta agree

Still wanna buy an ultrawide tho

 

[Joyful]

good

 

[23qwerty]

I just realized that 76 and McCree ults would benefit the most from this... now I sorta agree

Still wanna buy an ultrawide tho

Would be simple enough to just limit those to a 16:9 area I imagine

 

[MUnited83]

I mean, did you expect anything more than this? Due to the way some of the ultimates work it just wouldn't be fair.

144hz is okay though?

The ults and other abilities are not affected by fps so yeah, it's ok.

 

[CraigerGamer]

Wouldn't people with 21:9 screens rather play with black vertical bars in that case?

Yes. Hopefully this is still an option.

 

[Chesskid1]

Yes. Hopefully this is still an option.

yea hopefully they don't remove picking what resolution you want!

 

[kanuuna]

Fully support Blizzard here. Better to basically disallow cheating than to give people another potential hardware advantage.

I hate this argument. Higher refresh rates (+60hz) give players an advantage, but the game supports 144hz refresh rates all the same - and those displays aren't too commonplace.

 

[RandomExpletive]

Would be simple enough to just limit those to a 16:9 area I imagine

I'm picturing it now and this looks hilarious... Just have McCree's sepia filter only take up the 16:9 area, the rest is normally colored /dead

 

[zedge]

Do any of you agreeing with this play league, Dota2, CSGO or many other 'competitive' games? They all fully support 21:9.



They should then be limiting the refresh rate of monitors, the dpi of high end gaming mice, and under clocking everyone's pc above a certain spec.. Don't want any unfair advantage.

lol..piss off Blizzard.

 

[Mechazawa]

I hate this argument. Higher refresh rates (+60hz) give players an advantage, but the game supports 144hz refresh rates all the same - and those displays aren't too commonplace.

Sorry hombre, but 144hz giving 60hz players a disadvantage is a significantly harder sell than straight up being able to see more of the playing field.

And yes, 144hz panels are way, way, way more commonplace than 21:9.

Soldier's Ult with an increased FoV would be crazytown.

Doesn't Soldier's Ult only work in the circle on screen? You could probably just limit how big that circle is.

 

[23qwerty]

I'm picturing it now and this looks hilarious...

Not really sure what you mean...

 

[Sophia]

Seeing as I'm quoted in the OP, allow me to clarify further.

Currently, Overwatch supports 21:9 resolutions, but automatically pillarboxes the image to a 16:9 aspect ratio. So if you're running 2560x1080, you will get a 1920x1080 image with black bars on the side. This is fine, and actually ideal behavior for the game if the developer doesn't wish to support the aspect ratio.

The problem, however, is that Blizzard relented and said they were adding a 21:9 option to the game. Now that the 21:9 mode is here, we're discovering that it actually reduces the field of view compared to the standard 16:9 aspect ratio. And not by a little bit, but significantly.

I don't have any problem with playing at 16:9 myself. I would prefer proper 21:9 support, but it's not a deal breaker especially given how it handles non-standard aspect ratios. The problem I have is that Blizzard was seemingly relented, only to add this largely pointless option. They don't want players to have a larger field of view for whatever reason, presumably due to the way ultimate skills work. Yet they're okay with adding a misleading option that significantly decreases the field of view. It's bizarre, to say the least.

Even on the PTR, you can still opt to play the game in 16:9 at a native 21:9 resolution. So functionality hasn't been removed; just a new misleading option added.

Wouldn't people with 21:9 screens rather play with black vertical bars in that case?

This is correct. If the current option for 21:9 on PTR heads to live, you would be better off setting it to the 16:9 setting. Otherwise you will have difficulty seeing above and below you. In a game like Overwatch where half the heroes have vertical mobility, it would suck.

 

[kanuuna]

Sorry hombre, but 144hz giving 60hz players a disadvantage is a significantly harder sell than straight up being able to see more of the playing field.

And yes, 144hz panels are way, way, way more commonplace than 21:9.

Is there data to suggest improved performance on ultrawide displays on competitive games vs traditional widescreen formats, or are we going off still images here?

 

[CraigerGamer]

Don't other competive shooters allow for the 21:9 aspect? CS:Go certainly does. What a curious decision. They allow higher fps which is clearly an advantage. Why include the option if it actually creates a disadvantage? Again. What a weird thing for blizz to do.

 

[zedge]

Seeing as I'm quoted in the OP, allow me to clarify further.

Currently, Overwatch supports 21:9 resolutions, but automatically pillarboxes the image to a 16:9 aspect ratio. So if you're running 2560x1080, you will get a 1920x1080 image with black bars on the side. This is fine, and actually ideal behavior for the game if the developer doesn't wish to support the aspect ratio.

The problem, however, is that Blizzard relented and said they were adding a 21:9 option to the game. Now that the 21:9 mode is here, we're discovering that it actually reduces the field of view. And not by a little bit, but significantly.

I don't have any problem with playing at 16:9 myself. I would prefer proper 21:9 support, but it's not a deal breaker especially given how it handles non-standard aspect ratios. The problem I have is that Blizzard was seemingly relented, only to add this largely pointless option. They don't want players to have a larger field of view for whatever reason, presumably due to the way ultimate skills work. Yet they're okay with adding a misleading option that significantly decreases the field of view. It's bizarre, to say the least.



This is correct. If the current option for 21:9 on PTR heads to live, you would be better off setting it to the 16:9 setting. Otherwise you will have difficulty seeing above and below you. In a game like Overwatch where half the heroes have vertical mobility, it would suck.

So they are now making 16:9 an advantage over 21:9 (their fake miss leading 21:9). What the actual f.. Make it 21:9 with the same aspect ratio of 16:9.. black bars on top/bottom if its that advantageous. Don't gimp it and make it worse ffs. Or maybe just don't bother.

Don't other competive shooters allow for the 21:9 aspect? CS:Go certainly does. What a curious decision. .

Yes they do, thats why this reason is horseshit and those saying "good" etc are obviously clueless.

 

[Aadrian1234]

I don't know why they don't just limit the part of the screen that the "fullscreen" ults take up then. It makes even less sense that they make 21:9 worse than 16:9 and be fine with having a worse perspective. If they were concerned about balance, why did they make 21:9 worse? Is it only bad when it's an advantage, but ok as a disadvantage? They're basically telling people to not use 21:9, because 16:9 is an advantage now

 

[Kayo Police]

Ugh i hate that the max is 103. I need at least 120+

 

[Sophia]

Don't other competive shooters allow for the 21:9 aspect? CS:Go certainly does. What a curious decision. They allow higher fps which is clearly an advantage. Why include the option if it actually creates a disadvantage? Again. What a weird thing for blizz to do.

The vast majority of first person shooters nowadays support 21:9 aspect ratios, and even some older ones. I can't say there's ever been a time where, in the heat of the moment, I've had a noticeable advantage and said "Wow I'm glad I have an ultrawide monitor" in a first person shooter. Obviously there may or may not be an actual advantage depending on how the game is tho.

So they are now making 16:9 an advantage over 21:9 (their fake miss leading 21:9). What the actual f..

For what it's worth, the existing options are still there on the PTR. You can run the game at a 21:9 resolution but keep the 16:9 image with black bars on the side. So it's just a very misleading option at worse.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Don't other competive shooters allow for the 21:9 aspect? CS:Go certainly does. What a curious decision. They allow higher fps which is clearly an advantage. Why include the option if it actually creates a disadvantage? Again. What a weird thing for blizz to do.

Higher horizontal fov would make certain heroes' ults significantly more powerful, imagine Soldier 76's ult hitting targets in wider ranges, or It's High Noon locking on to targets that would be out of LoS under 16:9.

 

[zedge]

The vast majority of first person shooters nowadays support 21:9 aspect ratios, and even some older ones. I can't say there's ever been a time where, in the heat of the moment, I've had a noticeable advantage and said "Wow I'm glad I have an ultrawide monitor" in a first person shooter. Obviously there may or may not be an actual advantage depending on how the game is tho.



For what it's worth, the existing options are still there on the PTR. You can run the game at a 21:9 resolution but keep the 16:9 image with black bars on the side. So it's just a very misleading option at worse.

Really? I would think most would just go full on 21:9 thinking how awesome it is without realizing this.

Higher horizontal fov would make certain heroes' ults significantly more powerful, imagine Soldier 76's ult hitting targets in wider ranges, or It's High Noon locking on to targets that would be out of LoS under 16:9.

I see no reason these could not work as they already do, ignoring the larger fov.

 

[LOLCats]

Lol fuck those guys. Not playing this crap anyway.

Sorry thats just how i feel about it.

 

[Jedi2016]

Can't have it both ways in a competitive title. If all you wanted was to play in 21:9, this should scratch that itch. If you only wanted it for the wider FOV advantage, then it won't.

 

[Mozendo]

16:9 players have advantage over 21:9 ones.

How do they have an advantage? Not trying to come across as smug or anything, genuinely curious.

 

[low-G]

I hate this argument. Higher refresh rates (+60hz) give players an advantage, but the game supports 144hz refresh rates all the same - and those displays aren't too commonplace.

This ain't Quake 3 where you want 125Hz because it affects your movement. The actual difference in perception for framerates is going to be completely destroyed by tickrate & latency. Absolutely irrelevant.

Being able to see a character flanking you, however...

 

[El_Chino]

Lol fuck those guys. Not playing this crap anyway.

Sorry thats just how i feel about it.

Well then...

 

[PFD]

That is some grade-A bullshit

 

[nynt9]

I mean, did you expect anything more than this? Due to the way some of the ultimates work it just wouldn't be fair.


The ults and other abilities are not affected by fps so yeah, it's ok.

Actually they are. https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4r54e9/dear_blizzard_soldier_76s_gun_is_broken_due_to/

Also given how ridiculously lenient hit boxes are in OW, it's bizarre that they're choosing this hill to die on in terms of competitiveness.

 

[AzureSkies]

lmao this was a waste of time

 

[StrategyFan]

the only fair way to give 21:9 more fov would be to let 16:9 players play in 21:9 aspect ratio and black bars, but that would be shit for obvious reasons

 

[Empty Space]

Ignoring stuff involving monitors, different mice also preform wildly differently and there's nothing in place to deal with that. There is an enormous different between your standard mouse that comes with a prebuilt PC and Razer Death Adder. There are probably people who play the game with a track pad and the game isn't limited for their sake. I totally get Blizzards rationale here, but I don't think they should have bothered if this was the result.

 

[TheYanger]

Actually they are. https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4r54e9/dear_blizzard_soldier_76s_gun_is_broken_due_to/

Also given how ridiculously lenient hit boxes are in OW, it's bizarre that they're choosing this hill to die on in terms of competitiveness.

This is already fixed on ptr fwiw.

 

[LewieP]

Do people really buy non-standard hardware expecting it to be supported as if it's the standard?

This is the right call from Blizzard.

 

[Lucario]

Unless 21:9 becomes the new standard I'm not sure what else they could really do.

The exact same thing that Counter Strike, TF2 and Call of Duty do.

Guess how many professional players use 21:9 monitors for those games?

None. Because it's not a substantial advantage, especially compared to things like 144hz.


That said, it's Blizzard's right to do this, even if they're wrong about it being a major advantage. It's their game.

It is not their right to blatantly lie about supporting 21:9, then release a 'fix' that just crops wide resolutions to an unplayable vertical FOV.

I bought this game thinking it'd support 21:9. I didn't complain or refund it when it was locked to 16:9, because they promised a fix. This is pretty goddamn obviously not a fix.

 

[Water]

This ain't Quake 3 where you want 125Hz because it affects your movement. The actual difference in perception for framerates is going to be completely destroyed by tickrate & latency. Absolutely irrelevant.

Being able to see a character flanking you, however...

A high Hz display has a lot better motion clarity than a regular 60Hz flatscreen display. More so if it uses a blur reduction technique like black frame insertion or strobing backlight. You can identify targets, identify motion and aim easier with it. In contrast, if you look at CS pros who play constantly with thousands of euros on the line, they don't actually use high FOV - a lot of them don't even use 16:9, they do 4:3 that has 90 FOV, and stretch the image onto the screen so they get fatter targets to aim at.

 

[Sophia]

It is not their right to blatantly lie about supporting 21:9, then release a 'fix' that just crops wide resolutions to an unplayable vertical FOV.

I bought this game thinking it'd support 21:9, because that's how I played it in the beta. I didn't complain or refund it, because they promised a fix. This is pretty goddamn obviously not a fix.

Err. Firstly, it is technically their right to do that too. There's nothing preventing them from being misleading (accidentally or intentionally) about a new feature. They did add a 21:9 option. They never said it was going to increase the FOV or extend the horizontal view. It it is admittedly crappy however.

Secondly, Overwatch didn't support 21:9 in the beta (AFAIK) unless you altered the executable. Certainly was not in the last few beta tests.