Support NeoGAF

[Bumbletron]

Right. Just a series of hallways. All fights are head to head. Nobody flanks in Overwatch.

Peripheral vision isn't at all advantageous.

But they are. There is no horizontal FOV one could reasonably play well with while getting both a good view all the way down a flanking corridor and the entirety of the main lane.

Even the flanks are hallways, and being able to see a few more degrees won't help if you aren't seeing in a full 180, which no one could play well with anyway.

Also, tunnel vision really affects you more than you think, and you wouldn't even notice something on the periphery most of the time. Whereas, surround sound is definitely advantageous. Can the people who don't have gaming headphones complain about its support? Because it is a huge advantage with this sound design.

 

[Plum]

Why does 144hz get held up as being as advantageous over 60hz as 21:9 is over 16:9? You'll see things less than one hundredth of a second faster. Is that a huge difference when reaction times typically run upwards of a quarter of a second? Genuinely don't understand. Everyone else who has held this as true has just laughed in derision at anyone who disagreed or expressed uncertainty.

I can't talk from personal experience but I can say that 144hz makes the entire image look smoother which, in a twitchy game like CS:GO, can really make a difference in the more competitive levels. It also affects things such as input lag and the like. This is a decent video explaining the benefits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0

Of course in Overwatch that doesn't make as much of a difference since it's a lot less twitchy for most of the heroes, but even then if I were a competitive OW player I'd take 144hz over Ultrawide any day. There are 144hz Ultrawide monitors out right now yet no CS:GO, TF2, etc tournaments have used them.

 

[nynt9]

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.

So play in 21:9 and have slightly less of the game visible to you. It's not like you'll be at much of a disadvantage and you get ot play in your beloved 21:9.

I really don't understand all the salt people on GAF seem to exude whenever 21:9 monitors are brought up. You really care that much about what monitors people use?

Also, considering the tick rate and super generous hit boxes for projectiles in the game, trying to act like a few extra degrees of FOV afforded by 21:9 is a big deal is ridiculous. Just look at this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=72&v=_UU8jqxAiHQ

I mean I love this game but Blizzard have their priorities wrong on this one.

 

[truestatic]

But they are. There is no horizontal FOV one could reasonably play well with while getting both a good view all the way down a flanking corridor and the entirety of the main lane.

Even the flanks are hallways, and being able to see a few more degrees won't help if you aren't seeing in a full 180, which no one could play well with anyway.

Also, tunnel vision really affects you more than you think, and you wouldn't even notice something on the periphery most of the time. Surround sound is definitely advantageous. Can the people who don't have gaming headphones complain about its support? Because it is a huge advantage with this sound design.

Gotta disagree. The rapid acquisition of high priority targets like high noons, the number of times I deliberately approach from a side path that's still not 90 degrees off the direct, the frequency with which someone pivots because I was visible for a fraction of a second at the edge of their screen... your peripheral vision is fucking important.

And you don't need gaming headphones to take advantage of dolby atmos. You can buy $5 earbuds at radio shack or use your ipod ones to get the same advantage a pair of $400 cans will deliver. In a fiction, that is, where you don't already own some pair of headphones. I think it's a fair assumption that they've balanced around the median, a bit lower even, when it comes to specs.

IDK. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on either way, if they supported 21:9 it wouldn't mean a damn to me. I just feel like people are underselling the advantage available here.

Also, considering the tick rate and super generous hit boxes for projectiles in the game, trying to act like a few extra degrees of FOV afforded by 21:9 is a big deal is ridiculous. Just look at this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=72&v=_UU8jqxAiHQ

... Like this. A few extra degrees? It's a 31% wider fov. That's a lot.

And what the fuck do projectile hitboxes have to do with anything.

 

[Bumbletron]

Gotta disagree. The rapid acquisition of high priority targets like high noons, the number of times I deliberately approach from a side path that's still not 90 degrees off the direct, the frequency with which someone pivots because I was visible for a fraction of a second at the edge of their screen... your peripheral vision is fucking important.

And you don't need gaming headphones to take advantage of dolby atmos. You can buy $5 earbuds at radio shack or use your ipod ones to get the same advantage a pair of $400 cans will deliver. In a fiction, that is, where you don't already own some pair of headphones. I think it's a fair assumption that they've balanced around the median, a bit lower even, when it comes to specs.

IDK. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on either way, if they supported 21:9 it wouldn't mean a damn to me. I just feel like people are underselling the advantage available here.

But you realize that the peripherals really won't change too much this way. And honestly, given the reduced screen size currently on ultrawides playing at 1920 x 1080 means that people are more likely to see you in their peripherals, because their peripherals on the screen are much closer together than they would be if they stretched over the entirety of the screen. The wider the FOV is, ironically, the less likely it is they will actually notice you in that range in a fight. They will always be focused straight down the crosshair. And if someone can see you flanking in their periphery, chances are they can hear you with the surround sound first.

And you won't get the same surround sound effect from the earbuds you would from 7.1 headphones. The similarity still stands with this one. Until you play with it, I think you are actually overselling it. I have played TF2 with and without, and I can tell you it made little to no difference in my play.

 

[nynt9]

The hit box issue is related in that blizzard aren't too concerned with the fidelity of the game in terms of competitive aspects that actually matter, i.e. Tick rate, hit boxes etc. so them being so concerned about 21:9 monitors giving a competitive advantage is ridiculous.

 

[mxgt]

Gotta disagree. The rapid acquisition of high priority targets like high noons, the number of times I deliberately approach from a side path that's still not 90 degrees off the direct, the frequency with which someone pivots because I was visible for a fraction of a second at the edge of their screen... your peripheral vision is fucking important.

And you don't need gaming headphones to take advantage of dolby atmos. You can buy $5 earbuds at radio shack or use your ipod ones to get the same advantage a pair of $400 cans will deliver. In a fiction, that is, where you don't already own some pair of headphones. I think it's a fair assumption that they've balanced around the median, a bit lower even, when it comes to specs.

IDK. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on either way, if they supported 21:9 it wouldn't mean a damn to me. I just feel like people are underselling the advantage available here.



... Like this. A few extra degrees? It's a 31% wider fov. That's a lot.

And what the fuck do projectile hitboxes have to do with anything.

People are also overselling it.

If it was a significant advantage you'd see a lot more people using it, especially pro players. But they dont.

There's no reason not to have it when even more competitive shooters have it. It's that simple.

 

[truestatic]

But you realize that the peripherals really won't change too much this way. And honestly, given the reduced screen size currently on ultrawides playing at 1920 x 1080 means that people are more likely to see you in their peripherals, because their peripherals on the screen are much closer together than they would be if they stretched over the entirety of the screen.

Again, the increase in peripheral vision is not insubstantial. And... what? What're you saying? That because you're playing in a smaller viewable area, you'll have the advantage of keeping track over the same peripheral vision as we have with our identical fov's ? I mean, that's down to anyone's monitor size and distance from pov. That's silly. You can make your screen as close to or far from and as much or as little of your fov as you want, and as your setup dictates.

Sorry. I feel dumb for arguing against this because again, I don't disagree all that strongly. I'm just really not feeling a lot of the arguments in favour.

Good luck to you, my 21:9 brethren. May we all play in mutually agreeable viewing circumstances in a later patch.

 

[truestatic]

The hit box issue is related in that blizzard aren't too concerned with the fidelity of the game in terms of competitive aspects that actually matter, i.e. Tick rate, hit boxes etc. so them being so concerned about 21:9 monitors giving a competitive advantage is ridiculous.

Blizzard are concerned though. The hit boxes thing is an intentional buff to the effectiveness of and a counter to the difficulty associated with projectile weapons, in comparison to hitscan. This isn't them fudging the numbers. This is an intended part of the meta.

And isn't the tickrate something of a popular gremlin, most of the problems with which it's associated actually being caused by latency?

 

[hodgy100]

the worst thing about this is that they've just given 21:9 users an arbitrary limitation. if they were absolutely adamant about it being fair then they would cut a bit of the vertical fov but also increase the horizontal fov to make up for it.

 

[old]

Good. You should not get an advantage just because you spent hundreds on a new monitor.

 

[Bumbletron]

Again, the increase in peripheral vision is not insubstantial. And... what? What're you saying? That because you're playing in a smaller viewable area, you'll have the advantage of keeping track over the same peripheral vision as we have with our identical fov's ? I mean, that's down to anyone's monitor size and distance from pov. That's silly. You can make your screen as close to or far from and as much or as little of your fov as you want, and as your setup dictates.

Sorry. I feel dumb for arguing against this because again, I don't disagree all that strongly. I'm just really not feeling a lot of the arguments in favour.

Good luck to you, my 21:9 brethren. May we all play in mutually agreeable viewing circumstances in a later patch.

It's all good man. We cool.

But seriously, I could send you a picture of just how much gets cut off on my Ultra Wide. It is about 40% of the screen area I miss out on. My regular monitor is 24in. compared to my 27in. But it has about a 70% larger display when playing in 1920x1080 mode. This is a huge disadvantage. And the option they just put in makes me physically ill. I feel bad for the people who only have an ultrawide, because they are seriously getting screwed being promised this and having to choose between those two options.

Good. You should not get an advantage just because you spent hundreds on a new monitor.

So I should get a disadvantage instead?

 

[Piston Hyundai]

Good. You should not get an advantage just because you spent hundreds on a new monitor.

was this the argument when 16:9 monitors started becoming the norm

 

[Plum]

Good. You should not get an advantage just because you spent hundreds on a new monitor.

Then why support 144hz? Why support 1440p and upwards? Why have full team group support? All of those are things only the minority have, yet those are fine and 21:9 is not?

Either release exclusively on consoles or release on PC and deal with the consequences, there are no inbetweens that aren't just pure hypocrisy.

 

[hodgy100]

Good. You should not get an advantage just because you spent hundreds on a new monitor.

but people with expensive 144hz monitors get an advantage,

21:9 isnt even that much more expensive than a standard monitor

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01BFH18BG/

 

[Mugenjin]

I don't understand why you can't change the FoV to begin with anyway. The current one is a bit too low for me.

 

[hodgy100]

I don't understand why you can't change the FoV to begin with anyway. The current one is a bit too low for me.

because that wouldn't be "fair"

 

[truestatic]

I don't understand why you can't change the FoV to begin with anyway. The current one is a bit too low for me.

Essentially the same reason. There are limits to FoV to balance things around the realm of common use, and to prevent anyone with, in a somewhat extreme case, a multi display setup from gaining a significant advantage.

 

[nynt9]

was this the argument when 16:9 monitors started becoming the norm

Oh man, I can imagine all the same silly arguments from 4:3 users about how 16:9 is unfair and how the option should be taken away and such. PC gaming would still be stuck at mini color displays if it were up to some.

I also like how people argue that the increased horizontal FOV would be unfair to normal players but the greatly reduced vertical FOV 21:9 players get with this "fix" isn't unfair to them. With the verticality in this game it's borderline unplayable at this crop.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Ignoring the fact Blizzard could just equalise the diagonal FOV for a minute..



16:9 users losing FOV = Perfectly Ok

21:9 users losing FOV = Crime against humanity, Blizzard are idiots, not 'proper' 21:9 support



You guys are ridiculous. Why on earth would Blizzard want to provide the more optimal experience to such a tiny minority? They don't care you paid a premium for your monitor and consider wider = upgrade. GAF does not understand FOV/aspect ratios at all.

 

[nynt9]

Ignoring the fact Blizzard could just equalise the diagonal FOV for a minute..



16:9 users losing FOV = Perfectly Ok

21:9 users losing FOV = Crime against humanity, Blizzard are idiots, not 'proper' 21:9 support



You guys are ridiculous. Why on earth would Blizzard want to provide the more optimal experience to such a tiny minority? They don't care you paid a premium for your monitor and consider wider = upgrade.

Because that's how 21:9 support is done by literally every other game, including other competitive games by blizzard, and no one cared?

Does all the anger in every 21:9 thread literally boil down to "some people have more expensive monitors than me and that bothers me"? Because so many people mention the price point. People have more expensive equipment that give them an advantage all the time. 144hz, 4K, high quality mice, surround sound systems etc. That's the beauty of PC gaming. People can use any setup they want. If you want everyone to be playing on fixed hardware, consoles are the platform you want.

 

[Uiki]

You guys are so cute.

 

[Plum]

Ignoring the fact Blizzard could just equalise the diagonal FOV for a minute..



16:9 users losing FOV = Perfectly Ok

21:9 users losing FOV = Crime against humanity, Blizzard are idiots, not 'proper' 21:9 support



You guys are ridiculous. Why on earth would Blizzard want to provide the more optimal experience to such a tiny minority? They don't care you paid a premium for your monitor and consider wider = upgrade. GAF does not understand FOV/aspect ratios at all.

They provide 144hz, they provide 1440p/4k, they provide 7:1 Surround support. Furthermore, I have never seen the CS:GO, TF2, LoL or DOTA communities complaining about 21:9 despite all of those games supporting it to a full extent. If you could point me to them then let me know. None of their competitive scenes even use that ratio, in fact a lot of competitive CS:GO players use 4:3 or 5:4 instead of 16:9.

 

[Nozem]

This would seem fair:

Lose a bit vertical. Gain a bit horizontal.

 

[mxgt]

This would seem fair:

Lose a bit vertical. Gain a bit horizontal.

I would be fine with this. I just want those fucking black bars gone without losing massive vertical FOV with no gain.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Because that's how 21:9 support is done by literally every other game, including other competitive games by blizzard, and no one cared?

Does all the anger in every 21:9 thread literally boil down to "some people have more expensive monitors than me and that bothers me"? Because so many people mention the price point. People have more expensive equipment that give them an advantage all the time. 144hz, 4K, high quality mice, surround sound systems etc.

My point is, Blizzard don't care. They just want to please as many people as possible. Which in this instance, is by far 16:9 users.

But like I said, there's nothing stopping them giving 21:9 users a little more width and a little less height but for some reason developers always want to lock one direction's FOV.

If adding more width for 21:9 users is 'proper' support, then by definition that would be 'improper' support for 16:9 users!

21:9 users get pissy because they paid more and expect developers to reward this at the expense of 16:9 users. Developers only lock the vertical FOV and expand the horizontal for 21:9 because it's an easy hack.

 

[hodgy100]

This would seem fair:

Lose a bit vertical. Gain a bit horizontal.

its a compromise I'd be ok with.

 

[diamount]

That sucks, I do hope they revisit their decision - it's just nonsensical.

 

[Plum]

This would seem fair:

Lose a bit vertical. Gain a bit horizontal.

I would be perfectly fine with this. Someone needs to present this compromise to Blizzard itself, because I doubt they'll see the way in giving it full support.

 

[Regginator]

They should also hard cap it at 60fps, I don't want 144Hz people having an unfair advantage over me, amirite?

 

[mxgt]

If adding more width for 21:9 users is 'proper' support, then by definition that would be 'improper' support for 16:9 users!

What the fuck are you talking about? they are completely separate. 21:9 getting the correct support doesn't hinder 16:9 in any way.

Blizzard should care, 21:9 is growing in popularity and if small indie games can do it, then Blizzard should too.

 

[duckroll]

My point is, Blizzard don't care.

That's obviously not true or they wouldn't have patched in anything at all. Blizzard cares what fans say and think, they just aren't always making the best choice because they're humans. That's why feedback is good. Telling people to stop complaining and to suck it up is foolish.

 

[Caayn]

This would seem fair:

Lose a bit vertical. Gain a bit horizontal.

While this is a better solution than the current fix. I can see this being the downfall of 21:9 in future games.

The goal of 21:9 is to give the users more horizontal space while maintaining the exact same vertical space as a 16:9 monitor. Not to give up some vertical space in order to get more horizontal space.

 

[Plum]

My point is, Blizzard don't care. They just want to please as many people as possible. Which in this instance, is by far 16:9 users.

But like I said, there's nothing stopping them giving 21:9 users a little more width and a little less height but for some reason developers always want to lock one direction's FOV.

If adding more width for 21:9 users is 'proper' support, then by definition that would be 'improper' support for 16:9 users!

Blizzard clearly care or else they wouldn't have worked on implementing this "solution" to 21:9 instead of just carrying over the support that was already there in the beta. That's the worst part about it, they care about hurting the minority when not doing so would have never hurt the majority. That's why we need to speak up and show Blizzard compromises, explain why their stance is wrong.

 

[Aureon]

I'm not quite getting how the 21:9 crowd can simultaneously claim that FoV is not a significant advantage AND that having less of it on the 21:9 is a problem.

I mean, preserving diagonal would be optimal.. but if fov doesn't matter much, what's the issue in 21:9 being at disadvantage?

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

What the fuck are you talking about? they are completely separate. 21:9 getting the correct support doesn't hinder 16:9 in any way.

Blizzard should care, 21:9 is growing in popularity and if small indie games can do it, then Blizzard should too.

Talking about aspect ratios on GAF makes my brain hurt.

If developers are going to be lazy and lock one of the direction's FOV (in this case, horizontal). Then one group has to 'suffer'. In this instance, Blizzard have chosen to give the more optimal experience to the vast majority, i.e 16:9 users.

If you want to call a wider FOV for 21:9 users 'proper' support then by definition that would be 'improper' support for 16:9 users.

Blizzard clearly care or else they wouldn't have worked on implementing this "solution" to 21:9 instead of just carrying over the support that was already there in the beta. That's the worst part about it, they care about hurting the minority when not doing so would have never hurt the majority. That's why we need to speak up and show Blizzard compromises, explain why their stance is wrong.

I don't understand why they don't give each group a comparable diagonal FOV as a compromise. But even then, I doubt 21:9 users would be happy with that. They want more FOV because they paid more.

21:9 monitors are sold and marketed on the expectation that devs do shitty FOV implementations and lock the vertical FOV in all games to give them more width.

 

[Plum]

I'm not quite getting how the 21:9 crowd can simultaneously claim that FoV is not a significant advantage AND that having less of it on the 21:9 is a problem.

I mean, preserving diagonal would be optimal.. but if fov doesn't matter much, what's the issue in 21:9 being at disadvantage?

Because it isn't preserving diagonal and that's the issue. As seen above 21:9 users would be fine with a hor+ ver- compromise, right now we're getting purely ver- which can both create motion sickness and gives 21:9 (and 16:10, which gets hor-) an objective disadvantage instead of the sidegrade it could be.

 

[nynt9]

I'm not quite getting how the 21:9 crowd can simultaneously claim that FoV is not a significant advantage AND that having less of it on the 21:9 is a problem.

I mean, preserving diagonal would be optimal.. but if fov doesn't matter much, what's the issue in 21:9 being at disadvantage?

What the poster above me said about diagonal FOV being preserved. Also, horizontal and vertical FOV aren't the same thing. Losing vertical is a lot worse in most cases.

 

[Plum]

I don't understand why they don't give each group a comparable diagonal FOV as a compromise. But even then, I doubt 21:9 users would be happy with that. They want more FOV because they paid more.

21:9 monitors are sold and marketed on the expectation that devs do shitty FOV implementations and lock the FOV in all games to give them more width.

Look above your post. Where are the people complaining that Nozem's compromise wouldn't be enough? You're speaking for thousands of people here and putting words in a lot of people's mouths.

21:9 users are being put at an objective disadvantage that Nozem's compromise would entirely mitigate. Don't they have every right to complain if Blizzard has worse 21:9 support than most indie devs? It's not like Blizzard doesn't listen to fans, their improvements with Zenyatta, D.VA and Competitive show that they do care if their fans aren't happy with something. And also, "They paid more and knew the risks" is the textbook definition of victim blaming.

 

[duckroll]

I don't understand why they don't give each group a comparable diagonal FOV as a compromise. But even then, I doubt 21:9 users would be happy with that. They want more FOV because they paid more.

21:9 monitors are sold and marketed on the expectation that devs do shitty FOV implementations and lock the FOV in all games to give them more width.

Please stop talking about "21:9 users" like you actually know wtf you're talking about here, because I think you're just being presumptuous here. The reason why people are upset is because they're losing too much vertical view in the current implementation which is really lazy. The game has quite a bit of vertical view so getting less without gaining anything at all is a silly way to implement it.

21:9 monitors are not sold and marketed on the expectations of anything devs do at all. They are sold because some people prefer a much wider view for a range of reasons. Gaming is the LAST reason anyone would want a 21:9 monitor or TV. Which is also why I think a developer like Blizzard is struggling to recognize what people really want with this. Overwatch is the first shooter they've ever made, so they're not super experienced in quality of life and user preferences unique to first person shooters. It's okay though, they'll get better at it because they're highly motivated and Overwatch is a great success for them, they don't need you stanning for them making up reasons why they shouldn't care about a smaller user niche.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Please stop talking about "21:9 users" like you actually know wtf you're talking about here, because I think you're just being presumptuous here. The reason why people are upset is because they're losing too much vertical view in the current implementation which is really lazy. The game has quite a bit of vertical view so getting less without gaining anything at all is a silly way to implement it.

I've said in every one of my posts, a compromise would be best. But who was calling for a compromise when 16:9 users got less? No one. Which is exactly my point;

16:9 users get less = Ok

21:9 users get less = Burn everything down

21:9 monitors are not sold and marketed on the expectations of anything devs do at all. They are sold because some people prefer a much wider view for a range of reasons.

Every single marketing image/review/user opinion on 21:9 shows a comparison of a particular game with a shitty locked vertical FOV and the 21:9 showing more width. This is what 21:9 owners demand and will cry that anything less is not 'proper' support. Look at this thread, most people aren't going to be happy until Blizzard lock the vertical FOV and give 21:9 users the advantage.

I'm going to create my own range of 'Ultra Tall' 16:9 monitors and use these Overwatch images in my marketing campaign. Gamers would lap it up.

 

[Sendou]

I've said in every one of my posts, a compromise would be best. But who was calling for a compromise when 16:9 users got less? No one. Which is exactly my point;

16:9 users get less = Ok

21:9 users get less = Burn everything down

Am I missing something here? 16 users get less because 16 is a smaller number than 21.

 

[Aadrian1234]

I feel like we're just running in circles now. I still don't get why this is suddenly too unbalanced when almost every other online competitive game uses them too without complaints, even in their competitive/ ranked modes.

If the game came out with proper 21:9 support out of the box would we even be having this discussion?

 

[mxgt]

I've said in every one of my posts, a compromise would be best. But who was calling for a compromise when 16:9 users got less? No one. Which is exactly my point;

16:9 users get less = Ok

21:9 users get less = Burn everything down

I do not understand this logic. 16:9 users get everything possible within the limitations of the aspect ratio.

They aren't getting less at all, because they can't have more.

 

[Yarbskoo]

I use a 16:9 monitor but there's no reason why someone with a wider one shouldn't have a wider field of view. It's a PC game, you're never going to have a completely level playing field. Just let people use what they got and keep the silly restrictions on consoles if you must.

Besides, the current solution isn't even a compromise, it's actually worse than black bars.

 

[Grimm Fandango]

As long as the ultimates/abilities that rely on the screen aren't expanded, I'm fine with proper 21:9.

My first reaction was no but reading the responses here changed my mind.

And yes, Blizzard's "solution" is crap.

 

[Plum]

As long as the ultimates/abilities that rely on the screen aren't expanded, I'm fine with proper 21:9.

My first reaction was no but reading the responses here changed my mind.

They wouldn't be because they're not tied to FOV, they would still be done in a 16:9 area which might look a little odd but 21:9 users are used to odd things like that.

 

[Jebusman]

We all should just adopt the pro CSGO scene way of doing things, playing at 800x600 stretched on a 16:9 monitor running at like 300+ fps. It's the only way to play.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Can the game be modded for wider FOV?

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

because they can't have more.

What are you talking about?? In Overwatch they currently *are* getting more. Same width, more height. Which is purely because of the way the FOV is set. It's up to the developers to choose who sees more. The difference is, if developers give 21:9 users more, no problem. If they give 16:9 users more, all hell breaks loose; as evident by this thread.