DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1901767:date=Feb 10 2012, 01:48 PM:name=Fluid Core)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fluid Core @ Feb 10 2012, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901767"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Buy the Black Armor Gaming Helmet today and get a copy of NS2 for free! The gaming helmet use your standard screen connection and allows you up to 180 degree horizontal and 120 degree vertical view, what your eyes could see, you can see ingame! Integrated speakers and microphone included!
That would be awsome :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nQR49JGySTM"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nQR49JGySTM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
It would take care of the unfair advantage certain monitors may yield for certain classes. I guess you could make it auto-detect, but allow users to override it when they feel they're getting a bad deal (16:9 marines per example).
I don't think you need any of these complex solutions. It's obvious that 4:3 users are angry because their horizontal FOV went from 90 last patch to 73 in the current build. Rather than widescreen users getting an increase in horizontal fov. I think most people understand that widescreen monitors will get to see a little bit more on the sides and they accept that, they just don't want their FOV to be reduced because of it.
Just add abit extra on the sides for those with widescreens, you don't have to scan large horizons or similar in NS2 so an extra 2 cm will hardly be much of a difference. is it unfair? maybe, but the better player will still win. widescreen or not.
DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1901785:date=Feb 10 2012, 02:21 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 10 2012, 02:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think you need any of these complex solutions. It's obvious that 4:3 users are angry because their horizontal FOV went from 90 last patch to 73 in the current build. Rather than widescreen users getting an increase in horizontal fov. I think most people understand that widescreen monitors will get to see a little bit more on the sides and they accept that, they just don't want their FOV to be reduced because of it.
A simple change to the lua code fixes it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This. There is no way to make it completely fair and non-distorted on every screen without black bars, which would destroy gaming experience as you'd need to have a huge monitor to have the same screen space occupied.
<!--quoteo(post=1901764:date=Feb 10 2012, 07:42 AM:name=Fluid Core)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fluid Core @ Feb 10 2012, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901764"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Can't you make it so that "normal" formats have a fixed horizontal, i.e have a higher vertical FoV, while widescreens have fixed vertical, thus getting more horizontal FoV?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you're suggesting that you pick some weird format somewhere midway between 4:3 and 16:9 as "reference"; wider aspect ratios get the same vertical FoV as the reference and taller aspect ratios get the same horizontal FoV as the reference.
This just seems like a hacky way of doing it and will result in crazy distortion at the more absurd aspect ratios(e.g. 3 monitors side by side or a 16:9 monitor rotated 90 degrees).
<!--quoteo(post=1901785:date=Feb 10 2012, 08:21 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 10 2012, 08:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's obvious that 4:3 users are angry because their horizontal FOV went from 90 last patch to 73 in the current build. Rather than widescreen users getting an increase in horizontal fov.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's only half the problem, low FoV is indeed annoying.
The other half of the problem is that it was unfair to treat widescreens as a cut down version of 4:3(90 degree horizontal FoV for everyone). It's an equally bad idea to treat 4:3 as a cut down version of widescreens(equal vertical FoV for everyone); neither is fair.
The amount of visible distortion depends on how large your display is and how close you sit to it(i.e. if the screen occupies more area on your retina you can have a larger FoV without seeing a lot of distortion).
<!--quoteo(post=1901785:date=Feb 10 2012, 08:21 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 10 2012, 08:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think most people understand that widescreen monitors will get to see a little bit more on the sides and they accept that, they just don't want their FOV to be reduced because of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A widescreen is not a 4:3 screen extended on the sides. A 4:3 or 5:4 screen is not a widescreen that has been extended on the top and bottom. There is nothing magical about any particular aspect ratio. The fair compromise is to pick a vertical and horizontal FoV that keeps the size of the viewport into the world of constant size no matter what aspect ratio you prefer(constant solid angle, which gives wider screens more horizontal FoV and less vertical FoV).
<!--quoteo(post=1901817:date=Feb 10 2012, 03:53 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Feb 10 2012, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901817"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's only half the problem, low FoV is indeed annoying.
The other half of the problem is that it was unfair to treat widescreens as a cut down version of 4:3(90 degree horizontal FoV for everyone). It's an equally bad idea to treat 4:3 as a cut down version of widescreens(equal vertical FoV for everyone); neither is fair.
The amount of visible distortion depends on how large your display is and how close you sit to it(i.e. if the screen occupies more area on your retina you can have a larger FoV without seeing a lot of distortion).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, but you can never get it completely fair unless you force everyone to use the same res/aspect ratio/monitor. The way they have it now makes the most sense and is the same method used in source multiplayer games. You do get a little more on the sides if you're playing with a widescreen monitor but it's not a huge advantage and considering 80% of gamers have widescreen it makes sense to cater to them.
I don't think the 4:3 users are bothered about the small amount of extra horizontal space widescreen players see. It's the fact that their FOV has effectively been reduced now. 70 FOV when sitting at a desk looks very zoomed in and is uncomfortable to play with. It would be better to keep the 4:3 FOV the same as it was in previous builds and to then add extra horizontal FOV on for widescreen resolutions.
<!--quoteo(post=1901825:date=Feb 10 2012, 04:16 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 10 2012, 04:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It would be better to keep the 4:3 FOV the same as it was in previous builds and to then add extra horizontal FOV on for widescreen resolutions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes that is probably what we are going to do, but also keep the view models at 16:9
<!--quoteo(post=1901825:date=Feb 10 2012, 09:16 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 10 2012, 09:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the 4:3 users are bothered about the small amount of extra horizontal space widescreen players see. It's the fact that their FOV has effectively been reduced now. 70 FOV when sitting at a desk looks very zoomed in and is uncomfortable to play with. It would be better to keep the 4:3 FOV the same as it was in previous builds and to then add extra horizontal FOV on for widescreen resolutions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution. In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.
<!--quoteo(post=1901853:date=Feb 10 2012, 05:43 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Feb 10 2012, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution. In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Gonna repost this video here because it helped me see the need for an adjustable FOV setting: <a href="http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA</a>
Also, I don't think the 'fixed FOV to keep it fair' is a good argument. Having the latest i5/i7 with 60+fps in NS2 clearly gives that player an advantage over someone rocking a Celeron and <10 fps. However, we wouldn't say that fps should be capped at 10 so that the i5/i7 power computer didn't have an advantage over the Celeron. I think an adjustable FOV within a reasonable range (say 75-125?) is a good compromise.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1901853:date=Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution. In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you, you now have my eternal gratitude as well. :D
<!--quoteo(post=1901853:date=Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
The reason behind this should be fairly obvious to anyone who has played CS, CS:S, DoD, Quake, or TFC (or Cod series, BF series, etc) competitively. All of these games allowed their FoV to be changed, yet these games did not fall into a catastrophic ruin that many seem to fear. I do remember TFC and Quake clanners, especially, used FoV commands quite often.
The common FoV for TFC clanners ranged from 95 to 125. Very rarely would anyone go above 125. Back in the day I would occasionally ask people what their FoV was to see how 'crazy' they were, and the highest I recall anyone going up to was 125. I think the breakdown would go a bit like: 5%: 80-85, 40%: 90-95, 30%: 100-105, 20%: 110-115, 5%: 120-125+.
For those who don't understand why people playing TFC competitively would need the higher FoV, let me explain. And then I'm going to explain why NS would stand to gain significantly by allowing the FoV to be raised up to 120.
TFC: (((Background: <The TFC competitive scene had up to 300 clans in its heyday. The #1 ranked clan would occasionally go on 25-35 win streaks. The play was 9v9/8v8. Nadagast was once in the top TFC clan before he got out of TFC and moved to NS and was in the top clan in NS. TFC had 9 classes: pyro, sniper, scout, soldier, medic, engy, hw, spy, demo. Of these 9, pyro and sniper Rarely ever saw the light of day in the competitive scene.>
The advantages to a high FoV for soldier (most commonly set at 105-115 fov) was that it gave the soldier greater depth perception to fire rockets at his opponents. The FoV gave the competitive clanner better field of view so that he could see and track people whizzing by and shoot them. The medic also used a fairly extreme FoV so that he could track everyone on the way to the flag and get better awareness to dodge grenades, pipes, mirvs, etc. The offensive classes (scout and spy) normally also used a high FoV. The demo and HW had to have perhaps the widest field of views. For someone to get behind them was catastrophic and often they would either be protecting the entrance or the flag. The demo especially had to keep view of his pipes and then also any attackers that would try to kill him. So for TFC, FoV was exceptionally important.)))
NS2: (((Now some people may say that FoV doesn't matter in NS2, and I would call them crazy :). The fact that aliens can hide behind corners, circle strafe marines, and fly circles around their heads proves that a higher FoV would be helpful. Indeed if the possible FoV is increased for both the marines and aliens, I see no balance problems whatsoever except that skulks would need to be more careful about ambushing and not have limbs hanging out everywhere))).
The higher FoV for NS2 would allow skulks to better track marines, the lerks to better keep track of the marines he's flying around, the fades to be more cognizant of what they're blinking into, and gorges to land their bile bombs better, and the onos maybe not to get so much tunnel vision and rush into 10 marines when he only sees one :x. For the NS2 competitive scene, having an adjustable FoV would be absolutely amazing.
As for the pubs, the higher FoV optional settings never ruined pubs for any of the games I listed at the beginning of this post with. It's just that, a lot of people have no idea what FoV can do for the competitiveness of the game, and so they don't mess with it. FoV is amazing and should be adjustable. If not for my reasons, then for the reasons why all the former HL mods had adjustable FoV (except for NS....................which still irks me).
First off: <a href="http://widescreengamingforum.com/dr/natural-selection-2/en" target="_blank">Natural Selection 2 Detailed Report on WSGF</a>
My quickie response:
<!--QuoteBegin-Max+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Quake days were a long time ago. Doing the change in 196 is a step in the right direction, but you are still creating limitations and hindering others. Like I have posted before, limitations are anti-future-proofing. Changes in aspect ratios and multi-monitors are just two things that can change. We have a conversation on this going on in the WSGF IRC. "One does not simply set an FOV in video games!" FOV is dependent upon the window size and viewer distance from the window. Give the player control over FOV. Why care about advantages in public games? Does playing against someone with Eyefinity/Surround in games like BF3, TF2, and such make it less enjoyable? Let competitive leagues sort out the FOV-fairness issue, not the developers.
<!--quoteo(post=1901853:date=Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution. In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Hey Max, any way that FOV could be adjusted based on resolution automatically, with a percentage slider to allow people to tweak more or less by a certain percentage range for personal preference? As an Eyefinity user running at 5760x1080, any of these fixes based on 4:3 or 16:9 won't do much on a 48:9 ratio 'screen'.
<!--quoteo(post=1901863:date=Feb 11 2012, 04:54 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Feb 11 2012, 04:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901863"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gonna repost this video here because it helped me see the need for an adjustable FOV setting: <a href="http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow, that video was amazingly clear and informative. Thank you very much for linking this. I really learned from it.
To be honest, as a 16:9 user I havent really noticed any change between the builds. So I wouldnt say it would be a "huge advantage" to have just a little bit more fov. I don't really see how the FOV + aspect ratio in NS2 seems to be suddenly such a huge problem to us. It hasn't been in any other games either. And with this im referring to the discussion on how to change it and how other people get advantage or not, I do agree its gotten worse from the last build for the 4:3 users yeah.
Please let 4:3 and 16:10 adjust their fov to the 16:9 fov if they choose. I would like to be able to not be at a disadvantage on a 4:3 monitor without playing with black bars. I don't think you have to worry too much about fovs being an advantage as higher ones come at the cost of smaller targets.
<!--quoteo(post=1901853:date=Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Feb 10 2012, 06:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution. In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> max 120° or 130° pls!
90° is just not fast enough, yep i play quake with 120°
Sorry for the OT post, but this conversion reminds me a lot of the scene in Limitless where he takes the pill: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-ZwmCPBAs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-ZwmCPBAs</a> At about 1:55
Comments
That would be awsome :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nQR49JGySTM"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nQR49JGySTM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
A simple change to the lua code fixes it.
is it unfair? maybe, but the better player will still win. widescreen or not.
A simple change to the lua code fixes it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This. There is no way to make it completely fair and non-distorted on every screen without black bars, which would destroy gaming experience as you'd need to have a huge monitor to have the same screen space occupied.
I think you're suggesting that you pick some weird format somewhere midway between 4:3 and 16:9 as "reference"; wider aspect ratios get the same vertical FoV as the reference and taller aspect ratios get the same horizontal FoV as the reference.
This just seems like a hacky way of doing it and will result in crazy distortion at the more absurd aspect ratios(e.g. 3 monitors side by side or a 16:9 monitor rotated 90 degrees).
That's only half the problem, low FoV is indeed annoying.
The other half of the problem is that it was unfair to treat widescreens as a cut down version of 4:3(90 degree horizontal FoV for everyone). It's an equally bad idea to treat 4:3 as a cut down version of widescreens(equal vertical FoV for everyone); neither is fair.
The amount of visible distortion depends on how large your display is and how close you sit to it(i.e. if the screen occupies more area on your retina you can have a larger FoV without seeing a lot of distortion).
<!--quoteo(post=1901785:date=Feb 10 2012, 08:21 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Feb 10 2012, 08:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think most people understand that widescreen monitors will get to see a little bit more on the sides and they accept that, they just don't want their FOV to be reduced because of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A widescreen is not a 4:3 screen extended on the sides. A 4:3 or 5:4 screen is not a widescreen that has been extended on the top and bottom. There is nothing magical about any particular aspect ratio. The fair compromise is to pick a vertical and horizontal FoV that keeps the size of the viewport into the world of constant size no matter what aspect ratio you prefer(constant solid angle, which gives wider screens more horizontal FoV and less vertical FoV).
/edit/ btw i love to play a fov of 130°
The other half of the problem is that it was unfair to treat widescreens as a cut down version of 4:3(90 degree horizontal FoV for everyone). It's an equally bad idea to treat 4:3 as a cut down version of widescreens(equal vertical FoV for everyone); neither is fair.
The amount of visible distortion depends on how large your display is and how close you sit to it(i.e. if the screen occupies more area on your retina you can have a larger FoV without seeing a lot of distortion).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, but you can never get it completely fair unless you force everyone to use the same res/aspect ratio/monitor. The way they have it now makes the most sense and is the same method used in source multiplayer games. You do get a little more on the sides if you're playing with a widescreen monitor but it's not a huge advantage and considering 80% of gamers have widescreen it makes sense to cater to them.
I don't think the 4:3 users are bothered about the small amount of extra horizontal space widescreen players see. It's the fact that their FOV has effectively been reduced now. 70 FOV when sitting at a desk looks very zoomed in and is uncomfortable to play with. It would be better to keep the 4:3 FOV the same as it was in previous builds and to then add extra horizontal FOV on for widescreen resolutions.
Yes that is probably what we are going to do, but also keep the view models at 16:9
--Cory
I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution. In the final version of the game we may also include a slider or console command to adjust the FOV within some reasonable range.
:) Nice one, I'm sure swalk will be happy.
<a href="http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA</a>
Also, I don't think the 'fixed FOV to keep it fair' is a good argument. Having the latest i5/i7 with 60+fps in NS2 clearly gives that player an advantage over someone rocking a Celeron and <10 fps. However, we wouldn't say that fps should be capped at 10 so that the i5/i7 power computer didn't have an advantage over the Celeron. I think an adjustable FOV within a reasonable range (say 75-125?) is a good compromise.
Thank you, you now have my eternal gratitude as well. :D
+1
The reason behind this should be fairly obvious to anyone who has played CS, CS:S, DoD, Quake, or TFC (or Cod series, BF series, etc) competitively. All of these games allowed their FoV to be changed, yet these games did not fall into a catastrophic ruin that many seem to fear. I do remember TFC and Quake clanners, especially, used FoV commands quite often.
The common FoV for TFC clanners ranged from 95 to 125. Very rarely would anyone go above 125. Back in the day I would occasionally ask people what their FoV was to see how 'crazy' they were, and the highest I recall anyone going up to was 125. I think the breakdown would go a bit like: 5%: 80-85, 40%: 90-95, 30%: 100-105, 20%: 110-115, 5%: 120-125+.
For those who don't understand why people playing TFC competitively would need the higher FoV, let me explain. And then I'm going to explain why NS would stand to gain significantly by allowing the FoV to be raised up to 120.
TFC: (((Background: <The TFC competitive scene had up to 300 clans in its heyday. The #1 ranked clan would occasionally go on 25-35 win streaks. The play was 9v9/8v8. Nadagast was once in the top TFC clan before he got out of TFC and moved to NS and was in the top clan in NS. TFC had 9 classes: pyro, sniper, scout, soldier, medic, engy, hw, spy, demo. Of these 9, pyro and sniper Rarely ever saw the light of day in the competitive scene.>
The advantages to a high FoV for soldier (most commonly set at 105-115 fov) was that it gave the soldier greater depth perception to fire rockets at his opponents. The FoV gave the competitive clanner better field of view so that he could see and track people whizzing by and shoot them. The medic also used a fairly extreme FoV so that he could track everyone on the way to the flag and get better awareness to dodge grenades, pipes, mirvs, etc. The offensive classes (scout and spy) normally also used a high FoV. The demo and HW had to have perhaps the widest field of views. For someone to get behind them was catastrophic and often they would either be protecting the entrance or the flag. The demo especially had to keep view of his pipes and then also any attackers that would try to kill him. So for TFC, FoV was exceptionally important.)))
NS2: (((Now some people may say that FoV doesn't matter in NS2, and I would call them crazy :). The fact that aliens can hide behind corners, circle strafe marines, and fly circles around their heads proves that a higher FoV would be helpful. Indeed if the possible FoV is increased for both the marines and aliens, I see no balance problems whatsoever except that skulks would need to be more careful about ambushing and not have limbs hanging out everywhere))).
The higher FoV for NS2 would allow skulks to better track marines, the lerks to better keep track of the marines he's flying around, the fades to be more cognizant of what they're blinking into, and gorges to land their bile bombs better, and the onos maybe not to get so much tunnel vision and rush into 10 marines when he only sees one :x. For the NS2 competitive scene, having an adjustable FoV would be absolutely amazing.
As for the pubs, the higher FoV optional settings never ruined pubs for any of the games I listed at the beginning of this post with. It's just that, a lot of people have no idea what FoV can do for the competitiveness of the game, and so they don't mess with it. FoV is amazing and should be adjustable. If not for my reasons, then for the reasons why all the former HL mods had adjustable FoV (except for NS....................which still irks me).
<a href="http://widescreengamingforum.com/dr/natural-selection-2/en" target="_blank">Natural Selection 2 Detailed Report on WSGF</a>
My quickie response:
<!--QuoteBegin-Max+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've adjusted it so that in Build 196 4:3 players will see 90 degrees (as a marine) and widescreen players will see more a little bit more (instead of widescreen players seeing 90 degrees and 4:3 players seeing a little bit less). Since the value of 90 for FOV goes back to the Quake days when all monitors were 4:3, this seems like a good solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Quake days were a long time ago. Doing the change in 196 is a step in the right direction, but you are still creating limitations and hindering others. Like I have posted before, limitations are anti-future-proofing. Changes in aspect ratios and multi-monitors are just two things that can change. We have a conversation on this going on in the WSGF IRC. "One does not simply set an FOV in video games!" FOV is dependent upon the window size and viewer distance from the window. Give the player control over FOV. Why care about advantages in public games? Does playing against someone with Eyefinity/Surround in games like BF3, TF2, and such make it less enjoyable? Let competitive leagues sort out the FOV-fairness issue, not the developers.
Awsome, glad to hear :)
As an Eyefinity user running at 5760x1080, any of these fixes based on 4:3 or 16:9 won't do much on a 48:9 ratio 'screen'.
<a href="http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/blZUao2jTGA</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow, that video was amazingly clear and informative. Thank you very much for linking this. I really learned from it.
I don't really see how the FOV + aspect ratio in NS2 seems to be suddenly such a huge problem to us. It hasn't been in any other games either. And with this im referring to the discussion on how to change it and how other people get advantage or not, I do agree its gotten worse from the last build for the 4:3 users yeah.
16:9 should be 105
16:10 should be 100.5
That is the proper H view for these aspect ratios.
16:9 should be 105
16:10 should be 100.5
That is the proper H view for these aspect ratios.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes please!!!
max 120° or 130° pls!
90° is just not fast enough, yep i play quake with 120°
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-ZwmCPBAs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP-ZwmCPBAs</a>
At about 1:55