Vision nerfed yet again?!

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Challenging can mean many things, sorry not going there. It's is fun. But, its doesn't stimulate enough brain activity to be more than just a "fun" game for awhile. No depth unless you've got the Neanderthal gene. I really think the in depth, "behind the veil" sim aspects of the mod or SA, is what will separate dayz from the long list of survival crap right now.

 

Nothing wrong with the devs tinkering though. Just helps me understand what I like more.

Everyone has different tastes, but I think your assessment is pretty ignorant. I win 99% of the PvP encounters I experience in DayZ, even against squads, by myself. I might go 3:1 in Battlefield on a decent server on a good day. Much more challenging. The mod barely qualified as a survival simulation. And as far as brain activity is concerned, I'd bet my house that there's far more brain activity going on while playing Battlefield and making constant split second decisions for the entirety of the time you play, as opposed to DayZ where you blunder around for hours without encountering anyone. Then when you finally do, you either attempt a conversation, get shot at, or shoot the other person. This game ain't exactly hard, let's face it. I love it, but I'm not going to blatantly lie for it, ha.

I also don't follow your logic pertaining to DayZ and its "depth". Of what dost thou speaketh?

[degoe 20]

Seriously?

 

Vision nerfed yet again in 0.57 EXP. Character's zoomed vision is now nearly the same as ARMA 2's unzoomed vision. 

 

Here's how the character vision (minFov) has evolved:

 

DayZ 0.42 = 0.25 (same as ARMA 2)

DayZ 0.44 = 0.375 (same as ARMA 3)

DayZ 0.55 = 0.525

DayZ 0.56 = 0.500

DayZ 0.57 = 0.65 (this is ridiculous!)

 

2.6x less zoom than we started the alpha with. For comparison character's initFov in ARMA 2 is 0.7. So, now there's almost no zoom, characters can barely see things in the distance, this ruins one of the great things about DayZ/ARMA which is the realistic scale of things.

 

I don't get it... the only point of this zoom is to try to better represent human vision. Default zoom should be set to a level that reflects this. Take a rangefinder and go observe some people at different measured distances, based on this set a minFov in the game which seems about right. If not, then there may as well be no zoom at all (which is almost the case now... just another 30% reduction and this RMB zoom is all gone!)

 

 

Oh, and now also deliberately inconsistent with the iron sights since 0.55... 25% more zoom when aiming at someone. Why? In most arcade games they have no secondary character zoom and they aren't trying to be "realistic" so the guns often get extra zoom. Well, in DayZ we do have an extra zoom and there is no need for these two to be different... if I'm using that zoom, I'm looking at something specific in the distance! I want max detail! Whether I'm aiming at them or not! 

 

It should be the same zoom between iron sights and character. They are both using the same pair of eyes, no? (again.... as in ARMA 2, ARMA 3....)

 

I just don't get it. What's the point of this? Was fine in 0.54, then tinkering started... now character is half blind... I would like my character to be able to spot and engage people at realistic distances. That's one of the greatest things about the large maps and ARMA mechanics.

Feedback tracker issue: http://feedback.dayzgame.com/view.php?id=25019

 

I like it the way it is now. Maybe even better would be to have no zoom at all. Makes the controls more simple..

[Coheed_IV 381]

Everyone has different tastes, but I think your assessment is pretty ignorant. I win 99% of the PvP encounters I experience in DayZ, even against squads, by myself. I might go 3:1 in Battlefield on a decent server on a good day. Much more challenging. The mod barely qualified as a survival simulation. And as far as brain activity is concerned, I'd bet my house that there's far more brain activity going on while playing Battlefield and making constant split second decisions for the entirety of the time you play, as opposed to DayZ where you blunder around for hours without encountering anyone. Then when you finally do, you either attempt a conversation, get shot at, or shoot the other person. This game ain't exactly hard, let's face it. I love it, but I'm not going to blatantly lie for it, ha.

I also don't follow your logic pertaining to DayZ and its "depth". Of what dost thou speaketh?

LOL...That game is made to be balanced, the respawn pos. is balanced, the map is balanced, the weapons are balanced, the ballistics are balanced,  the loadouts are balanced, you are forced to have that experience. 3:1? congrats, that's DICE that did that, not you. They want you to be 3:1, 1:3, or 1:1. That's the point of the game.

 

Your like the people in the matrix, banging your head against a ridged system, but after a 3000:1000 or so you should realize only so much is possible. I guess you need Morpheus, take the pill, free your mind...lol  BI games (DayZ/Arma) are about freedom, but your only choosing to look at "I win 99% of the PVP encounters". Granted you can do this because your conditioned to exploiting the system. And some are not exploits that's just reality, which is not balanced. Like this vision subject.

 

Simulation doesn't mean hard or challenging, it just sets out to simulate actions without caring to adjust for balance. So the experience is more about the journey rather than "3:1 that's me!". :blush: Obviously, they aren't full sims, like Bohemia Interactive Simulations (not related), that is not entertainment for most, so it falls in the middle.

 

If you don't know of what depth thy speaketh, its very easy to find out, they make it this way. What's hard is finding out how other games do things, and when you find out its shocking.

 

Not a jab at you personally, most have spent time in the matrix, me too

Edited June 1, 2015 by Coheed_IV

[-Gews- 7443]

Finally someone said it. Can't believe 9 out of 10 posters doesnt get this...

 

I think if this was bistudio.com forums the discussion would be much more one-sided  :rolleyes:

You can try to justify it all you want. First of all, why do you feel that things need to be to scale? It's a video game. Nothing will ever be to scale.

The entire right click zoom feature is a crutch. You can spot people just fine without it. Things don't need to be bigger than they are in your default field of vision unless you acquire a scope or binoculars.

You want to simulate the human eye on a screen? Okay. Make things you're not currently focused on blurry. Make things you are currently focused on sharper.

This game will never replicate proper field of view/depth of view until you're hooked up to a virtual reality simulator WHICH THIS ENGINE WAS DESIGNED AROUND, right? When they stopped using RV, they tried, and succeeded, selling it to the public. I'm sure somewhere along the way features were removed and added in order to make games playable on a desktop computer.

This stupid zoom feature is one of those things. It literally makes zero sense.

What makes "literally zero sense" is how some people think it's more "authentic" for your character's "eyes" to have resolution of 1920x1080p so he can't anything past short distance. DayZ/ARMA vision mechanics have always been more "authentic" than your Battlefield, H1Z1, the WarZ, etc.

[scriptfactory 620]

Challenging can mean many things, sorry not going there. It's is fun. But, its doesn't stimulate enough brain activity to be more than just a "fun" game for awhile. No depth unless you've got the Neanderthal gene. I really think the in depth, "behind the veil" sim aspects of the mod or SA, is what will separate dayz from the long list of survival crap right now.

 

Nothing wrong with the devs tinkering though. Just helps me understand what I like more.

 

I've played BF3/4 and CS 1.6 competitively in tournaments. The strategic depth to a game like Battlefield is far beyond that of a game like DayZ precisely because of the limitations they impose on players. Balance is necessary for a truly competitive game. DayZ is the opposite, giving way more power to players that have survived for a longer period of time. This is why phenomena like "bambi killing on the coast" exists. DayZ is a game that is (currently) balanced in the favor of griefers... but so if virtually every other "survival" game.

 

DayZ also needs some kind of balancing factors because, in my opinion, DayZ is the game made for "neanderthal" griefers. The easiest way to get kills in this game is to find a great weapon and camp somewhere.

 

Edit: I am not disagreeing with you about the zoom but I feel that your argument is weak.

Edited June 1, 2015 by scriptfactory

[ZomboWTF 527]

I gave beans because this is a good subject that needs some serious thinking through by the devs.

 

I'm not sure what the best solution is but some level of authenticity should be strove towards.

 

well, let's look at the positive things: we have the "FOV slider affecting iron sights" bug fixed on experimental,

maybe the devs could add some higher bare-eye zoom to go along with this when it hits stable, should be a minor variable tweak

 

now you can play at a fov good for looking around yourself (75°/90°?) and be able to use scopes to their full potential anyway, which makes me more excited than it should probably...

 

though on a "realism" note:

 

if you are not a 20/20 eyesight military marksman, seeing people at 300 meters is pretty hard, even harder hitting them with bare iron sights

 

if you want to see how big a person is at 300 meters, at least in germany, you can look at someone who stands 6 street limiters away (each being 50 meters apart from each other)

Edited June 1, 2015 by Zombo

[blacklabel79 949]

After playing RedOrchestra for almost all my online life id say 300 meters is hard to hit. ( as it should be, there was even a 400m archivemnt for nonscoped rifles wich was easyly archiveable on a map called "arad" Shooting from one spawnpoint across the whole damm map to the other spawnexit )

 

Given the game was rendered in UT2.5 i belive it was a pixelhunt. Nonetheless the rifles felt rather reliable.

 

Id like to hear more about why they Play around with this constantly and what conclusions they formed after said changes.

[8bit_Survivor 93]

Id like to hear more about why they Play around with this constantly and what conclusions they formed after said changes.

As would I BlackLabel! Unfortunately I don't think any devs would jump in on a thread that has broken down into an argument like the one seen here.

As far as those bringing up Battlefield as being a more strategic game...no...no it isn't. The BF series as with most online shooters (CS, CoD, R6, etc.) is very much reliant on map knowledge over strategy. I am a BF veteran from 1942 on (still haven't picked up Hardline tho) and am in no way saying these games don't take some skill. But I have found after learning a map my K/D improves dramatically.

DayZ battles are much more dynamic and fluid in my experience. Sure you still have campers, but for the most part I find every encounter to be unique. BF and other shooters are much more linear when it comes to the evolution of a firefight.

Edited June 1, 2015 by 8bit_Survivor

[Beizs 186]

The zoom is to mimic how much detail we can really see in. The high minimum FOV is to mimic the fact that we have peripheral vision.

 

Both are roughly where they should be at this point. Sure, it sucks that you can't see as much detail at a difference in DayZ without zooming. But the only other options would be to have no peripheral vision, or to have far too little detail. Zoom isn't actually zoom. It's literally just giving you the amount of detail that you should be able to see. Removing it would be stupid.

 

This is a videogame. They can't mimic how we see perfectly, unless you're going to get very dynamic depth of field that uses eye tracking, a screen that curves to your entire FOV and a perfect resolution, screen size, viewing distance and FOV balance. This is literally the only way they can mimic human vision. It actually works pretty fucking well, too.

 

The issue with having a lower FOV, besides lacking peripheral vision, is that it creates far too much zoom. Too high FOV makes it far too little. They could set the zoom to a static FOV, but that would be incredibly disorienting from high FOV's and would be higher than very low FOV's. They have to limit the FOV on both ends - and use the zoom to make up for it.

 

I wouldn't call it nerfing. It's getting it closer to real life, excluding the need for zoom (and it is an absolute need). That's kind of a step forward, in my books, when the game prides itself on realism authenticity.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Beizs

[-Gews- 7443]

I wouldn't call it nerfing. It's getting it closer to real life, excluding the need for zoom (and it is an absolute need). That's kind of a step forward, in my books, when the game prides itself on realism authenticity.

Closer to real life? What makes you say that? I don't think "real life" was the intention with these changes from 0.55 onwards. FOV slider is a separate issue altogether, I am talking about the default RMB zoom here.

 

if you are not a 20/20 eyesight military marksman, seeing people at 300 meters is pretty hard, even harder hitting them with bare iron sights

 

if you want to see how big a person is at 300 meters, at least in germany, you can look at someone who stands 6 street limiters away (each being 50 meters apart from each other)

Not hard to see people at 300 meters. To make out fine details, sure.

[Beizs 186]

Closer to real life? What makes you say that? I don't think "real life" was the intention with these changes from 0.55 onwards. FOV slider is a separate issue altogether, I am talking about the default RMB zoom here.

 

Not hard to see people at 300 meters. To make out fine details, sure.

 

I'm talking about the zoom with making it closer to real life. We can see in more detail than what we can see when we have a high FOV. However, without a high FOV, we have no peripheral vision. The zoom mimics how much detail we can actually see, at the temporary cost of peripherals. The higher FOV mimics our peripheral vision, at the cost of how much detail we can see without zoom.

 

It's really that simple. There is no better way to do it. It's far more accurate to real life than being able to zoom by lowering your FOV then zoom more via RMB. They can't remove the zoom, because it's needed for seeing realistic detail when at a high FOV... So they cut out the lower end of the FOV. The RMB zoom is literally just enough to see how much detail we would be able to see in real life.

 

EDIT: Oh shit, might have misread your original post.

 

EDIT 2: Yup... Read the first part in detail, skimmed the rest. Saw 'min FOV', not 'zoom', assumed you were just talking about FOV in general (as they've changed that, too). In that case, apologies - I agree with you. That said, there's plenty of people complaining about zoom in this thread - and I actually was directing my original post to them. Was just too many to bother quoting. :D

Edited June 1, 2015 by Beizs

[Death By Crowbar 1213]

IRL you get peripheral vision, which in your monitor you don't get. Try putting horse blinders on by putting your hands up on either side of your eyes - that's what looking at the monitor is like. I always thought of the RMB as moving my hands away and seeing what I'd normally see if I expanded the peripheral, in essence it would simulating zooming in, much akin the RMB. If there's any reason to be disappointed or not agree with the RMB zoom changes that's the best reason in my opinion. The only other way to simulate it would be a bubble eye effect which I think everyone would hate and would probably cause people to throw up.

[Coheed_IV 381]

 thread that has broken down into an argument like the one seen here.

Yeah, I'm partly responsible. So lets just end it there.

 

In a attempt to put on track. I've said I could see the .54 version (not sold yet though). Straight A2 doesn't seem right to me. 

 

Where does everyone else see it?  (refer to OP) I have a feeling its "all or nothing"......this is a forum :rolleyes:

Edited June 1, 2015 by Coheed_IV

[FlimFlamm 509]

Personally I don't give a shit about a zoom function. In real life can your eyeballs go into hawkeye zoom mode? No they cannot.

 

You need binochs or something....

 

I would make a slight zoom available, which sort of simulates how when we focus on something it beomes more clear. Since the real issue with video games is FOV related, not zoom related, I really don't see the issue.

 

If you're someone who likes to lay down and shoot people, then get a scope. Other than that I honestly don't know why people are crying about not having telescopic eyeballs.

[-Gews- 7443]

Personally I don't give a shit about a zoom function. In real life can your eyeballs go into hawkeye zoom mode? No they cannot.

 

Good Lord, have another read through the thread please.

 

I've said I could see the .54 version (not sold yet though). Straight A2 doesn't seem right to me.

On standard 1080p monitor ARMA 2 has a bit too much zoom IMO. ARMA 3 seems better. These two examples seem about right to me.

Rifleman at 300 meters

Rifleman at 500 meters

 

 

 

 

*by the way in DayZ 0.57 a player with those same apparent sizes would be only 173 and 288 meters away, respectively... 

Edited June 1, 2015 by Gews

[ZomboWTF 527]

Closer to real life? What makes you say that? I don't think "real life" was the intention with these changes from 0.55 onwards. FOV slider is a separate issue altogether, I am talking about the default RMB zoom here.

 

Not hard to see people at 300 meters. To make out fine details, sure.

the original high zoom factor from arma 2 was intended to allow you a wide field of view, but still be able to mimic the detail with which the humand eye can see details at distance

 

arma2 was a military simulator first and a game second, it was even used to train soldiers to a degree afaik, so the "realism" does have to do with it, as well as the fov, since the arma 2 zoom values were meant for people with 20/20 eyesight and training in firing a gun at targets beyond 300 meters, yet survivers in dayz are more the "usual guy" and not highly trained, which is also why i think it's a little ridiculous that all scopes are accurately mounted on your gun no matter what, but thats beside the point

 

devs seem to want to get engagements closer, which is why they fixed the fov slider scope bug and nerfed the zooming fov, not a bad thing imo

Edited June 2, 2015 by Zombo

[Jex 1104]

And now we see what a bad decision it was to allow a stupid level of zoom in the game just like stupid running speeds. Take them away and watch the whiners run out and complain.

[Jex 1104]

the original high zoom factor from arma 2 was intended to allow you a wide field of view, but still be able to mimic the detail with which the humand eye can see details at distance

 

arma2 was a military simulator first and a game second, it was even used to train soldiers to a degree afaik, so the "realism" does have to do with it, as well as the fov, since the arma 2 zoom values were meant for people with 20/20 eyesight and training in firing a gun at targets beyond 300 meters, yet survivers in dayz are more the "usual guy" and not highly trained, which is also why i think it's a little ridiculous that all scopes are accurately mounted on your gun no matter what, but thats beside the point

 

devs seem to want to get engagements closer, which is why they fixed the fov slider scope bug and nerfed the zooming fov, not a bad thing imo

 

You're talking about VBS which is developed for the US Marines and the Australian Army iirc. The zoom view was as you explained, the view you would see in RL. The wider FOV is the false view - the "natural" state just isn't viable on a tiny screen.

[Coheed_IV 381]

since the arma 2 zoom values were meant for people with 20/20 eyesight and training in firing a gun at targets beyond 300 meters, yet survivers in dayz are more the "usual guy" and not highly trained,

This is a great point. I agree, they are not trained soldiers. So how do you simulate this, taking away their ability to see?!??

 

No you simulate the "usual guy" by weapon characteristics A3 does this better. Inertia, weight, recoil, fatigue, sway. Even dispersion, this is more like the "usual guy" than bad eyesight.

 

So much of any engagement in RV (the engine), is spotting, your ability to do this is more than half of surviving.

 

@Jexter Not sure what running speeds have to do with anything, cant wait for that to go. "you say stupid level of zoom", but it's not really zoom, its natural proportion. You do however always have unnatural zoomed out the entire time, in every game.

[Beizs 186]

And now we see what a bad decision it was to allow a stupid level of zoom in the game just like stupid running speeds. Take them away and watch the whiners run out and complain.

 

I don't think you're quite correct there. The running speeds are unrealistic. The zoom really wasn't.

 

I used to do a lot of track. My school had a 400m long field that we used for it. I could certainly see people on the other end of it. Pretty well, actually - I mean, I couldn't tell who it was, but I could see there was a person there, what colour clothes they were wearing, when they moved their arms or legs, etc. I haven't got great vision. My eyesight is actually pretty fucking bad (-4), but I wear contacts (+3.75). As such, my eyesight is not even at normal levels and I can see good detail a lot further than I can in DayZ (it can be very difficult to spot people past 200m in DayZ). In the lake district, I was able to just about make out people on hills at much larger distances.

 

So, why is this? Because a monitor isn't a good substitute for our vision. We have a very high field of view, with a very high level of detail. In games, the FOV is generally very high, to mimic our peripherals. As such, we lose a lot of the detail, because more is crammed on to a small screen. The zoom function simply gives us back the detail that we should be able to see in... And at this point, it is nowhere near enough.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Beizs

[-Gews- 7443]

And now we see what a bad decision it was to allow a stupid level of zoom in the game just like stupid running speeds. Take them away and watch the whiners run out and complain.

 

"A stupid level", how so?

[BeefBacon 1185]

I'm in favour of a slight zoom. I know a lot of people can't play at very high resolutions, so being able to zoom in a little bit might better simulate the resolution of the eye. Perhaps somehow link the amount you can zoom to the set resolution. Those who play on a low resolution should be able to zoom in slightly further than those who play with a high resolution - just to level the playing field in terms of seeing distant objects.

[Killawife 599]

Theres zoom?

[Perigrin 105]

im with you 100% Gews. this lack of zoom is kinda silly. there is a line between realism and fun. realism is not something to be used to justify a Nerf. or something to be tossed aside when talking about nerfing something. As i have yet to find a single pair of binoculars in the standalone since i started playing again, this no zoom is horrible, as i feel like the most nearsighted person to ever live. Its a big part of the mod, was a big part of the game, and should remain so.

[-MadTommy 367]

I'm happy with the present 'zoom' in experimental.  

 

Don't see the problem :p