Qikin
Qikin
About
- Username
- Qikin
- Joined
- Visits
- 140
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Exerath1992 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2339354#Comment_2339354
Lol, you're taking me too seriously. I'm just trolling cause I'm jealous. I wish "my bad @$$ monitor isn't getting its full usage" was a problem i was having
I can see that you're trying to provoke me, but I suggest you to stop.
You also misunterstood why ultrawide monitor users have a problem with the game. Right now, by default, 21:9 gameplay cuts more than 30% of vertical screen, making it zoomed in and nearly unplayable. With no in-game options to change resolution (which is the basic feature of any video game), you can now guess why so many people have a problem with that.
-
@Exerath1992 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2338878#Comment_2338878
Lol, something a rich boi would say
I would apprciate if you would attack my points, rather than trying to attack my person. FYI, I, and many of my friends would not consider me a 'rich boi'.
I would also ask you to refrain yourself from going offtopic or negating the problem, because it does not birth any productive discussions. It is why forum with different topics exist, so you can enter any discussion you want and voice your opinion there. If the ultrawide support (or rather lack of it) does not in any way involve you, let people that this topic concern voice their opinions. It is counter-productive to, for example, enter a discussion on game balance and just write 'why are you talking about balance, when there are no resoltuion option?'.
To contiue the theme of ultrawide support, I would like to present an idea for those saying about 'giving the game Hor+ resolution scailing and thus removing the problem for ultrawides, also creates an unfair advantage'. If we treat the game as competetive one, how come that nearly every competetive game (Valorant being the only exception, but applies to CS:GO, Rainbow Six Siege, etc.) does support ultrawide resolutions and it is there considered a norm? What's more, how come, that in the game where hiding in shadows is an important gameplay tactic, NVIDIA cards users can use build-in features to increase brightness and visibility in the game? That is considered an unfair advantage and was pointed out numerous times when the feature was presented, but now I feel like everyone forgot about it. And just as in other competetive games people do not mind the ultrawides, I'm quite sure the same thing would happen in DBD community.
-
@Exerath1992 said:
Don't buy such a boujee monitor lol
Why? Most of modern games support ultrawide resoltuions, even many old games (late 90s and early 2000s ones), because they were well coded to support any resolutions. It's not unwise to expect from such a big company as BHVR to deliver a standard support, when much more smaller teams were able to do it.
Not to mention advantages you get when you work on one. Ultrawide gives you much more workspace and makes dividing software windows more comfortable. Personally this is why I bought one, for work primarly. For everyone that haven't tried it, I highly encourage to try one if opportunity arises.
Plus, it comes with many benefits in games, for me personally being the immersion factor.
So I cannot see why one shouldn't buy ultrawide monitors, if this purchase suits the needs.
-
@Orion said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2243826#Comment_2243826
Ultrawide is a niche market, with niche problems. This is why you shouldn't buy such technologies (ultrawide monitors, VR, brand new GPUs) until if and when they become mainstream, or at least a bit more streamlined, because they're very prone to problems. All ultrawide users are essentially doing live, unpaid beta testing of the technology while developers learn to deal with/fix its problems.
While ultrawide monitors is a niche market, it still is a growing in popularity market, and lack of its support is nothing but an objective flaw within a game. How much does it bother anyone is down to subjective experience, but I can see the point that for many players the game is unplayble.
What is fascinating is that the technology is older than you perhaps realise, and the first games that natively support them were made even before 2000s (Civ II and Age of Wonders, to name a few).
I've seen your other comments on this topic and while I agree with you that the game has much more bigger problems than that, please do keep in mind that for some the game is unplayable, and BHVR is a large company with many team within it. It wouldn't be unrealistic to dedicate small programmers team to do the task, while the other fix other problems plaguing the game.
-
@Exerlin said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1894719#Comment_1894719
I mostly play killer, and I purposefully avoid using Shadowborn because it feels too good to use. I don't want to dedicate a perk slot to it 24/7 just to feel comfy, and I guess my personal preference is to have it around Shadowborn levels for everyone. I think a slider would be fine if the FOV could not go past 102 degrees. That way, players get a good bit of wiggle room in case they feel a bit sick playing at higher FOVs.
The only thing that concerns me is on the survivor side. If you have seen some stretched resolution survivor gameplay, you may have noticed that the stretched res allows them to see over walls that they shouldn't be able to. The best example of this are the hay bale tile in the farm maps that make an = sign with a pallet in between. You can't see above this normally, and the stretched res gives survivors the massive advantage of knowing where the killer is at all times. I don't know if increasing survivor FOV would cause that same issue, but I would like to avoid that if possible.
I agree with all of what you said. While I belive that games overall should have options so vast that most people wouldn't pick extreme values, I can agree that games like DbD really do not need a FoV with ridiculous numbers. For me, it's has to be about comfort and enjoyable experience as well as making sure that it's eye-friendly for other players.
Afaik survivors right now have different FoV than killer, altough I don't think it's a big one. Having said that, the reason why on stretched resolution you see more above and below you is because of Vert- scailing of FoV. What that means is that the game forces vertical FoV across every aspect ratio, so 4:3 gives an advantage over 16:9, not to mention ultrawides, which are just unplayable. If the devs decide to change scailing to Hor+, suddenly changing FoV wouldn't have such a big impact. Yes, survivors would still be able to see more over the wall but not as much as they would when using 4:3 or 1:1 streched.
That being said, I think we should leave balancing problems to the devs, because it's their job, not ours.
-
I feel what you mean is not PoV (which stands for Point of View) but rather FoV (Field of View). There was a discussion recently on this topic here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/221489/why-does-monstrum-2-currently-in-beta-have-more-graphical-options-than-dead-by-daylight#latest, you might want to check it. My points from this thread still stand.
-
@Starshadw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1894719#Comment_1894719
I wouldn't mind if the game were 3rd person for Killer as well - but something would absolutely have to change if the Killer could easily see multiple survivors at the same time. The "tunnel vision" of the Killer is a key part of the game that allows survivors to be working around the edges of that vision. And then, of course, there's the issue of some folks liking the 1st person view - which is why this is such a complex issue. Because how would the game be able to adapt to Killers choosing 1st person over 3rd person, etc. in terms of survivor abilities? I'm not sure it could, and that would then force Killers into 3rd person so as not to nerf themselves.
I do not think that making killer a 3rd person character is a way to go. The base of the game is that survivors are 3rd person, killer is 1st person and game like Spies vs Mercs from Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory proves that this game philosophy can work, if there's some thought put into it.
Skillfull killers are already able to see multiple survivors, the just have to look around to see them. Increasing FoV (contrary to popular opinion) does not give you such a huge advantage (but at the same time I'm not saying that it does not at all) due to the fact that players for the most part look to the center of the monitor and only checking corners for additional info like ammo count, health etc. When you for example chase somebody there's a slight more chance that you'll spot another survivor, but most of the time your eyes will be focused od that one you're already chasing.
@Exerlin said:
I don't think an FOV slider is necessarily important for this game. That being said, an increase in killer FOV is a must. The default killer FOV should be about 100 degrees, close to how it is with Shadowborn right now. When that happens, the FOV change in M&A should be removed and Shadowborn should be reworked into something completely different.
I see the value in keeping a fixed FOV in this game. I don't want to be thinking "oh jeez i sure do hope the killer has a low FOV" when I'm playing survivor, and I don't want cranking the FOV to something super high to be the optimal way to play. Let's increase it so that killer is more comfortable to play, but let's leave it at that.
The reason why I prefer devs to implement slider and not fixed FoV is simple - everyone has different setups and preferences. For some, if they sit very close to the monitor, 100 FoV might be too much and have the exact same effect like some others are experiencing right now with current tunnelvision. I do not like any fixed FoV but 90 Hor has proven to be a sweetspot for the most people, and the further you take the number from it, the more people will potentialy get motionsick. And yes, if the devs decide to listen to the community and change it, it would also require from them reworking 'Shadowborn' and 'Monitor and Abuse' perks.
-
Let me add something I also noticed recently to this conversation. When the game launched, it had a specific way of texturing objects. You can see it, for example, on original Dwight shirt, screen from OP's post. What I mean are these quite small but noticible stains, like a drops of paint from brush or something along those lines. It's obviously stylized and I quite enjoyed it, it was consistent - the maps were like this, the game object were like this and characters and their clothing also looked like this.
The problem is, over the past year or even more, this style has been disappearing more and more, to the point that reworked gens, assets on new and reworked maps and most recent cosmetics aim for much more realism. So now, when you equip original character with vanilla cosmetics and you run around these maps, something is off. I can recommend you to try this on Coldwind Farm before it gets reworked and compare it to current MacMillan Estate.
It's this attention to detail and consistancy that should be expected from a developer with a strong vision of the game's artstyle.
-
@Starshadw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1894233#Comment_1894233
Note: I am someone for whom first-person view causes dizziness and nausea, so believe me I totally understand - it's why I don't play Killer often, or in any way try to be competitive at it when I do (I play Killer to get through Tomes, and for no other reason). I didn't say giving a FOV slider would be unfair - I said that it's an actual balance mechanic in the game, thus if the Killer was allowed to widen their FOV up to X amount, then something would have to be given to survivors to compensate for that.
I can respect the attention to the game balance, truly. But I think that fact alone you don't really play killer is evidence enough that something should be done. Video games are for us and it should be us, players, that should be considered first and then game second, not the other way around. The fact that many players with such problems have to play killer with perks like 'Monitor and Abuse' or 'Shadowborn' instead of many others, better suited for their playstyle or killer they're using, is where the talk of "balance" should start.
I'm not sure how to balance this potential change, apart from obviously increasing Survivor's FoV as well, because I belive this would benefit killers more. On the other hand, there's been talk of how killers are potentially struggling against good team of survivors for years. Maybe removing tunnelvision from them would be a good start. And I, as a survivor main, would even welcome that change.
-
I like how everyone said that colorblind mode must be in-game (which I agree with), because some players just can't play the game but now all of the sudden making the game more accessable by giving them more options is somehow "unfair".
FoV slider is a MUST. People have different setups, different monitors, different eyers, but there's NO denying that low FoV makes many players motionsick, especially when playing from first-person. If the devs want fixed FoV for all, increase it to Hor 90 (which is considered a STANDARD) and make it Hor+, not Ver-. It will not be enough for everybody, but it's a start. Of all much more competetive games - PUBG, R6S, CSGO, Overwatch, Valorant, Call of Duty and many, many others, only CSGO and Valorant have fixed, very high (90 and 106 Hor+) FoVs, the rest allows you to set it to your preference. It's not about being at advantage or disadvantage, it NECESSITY for MANY players.
The lack of brightness settings is a joke, and very unfunny at that. How come that players with NVIDIA cards have the option to change in-game brightness along with other options? Or players with better monitors, being able to do the same thing within their monitor's control panel. How come that this isn't considered unfair? Pay2win? Stealth was maybe once considered important, but the dev team killed that idea themselves with the introduction of cosmetics. The meta shifted long ago from hiding from killer to escaping from killer. And with that I see no reason not to add brightness option to the game.
And I would also point out that in live service game, after 5 years being on sale, in 2021, there's no resolution change option. I think this speaks volumes. I wish BHVR the best, but I just don't see bright future for them or the game if they're stuck with the past mentality.
-
Bumping this because this is a very good question and I too would like to know why.
-
Right now ultrawide screen users have cut more than 30% of their screen, so what do you propose? Just play in 16:9 aspect ratio?
Okay, a bit sidetrack idea, but how about this - everyone has access to FOV slider - both killers and survivors, regardless of what their resolution of the game is. So the game stays fair, people with motion sickness and ultrawide can finally play it. How is that a bad thing?
-
@landromat said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1859804#Comment_1859804
So you have same fov
Registered on this forum just to anwser to this post - the game's fov scale is Vert-, which means ultrawide users have only one axis of fov the same as others. And as OP mentioned - no option to change resolution in-game. After over 4 years of game existance. In 2021...