The game runs on 4:3, why would you use 16:9 for pvp?
And why should widescreen players get an advantage in pvm with anyway?
1 Like
Second most annoying. But yea, it’s a bad design decision, and they need to do something about it.
D2R does not - isn’t that the main “problem” in this thread?
D2 runs on 4:3, it’s just not the same game. That’s why the original remains after all
16:9 is cool if they figure out how to hide all the enemies and prevent casting that far.
1 Like
This would only be necessary if there was a 16:9 option in the original.
But D2R is not the original. It is based (and runs) on the original. It’s just that many people don’t want to hear or notice this difference.
All the QoL features, just like the new graphics, controller support, etc. could have been patched into the original. Why didn’t they do it? Or just replaced the original? So that all the hardcore fans CAN stay with the original.
The only people against blizzard fixing this are the ones who have invested in 21:9 moniters for the purpose of abusing the extra screen range.
1 Like
I’ll throw this out but most monitors are 16:9 so making it 4:3 is illogical. Also 16:9 can go to 3840×2160, so if I have a 8000×2160 the 32:9 the most ill see is 3840x2160 so ultrawides are not the issue past 1080p its just resolutions, which will be an advantage depending on how they work everything.
One suggestion I keep bringing up is a fog of war if in hostile flag and you get limited to 16:9 1080p sized area, past that it grays out and you can only see static assets and enemies. While within you see normally. Kind of equalizes pvp.
Limiting resolutions makes no sense in my mind, and the idea to forcing the new overlay 4:3 is bonkers.
I agree. if they limit the resolution that would make the news headlines and be counter productive to selling a remaster. Word of mouth on bad press would go off the rails.
Your fog of war idea is interesting, hadn’t seen that one yet.
Ok, I will try to talk to the wall again:
for PvM:
This game is designed for 4:3 screen aspect ratio. The monster aggro and skill ranges are designed with this in mind.
Some character skills have far more range than one 4:3 screen, these skills (for example fireball, guided arrow and all arrow attacks in general, bone spear/spirit etc.) can be used to kill monsters offscreen, without them attacking back, BUT you don’t actually see the monsters with 4:3 screen, you can only shoot randomly and hope it will hit something. This is not very effective way of killing/farming.
With ultra wide field of view, you can actually see all the monsters before they start to attack you, and kill them with the mentioned skills and also with skills like blizzard, fist of the heavens, use curses on them or any other skills of this type that have unlimited range, only limitef by your field of view (this also increases range of your teleport, making you move 2 or more times faster than someone with normal screen).
Now if the aggro range was adjusted based on resolution, it could somewhat work for single player, although you could still get much more time to shoot the monsters before they get to you and still get more teleport range. For multiplayer, how you want to balance this, when there will be more players in on game, with different screens ?
Tl:DR: for PvM, ultra-wide = unfair advantage, with no way to balance in multiplayer. Makes the game much easier for ranged characters and makes all characters with teleport move much faster than with standard screen, even for single player.
Now for PvP:
This should be obvious by now, for a fair duel or TvT battle, everyone should have the same field of view. Being able to cast blizzard, foh, curses, and most importantly namelock and tele-stomp on a range where the oponent doesn’t see you makes zero sense. It is cheating and the whole PvP scene will be completely ruined if this will be left unchanged.
Now about the 4:3 vs 16:9
I estimate that nowadays, 16:9 is the standard and more than 90% of PC players use screen with this ratio (and it is not going to change much in the future, for example laptops will most likely stay 16:9 forever and more and more people are using TVs as a PC monitor, me included). Console players all use 16:9 TV.
So it makes sense they want to make transition from 4:3 to 16:9. It will still require to tweak with monster aggro and skill ranges. But everyone will have the same field of view. This is fair for everyone, both in PvM and PvP. Although I would have no problem if the game stayed 4:3 and I would play with black bars on my 16:9 screen.
With this stated, the ultra-wide fov should not be allowed in multiplayer (closed battle.net) imo. It would require massive changes in PvM and it would force the 90%+ players with 16:9 screens to play with black bars to stay competitive with the minority that use ultra-wide screens for both PvM and PvP.
The compromise could be to allow seeing only the ground texture beyond the 16:9 field of view, with no enemies/clickable objects and either not allowing to move the mouse beyond the 16:9 limit, or if you move it beyond, it will behave as if it was on the border line of the standard 16:9 fov.
For single player, I don’t care if they allow it in the way it is now, as it does not affect other players. That can work fine if they adjust the monster aggro for those resolutions, althought the resources for this work could be used elsewhere.
This is exactly what I have already mentioned. You’re talking about D2, not D2R.
In my opinion, rather than sticking with a completely outdated aspect ratio, the monster aggro range should be automatically adjusted to the (currently used) new resolutions.
In this case, a player with 21:9 screen would get aggro much earlier than a player with 16:9, correspondingly earlier than with 4:3.
If this or something similar is not possible, I agree with you - then, and only then, no aspect ratio above 4:3 should be possible
At least on one point we more or less agree, if I understood you correctly, that the new “standard” could and should be 16:9.
PS: in case it wasn’t clear so far - I don’t like black bars
There is also PK issue, it will not be fun to be killed by pk across the map.
5 Likes
Up. The problem is still here.
Best example : https: //i. imgur. com/W0Pfl6G.mp4
3 Likes
Botting, JSP rats, item stores…much bigger issues than this.
That aint gonna be fixed but extended screen range can. Or are you for Captcha in game to stop botting? And how exactly are you gonna stop sites from selling items or D2Jsp? Every game has bots and stores to buy items, exactly what magic are you gonna use that it is different in D2R?
1 Like
No need to spam a thread with unrelated nonsense. Please keep this thread free of this stuff, this is an important issue. Hopefully it will be addressed in beta.
4 Likes
No, this subject is very very far from dead.
When the game releases and every kid using a Far-Cast Amazon with windows 10 realizes they can adjust aspect ratio so they can instant 1shot strike PK you from literally 6x screens away on the left/right axis, the QQ in this forum on the subject will flow like an avalanche coming off a mountain until the issue is fixed.
It also plainly cheeses up the game’s pvm to where something like a Bowazon could stand far off in the left wing of the Chaos Sanctuary, target Diablo from several screens away, and kill hell difficulty Diablo over the course of 15 minutes, with a level 20 Bowazon using GA without ever drawing aggro. We want the game to remain challenging, not turn into cheese.
What we are looking at here is beyond the ultra-wide discussion. When people realize what they can do with windows 10, this is what we are looking at. Notice how skill click activation is limited only to the terrain rendering radius, nearly 6 screens out from the character:
https://i.imgur.com/W0Pfl6G.mp4
This will not be healthy for the game in any way.
They need to set a hard limitation on skill click/targeting activation. It is debatable whether players would want 4:3, 16:9, 21:9, or even maintain the original 1:1. but we need a limitation set where clicks don’t work.
What I mean is that, say we decided to use 4:3 as click limitation. There will be an invisible box around your character that will allow skill clicks & targeting to work within the 4:3 invisible box. You have an ultrawide 21:9 and you can see everything on your screen that extends into that 21:9, but if you try to target enemies outside of the invisible 4:3 click radius, the monster doesn’t highlight, and if tried to cast a lightning bolt or teleport or click anything in that area outside of 4:3, the click does nothing as if it weren’t pushed at all.
No matter how you look at this, there is no reason not to implement some kind of a skill click activation limitation as to keep the game’s mechanics healthy in both pvm and pvp. I mean even if they decided the limitation should be 21:9, it would still be important to do that, as to stop windows 10 users who zoom out that far from being able to absolutely cheese everything in the game, including pvp.
Remember the old scroll lock hack? Yeah… that natural built-in windows zoom function is like an upgraded super scroll lock hack. Not healthy for the game man.
1 Like
I say just figure out some sort of circular radius and say “this is the hard limit, no spells can be cast further than X meters/tiles from the caster” and call it a day. Solves the problem for all time. Obviously you could still let players cast projectile spells wherever since the projectile will still go as far as it will go, but for stuff where you click it and the spell happens there, just a global hard coded radius would work well I think.
1 Like
Says the slime ball that literally post multiple reply’s to every thread, get lost.
This issue is far more important than bots and RMT.
You can buy or bot for whatever gear you want and someone with much worse gear but 32:9 screen will still wreck you in PvP because you wont ever get to see him while he will spam you from offscreen, teleporting 2 times the distance that you can do. You will never get a chance to stomp and namelock him if he knows what is he doing.
stop crying about it and upgrade ur monitor instead we live in 2021 now
3 Likes