UWQHD 21:9 resolution support?

General Discussion
1

Hey guys,

Do you know if it is planned to have WQHD monitor resolution on Warcraft 3 reforged ?

This is something really missing in sc2 in my opinion and I want to enjoy my new monitor :slight_smile:

Thank you

2 Likes
2

The teaser video indicated the art will run in 4K.

1 Like
3

SC2 should support WQHD seeing how it is 16:9…

It is only really silly resolutions like 32:9 which are not intended for gaming that might not be supported. Additionally 8k will likely crash but that would likely be down to other causes.

4

hmmm yeah I meant UWQHD 21:9 resolution sorry

1 Like
5

It probably will support it. From what I understand Warcraft III even supports it now, as it has wide enough boarder extensions.

6

“4K” typically only means 4 times the “full HD” resolution, or 3840*2160, which still has the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Blizzard’s games have inconsistent support for different aspect ratios such as 21:9.

Diablo 3: supported
Heroes of the Storm: supported
World of Warcraft: supported
Warcraft 3 (v1.29): supported
Starcraft 2: NOT supported
Starcraft: Remastered. NOT supported (like SC2, it only supports 16:9)
Overwatch: NOT properly supported (it supports 21:9 resolutions, but with a severely reduced viewing area or field-of-vision, making it completely useless)

Since the WC3: Reforged trailer only mentioned the same improvements SC:R did (“widescreen” and “4K”), I expect that it will also not support 21:9. I think this is a real shame because wider aspect ratios such as 21:9 and 32:9 are amazing for gaming, and monitors with such aspect ratios are becoming more available on the market.

The whole point of of SC: Remastered and WC3: Reforged is to make those amazing classics available in a higher fidelity on new, state-of-the-art gaming hardware; yet, Blizzard doesn’t really seem to commit to this fully by only supporting 16:9.

1 Like
7

They increased slightly zoom out before, but seriously we can forget about 21:9 cuz of esport and competition. This is another situation where esport makes the game more popular and enjoy for small amount of high level players and nice to watch for casuals on pro level, but the same time esport killing the game for normal/casual players who preffer and enjoy easier rules like more filed view, qol, easier gameplay ect. Look at SCR, they made that remaster for small amount of Korean Pros and high lvl players… game is very fun to watch, but unplayable for casual players and so dead.
Look at Fortnite, Imo ranking, esport and balance would kill this game.
Imo high lvl pro gaming era is over, now is the time for casual gaming for fun era.

1 Like
8

21:9 is not a competitive advantage in most games. Most professional Counter-Strike players prefer 16:9 over 21:9 because they prefer having the mini-map closer to their center of vision, and on a much wider monitor it would be too far away. In Counter-Strike, players can adjust the game’s field-of-view to their liking, so 16:9 can show just as wide an area as 21:9. And actually they don’t even focus their eyes on the left and right screen peripheral much, because they know the map geometry and the possible enemy attack vectors, and to be able to react as quickly as possible, they keep their view and aim focused on those center points.

Pro Starcraft players also don’t look at the left and the right of the screen. They need to focus on the mini-map and the center of the screen. 21:9 wouldn’t give them an advantage; in fact, if the mini-map were to be at the lower-left corner, then 21:9 would even be disadvantageous for pro players.

Heroes of the Storm is also a competitive game, and it supports 21:9. There’s no good reason why Blizz shouldn’t support 21:9 in all of their other games. The competitive advantage argument is completely flawed.

I think the only reason why they’re not committing to 21:9 on all games is because currently not a lot of people own such monitors. But that’s changing and the whole point of these Remastered/Reforged games is future-proofing.

2 Likes
9

IMHO it’s only ok if they don’t show more - put some of the UI on the sides, maybe some fancy border graphics, hero portraits etc. But IMHO it’s quite an advantage, especially to lower ranked players who likely glance at the minimap less often.

Otherwise, why not allow someone to have the whole map on their UXQGHABLBBA monitor?

10

Yes, it is.

Dont compare FPS to RTS where field view has huge role lol.

Brood War is different game due to very hard mechanic aka no auto mine (fast center switching), no building selection, big army composition (only 12 unit cap) and very fast fights; where speed (1-10, f2-f4 switching) has most important role.

SC2 is different, we have all qol, you nn fast switching everything everywhere all day like crazy, apm is less important and field view is very important.

WC3 is f… slow compared to BW/SC2, armies are small, units have big life bars, in this game big field of view would give huge advantage imo.

Agreed 21:9+ would be super nice and give a lot of fun, especially in 40"+ monitors, I would enjoy this, but seriously I doubt it ever happen ;(
Regards.

1 Like
11

For argument’s sake, even if 21:9 is advantageous in RTS games at a competitive level, why not support it? 21:9 consumer-grade gaming monitors exist on the market since 3 years and don’t cost that much more than regular 16:9 monitors today. LG has a 21:9 monitor that costs less than €150. Fast GPUs and CPUs that can render Starcraft 2 at a stable 200 Hz are much more expensive than that!

eSports is financed by advertising, mainly for gaming software and hardware. If 21:9 is advantageous, eSports organizers and monitor manufacturers would greatly profit from all the marketing and sales of such monitors. Why should Blizzard not support this? Because some players don’t have a few hundred bucks/Euros for a new 21:9 monitor?

Also, if Blizzard stands behind the “no support for hardware that gives a competitive advantage” principle, shouldn’t they subsequently also throttle CPU and GPU power, or the number of mouse I/O signals, so that people with high-end mice don’t have an advantage over people with crummy ones? Blizz is the only top-tier gaming company I know that doesn’t support 21:9 in some of their games, and it’s inconsistent in their support (HotS is competitive and it does support 21:9, and it’s advantageous.)

5 Likes
12

Such cheap displays have very bad display characteristics such as colour accuracy, latency and refresh rate.

StarCraft II runs at around 16 FPS internally (changes with game speed, I think max is 24 FPS) so there is no advantage to a 200 Hz display with that game. On the other hand a lower latency display or one with Nsync/free sync might have an advantage.

They already detect and ban macros.

I do not get the point of this argument. Warcraft III already supports 21:9… Do I need to post a screenshot to prove it?!

I got the game to run perfectly at 1920x823 (~21:9). Gets in game. Everything is not distorted. Game camera runs fully from left to right as expected, with no stretching. So why are we even having this argument?

I am aware 1920x823 is not a standard 21:9 resolution. However I needed a resolution I could test on my 1080p (16:9) display. That was the biggest ~21:9 ratio that could fit on the panel. In retrospect I should have used a width more narrow than 1920 just to get a perfect 21:9.

13

Ask Pete or Blizzard, they always have problems with res support: I remember Starcraft release in 1998 when ran 640x480 where most top games like AoE, TRII ran 800x600+ , then Brood War in 1999 when most top games ran 1280x1024, then Diablo II in 2000 in 640x480!!! this was real joke LOOOOL xD, Quake III, Unreal:T, TombR III all ran 1280+ lol hahahaah, what a times :smiley:

IIRC Its stretched, not real ultra wide.

1 Like
14

Blame a lack of standardized graphic acceleration back then. Everything had to have software graphic support and on the slow processors of the time that meant low resolutions.

It does not look stretched to me…

(link may be removed in distant future)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwsp44t5glftc8i/WC3ScrnShot_010619_183224_01.png

UI squares are square. Nothing looks excessively fat. Yeh it is so wide the extension boarders do not reach the edges of the screen but the gameplay camera does.

Now of course this is not a fair comparison without a control. Here is a 16:9 1080p of the same scene.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdcej84brf1gq2m/WC3ScrnShot_010619_195655_01.png

Notice how much wider the game camera is in 21:9 mode. It is showing significantly more of the field to the left and right, to the point that this specific map was never intended to have such a wide field of view. The UI buttons are square in both images. The characters also look comparatively tall to skinny ratio.

2 Likes
15

I think 16:9 is getting outdated, while I myself am still on 5:4 and 16:10 I think blizz should support higher aspect ratios as long as they follow the standard.

1 Like
16

Warcraft 3 does NOT support 21:9 properly. Warcraft 3 takes the original 4:3 field-of-view and just stretches it out, completely distorting the picture. A proper 21:9 implementation would cover an appropriately larger field-of-view.

17

There is no evidence of this occurring. In fact I just posted evidence that proves otherwise. It does correctly implement 21:9 support within the correctness of Warcraft III’s current wide screen support. Images I linked earlier are proof.

Notice how much wider the camera view is in the 21:9 screen shot compared with the 16:9. This is the same ancient map that was near the top of my custom game list so is the exact same game camera and triggering.

1 Like
18

Sorry, you’re right! Was this implemented by Blizzard very recently?

What about Starcraft 2 and Starcraft: Remastered? I remember checking about a year ago, and back then they did not support 21:9 at all, not even in a stretched implementation.

19

It should have been implemented at the same time 16:9 support was added to Warcraft III. Maybe a patch or so after due to bugs. Before then the game only supported 4:3 and any other aspect ratio would result in that view being stretched. Exception has always been text which for some reason used to be the only part of Warcraft III which was aspect ratio aware so would always display correctly.

StarCraft II should support 21:9 much like Heroes of the Storm as they are practically the same engine under the hood. However StarCraft II is showing signs of neglect, especially engine wise, so I would not be surprised if that resolution not working is the result of it working in HotS but not being back ported to StarCraft II.

1 Like
20

I checked the patch notes, and WC3 added 16:9 and 21:9 support in version 1.29 last April. I assumed it would only support 16:9, but videos on YouTube show it properly supporting 21:9 as well.

It’s strange that Starcraft 2 still does not support 21:9. I tried to find out if Starcraft: Remastered does, but I couldn’t find any evidence for that. :frowning:

I wish Blizzard would give a concrete statement to this issue (not just the vague “4K and widescreen support”). Will WC3: Reforged support 21:9, as WC3 Classic does, or will it be “broken” like Starcraft 2 and Starcraft: Remastered?

1 Like