widescreen resolution removed from the game.

Can I also point out that the phrase "unreliable black bars" was also used by the arpg developer. Because, as far as reliability goes, I'm pretty sure black bars are the epitome of reliable. They are always there and never change! They equalize the field of vision for everyone.

Unreliable was the shifting graphics and field of vision from the technically unsupported ultrawide. In fact, it was probably this unreliability that led to the fix in the first place, creating a more reliable graphic across more devices as far as the GGG developers were concerned.

I know, I know....gotta hate those pesky semantics and making a cogent, truthful argument with them! It would be so much easier if we could just say whatever we want and be accepted as correct without folks like me who like to nitpick incorrect statements! God I wish I wasn't on the forum to point these things out!

"

AdRonZh3Ro wrote:

...
I'm not shutting anyone out, i'm asking to stick to the facts, and the facts are, the people against you shoot facts and you shoot opinions. Fact: more screen = more information. Your opinion: it's not advantageous. Fact: the devs never intended for anyone to see the cut out for animations. Your opinion: We want to see it anyway. Fact: we directly say something objectively. Your opinion: you cherry pick and evade, then cry when we do the same.
...

This is more like it:) Yet could you please not stop at the most convenient point and elaborate further, with poe specifics?

- Axiom 1: character projectile build dealing enough damage to oneshot any mob in the game will deal such damage regardless of mob relative position to the player, and allow completing maps as fast as it would take to walk though the map if map was empty.

- Conclusion 1: character projectile build with lacking dps will offer reduced time to complete map by math of dps vs total hitpoints of mobs in the map.

- Conjecture 1: Completing content faster is desirable goal for majority of PoE players.

- Conclusion 2: if character lacks projectile dps, mobs will have more opportunities to attack and possibly kill character, further increasing map completion time.

- Conjecture 2: Exploiting limited AI reaction radius combined with increased player vision area makes it possible for a projectile build to imitate situation equivalent to mobs never attacking.

- Conclusion 3: Conclusion 1 remains true even if all mobs would stand still and never attack.

- Generalization: Achievement of desirable goal for majority of PoE players remains strongly dependent on build dps, and has no direct correlation with mobs ability to attack the character, outside of specific circumstances described in conclusion 2.

- Conclusion 4: if mobs attack capabilities are deemed as hindrance to achieving desirable goal, eliminating mobs attack capabilites alone would still not increase map completion time to time described in Axiom 1 if character lacks projectile dps.

- Conclusion 5: Empowering a character with overwhelming dps provides fastest way of achieving desirable goal for majority of PoE players regardless of mobs attack capabilities presence

- Conclusion 6: Fastest way of achieving desirable goal for majority of PoE players has no correlation with access to ways of negating mobs attack capabilities, including one known as "Ultrawide aspect ratio attack range".

So, which of the above is wrong and/or does not draw on facts? I can address your other point also, but will spare you another wall of text... for now :)

"

Echothesis wrote:

.

Just want to make sure before i answer, are these your or someonelses conclusions? Do you believe in these statements or are they just a summary of something others are saying?

"

Dozer72 wrote:

"

tackle70 wrote:

So much noise about rather or not the 32:9 advantage is a problem, all while completely ignoring the substance of the matter:

1) this is a noncompetitive PvE game
2) tons of advantages (hardware and software) are available to players who invest time or money into getting them
3) black bars are not an acceptable solution if 32:9 needs to be fixed


Specious argument after specious argument after specious argument. That's all the pro black bar crew has.

1 year, 295 days

Fix it

1. It is competitive both in-game economy and irl with racing. Just because you don't play it competitively doesn't magically make it so.
2. Those advantages don't rely on breaking the game.
3. black bars aren't bad, if you think they are so bad just buy a new monitor.

Ignoring any argument and calling it specious is all you can do.

1 year 295 days since GGG fixed the resolution issue. Thank you GGG

1) We've been over this. The game is by definition not competitive in it's main modes. Calling a rose by another name doesn't change that it's a rose. Nobody here is in favor of 32:9 for the competitive modes (PvP, racing). PoE is exactly as competitive as Skyrim and Solitaire.

2) So fix the bugs/problems. GGG is not a small indie dev and this is not a argument in support of black bars.

3) What a bunch of nonsense. Play at 4:3 on your 16:9 screen and see what you think of black bars.

1 year, 296 days

Fix it

"

AdRonZh3Ro wrote:

"

Echothesis wrote:

.

Just want to make sure before i answer, are these your or someonelses conclusions? Do you believe in these statements or are they just a summary of something others are saying?

I don't chronicle what others are saying, and wouldn't have cited anyone without references. While never had 5-way KB build myself, seen it in action, as well as ranger builds made by my friends in party. With my lesser range build I wasn't able to hit a single mob if I wanted to, everything was already dead before appearing on screen as we walked.

"

Echothesis wrote:

the axiom/conclusions post

What a ridiculous post attempting to draw a scientific conclusion. You take the MOST narrow view of the entire game and attempt to draw all your conclusions regarding this situation based on it?

The entire post falls apart when you realize that your whole premise (Axiom 1) is such a minute portion of the game and relation to the ultrawide problems.

I will agree that what you say is partially true, but its again a cherry-picked wholly incomplete picture that you are using as justification.

You decide to completely ignore the (likely) majority of people who are NOT playing with projectile-based builds. Because their axiom and conclusions most certainly don't conform to ANYTHING you wrote in your post. And that's actually kinda the point.....THOSE players.

You also ignore the very real situation where.....gasp.....there can be TWO problems at once!!!!!!! One: projectiles dealing too much damage, and clearspeed being too great. And TWO: ultrawide providing more viewing area. There are even MORE issues here to consider too. 3: melee has issues. We know that.

IF melee were better in the game, the issues with ultrawide extra viewing become even more exacerbated. IF projectiles are nerfed and/or brought into better balance down the road, again...ultrawide extra viewing becomes more problematic.

You consider absolutely none of this, because you simply aren't thinking about it enough. The only thing on your mind is black bars, and not ACTUAL fixes, feedback, understanding, or debate.

Sure.

Screen:
Disclaimer: Calculations within 1% margin of error.
A)U.Wide. 1132 x 1.27 = 1437.64 pixels. 13,5% wider for each side. 305 pixels wider than standard.
B)16:9. 1132 pixels wide.

Wide Range Reference:
16:9(Top).
Stacked: U.Wide > 16:9 > 4:3 (Middle).
U.Wide (Bottom).
Strong Box Reference (Middle Left).
All images stacked adequately to assure quality.


Skill in Question:
Tornado Shot
Lightning Strike
Bladestorm

Empirical Tests:
The baseline used was un-juiced T16 with 90%+ quant.

Tree used:


Map Sample used:


Videos:
Tests for U.Wide vs 16:9 agro distance.
U.Wide x 16:9 Top Left against mildly active enemies:https://puu.sh/K8z8S/125159ac5a.mp4.
Enemies do not agro.

Wide x 16.9 Approach against fairly active enemies:https://puu.sh/K8zaw/ea95ea59e7.mp4.
16:9 enemies agro.

Direct horizontal Sight wide:https://puu.sh/K8zc4/b4955c3af5.mp4.
10 seconds to agro.

Direct horizontal Sight 16:9:https://puu.sh/K8zc7/199e978cbc.mp4.
Instant agro.

This proves an advantage exists. But you might as well say that it's impractical to use it on a regular play.

Extra paper 0% exp TS Build:
Build proof:


Essence Monster 1 x 0% exp TS build:
https://puu.sh/K8zj6/c7e5856e6a.mp4.
@24 seconds, meteor does 3/4 of my life. Unsafe at 16:9. Pretty safe at U.Wide.

Essence Monster 2 x 0% exp TS build:
Wide x essence:https://puu.sh/K8zto/4729d40dee.mp4
I can reliably keep track of him. Blood corruption rarely spawns near me. Yes, i smooth brained near the end with 16:9.
16:9 x essence:https://puu.sh/K8zty/920fc8e23c.mp4
I can't keep track of him in the same way. Blood corruption spawns near me constantly. I could attack from offscreen, but that diminishes damage substantially.

The survivability aspect i'm putting in question pertains to the distance one has from the monsters when you are playing an absolute paper build.

The damage aspect i'm putting in questions pertains to the damage output sustainability and increased damage from Far Shot.

But you are probably right, MB is not budget friendly. You know what is? Headhunter. https://poe.ninja/economy/necropolis/unique-accessories?name=Headhunter
Which also makes able to do relatively juiced maps with mirror of delirium. I made a video with the same character but it was too large and i don't have a way to cut it atm.

Oneshot BS build:
Build proof. Forgot about life: 5693 mana:851 ES:0.


Essence Monster 3 x Paper(?) BS build x 4:3:
https://puu.sh/K8zyc/6dcbc00b24.mp4

Then we convert that same BS build to the same stats as the TS build:


Essence Monster 4 x Paper BS Build:
https://puu.sh/K8zFX/2f6a915de8.mp4
Yeah.

So, should you get U.Wide or keep 16:9?
Tornado Shot: U.Wide gives QoL and damage increase for TS and similar builds.
Lightning Strike: similar performance, but has tradeoff as projectiles do less damage.
Bladestorm: literal waste of money.

"

Echothesis wrote:

- Conclusion 6: Fastest way of achieving desirable goal for majority of PoE players has no correlation with access to ways of negating mobs attack capabilities, including one known as "Ultrawide aspect ratio attack range".

Let's see what you concluded and apply it to a few simple questions:
U.Wide doesn't affect tanky builds? You would be correct. Mostly QoL.
U.Wide doesn't affect oneshot builds? You would be correct. Mostly QoL.
U.Wide doesn't affect melee builds? You would be correct. Mostly QoL. LS is not melee. /s.
U.Wide doesn't affect ranged builds? Partially correct. It will increase Tornado Shot and Toxic Rain damage and survivability(builds that need to click on the enemy location precisely), but Kinetic Bolt, Split Arrow and other projectile based builds are unaffected.
U.Wide doesn't affect paper builds? You would be incorrect. U.Wide is large enough so that it can and will affect mapping survivability and visibility.


Which makes me wonder. You yourself said that U.Wide "has no correlation with access to ways of negating mobs attack capabilities", yet i've proved the advantage exists and i've proved that it does affect survivability in projectile paper builds, and let me stress this again, does fuck all for melee, so i'll ask again, why try to force GGG do address something that beyond U.Wide is at best useless, by your own words, and at worst gives an advantage to mostly ranged builds, also being a QoL that GGG doesn't benefit one cent off of?

Almost forgot: she will teleport off screen, you know, if you're melee. https://puu.sh/K8BMZ/5a74069336.mp4

Did you also know that you can stun Uber Maven with Leap Slam?

^love the hard work analysis.

I would adjust your conclusions though. Particularly how you say "U.Wide doesn't affect melee". It absolutely does, tangentially, by your own admission and data. If U. Wide allows for greater survivability, then it naturally stands to reason that it would be advantageous for melee builds above all other builds to have.

Also, the use of "doesn't affect" is not exactly true....you are talking almost purely dps in those assessments so a better description would be "doesn't affect dps output". Because changing aggro and visual range absolutely DOES affect all of the examples you provided. Whatever might have an effect on paper builds (as you noted), will ALSO have an effect on all other archetypes of builds that may get hit.


Although I guess you are responding specifically to the "goal" that he set forth which refers to damage only (the narrow view I also mentioned).

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

.

I guess i could've elaborated that more. The survivability aspect i'm putting in question pertains to the distance one has from the monsters when you are playing an absolute paper build. That, for true melee, is null. Added visibility can help with kiting, but at least in
my experience, the U.Wide for melee is utterly useless for mapping, and arguably for bosses.

And true, as mentioned, all similar builds can be affected, i just wanted to address the big ones.

"

Let's see what you concluded and apply it to a few simple questions:
U.Wide doesn't affect tanky builds? You would be correct. Mostly QoL.
U.Wide doesn't affect oneshot builds? You would be correct. Mostly QoL.
U.Wide doesn't affect melee builds? You would be correct. Mostly QoL. LS is not melee. /s.
U.Wide doesn't affect ranged builds? Partially correct. It will increase Tornado Shot and Toxic Rain damage and survivability(builds that need to click on the enemy location precisely), but Kinetic Bolt, Split Arrow and other projectile based builds are unaffected.
U.Wide doesn't affect paper builds? You would be incorrect. U.Wide is large enough so that it can and will affect mapping survivability and visibility.

Which makes me wonder. You yourself said that U.Wide "has no correlation with access to ways of negating mobs attack capabilities", yet i've proved the advantage exists and i've proved that it does affect survivability in projectile paper builds,
...

I've also mentioned UW may help survivability (in generalization), and you are correct, paper builds would make the most use of it relative to other builds, more resources available to pour into dps. This doesn't necessarily mean their absolute dps would be highest possible in the game.

However, in order to never die (and thus never lose time per map, which is our stated goal), dps should be overwhelming relative to content, not just having long range. Otherwise you will be killed by stray projectile/debuff/degen.

I played various paper builds long enough to be sure death is unavoidable however careful I was and what kind of league content I farmed (main char in Standard has like 2500+ deaths over several builds, don't remember exactly lol). And if you have overwhelming ranged dps, it will allow stable deathless gameplay regardless of whether you are paper or tanky. This is what final conclusion meant.

"

...
and let me stress this again, does fuck all for melee, so i'll ask again, why try to force GGG do address something that beyond U.Wide is at best useless, by your own words, and at worst gives an advantage to mostly ranged builds, also being a QoL that GGG doesn't benefit one cent off of?

Before the fix, extra visibility was useless, but provided its bit of QoL. Now visibility remains useless/absent, (aside from maybe discouraging most stubborn paper build abusers), and we've lost a bit of QoL. "GGG doesn't benefit" is a bit of stretch, QoL plays a part in player retention in the long run. Especially when PoE has other big QoL problems already, first of all enormous amount of clicking in loot pickup, inventory and vendor management, and crafting. This point cannot be proved or disproved without PoE telemetry data. Imo QoL is worth the development costs, you may disagree.

However, this specific bit of QoL also doubles as a bridge to actual melee/ranged balancing, which brings us to your second point of "at worst gives an advantage to mostly ranged builds". Skills like TR or TS shouldn't have infinite targeting range even without black bars. TS arrows should burst into secondary when traveling far enough, other ranged skills limited in their own ways. At the same time, suggestions on buffs to melee skills were formulated by more knowledgeable players in other threads.

If GGG doesn't care about even trying said balancing, you would be correct, slamming bars remains the "best" option cost-wise. Or they could keep original bit of QoL from extra visisbility and fix a major aspect of the game at the same time, with extra work. Imo the idea is worth trolling GGG about.