I was just reading a graphics card review when I stumbled over this:
It seems like it extends your field of view by an enormous amount. How much do you think it would affect gameplay to be able to play like this? Would anyone allow this in offline tourneys ever? Anyhow if its an advantage I could see people using it in online tourneys.
One issue I can imagine this brings up tho is the way you probably have to flail your mousearm to be able to mouseover the whole screen area. You would probably need to ajust the vertical mouse speed down to be able to move the mouse accurately across the screens.
You can already expand your view on a normal screen using hacks (at least according to threads on TL). Adding extra screens seems an expensive way to do it...
As for allowing it on tournaments. It will get a no, it will be expensive for the organisers and the majority don't play that way.
i wouldn't be able to play vs good players with that resolution.. lol the mouse takes forever to get from one screen to another, highly doubt it's viable and it's really costly
On September 02 2010 00:23 YunhOLee wrote: i wouldn't be able to play vs good players with that resolution.. lol the mouse takes forever to get from one screen to another, highly doubt it's viable and it's really costly
I can't see this actually helping in any multiplayer. Will take too long to check the minimap and your mouse will take forever to get anywhere.
Would be badass for ez stuff like single player or w/e but in multiplayer I think it would hurt more than help. Pretty cool either way however!
On September 02 2010 00:23 YunhOLee wrote: i wouldn't be able to play vs good players with that resolution.. lol the mouse takes forever to get from one screen to another, highly doubt it's viable and it's really costly
You know at first I was thinking that this might be an advantage, but I think you are right. Scrolling left or right or even moving the cursor over to the minimap to click would be such a hassle. One would need to have the mouse sensitivity set to the absolute highest. Plus I would think it would make watching resource counts and the minimap more difficult too.
Would be sweet to play single player like this though...
On September 02 2010 00:28 TheToast wrote: Would be sweet to play single player like this though...
I did it... I have an eyefinity setup.
Despite the fact taht it cost a TON of money... (money isn't a problem in my case)... it's really not worth it for the MP part of SC... as well as it's SUPER laggy when playing MP with eyefinity (aka you get about 30-40 frames TOP)
Was fun for the singleplayer tho... had like 60-70 frames
My eyes would get so tired from using 3 screens... Also you would need a mouse where you can increase the horizontal dpi (I have one, but many people don't)
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
imbalanced is a poor choice of words, it implies that the ones to blame for the 'imbalance' is the ones with widescreen and not the player themselves who hasn't upgraded. i suppose it's 'imbalanced' to have a computer that can run this game without lagg too as opposed to those who can't.
On September 02 2010 00:44 Snippa- wrote: My eyes would get so tired from using 3 screens... Also you would need a mouse where you can increase the horizontal dpi (I have one, but many people don't)
i'm sure the people who would use eyefinity would have pretty decent mice.
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
imbalanced is a poor choice of words, it implies that the ones to blame for the 'imbalance' is the ones with widescreen and not the player themselves who hasn't upgraded. i suppose it's 'imbalanced' to have a computer that can run this game without lagg too as opposed to those who can't.
Chaining aspect ratio isn't an upgrade. 16: 9 are pretty much ridiculous for PC use. I have 4:3, and I still have space left on sides when I browse WWW, read anything (>90% of PC use easily). 4:3 would be better for RTS as well, why not have more balanced view?
On September 02 2010 00:44 Snippa- wrote: My eyes would get so tired from using 3 screens... Also you would need a mouse where you can increase the horizontal dpi (I have one, but many people don't)
i'm sure the people who would use eyefinity would have pretty decent mice.
from what i've heard of blizzard you can't use more than one screen in multiplayer cause of the edge you get. if i'm not wrong they said something about the game being optimized for 1680x1050 on the old beta forums or am i completely off here?
It would make starcraft too easy imo, using minimap would be pointless because you could position the camer so that you can see incoming forces and your mineral line at the same time. Pretty lame.
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
imbalanced is a poor choice of words, it implies that the ones to blame for the 'imbalance' is the ones with widescreen and not the player themselves who hasn't upgraded. i suppose it's 'imbalanced' to have a computer that can run this game without lagg too as opposed to those who can't.
Chaining aspect ratio isn't an upgrade. 16: 9 are pretty much ridiculous for PC use. I have 4:3, and I still have space left on sides when I browse WWW, read anything (>90% of PC use easily). 4:3 would be better for RTS as well, why not have more balanced view?
4:3 aspect ratio don't look good on a widescreen monitor, it will be either stretched or perceived as very small with black boxes on the sides. Widescreen is the current and future state of gaming, it's up to you guys with 4:3 to upgrade and not the other way around.
On September 02 2010 01:13 Firkraag8 wrote:4:3 aspect ratio don't look good on a widescreen monitor,
It looks good on 4:3 monitor. They could give more high to 4:3 resolution, and more wide to 16: 9.
On September 02 2010 01:13 Firkraag8 wrote:Widescreen is the current and future state of gaming, it's up to you guys with 4:3 to upgrade and not the other way around.
It isn't an upgrade, and I am not interested in using 16: 9 monitor.
Actually I don't think this would be bad to play with. use the arrow keys to pan the camera, and only use the extra monitors for increased field of view. Most high end players rely more on keyboard than mouse anyway. You can still use hotkeys to activate a building or unit even if it's on yoru screen, like if it's too far away. The only thing would be minimap, but you could for example only ever use your mouse for the left half of the screen space which would reduce time to get to minimap and then the right hand is just bonus extra screen space which you never click in. Just use arrow keys to center something if you need to do something on the right side of the screen or beyond.
It would definitely take some getting used to, but I think it's possible.
Clearly this needs work, splitting your view up into 3 screens is actually more work due to moving your mouse all the way to another screen to use the minimap.
But it would be awesome if you could maintain the default 1 screen UI and simply assign an entire screen to an individual unit, control group or place on the map like the enemy base.
Imagine if your observer had its own full screen with its own individual camera.
This would require an independently moving camera for each screen but it would be insanely awesome.
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
Its the year 2010, buy a widescreen already.
Aspect ratio isn't a technology, what year has to do with it? 4:3 LCD is as technologically advanced as 16: 9 LCD.
In the year 2065 scientists will find a way to genetically engineer LCD screens in ratios up to 27:3 thanks to the discovery of a crashed alien ship on Europa.
As of now this is clearly impossible as the trees used to grow LCD screens are naturally limited to 4: 3 and 16: 9 through millions of years of evolution.
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
Its the year 2010, buy a widescreen already.
Aspect ratio isn't a technology, what year has to do with it? 4:3 LCD is as technologically advanced as 16: 9 LCD.
It's not about technology, well actually it is.
Point, higher resolutions Hd tvs and such are going widescreen. It is pretty much the acceptable format now. Will be the normal giving a few years when the lowest resolution standard you want is widescreen.
Monitors have actually stagnated compared to other viewing tech (120 hrz, or the fact that we STILL have 60hz as an acceptable standard).
I think this is clearly an advantage (seems like i'm the only one tho) since you have a lot more in immediate sight. things like mouse scroll would only be things to get used to, but having more to see is obviously an advantage imo.
Point, higher resolutions Hd tvs and such are going widescreen. It is pretty much the acceptable format now. Will be the normal giving a few years when the lowest resolution standard you want is widescreen.
Aspect ratio =/= resolution. Widescreen is not a resolution. I am not really interested in changing my 4:3 monitor that offers better aspect ratio for 90% of my use, just becouse people are clueless enough to think that 16: 9 is teh new technology = better.
Point, higher resolutions Hd tvs and such are going widescreen. It is pretty much the acceptable format now. Will be the normal giving a few years when the lowest resolution standard you want is widescreen.
Aspect ratio =/= resolution. Widescreen is not a resolution. I am not really interested in changing my 4:3 monitor that offers better aspect ratio for 90% of my use, just becouse people are clueless enough to think that 16: 9 is teh new technology = better.
Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios.
In my line of work being able to see 2 images side by side or 2 documents side by side is a technological breakthrough compared to 4:3 (unless I string 2 monitors together which i do with 2 widescreens anyway). The increased horizontal space when working on timeline footage in audio/video software or even with 4 windows editing things in 3D look vastly superior in wide format and greatly increase my workflow.
Clueless....16 16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote: Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios.
The thing that doesn't make 16: 9 technological improvement is lack of new technology in it, they just cut LCD of diferent shape. You couldn't make 16: 9 crt but for LCD the technology is the same.
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote:In my line of work being able to see 2 images side by side or 2 documents side by side is a technological breakthrough compared to 4:3 (unless I string 2 monitors together which i do with 2 widescreens anyway).
You can put two documents side by side in 4:3, wide screen is only better at that specific size for it, above it you need more height for documents not more space on sides.
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote:The increased horizontal space when working on timeline footage in audio/video software or even with 4 windows editing things in 3D look vastly superior in wide format and greatly increase my workflow.
Clueless....16 16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing
4:3 or 16: 9 is NOT technology, they are ASPECT RATIOS. What is the benefit for say programing with 16: 9? In some niche 16: 9 can be better for some niche, still it doesn't make it a new technology.
Point, higher resolutions Hd tvs and such are going widescreen. It is pretty much the acceptable format now. Will be the normal giving a few years when the lowest resolution standard you want is widescreen.
Aspect ratio =/= resolution. Widescreen is not a resolution. I am not really interested in changing my 4:3 monitor that offers better aspect ratio for 90% of my use, just becouse people are clueless enough to think that 16: 9 is teh new technology = better.
Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios.
In my line of work being able to see 2 images side by side or 2 documents side by side is a technological breakthrough compared to 4:3 (unless I string 2 monitors together which i do with 2 widescreens anyway). The increased horizontal space when working on timeline footage in audio/video software or even with 4 windows editing things in 3D look vastly superior in wide format and greatly increase my workflow.
Clueless....16 16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing
16 : 9 is being pushed because it is a superior aspect ratio, not a superior technology.
The original aspect ratio for movies is widescreen. All movie theaters show their movies in widescreen format, squared off TVs and computer monitor were the freaks of nature, not the movies and art which came first. Just look at classic masterpieces in a museum and you can find that "widescreen" has been around as long as art itself.
4: 3 sucked for displaying art and movies as those art and movies are shot widescreen, it was just popular for a long time and is now being fazed out of popular use, not because the other aspect ratios are more technologically advanced but because they offer a more aesthetically pleasing picture.
Just because LCD is more advanced than CRT, and most LCD are now 16: 9 and most CRT were 4:3 does not mean that 16: 9 is more advanced than 4: 3, it is simply a different ratio that is widely considered more pleasing to the human eye.
16 : 9 is being pushed because it is a superior aspect ratio, not a superior technology.
It is inferior for web browsing, and document editing when you have big enough 4:3 to put two documents on sides. What do you need the extra space on sides for then?
16: 9 is pushed becouse it is less headache for factories to produce everything at the same size.
On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote: The original aspect ratio for movies is widescreen. All movie theaters show their movies in widescreen format, squared off TVs and computer monitor were the freaks of nature, not the movies and art which came first. Just look at classic masterpieces in a museum and you can find that "widescreen" has been around as long as art itself.
Wrong, the cinemas were using 4:3 format, but when TV sets were made, then they had moved to 16: 9 to make TV worse, not to make cinemas better, projectors technology don't limit aspect ratios.
On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote:4: 3 sucked for displaying art and movies as those art and movies are shot widescreen,
No it never sucked, it is only worse when you put 16: 9 on it, and it would be even worse to put 4:3 on 16: 9.
On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote:it was just popular for a long time and is now being fazed out of popular use, not because the other aspect ratios are more technologically advanced but because they offer a more aesthetically pleasing picture.
16 : 9 is being pushed because it is a superior aspect ratio, not a superior technology.
It is inferior for web browsing, and document editing when you have big enough 4:3 to put two documents on sides. What do you need the extra space on sides for then?
16: 9 is pushed becouse it is less headache for factories to produce everything at the same size.
On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote: The original aspect ratio for movies is widescreen. All movie theaters show their movies in widescreen format, squared off TVs and computer monitor were the freaks of nature, not the movies and art which came first. Just look at classic masterpieces in a museum and you can find that "widescreen" has been around as long as art itself.
Wrong, the cinemas were using 4:3 format, but when TV sets were made, then they had moved to 16: 9 to make TV worse, not to make cinemas better, projectors technology don't limit aspect ratios.
On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote:it was just popular for a long time and is now being fazed out of popular use, not because the other aspect ratios are more technologically advanced but because they offer a more aesthetically pleasing picture.
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
imbalanced is a poor choice of words, it implies that the ones to blame for the 'imbalance' is the ones with widescreen and not the player themselves who hasn't upgraded. i suppose it's 'imbalanced' to have a computer that can run this game without lagg too as opposed to those who can't.
Yeah I'm sorry to say, but widescreen has been popular since about 2001. I think it is time to upgrade. There are plenty of widescreen monitors at costco for less than $150. Blizzard shouldn't cater to your old equipment, just like we don't see catering in MW 2, Resistance, Bad Company, Command and conquer. It is ridiculous to assume that Blizzard should give everyone a crappy view just because you have REALLY old hardware. I know it sounds mean I am just being honest.
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote: Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios.
You couldn't make 16: 9 crt but for LCD the technology is the same.
I hope this is a typo because I had a friend who paid a crap load on a 16x9 CRT a few years back. LCD simply became mainstream because it is so much cheaper to make and sucks up much less power.
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote: Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios.
You couldn't make 16: 9 crt but for LCD the technology is the same.
I hope this is a typo because I had a friend who paid a crap load on a 16x9 CRT a few years back. LCD simply became mainstream because it is so much cheaper to make and sucks up much less power.
Didn't know, anyway: "Most of the early electronic TV systems, from the mid-1930s onward, shared the same aspect ratio of 4:3 which was chosen to match the Academy Ratio used in cinema films at the time. This ratio was also square enough to be conveniently viewed on round cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), which were all that could be produced given the manufacturing technology of the time. (Today's CRT technology allows the manufacture of much wider tubes, and the flat-screen technologies which are becoming steadily more popular have no technical aspect ratio limitations at all.)"
So they had improved on it (maybe they still cost more to make, then 4:3 crt?). I did know that TVs couldn't have widescreen aspect ratios so Hollywood nerfed TVs by going widescreen in production. That is the real reason not golden ratio made up shit, Hollywood didn't care about that before TVs.
16 : 9 is being pushed because it is a superior aspect ratio, not a superior technology.
It is inferior for web browsing, and document editing when you have big enough 4:3 to put two documents on sides. What do you need the extra space on sides for then?
9:16 Is far superior for document reading. Just turn your monitor sideways.
Anway, even with 16 you can put 2 pages of a document side by side in full size and have them appear on the same screen.
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced
imbalanced is a poor choice of words, it implies that the ones to blame for the 'imbalance' is the ones with widescreen and not the player themselves who hasn't upgraded. i suppose it's 'imbalanced' to have a computer that can run this game without lagg too as opposed to those who can't.
Yeah I'm sorry to say, but widescreen has been popular since about 2001. I think it is time to upgrade. There are plenty of widescreen monitors at costco for less than $150. Blizzard shouldn't cater to your old equipment, just like we don't see catering in MW 2, Resistance, Bad Company, Command and conquer. It is ridiculous to assume that Blizzard should give everyone a crappy view just because you have REALLY old hardware. I know it sounds mean I am just being honest.
did you direct that towards me or the village idiot? if so you misunderstood me, because i've had a widescreen for many years, and could never go back to 4:3
On September 02 2010 04:33 kxr1der wrote: Hm am I the only person using 16:10?
No, youre not alone, but if I remember correctly one old beta post, show images of different aspect ratios, and the larger view was 16 : 9 due native aspect ratio picked by Blizzard as standard.
EPT
I can tell you !
16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing
. I find 16: 9 a little too vertically, umm skinny I guess you could say. I find 16:10 to be a nice compromise. 
