Warning for Ultra widescreen Mod after I disabled it

It’s telling that the conversation begins with a modded experience used as definitive proof that everything works fine. That line of thinking completely ignores why GGG intentionally restricts ultrawide support in the first place. If it were as simple as “just works,” they wouldn’t disable it in the official client. The fact that a mod can make it look good on your setup doesn’t invalidate the design, balance, or technical concerns that the developers themselves have acknowledged. Choosing to ignore that context and present a personal workaround as the final word is a clear case of willful ignorance—pretending the larger issue doesn’t exist because it doesn’t affect your niche.

Then comes the argument that people without ultrawide monitors shouldn’t have a strong opinion. That line flat-out denies the reality that game balance is communal, not individual. Players regularly discuss issues that don’t directly affect their build, class, or gear—because the health of the game relies on broader balance and fairness. Pretending that only UW users can discuss UW-related balance is just a convenient way to dismiss criticism without engaging with it. Again, that’s not just disagreement—it’s willfully ignoring how players and devs approach game-wide design.

The comment about GGG limiting aspect ratios in racing events is particularly revealing. The fact that GGG restricted ultrawide beyond the regular game settings in a competitive context is not ambiguous—it’s a direct, deliberate signal that ultrawide provides some form of advantage, or at the very least, inconsistent visibility. To spin that as “proof” that there’s no advantage is a complete reversal of reality. It ignores the plain intent behind GGG’s decision, which is publicly documented. That’s not just missing the point—that’s avoiding it entirely because it undermines the narrative.

Then there’s the idea that off-screen targeting is somehow a flawed or “suboptimal” approach to gameplay. That’s frankly out of touch with how ARPGs are played at high levels. Ranged builds, totem users, and even movement-based clear setups all benefit from extended visibility. Seeing enemies and reacting sooner is always an advantage, and pretending otherwise ignores both logic and the wealth of gameplay footage showing it in practice. That isn’t a theoretical scenario—it’s documented reality. Dismissing it as “bizarre” is less about critiquing the idea and more about refusing to acknowledge it exists.

Framing UW as purely a visual upgrade with zero gameplay impact—perfectly summarizes the issue. It boils the discussion down to personal preference while deliberately brushing off technical, competitive, and balance concerns that have been voiced repeatedly by both the community and the developers. It’s not just a different opinion—it’s a refusal to engage with the facts that challenge a preferred view. That’s textbook willful ignorance: when the evidence is visible and accessible, but you choose to look the other way because it’s inconvenient.

It’s also important to ground this in actual numbers. A standard 21:9 ultrawide monitor provides around 33% more horizontal screen space than a 16:9 display. A 32:9 super-ultrawide can push that to nearly 100% more horizontal area—essentially doubling the visible width. That’s not a “minor” difference—it’s a dramatic increase in environmental awareness. In a game like Path of Exile, where enemy density, positioning, and reaction time are crucial, being able to see mobs, projectiles, or loot farther out isn't just a visual perk; it's an information advantage. Saying the benefit “doesn’t exist” while ignoring this level of visibility gain is simply denying what’s measurable and observable.

In the end, pretending the advantages don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear. GGG isn’t going to redesign their competitive rules, adjust rendering logic, or shift their balance philosophy because someone insists it “looks fine on my setup.” The facts remain the same whether they’re acknowledged or not. So sure, you can keep repeating that there’s no issue—but reality tends to have a stubborn way of not bending to personal preferences. Ignoring it might feel more comfortable, but it won’t win the argument, and it certainly won’t change the decisions being made by those who are actually responsible for keeping the game fair.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

In the end, pretending the advantages don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear. GGG isn’t going to redesign their competitive rules, adjust rendering logic, or shift their balance philosophy because someone insists it “looks fine on my setup.” The facts remain the same whether they’re acknowledged or not. So sure, you can keep repeating that there’s no issue—but reality tends to have a stubborn way of not bending to personal preferences. Ignoring it might feel more comfortable, but it won’t win the argument, and it certainly won’t change the decisions being made by those who are actually responsible for keeping the game fair.

Only shortened the quote of your post because of the space it would take, not because I haven't read it or something.

Let me say, good job with that one. You perfectly communicated what I tried to say on a technical level, while you put it into words more easily to understand.
I didn't even reply to the last "counter-argument" to my last post because I was unable to find new words for something I thought should be understood by now.

It's actually beyond my comprehension that ppl argue for it with all the available information about it.
It's not just a change that would only impact ppl who use the 32:9 ratio, instead, it would affect all players and would cause entire design changes.
The "dude... I just see more, that's not a big deal" is a poor statement because the change would affect more than just the point of "I see more" (visually).

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. Not because I haven't read or don't understand your points, I simply disagree.

I still think it's a valid argument if it was really a significant advantage this should be noticeable in the result of the race events.

If you look at the guy that won every single race as an example, he was playing 32:9 before the races, 21:9 in the first race and 16:9 in the last 2 races. Since his times have been improving dramatically despite decreases in aspect ratio, this is proof that there are other factors that have much greater impact (player skill, game knowledge etc).

I am providing actual data (race event results, my experience with the game in ultrawide) while you two are simply contributing with emotional armchair logic.

In terms of making a build to take advantage of seeing things further you now have a build that works only in two directions (as you can only see further horizontally not vertically). Surely there are more efficient ways to cheese the game than that.

UW enjoyers simply want to experience the game in a more visually appealing way. And there's just been a set of competitive events which allowed varying aspect ratios, so if "unfair advantage" is really the concern I recommend to analyze the VODS and results from those events and look at what level of advantage we are actually talking about here instead of purely speculating about it.

"

Chacruna#2474 wrote:

..

First off, the idea that the lack of advantage is evident from race results is flawed. The fact that the player you're referencing has improved times with different aspect ratios doesn’t invalidate the underlying advantage ultrawide provides. Race events, especially in the competitive setting, are influenced by a wide range of factors. Yes, player skill, game knowledge, and execution are critical, but this doesn’t mean that the additional visibility granted by ultrawide isn’t a real factor. The idea that decreasing the aspect ratio should automatically correlate with worse results, and that the player’s performance disproves this, oversimplifies what’s really going on. Performance in a race doesn’t just reflect one factor—it's a combination of several, including practice, experience, and strategy, which is why his times can improve even if the aspect ratio is reduced.

Furthermore, dismissing ultrawide’s visibility as merely a "visual perk" ignores its actual competitive implications. The 33% to nearly 100% increase in horizontal screen space is not something that’s subjective. In Path of Exile, where environmental awareness can mean the difference between life and death (or a better loot window), seeing more of the game world gives you a tangible advantage. While you argue that it's just a matter of seeing further horizontally and not vertically, this still dramatically improves reaction time and positioning—two key aspects in ARPGs. So, yes, it's not just about "a prettier view"; it's about the advantage that this view provides in making better decisions.

Also, the mention of “cheesing” the game with builds tailored to ultrawide misses the point of the entire discussion. The fact that you can design a build to exploit extended visibility just reinforces my point that ultrawide offers more than just aesthetics. It gives players who use it a real tactical advantage in gameplay. If the setup wasn’t advantageous, why would players optimize around it? To say that such builds are “less efficient” is to dismiss the legitimate strategies that arise from exploiting extended visibility. It’s not about inefficiency—it’s about strategy.

Lastly, you mentioned that I’m arguing based on emotion rather than data. However, my argument is rooted in observable facts and the intentions of the developers. GGG's decision to restrict ultrawide support during competitive events is not a mere suggestion or oversight. It is a deliberate choice to ensure fairness, precisely because they understand the gameplay impact that ultrawide can have. The idea that this decision is somehow irrelevant because it wasn't explicitly shown as a game-breaking advantage in a few specific events is ignoring the broader, more consistent logic behind the restrictions.

In fact, when you say "I still think it's a valid argument" and then dismiss the developer's restrictions or the valid concerns raised by the community as "emotional armchair logic," it becomes clear that the emotional aspect of this discussion is actually on your side. By downplaying the technical implications and reducing them to personal preference, you’re avoiding the larger, well-supported facts in favor of defending an idea that benefits a niche group. It’s not about looking at things objectively; it’s about disregarding inconvenient truths to support a narrative that’s more comfortable to hold on to.

Moreover, when you speculate about the advantages or lack thereof based on race results without acknowledging the developer's explicit decisions or the technical context, you're engaging in pure rhetoric, not grounded fact. You’re asserting your personal experience and preference over the well-documented reasoning behind GGG’s restrictions and the community's consensus. You're speculating about the impact of ultrawide visibility while ignoring the actual data and context that suggest otherwise. To call this a "valid argument" is to take liberties with the facts to fit a narrative you prefer, rather than examining the situation from all angles.

In conclusion, while you’re focusing on individual instances and specific race results, I’m highlighting a larger, more consistent picture—one where extended screen space offers a real, measurable advantage. Just because a particular player's performance can improve regardless of aspect ratio doesn’t dismiss the technical reality of what ultrawide offers. Ignoring the facts because they don’t align with personal preference or anecdotal experience doesn’t invalidate them. The developer’s decisions, the balance concerns raised, and the collective community feedback all point to the same conclusion: ultrawide can provide advantages that need to be addressed, whether or not every player can see it immediately.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

The comment about GGG limiting aspect ratios in racing events is particularly revealing. The fact that GGG restricted ultrawide beyond the regular game settings in a competitive context is not ambiguous—it’s a direct, deliberate signal that ultrawide provides some form of advantage, or at the very least, inconsistent visibility. To spin that as “proof” that there’s no advantage is a complete reversal of reality. It ignores the plain intent behind GGG’s decision, which is publicly documented. That’s not just missing the point—that’s avoiding it entirely because it undermines the narrative.

I can ask you same question I asked last guy: how exactly would you leverage your newfound "competitive advantage"? Would you play same character differently on 16:9 vs 32:9? On mouse, dragging cursor for precision aim further away from your character only limits your mobility, as you need more time to move mouse back to center to keep sidestepping and running. Standing still is still death in poe.

If you are interested in answers to that question, re-read previous page. If not, I can only feel impressed by your faith in existence of GGGs "deliberate signals". If you ever worked in big game development studio you would have known that decisions can often be forced down single-handedly by some top manager just because he likes it, without much thought. Someone who is long detached from the game and how common players interact with it, but remains full of himself and not listens to developers or UX designers.

This is especially likely for spontaneous standalone changes, which are not part of any larger rework within a given patch. For example, back when GGG removed binding of instant skills to LMB in poe1, was there a strategy behind it too, or an improvement of player experience in any way?

You're asking how a player would practically leverage ultrawide for competitive gain—but that’s already a misdirect from the core point: GGG acknowledged the potential for imbalance by explicitly restricting ultrawide in competitive contexts. That restriction, by itself, is a policy decision that reflects a judgment call on fairness and visibility. Whether a specific player chooses to stand still or uses extra screen width to pre-emptively see mobs off-screen is secondary—the point is that GGG considered it impactful enough to step in.

As for whether players use the advantage perfectly or not—that's never been the threshold for defining imbalance. It’s about whether the potential for advantage exists, especially in a context where milliseconds matter. And if GGG didn’t believe it created an uneven playing field, why make the change at all?

Also, let’s be real, framing the discussion around “how exactly” someone would use the advantage in moment-to-moment gameplay is a disingenuous pivot. It’s a classic rhetorical sleight of hand: shift the burden of proof, reduce the issue to absurd specifics, and pretend that if an edge can’t be neatly diagrammed in a play-by-play scenario, it must not exist. That kind of reasoning is fallacious and intentionally misleading. It steers the conversation away from GGG’s documented actions and toward a space where it’s easier to muddy the waters and shape the narrative. It's not about seeking clarity—it's about creating enough noise to obscure the original point.

But if you're going to ignore repeated answers, developer intent, and basic screen geometry, we're not having a conversation—we're stuck in a loop where you're asking disingenuous questions to defend a position, not to understand one. I’m not going to keep repeating myself just because you refuse to accept an answer that challenges your preferences.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

You're asking how a player would practically leverage ultrawide for competitive gain—but that’s already a misdirect from the core point: GGG acknowledged the potential for imbalance by explicitly restricting ultrawide in competitive contexts. That restriction, by itself, is a policy decision that reflects a judgment call on fairness and visibility. Whether a specific player chooses to stand still or uses extra screen width to pre-emptively see mobs off-screen is secondary—the point is that GGG considered it impactful enough to step in.

If your main point was about race events, then I misunderstood you, apologies. Race event is not a core game, and I didn't object about it having exp penalty and whatever extra restrictions before in this and in other threads. While black bars specifically remain a pointless restriction in my opinion, it wouldn't affect core game if constrained to race events.

One problem though: GGG does not constrain black bars to race events. I hope you don't view every softcore temp league as competitive race? If I come there to chill at my own pace, should I face those penalties and restrictions?

Even solo play in trade leagues isn’t isolated or purely “chill”—it's still embedded in a competitive economic ecosystem. Faster clears, better visibility, and more efficient farming all convert into trade power. So when a player with ultrawide can see threats or lootable content before it appears for someone on 16:9, that’s not just a personal bonus—it ripples into the shared market.

That said, I totally agree: hardware already creates a de facto tier list. More RAM, faster load times, higher FPS—these all give an edge. But the key difference is that GGG can’t feasibly normalize those variables. They can’t control your SSD or your GPU, but they can regulate how much of the game world you see at once.

So the black bars aren’t about eliminating all disparities (which would be impossible), but about minimizing one of the few visual advantages that’s both measurable and modifiable. And since FOV directly influences situational awareness—arguably more than FPS in many cases—it’s reasonable for them to draw the line there.

Is the black bar solution elegant? No, it’s clunky. But it's a compromise aimed at fairness in a game where "solo" still means competing—just not always on a ladder.

And that's really the crux of it—unless specific design changes are made to account for 32:9 (like enemy aggro range adjustments, fog-of-war mechanics, or encounter scripting that compensates for extended visibility), reintroducing it as-is would just reintroduce imbalance. You can’t uncork that kind of advantage without either reworking how content is presented or accepting that some players will have more information by default. So arguing to bring ultrawide back without any structural changes isn’t advocating for QoL—it’s advocating for a gameplay edge. If the goal is parity, then any discussion about reintroducing 32:9 needs to include ideas for how to balance it, not just remove the black bars and call it fair. Now, whether they’re willing to take the time and effort to introduce such variables is another conversation in itself—but until that happens, the restriction isn’t arbitrary; it’s a safeguard against skewed gameplay.

Edit: We also don't know if the effective cut off for projectiles and enemies entities are rendered at the same distance as PoE1, which would only effectively reintroduce the same problem that black bars were implemented to fix if they are indeed the same.

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

So arguing to bring ultrawide back without any structural changes isn’t advocating for QoL—it’s advocating for a gameplay edge.

Sometimes the poor solution is worse than none, considering how tiny your proposed gameplay advantage is, compared to other edges. "Ripples into the shared market" contradicts your own camp's narrative about "Only a tiny tiny minority uses UW". 16:9 nolifers don't ripple, they rain huge boulders into this shared market 24/7:)

I've only argued about GGG getting off their asses and fixing it properly with fog of war or another modern approach, if they did see such serious issue in the FOV all those years.

If all the actors will remain visible at the 32:9 exclusive edges, like mobs, breaches, loot, etc, fine, you have a point, it would actually improve gameplay exclusively for UW users. (Having better CPU would also improve gameplay exclusively for richer users but I digress).

However if you re-read comments from UW users here and in dozen similar threads, is there a single narrative about "now I cannot see my breaches and strongboxes I lost my farm speed"? Loss of immersive view carries much stronger negative impact than supposed fix of unfair advantage.

As it is now a group of players are directly impacted in their enjoyment of the game due to a hypothesis about an advantage that would indirectly impact a minority of players through harder competition on a leaderboard and slightly decreased value in a trade market?

That sounds insane unless that advantage was substantial.

I understand that GGG believes in that hypothesis. I would kindly ask GGG to test it, because I believe the advantage to be extremely exaggerated.

The race events were played in different aspect ratios and provide a good dataset to test that hypothesis. There are results and VODS from the event that can be analyzed. You could do a survey asking players that participated what they think about the aspect ratio restriction.

Both the decision to restrict aspect ratios in the race events as well as the decision not to support 32:9 in normal league play goes against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

A false acquittal is usually preferred to a wrongful conviction.

widescreen enjoyers are directly impacted. Anyone else is only indirectly impacted based on a (false) hypothesis. Anyone who believed the advantage to be unfair could simply invest in a wider screen to gain the same advantage. Meanwhile widescreen enjoyers have no other cause of action than to stop supporting the game until GGG hopefully change their minds on this issue.