Warning for Ultra widescreen Mod after I disabled it

"

Echothesis#7320 wrote:

I am very much aware. One video of poe1 5-way afk rota service is enough to understand their definition of balance and attack ranges:) Do you know ANY other arpg game that allows such mess as that KB + aurabot?

Who cares what other games are "allowing", ppl play PoE because it's PoE and not other games.

If you limit the range this way you break design choices and mechanics GGG wants to have in their game.
Let's say you have a build that invests heavily in higher damage depending on the projectile's travel distance or interacts with terrain, now limiting the range would prevent these mechanics from working as intended.
If the max range is "60" but the terrain your projectile would interact with is "61" away - the mechanic stops working.
And what is with projectiles that travel based on their speed over a duration?

Like it or not, GGG will never ever change a fundamental part of their game design the vast majority of the player base likes, especially not for a handful of ppl who want 32:9 and ruin the game with these half-ass baked "solutions".

"

JakkerONAIR#4902 wrote:

Who cares what other games are "allowing", ppl play PoE because it's PoE and not other games.

Point was, other games care about balance not because "they overlooked or didn't care about or are not smart enough to change". But because "it's literally intended this way" too.

What poe gains in... unique character fans around here, it loses in players who care about immersion, more logic than "burning ice spikes poisoning enemies after being fired from traps", and about true build variety, where you can be viable in endgame with what you like, not with what is the most broken OP this patch.

A single build like KB oneshotting 360 degrees 4 screen area (more than 16:9 btw and no need to see shit, you can "play" it without screen, UW or not) invalidates anything else that can be done on that skill. You can try other builds for sports, but as another poster graciously reminded "A small group having a big impact is possible—especially in trade-based economies".

If you want to interact with trade you have to play this broken BS too, and you do have to interact with trade, because lootrates are based around nolifer masochists too:)

It's so weird why some people are trying to argue with other peoples feedback. Feedback is inherently opinionated so it's ridiculous to try to disprove it. You have a different opinion so state it and leave it at that.

My OPINION remains the same:

#1. 32:9 should be supported in the core game. (Or allow people to use the mod).
#2. Competitive events shouldn't be further restricted to 16:9.
#3. It's not as big an advantage as it's being made out to be.
#4. The game is more enjoyable when you can experience the game on your preferred aspect ratio.
#5. The race events provides a good source of data to analyze how big an advantage it actually is.
#6. My own anecdotal experience as someone who has played many games competitively and who has experienced PoE 2 in all three aspect ratios (32:9, 21:9 and 16:9), and who participated in the race events, is that it is not a big advantage.
#7. I practiced for the events on 32:9, played the first event on 21:9 and second event on 16:9. I saw substantial improvements on time despite aspect ratio going down which indicates that other factors play a much bigger role.
#8. I completed the second event despite the game looking terrible at 16:9, but couldn't be bothered for the 3rd race. I'm sad about this because I think it was a fun competition, but my fun was ruined because I don't enjoy the game at that aspect ratio.
#9. The speed running community has a ton of rules to ensure fairness but aspect ratio is NOT one of them. 32:9 is allowed in speed runs too.
#10. To most people this game isn't even that competitive by the way.
#11. There are a lot of people that have ultra widescreens and would enjoy the game more in that aspect ratio.
#12. It's an increasingly popular aspect ratio.
#13. The best change ever made in Diablo 2 was increasing the aspect ratio with the release of the expansion. This was a buff to all characters especially ranged and especially sorceress. But the game looked infinitely better. I would not have spent countless hours on Diablo 2 if they had decided this was somehow unfair and not increased the ratio.
#14. All hardware improvements come with some sort of edge in video games. But it's very rare that people complain about this being unfair.
#15. Not supporting 32:9 hurts the players affected more than it benefits anyone else.

All of the above is based on the assumption that a wider aspect ratio is not actually that big an advantage. Please test it instead of speculating on it. And please also consider that to most people playing this game it isn't competitive at all, which makes uw not being supported even more absurd.

"

Chacruna#2474 wrote:

My OPINION remains the same:

#1. 32:9 should be supported in the core game. (Or allow people to use the mod).

Thanks of different ratio rates in screen technology we have now developing nightmare. This is really problem for developers especially in games where FoV in ARPG is important.

"

#2. Competitive events shouldn't be further restricted to 16:9.

Same #1

"

#3. It's not as big an advantage as it's being made out to be.

Yea? Come to me on PvP Diablo 4 server I will show :D
PvE in D4 doesn`t matter
PvE in PoE2 the most crucial feature to have Super Ultra Wide Screen working....not mention HC system.

"

#5. The race events provides a good source of data to analyze how big an advantage it actually is.

GGG very surprised me POSITYVLY with fixed ratio of screen for Race. really these guys has brain! From other side Blizzard pay bullshit for that...and even intentionally leave some crap just to keep addicted people play and get theirs does of dopamine.



Here you have real example of Super Ultra Wide Screen in D4 and what happen there :D
D4 has also limited ration but not that like PoE2


Example in Window mode without any tricks but unplayable....you need special software which block mouse cursor to run out of the window

And here comparation FullHD (B/W color), 16:9 (color) and Ultra Wide (red is Ultra wide)


Without Ultra Wide even do not try enter PvP area...they will wipe you in seconds.

"

DarkDredd#2184 wrote:

...

It's not a development nightmare to support uw. A modder figured it out and that worked perfectly fine.

It only makes it even more embarrassing for GGG that Blizzard got this one right. Even with PvP being a thing in their game, sacrificing the core of their game to try to balance that would be insane.

To most people, regardless if it's D4 or PoE2 -- ARPGS are mostly a single player experience, outside of some co-op (where it doesn't matter that some people can see a bit further) and trade (where it also definitely doesn't matter - "ripples in the economy is batshit insane", I know that wasn't your point though).

To most people, PoE2 isn't competitive either as people are only competing with themselves.

Disallowing people the option of seeing a bit further for aesthetic reasons is just odd.



What is perhaps even more odd is trying to argue against other peoples feedback instead of simply stating your own. But in the case of this particular topic it's difficult to state the opposite point of view without coming off as a jerk.

This is less you and more other people to be fair, but they result to arguing and using bombastic rhetorical language because they can't simply say it as it is: "I want other people to have a less enjoyable experience even though them having this option would have zero consequences for my experience with the game". It's either extremely narcissistic or Socratic roleplay arguing purely for the sake of arguing.


PoE2 is mostly NOT a competitive game. And even in the ways that it is (i.e. the race events) the advantage of wider aspect ratio is completely dwarfed by other factors.


I agree with you that it would be a bigger advantage in PvP, but to my knowledge that is not a thing in PoE and it will never be core gameplay so the game shouldn't be balanced around it.


I think PoE 2 is an amazing game, it looks stunning and I loved how it looked utilizing my full screen.


I haven't played D4 since it released and I skipped the expansion. Is it any good now? Its a big plus for me with the 32:9 support so I might give it a go.

"

Chacruna#2474 wrote:

It's not a development nightmare to support uw. A modder figured it out and that worked perfectly fine.

You only see that "it works" on the client side and have no idea what underlying issues result from that. Multiple ppl already explained in different ways what problems appear.

"

It only makes it even more embarrassing for GGG that Blizzard got this one right. Even with PvP being a thing in their game, sacrificing the core of their game to try to balance that would be insane.

What? Haven't you read the post above you with all the digestible pictures?

"

To most people, regardless if it's D4 or PoE2 -- ARPGS are mostly a single player experience, outside of some co-op (where it doesn't matter that some people can see a bit further) and trade (where it also definitely doesn't matter - "ripples in the economy is batshit insane", I know that wasn't your point though).

Again, ppl already explained to you WHY "seeing further" is a noticeable advantage.
If you personally don't abuse the advantage - ok.
But that does not mean others don't use it.

"

To most people, PoE2 isn't competitive either as people are only competing with themselves.

Disallowing people the option of seeing a bit further for aesthetic reasons is just odd.

Because it's not just for "aesthetic reasons".

"

What is perhaps even more odd is trying to argue against other peoples feedback instead of simply stating your own. But in the case of this particular topic it's difficult to state the opposite point of view without coming off as a jerk.

This is less you and more other people to be fair, but they result to arguing and using bombastic rhetorical language because they can't simply say it as it is: "I want other people to have a less enjoyable experience even though them having this option would have zero consequences for my experience with the game". It's either extremely narcissistic or Socratic roleplay arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

You misrepresent what happened here in this thread.
The "one side" said "We want 32:9", then ppl explained WHY just putting 32:9 in the game without changing core things would be negative for the rest (majority; everyone who is not using 32:9).
Furthermore, solutions that would make it possible to use 32:9 without negatively impacting everyone else were presented too, fog of war for example, but that gets ignored by some - who then argue further with "nyo, just give me 32:9". THAT could be seen as "arguing for the sake of arguing".

"

PoE2 is mostly NOT a competitive game. And even in the ways that it is (i.e. the race events) the advantage of wider aspect ratio is completely dwarfed by other factors.

If you play "trade" or any other competitive thing/event, that's not true.
PoE has a different type of competition, but that does not mean that it's not competitive. It doesn't need to be a MOBA or team shooter to have competitive elements.

Since you’ve made it clear that you’re locked into your opinion while sidestepping the actual facts and implications that undermine it, let’s leave it at this: ‘The customer is always right in matters of taste’—but this isn’t a matter of taste. It’s a matter of game design, balance, and fairness. And no amount of personal preference, anecdotal evidence or entitlement will change that.

Feedback isn't immune to criticism, so please...

"

Z3RoNightMare#7140 wrote:

actual facts

I'm not immune to criticism at all. You two are the ones that are presenting your points of view as "actual facts" while disregarding my point of view.

I recommend you to actually go back and read through the entire thread again and look at how you are presenting your opinions and consider why I might be unwilling to engage with it.

You are both combative and aggressive in your argumentation and it's a waste of my time to engage with that. Plus constant misrepresentation of your assumptions and POVs as factual.

If you were actually engaging in a nuanced discussion instead of purely trying to manipulate the narrative that would be fine.

Seriously, try and go back and read everything again. And think a bit deeper about what is factual, what is opinion and what are the assumptions, and try not to misrepresent these so much.

I have a pretty good idea of the extend of the advantage from the wider aspect ratio as I have played with all three aspect ratios and I also did compete in the race events.

If you were looking to do well in those events I would say the ranking of advantages is something like this:

#1: Player Skill.
#2: Strategy.

These two are by far the most important factors, which is really great. If your run is taking 8 hours and you want to get it down to 3 hours then that is what should be the main focus.

#3: Knowledge of map layouts.

Could have been included under player skill, but I think it deserves it's own category. Here GGG gave all players the same map layouts by the way. That could be an interesting point to discuss as well.

#4: RNG/Loot.

This is just inherent to this type of game. But it was surprisingly not as big a factor in the event as I had imagined it would be, I would say we are talking about an on average plus/minus 15 minutes to the overall time of the run. There is of course a small chance to get some game breaking unique item, i.e. foxshade or pillar of the caged god, and that might have bigger impact on time but is not consistent.

#5: Aspect Ratio.
The main advantage is moving faster through some maps as you spot a point of interest or the next zone that a player with smaller FOV would have missed. That for sure does happen, although it's not a pure advantage as moving faster through a zone also means missing out on xp and loot. The way you are navigating maps is also mostly by sticking to the edge of the map and traversing it that way, so in a lot of cases there is no advantage.
But it IS some sort of advantage, I think its less than a 5 minute time save at best though - but maybe other players are better at taking advantage of that than me, who knows. 5 minutes would not however have been enough to allow another player to finish 1st place in any of the races however as the guy that won was more ahead than that every single time.


There can definitely be made a point for limiting aspect ratios for the events - like they did - as it IS an advantage, albeit a small one. But considering how far down the list is I don't think it's worth doing it as it makes the game less enjoyable. There is also advantages to all other forms of hardware, and I don't think they are far behind this one.


I think the races is a good example because even in the most competitive form of PoE2 I think it was a mistake to limit aspect ratio. I enjoy competing but at the end of the day I do it for fun, and the game is not fun for me at 16:9 aspect ratio, so I didn't play the 3rd event even though my time improved drastically from the 1st event to the 2nd event despite the aspect ratio limitation. So my decision not to compete at the lower aspect ratio had nothing to do with lost advantage.


A lot of people played with the UW mod before the patch that threatened to ban you for it. To my knowledge there weren't any OP builds that relied on it. There didn't appear to be any issues with it either and I would have been fine simply continuing to use that. A lot of people used it - it didn't break the game.
So it could be implemented with very minimal effort. However I think it's great if they implemented it in a way they thought is more fair - maybe making light radius a more useful stat than simply letting you see more on the minimap.

"

Chacruna#2474 wrote:

You are both combative and aggressive in your argumentation and it's a waste of my time to engage with that. Plus constant misrepresentation of your assumptions and POVs as factual.

If you were actually engaging in a nuanced discussion instead of purely trying to manipulate the narrative that would be fine.

We already engaged in a nuanced discussion and besides you, others who want 32:9 learned and understood that "just put 32:9 into the game" is not the solution, but instead an implementation with "fog of war", for example.

And what is this "narrative" nonsense? This is a discussion about a topic and not someone telling a story about history or society.
The thread is about "32:9 in PoE2", so the conversation included why it is not a thing and why it shouldn't be UNLESS it follows specific parameters, like "fog of war".

So, in the end, it doesn't matter if you understand the negative impact of "just put 32:9 into the game" or not, but why do you push the goalpost further and don't accept "32:9 with fog of war is something I agree with"... you know, if you really want ONLY more immersion and nothing else, that's the solution.

GGG shouldn't restrict ultrawide support in trade league. Opinion. Normative claim about what GGG “should” do — reflects personal preference, not a verifiable truth.

Letting players use their hardware freely is more important than competitive fairness. Opinion. Value judgment prioritizing freedom of use over fairness — subjective.

No-void races are not a big deal. Opinion. "Not a big deal" is a subjective minimization of their importance — differs by player.

GGG is being lazy by not developing a better solution. Opinion. Accusation of laziness is subjective and assumes intent or lack of effort.

Other games handle this better. Mixed. True that other games manage ultrawide differently, but "better" is subjective.

It’s unfair to restrict someone’s experience just because a small subset competes. Opinion. Fairness is a value judgment; "small subset" is factual, but the conclusion is subjective.

GGG is trying to enforce competitive integrity. Fact GGG stated this explicitly when explaining the ultrawide restriction in events.

It's not a good solution to limit everyone due to a few competitors. Opinion "Not a good solution" reflects a personal value judgment.

It’s unreasonable to expect players to switch monitors or change aspect ratios. Fact. Based on hardware cost and accessibility, this expectation introduces P2W concerns.

Software-level black bars are an acceptable way to handle ultrawide restrictions. Fact. Technically feasible and cost-effective method with precedent in many games.

The advantage ultrawide gives is large enough to warrant restrictions. Fact. 50% visibility increase — large enough to impact competitive integrity.

The trade league is not designed for competitive fairness. Mixed. Trade league is not purely competitive, but features ladders and races imply some fairness expectation.

Players should be allowed to choose immersion over fairness. Opinion. Normative statement prioritizing immersion — personal preference.

Restricting ultrawide affects immersion and enjoyment. Opinion. Subjective for many players and not universally measurable.

Ultrawide players are being unfairly punished. Opinion. "Punished" and "unfairly" are value-laden; depends on viewpoint.

Ultrawide gives significant mapping advantages. Fact. Better off-screen visibility gives an edge in mob detection, looting, etc.

This sets a bad precedent for hardware-based restrictions. Opinion. "Bad precedent" is speculative and based on personal values.

This restriction is temporary and limited to certain events. Fact. GGG has communicated this is not a permanent change.
Developers are favoring competitive players over casuals. Opinion. Suggests intent or bias; subjective interpretation of priorities.

The community should be consulted before changes like this. Opinion. Normative statement about process, not factual.

Enforcement is difficult without a hard cutoff point. Fact. Logistical and technical challenge acknowledged by developers.

Let me know if i missed anything.