Goonhub
11-06-2017, 06:15 AM
This should probably be followed with a "what resolution/icon size do you use?" poll, because for my particular resolution stretch-to-fit looks godawful and I can't imagine anyone wanting to use it, but I suppose if you're in the land of <960 pixels high I might be able to envision it being useful.
I think the key here is that if you don't use stretch-to-fit currently then even if you have a 4:3 monitor you shouldn't experience much difference from now, except maybe a little less horizontal dead-space/thinner side bar.
I do think there's a legitimate concern from stretch-to-fit 4:3 users, and I would be very interested in knowing what percentage of players that includes. I have a potential controversial compromise:
Square (currently): 15x15 = 225 tiles
Widescreen: 21x15 = 315 tiles
Square (proposed?): 17x17 = 289 tiles
This way, widescreen players get to see a little more left-and-right than square players, but square players get a little more top-and-bottom. The square one gets less tiles overall, but I'd argue that's made up for in terms of having better all-round vision. Heck, I might even choose that over widescreen even though I use widescreen.
Disclaimer: I am not saying the above is viable, an option, or what we're planning on doing. It's literally a shot-in-the-dark from me suggesting a possible future improvement. It comes with its own fun plethora of issues to do with visibility and balance, please do not glom onto it as some sort of genuine "this is what we're doing".
I think the key here is that if you don't use stretch-to-fit currently then even if you have a 4:3 monitor you shouldn't experience much difference from now, except maybe a little less horizontal dead-space/thinner side bar.
I do think there's a legitimate concern from stretch-to-fit 4:3 users, and I would be very interested in knowing what percentage of players that includes. I have a potential controversial compromise:
Square (currently): 15x15 = 225 tiles
Widescreen: 21x15 = 315 tiles
Square (proposed?): 17x17 = 289 tiles
This way, widescreen players get to see a little more left-and-right than square players, but square players get a little more top-and-bottom. The square one gets less tiles overall, but I'd argue that's made up for in terms of having better all-round vision. Heck, I might even choose that over widescreen even though I use widescreen.
Disclaimer: I am not saying the above is viable, an option, or what we're planning on doing. It's literally a shot-in-the-dark from me suggesting a possible future improvement. It comes with its own fun plethora of issues to do with visibility and balance, please do not glom onto it as some sort of genuine "this is what we're doing".