tiny-fx
ok this is not your typical hardware thread, as most threads discuss whether an upgrade will bring enough improvement.This is infact the compelete opposite.So I have been noticing something lately. Competitive CS:GO players always seem to prefer to play at a lower resolution, never exceeding 1080p, so I started doing some digging around and it seems they are not the only ones.Take for example Seagull, one of the most famous overwatch players.His pc specs same as mine, i7 6700k, gtx 1080...etc and while I choose to run the game at 4k, not only does he run it at 1080p, but with almost everything on low except textures. He can easily hit 200fps+ at 1080p even with all on ultra. so the question is why?why even go as far as lowering the settings? It seems that alot of visual effects and details can actually lower your reaction time a little or have an adverse effect on gaming on some situations, such as losing the mouse cursor(happened to me twice while playing heroes of the storm)
.Yes a higher resolution will always look better no matter what.There is no escaping that. No, I don't regret buying a 4k monitor at all, and no I don't think reaction times will be affected that much. But I think the effect is there non-the-less. what do you guys think about that?If money is not an option, would you rather stick to gaming at 1080p and lowering the settings, even if you could max it out at 1080p,1440p, or "glorious" 4k to gain an ever so slight advantage? or do you think its not worth sacrificing all that visual improvment for something that will hardly matter and isnt even proven?maybe higher settings will even give you an advantage when sniping for example? do you believe what is being discussed here is true even? or just bullsh*t rumors?
Discuss!!
ballad
It's all about keeping their focus on the screen.
As you said a lower quality graphics lets them see fewer color differences and unimmersive environment.
Dota players when offered a 27" screen even prefer to play on a 21" screen by minimizing the screen.
Edit: turns out koreans measure the distance of placement of their keyboards, mouse and screens to mimic their home setup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3icryT4jrss
tiny-fx
ballad wroteIt's all about keeping their focus on the screen.
As you said a lower quality graphics lets them see fewer color differences and unimmersive environment.
Dota players when offered a 27" screen even prefer to play on a 21" screen by minimizing the screen.
http://i.imgur.com/KnaEM7f.jpg
yea i agree with screen size, a 24 inch monitor will let you see all the screen, map included without moving your eyeballs alot. I agree with that yes.
MrClass
For competitive, high resolution does not matter, but the frequency does. For example, in TI6, they used the new ASUS PG248QE, which offers 1080P gaming but at 180HZ. And yes it does make a difference with experienced players.
Yes 24" is the optimal screen to have a full view with minimal eye movement. Also 1080P on 24" is an optimal ratio.
Remember competitive is all about performance as the slightest millisecond counts; they cannot afford any kind of lag.
For the regular players, I can say 144HZ can be enough. You can achieve that with 2K resolution if you have a decent GFX.
tiny-fx
MrClass wroteFor competitive, high resolution does not matter, but the frequency does. For example, in TI6, they used the new ASUS PG248QE, which offers 1080P gaming but at 180HZ. And yes it does make a difference with experienced players.
Yes 24" is the optimal screen to have a full view with minimal eye movement. Also 1080P on 24" is an optimal ratio.
Remember competitive is all about performance as the slightest millisecond counts; they cannot afford any kind of lag.
For the regular players, I can say 144HZ can be enough. You can achieve that with 2K resolution if you have a decent GFX.
yea I agree the frequency matters, but im also trying to discuss whether a lower resolution will provide a slight advantage as well
anayman_k7
In CS GO they tend not to use the 16/9 ratio, they destroy it and get a wider ratio on lower resolution which will stretch the image a little bit on the width which makes the player models look bigger and easier to aim at! Nickbunyun used to use this method
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DzjKDJ-bX4
tech-guru
Well , to me for competitive gaming too , combination between image fidelity and fast FPS is best step.
2160p/60Fps maxed with no Dips is very enjoyable , even for competitive gaming. As graphic cards are becoming more and more powerful with a narrow time space , tipping above 60hz on 2016p through 1.3 DP is very possible in the very near future. Free Sync / GSync will refresh each hz for each frame (50hz =50fps etc..) and reduce input lag , thus monitors that has that with 50-60fps range on 2160 for me is nice even for competitive game play. Image fidelity is awesome in upcoming competitive games look at Battle Field One Rainbow Six Siege , The Division etc.. . Even Battle Field 4 maxed on higher resolution to me is better. 60Fps locked is very smooth , 144fps is better sure , but 60Fps locked is very good when combined with a very nice image fidelity. Remember , stutter due high pings and unreliable connections is a focal point for the smoothness in competitive games too. Competitive CS:GO players always seem to prefer to play at a lower resolution simply because it will be a less eye fatigue scenario when a player is sitting for long hours (mainly in tournaments) and near to the screen , and the higher the fatigue the lower the consecration = more probability to lose a round. But for me investing in a 1440p/144hz /Gysnc or even 2160/60fps/Gsync or more future proof 2160p/144hz/Gsync) I feel more comfortable with home competitive game plays.
Marduk
Be the real pro, and enjoy it, lowering graphics..... makes the game unenjoyable..... im currently on 1080p and have maxed everygame i have. To say the truth on my old rig lag have saved me many times(graphics were at minimum though) as a conclusion for me, a bit of lag and lowered graphics can either make you loose hard or easy penta. Easy game easy life.
ManOwaRR
Lets get good internet first
rolf
Let me guess:
- Maybe the rich textures are distracting and make it a bit harder differenciate shapes and what is happening on the screen.
- Although the difference is probably in milliseconds, higher FPS would make sure the information gets to your brain as fast as possible, and you never have that ugly stutter. If 200 FPS is an average at this resolution, maybe on particularly heavy scenes it would go down to 50. If it was 4K, that would be maybe like 20 or less.
- Maybe just safer for the hardware too.
tiny-fx
no, it doesn't drop below 60 fps ever, doesn't even come close. The problem was that during heavy scenes,the spell effects and the destruction would be so drastic against the sharp background that the cursor kinda disappears! doesn't happen all the time but sometimes it does.
first world problems ( I'm talking about heroes of the storm btw)
Marduk
ManOwaRR wroteLets get good internet first
True, true.
zibiluje
Marduk wroteManOwaRR wroteLets get good internet first
True, true.
yes ! i cannot understand how people play mmo fps games in lebanon , world of warcraft on 100 ms is disgusting sometimes , so what about csgo and other games .... cant find myself playing online fps anytime sooner , not untill the internet shit is sorted out in here