Any High level players in the game "Overwatch" use 60Hz monitors ?

[Tatty_Two]

Mr Tatty I deleted my problematic response post, all good.

Now let me read your thoughts

Thanks, however I could have done that, it does not change the fact that you did, however that's history, as I said lets move on.

I think the OP was talking about refresh not resolution.

Thanks, I didn't word my response that well, I got the refresh thing, I don't think there is any advantage and not sure there is "Scientific" evidence to support either way, I meant to show the other screen aspects that might add advantage though, but as I said, I am no expert.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

This is my experience with quake:

Once you get your game fundamentals right (Item awareness and timing, enemy prediction, position and aiming) then your gear makes the difference. 144Hz provides a huge boost in smoothness and aiming precision compared to 60Hz, movement also feels better. 60fps/60hz feels pretty much unplayable. This is my experience with Quake games where high refresh and high fps matter due to high speed and precision required for movement and aiming. As far as I know Overwatch is not as demanding as Quake in any of the particular areas, however I recon that It makes a difference, specially of you already got your game fundamentals right.

 

[qubit]

This is my experience with quake:

Once you get your game fundamentals right (Item awareness and timing, enemy prediction, position and aiming) then your gear makes the difference. 144Hz provides a huge boost in smoothness and aiming precision compared to 60Hz, movement also feels better. 60fps/60hz feels pretty much unplayable. This is my experience with Quake games where high refresh and high fps matter due to high speed and precision required for movement and aiming. As far as I know Overwatch is not as demanding as Quake in any of the particular areas, however I recon that It makes a difference, specially of you already got your game fundamentals right.

+1, 60Hz feels laggy as hell now to me too.

I'll tell you what's odd though. Playing Overwatch on my PS4 Pro online with a solid 60fps with my friends doesn't feel laggy, even though it must have the same amount of lag by definition. I can only attribute that to the drunken motions I'm limited to with the controller compared with my mouse and keyboard. I can't aim for shit with that thing, lol.

@Tatty_One thanks for keeping the thread open.

 

[Dethroy]

I guess there's no scientific proof whatsoever. But I found this to be an interesting read that may shed some light on the matter.
But I'm going out on a limb and would wager that ping, input delay and netcode (Overwatch's high bandwidth mode equals a tickrate of 60hz) are way more important.

Conclusion: You'll benefit from 144Hz when playing solo games. While 60Hz is all you need for Overwatch and most online games.

 

[Toothless]

So all in all there is no scientific blah blah refresh rate junk.

OP, how about you focus on your rig because, again, you won't power 144hz.

I've PERSONALLY seen extremely good players- professional level of skill - use 60hz monitors and still kick ass.

 

[Fif23]

Good post dethroy! I always wondered about the eye vs refresh rates and FPS.

That article seems to suggest that a faster ping would probably mean more towards performance, indeed.

Someone should really make a controlled study about Resolutions, refresh rates and frames per second and create a program that can test reactions regardless of ping

once again forget my rig, I have a 480 8Gb overi7, forget the hardware- this is a theoretical discussion lets keep it at that. I did not ask to reach a conclusion today, I ask to share thoughts, not possible conclusions

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

+1, 60Hz feels laggy as hell now to me too.

I'll tell you what's odd though. Playing Overwatch on my PS4 Pro online with a solid 60fps with my friends doesn't feel laggy, even though it must have the same amount of lag by definition. I can only attribute that to the drunken motions I'm limited to with the controller compared with my mouse and keyboard. I can't aim for shit with that thing, lol.

I guess there's no scientific proof whatsoever. But I found this to be an interesting read that may shed some light on the matter.
But I'm going out on a limb and would wager that ping, input delay and netcode (Overwatch's high bandwidth mode equals a tickrate of 60hz) are way more important.

The thing is you may not be able to "see" the frame difference, but you feel it, specially if the input device is a mouse. In real life if you move a thing you expect to see a continuous motion from your input. At 60fps that motion does not seem fluid at all if you use a mouse. Using a controller it might be different, the nature of the input is totally different, you do not "drag things around to see things moving", so your brain might let it pass...

Good post dethroy! I always wondered about the eye vs refresh rates and FPS.

That article seems to suggest that a faster ping would probably mean more towards performance, indeed.

Someone should really make a controlled study about Resolutions, refresh rates and frames per second and create a program that can test reactions regardless of ping

once again forget my rig, I have a 480 8Gb overi7, forget the hardware- this is a theoretical discussion lets keep it at that. I did not ask to reach a conclusion today, I ask to share thoughts, not possible conclusions

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

I used to average around 160ms back in 2012 and yes monitor refresh rate makes a difference.

 

[alucasa]

Obviously, skills come first. If you suck, doesn't matter what kind of hardware you play on, you are still gonna suck.

Like I said on the list earlier, I believe ping matters more than refresh rate. Personally, I find refresh rate a luxury. Good ping, however, is mandatory. If you are lagging, what good is 144ghz?

 

[Dethroy]

I'll repeat myself... (I edited my earlier post and this may have gone unnoticed)
Overwatch's netcode is using a tickrate of 60Hz. So you will basically gain nothing from a 144Hz monitor in this particular game.

The thing is you may not be able to "see" the frame difference, but you feel it, specially if the input device is a mouse. In real life if you move a thing you expect to see a continuous motion from your input. At 60fps that motion does not seem fluid at all if you use a mouse. Using a controller it might be different, the nature of the input is totally different, you do not "drag things around to see things moving", so your brain might let it pass...

While that may be true, "professional players" use low dpi settings and will aim without looking at their crosshair at all - it's all muscle memory.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

While that may be true, "professional players" use low dpi settings and will aim without looking at their crosshair at all - it's all muscle memory.

Low dpi (400 is not enough for smooth cursor @ 1080p) is dumb. I rather have an average dpi of 2300 and lower the ingame sensitivity to the equivalent of lower dpi+higher sens. In the end what maters are the cm/360 turn and smoothness of movement, given that the mouse sensor behaves accordingly. Looking at a "non smooth" animation (eg. 60Hz) will make you under perform, even considering that you are perfectly used to your mouse setup.

 

[Fif23]

And that is AFTER they have upgraded it, so i see...
Just to compare- what rate is Counter strike using ?

 

[alucasa]

I'll repeat myself... (I edited my earlier post and this may have gone unnoticed)
Overwatch's netcode is using a tickrate of 60Hz. So you will basically gain nothing from a 144Hz monitor in this particular game.

While that may be true, "professional players" use low dpi settings and will aim without looking at their crosshair at all - it's all muscle memory.

Truth matters not, sometimes. A kid has got to have the bragging rights of "Woot, 144ghz monitor, me rulez!"

 

[Dethroy]

And that is AFTER they have upgraded it, so i see...
Just to compare- what rate is Counter strike using ?

CSGO uses a tickrate of 64 or 128.

Low dpi (400 is not enough for smooth cursor @ 1080p) is dumb. I rather have an average dpi of 2300 and lower the ingame sensitivity to the equivalent of lower dpi+higher sens. In the end what maters are the cm/360 turn and smoothness of movement, given that the mouse sensor behaves accordingly. Looking at a "non smooth" animation (eg. 60Hz) will make you under perform, even considering that you are perfectly used to your mouse setup.

http://on-winning.com/cs-go-config-setup-settings-monitor-mice-sensitivity-pros/

Truth matters not, sometimes. A kid has got to have the bragging rights of "Woot, 144ghz monitor, me rulez!"

Sometimes I love being the party pooper.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Dunno why anyone would care. Overwatch is a crappy Team Fortress knock off.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

CSGO uses a tickrate of 64 or 128.

http://on-winning.com/cs-go-config-setup-settings-monitor-mice-sensitivity-pros/

As I said 400 dpi @1080p may not be ideal because you can skip pixels. Some of those guys could improve their setup I think.

http://www.funender.com/quake/mouse/index.html

Here you can calculate the usefull DPI at a given resolution and cm/360

Edit: If you need less than 38.5 cm/360 @90fov you will skip pixels (higher dpi would be recommended in those cases, lower fov's or zooming makes it worse)

 

[Fif23]

Another theoretical thought experiment.

A player with 144Hz plays against their exact clone but with a 60Hz monitor. Same internet and hardware.

Is the 144Hz advantage still hiding under game situations and psychology? So the player could still beat himself using a 60Hz just because the in game game tactical variables surpass the 1-5% theoretical advantage. Correct ?
So then you would say, there comes a level where 5% means a win. Also agree so far ?
In that case, a 144Hz monitor on a non professional is like a 9 year old soccer player with Jordan shoes playing basketball on a friday.


Example for somethig that is NOT hiding under tactics and psychology is a running back without a helmet.
No helmet damages the core of the game in more than one way.

Next I'd like to connect the human eye capability with a 144hz monitor even though nobody in tech literature looked into it

Let me start by asking - is a 144hz monitor healthier on your eyes, regardless of gaming ?

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

Another theoretical thought experiment.

A player with 144Hz plays against their exact clone but with a 60Hz monitor. Same internet and hardware.

Is the 144Hz advantage still hiding under game situations and psychology? So the player could still beat himself using a 60Hz just because the in game game tactical variables surpass the 1-5% theoretical advantage. Correct ?
So then you would say, there comes a level where 5% means a win. Also agree so far ?
In that case, a 144Hz monitor on a non professional is like a 9 year old soccer player with Jordan shoes playing basketball on a friday.


Example for somethig that is NOT hiding under tactics and psychology is a running back without a helmet.
No helmet damages the core of the game in more than one way.

Next I'd like to connect the human eye capability with a 144hz monitor even though nobody in tech literature looked into it

Let me start by asking - is a 144hz monitor healthier on your eyes, regardless of gaming ?

Back in the 2233rz days I switched to 120Hz mode if I was reading a PDF or something, because I felt that it was easier on the eyes.

 

[Fif23]

Hmm a feeling in that case is indeed physiological. Less eye strain is less eye strain.

Is there a 120hz+ display with a proper IPS Panel for a sane price ? Why aren't they common ?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I am sure i read somewhere that pro gamers run lower settings to achieve a higher frame rate, dunno if it is true or not though.

 

[Dethroy]

I am sure i read somewhere that pro gamers run lower settings to achieve a higher frame rate, dunno if it is true or not though.

To some extent - yes. But mostly to get rid of distracting eye candy in order to notice your enemies more swiftly.

As I said 400 dpi @1080p may not be ideal because you can skip pixels. Some of those guys could improve their setup I think.

http://www.funender.com/quake/mouse/index.html

Here you can calculate the usefull DPI at a given resolution and cm/360

Edit: If you need less than 38.5 cm/360 @90fov you will skip pixels (higher dpi would be recommended in those cases, lower fov's or zooming makes it worse)

The majority of those players game @ 1024x768 pixels.

 

[alucasa]

When you are completing for grands of dough, the last thing you want is eye candy.

KISS is the rule of thumb.

 

[uuuaaaaaa]

The majority of those players game @ 1024x768 pixels.

I am sure i read somewhere that pro gamers run lower settings to achieve a higher frame rate, dunno if it is true or not though.

When you are completing for grands of dough, the last thing you want is eye candy.
KISS is the rule of thumb.

That is why I said 1080p specifically in the first place. The thing about pros playing in 4:3 or lower resolutions is a thing of legacy from back in the days... Old quake pros are the same.
I know that this might be a little of topic, but for the purpose of an example of such config, I'll leave my current quake live config...~~

 

[Vario]

seemed like playing lower res made it easier to hit shockrifle balls in UT99.

 

[toilet pepper]

It mostly depends on your reaction speed. If 2 players has the same superhuman reaction, the 144hz player would have an edge. IMO. We're talking about fractions of a second difference here. You can certainly see the difference of 60 to a higher refresh rate screen when you continously spin around. This is all assuming the response times of the monitor is fast as well.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Let's do the math:
60 Hz = 16.67 ms per frame
144 Hz = 6.94 ms per frame

Is 9.73 ms going to make a difference in reaction time? That's just shy of 0.1% of a second. I'd argue not seeing how average human reaction time is 150~300 ms.

In shooters, I find that being able to accurately predict where a target is going to be is far more important than reaction time. Why? Because you time your shot as the target intersects that location. The better you are at predicting their behavior and your own latency, the more likely you are to hit. That said, I haven't seriously PvP'd since 2006 (CRT at 85 Hz) and I haven't ever played Overwatch so what do I know? Division?