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



## Fif23 (Feb 19, 2017)

My question to you is simple.

Is a shitty TN 144Hz monitor, to overwatch, as useful as cleats for a football player ?

Is it a matter of ALL professional-wannabes using 144hz screens, like all footballers have cleats ?

60Hz = You are 40%+ more likely lose the game.

Correct ?

I am looking for a scientific answer either  in thre form of research done or statistics showing high level players winning with 60hz vs 144gz counterparts


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

Dunno about any scientific papers being available lol, but as someone with a 144Hz monitor, I can tell you that it makes a substantial difference. Yes, the advantage is real and worth going for. Of course, your system must be able to render at 144Hz without dropping frames for it to be of most benefit.

Looking at your specs, I can see that you'd need to upgrade both your CPU & GPU to hit 144Hz reliably.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

What in the wash dog is "professional Overwatchera"? A shooting game?


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

I think he means any "professional Overwatchers". Even that doesn't quite make sense. People really shouldn't be so sloppy with their writing.

For that matter, is this game played professionally? I have no idea, but I know that I do like playing it online on my PS4 Pro with my friends.  Feels a bit like Unreal Tournament.


----------



## Toothless (Feb 19, 2017)

There is no way you're going to run a 144hz monitor with that setup, so first off get your "professional" (oh god what a false name) desktop.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

My definition of "professional" gamer is those who make a living with it. I don't think Overwatch has tournaments with cash prize..., does it?

Anyway, like Toothless says, your whole rig needs upgrading, and like everyone says right now, "wait for Ryzen".


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

alucasa said:


> My definition of "professional" gamer is those who make a living with it. I don't think Overwatch has tournaments with cash prize..., does it?


That's it, I have no idea. I guess Googling for it would likely provide the answer, but I'm really not interested enough to bother.


----------



## Toothless (Feb 19, 2017)

alucasa said:


> My definition of "professional" gamer is those who make a living with it. I don't think Overwatch has tournaments with cash prize..., does it?.


Overwatch seems to be a TF2 version of CS:GO which whenever I see someone say "im a pro gamer" I sit back and laugh at them and their C2D junk.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

South Korea seems to hold a lot of real tournament with pretty nice cash. But, you won't have fancy 144ghz gears there. You go to a certain place where computers are set up equally and play there in front of camera.

There is even a visual novel about their lives => http://www.sc2vn.com/


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Oooo, I am honored; me is a zombie.

Here is a proper answer you deserve.

Professionals play on equal hardware. So, your question is moot.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

M'lady, I believe I've answered your question.

Professional gamers make a living by winning tournament prizes, and they must go to designated places with equal hardware and play against each other.

Your question was regarding possible cheating among professional Overwatch players, and I've answered it regarding professional gamers. I don't think there are any professional Overwatch tournaments yet. Hardware spec should not matter when it comes to professional gamers because they get to use the same hardware.


----------



## Guitar (Feb 19, 2017)

Is this real life


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Guitar said:


> Is this real life



Nay, you are playing TPU VR game. My name is Zombie.


----------



## Fif23 (Feb 19, 2017)

term Professional was used to indicate Level not money made.

I know what the dictionary says, but in context you can tell i mean Level of skill not revenue.
Why would I discuss revenue and monitors?

Take a team with 6 high level players with 80% Victory rate.
Give one player a 60Hz monitor and leave the rest with 144Hz.
Did you reduce their victory stats ?


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> term Professional was used to indicate Level not money made.
> 
> I know what the dictionary says, but in context you can tell i mean Level of skill not revenue.
> Why would I discuss revenue and monitors?



Very well, so pro-wannabes you are talking about. In that case, the answer'd be different.

And, yep, 144ghz monitors will give an edge over those with 60ghz. Having said that, internet connection (quality in ping) will also matter. Actually, I think every piece of hardware will matter. It's a matter of how has deeper pocket.


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

@Fif23 Seriously dude, just fix the typo please, it looks awful and is doing my head in!  

Anyway, glad I answered your question, but please don't take it out on the others. They're trying to help too and it helps you to be as clear as possible when asking a question.

Talking about monitor refresh again, I think one can actually get 200Hz monitors now. I'd love to see what an fps game feels like to play on one of those with no dropped frames. Mouthwateringly smooth, I'll bet.


----------



## Fif23 (Feb 19, 2017)

In that case could you classify the non human factors by IMPACT level in your opinion ?

How can I change the title in the App? It does not let me


----------



## Beastie (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> Give one player a 60Hz monitor and leave the rest with 144Hz.
> Did you reduce their victory stats ?




 Yes it will on FPS games if the computer or internet connection are not a limiting factor.

 Going from 60Hz to 144Hz is quite noticable.



qubit said:


> @Fif23Talking about monitor refresh again, I think one can actually get 200Hz monitors now. I'd love to see what an fps game feels like to play on one of those with no dropped frames. Mouthwateringly smooth, I'll bet.


I don't think it will make that much difference from say 144Hz.

60Hz isn't that fast so increasing to 75 Hz makes a marked difference- but I can't honestly tell the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz so IME the benefits of increasing frame rate diminish once you get above 120Hz ish.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> In that case could yoo classify the non human factors by IMPACT level in your opinion ?



Some will swear by ping. Lower the ping the better. Some argue ping is the most important factor which I tend to agree.

So, for me, non-human factors would be like this.

1. Adequate hardware in CPU, GPU, RAM.
2. Ping (lower the better)
3. Monitor (144ghz > 60ghz)
4. Mice and keyboard that work the best for you.


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> In that case could you classify the non human factors by IMPACT level in your opinion ?
> 
> How can I change the title in the App? It does not let me


I don't understand your first sentence. 

Use the thread tools link at the top to edit the title.


----------



## Vario (Feb 19, 2017)

Probably depends as much on the player and what they are used to.  A bad player would probably be just as bad with 144hz or 60 hz.

Back in the day pro gamers used CRT monitors because they were so much faster than LCD at that time.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 19, 2017)

Firstly, I considered closing this down, only because if you hear a comment you don't like and therefore have to raise an insult to respond the thread is already on a downhill slope but in the hope that maturity can still rule I will hold out.

I always thought that the main factors in relation to gaming and any potential advantage/disadvantage in relation to In Game performance were around things such as screen response time (if it takes you longer to see something happen, chances are it takes longer to react to them (firing back for example), I am no expert in this but higher resolution screens where the Graphics Card may struggle to maintain frame rates may also cause delays which might also factor as well as possibly insufficient Graphics memory so again if your system has to swap between system Ram that could also cause a delay.  I have not heard of any actual evidence that a high screen resolution coupled with a sufficient graphics card would add advantage but as I said...... I am no expert so it might be the case.


----------



## Fif23 (Feb 19, 2017)

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

Now let me read your thoughts


----------



## Beastie (Feb 19, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I always thought that the main factors in relation to gaming and any potential advantage/disadvantage in relation to In Game performance were around things such as screen response time (if it takes you longer to see something happen, chances are it takes longer to react to them (firing back for example), I am no expert in this but higher resolution screens where the Graphics Card may struggle to maintain frame rates may also cause delays which might also factor as well as possibly insufficient Graphics memory so again if your system has to swap between system Ram that could also cause a delay.  I have not heard of any actual evidence that a high screen resolution coupled with a sufficient graphics card would add advantage but as I said...... I am no expert so it might be the case.



 I think the OP was talking about refresh not resolution.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Beastie said:


> I think the OP was talking about refresh not resolution.



Ssssh, the monkey is wearing 3D glasses.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> 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.



Beastie said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

qubit said:


> +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.





Dethroy said:


> 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...



Fif23 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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

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


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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.


uuuaaaaaa said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> 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.


uuuaaaaaa said:


> 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/


alucasa said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 19, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> Another theoretical thought experiment.
> 
> A player with 144Hz plays against their exact clone but with a 60Hz monitor. Same internet and hardware.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

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 (Feb 19, 2017)

tigger said:


> 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.



uuuaaaaaa said:


> 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
> 
> ...


 The majority of those players game @ 1024x768 pixels.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 19, 2017)

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

KISS is the rule of thumb.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 19, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> The majority of those players game @ 1024x768 pixels.





tigger said:


> 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.





alucasa said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2017)

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


----------



## toilet pepper (Feb 20, 2017)

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 (Feb 20, 2017)

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?


----------



## alucasa (Feb 20, 2017)

Dude..., do you realize what you are saying?
You are talkin' about skills and wits.... That'z like .... shit talk for pro-wannabes. Those don't have those which is why they are looking for other advantages.


----------



## Fif23 (Feb 20, 2017)

Alucass,  if you want to point up a psychological synopsis  due to self frustration you can do it in a more humble way.

Keep the discussion mature please, this is the second time you flame against the discussion in this post

I know you like Humor, but when 100% of your humor boosts your own ego then it is not humor anymore but a mechanism.

Nobody gives a rats ass if you play good or not. This is a curious question about the science of tech, with gaming used as a visualization and discussion tool.

Sensitivity beats Skill in a game, take a tip from an older man


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 20, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Dude..., do you realize what you are saying?
> You are talkin' about skills and wits.... That'z like .... shit talk for pro-wannabes. Those don't have those which is why they are looking for other advantages.


To be honest, I quit PvP because I put myself in my target's shoes: I would be pissed off at me.  I only play games where headshots are rewarded and I use a weapon that reliably one shots in the head.  Not much in the way of warning or fairness.  I'd hate to play against me, so I quit.  I have no problem slaughtering AI but generally refuse to slaughter humans.

With single shot weapons, I average 60% accuracy and 75% of my kills are headshots (pixel scan games, 60 Hz monitor).  I kind of suck with burst and full auto weapons.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 20, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> To be honest, I quit PvP because I put myself in my target's shoes: I would be pissed off at me.  I only play games where headshots are rewarded and I use a weapon that reliably one shots in the head.  Not much in the way of warning or fairness.  I'd hate to play against me, so I quit.  I have no problem slaughtering AI but generally refuse to slaughter humans.
> 
> With single shot weapons, I average 60% accuracy and 75% of my kills are headshots.  I kind of suck with burst and full auto weapons.



In my experience, PvP was nice & fun until it started to get really personal.
I mean, even though it was a game, you are virtually killing others and acrtually enjoy it. It's okay at first, but when it crossed my mind that I really did want to kill the other dude, I quit it because it was going too far.

Virtual or not, it was crossing my moral values.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 20, 2017)

See, you get it!   Tempers are going to flare because of what you're doing.  Makes sense to just stop.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 20, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> Alucass,  if you want to point up a psychological synopsis  due to self frustration you can do it in a more humble way.
> 
> Keep the discussion mature please, this is the second time you flame against the discussion in this post
> 
> ...



You know, it's anything but science of tech. In the end, it's skills and luck in addition of the magic of ping. This thread could never be mature; you should know that.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 20, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> My question to you is simple.
> 
> Is a shitty TN 144Hz monitor, to overwatch, as useful as cleats for a football player ?
> 
> ...



No, just no.

High refresh rate has advantages, but they're not that big.

Scientific evidence is almost impossible to get because play sessions are influenced by a huge number of other factors including network latency and the aforementioned tick rate of the server, which is ultimately the limiting factor in any case. Many of these factors are extremely abstract, such as the degree of focus you have, familiarity with game, physical condition, etc etc.

Network latency > PC performance (steady framerate @ 60 +) & input lag > refresh rate. That would be my order of business when looking at the conditions you play under and improving them.

The biggest advantage from a quality panel is not directly refresh rate, but 'motion resolution'. Fortunately most gaming panels combine the two because a higher refresh combined with a backlight strobe to reduce blur is probably the ultimate combination when it comes to how a monitor can improve your play.

Also, as tech savvy people we tend to forget that 'immersion' is a huge factor in good gameplay. The human body is extremely good at adapting to any kind of delay when it comes to hand-eye coordination. A good example of this is console gameplay versus the PC. The longer you play on a console with its 30 fps and generally 20-30ms input lag on an HDTV (or more, even), the better you'll get at anticipation and executing moves before the information on screen wants you to.

Want to know why other players are able to hit you before you hit them? They are better at anticipation. The only way to be first, is to be too early. Pro players take into account projectile speed and just 'know' when you will pop your head around that corner. When you are moving towards it, they're already pulling that trigger. A degree of intuition is required to be really good at gaming. Intuition can come with experience and lots and lots of practice.

Bottom line, if you get used to 60hz/fps gaming, it is highly likely you'll have to readjust when first gaming on a high refresh rate system, and actually do worse in games until you've readjusted. Do I win more with a high refresh panel? Yes, but mostly because of the strobing backlight and because I get better the more I play. The high refresh is more a quality of life thing than anything else.

I've been on each side of the fence, too. I used to game competitively (UT'99, UT2k4) on a shitty system that could barely pull 20 fps, and even then, I could actually be competitive, win, and also get on top of k/d ratios and total kills. If I would have to go back to 20 fps gaming today on my current rig, with a much better panel, keyboard and mouse, I would perform like crap and probably start throwing with things in frustration.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Feb 20, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> strobing backlight



Hell yes!


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 20, 2017)

I've used both and playing at 144hz makes gigantic difference in most reaction based games; especially when the game is about hitting fast moving objects by clicking on them.

In reality we probably could use higher refresh rates than 144hz. 

60 FPS is good for a casual stroll in a Bethesda game.  Not so good for fps.


----------



## redeye (Feb 20, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> My question to you is simple.
> 
> Is a shitty TN 144Hz monitor, to overwatch, as useful as cleats for a football player ?
> 
> ...



My thoughts on Overwatch... 

Equipment does not matter, Overwatch is a team based shooter... a knowing when to use the right character is very important... maining a single character is fun to start, but often does not win matches. (One star player, 5 backup players)

Console players deal with a 20Hz server tick rate, and the slow (33ms or more) input lag... and there are plenty of excellent players (tend to be under 18 lol, (damn youth and naturally good aim, lol)

i do not believe that a frame rate above 60hz matters... (display lag, somewhat)

TEAM WORK, meaning changing characters when need to fit the situation, knowing when to use the advantages of characters (rienheart is a good shield, get behind it etc )

ULT management, Because the team that can clear out the point with a well place ULT/combo can will the game... )
Knowing when to stay on point... 
 situational awarness, 
strategy, 
and aim Count for more.


I use the console more (lvl 100 ) (lvl 18 on pc) and i think display input lag is more important...
 (tv's on average seem to have 40-60ms display lag. good ones have 33ms or less... DOES NOT matter when you are watching tv/moviewhy it is high on tv's...


----------



## FireFox (Feb 20, 2017)

alucasa said:


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



It sounds like me first time playing Titanfall 2


----------



## Halo3Addict (Feb 20, 2017)

I still have a 60Hz monitor that I am more than happy with, but I don't play shooters on PC. I decided to upgrade to 1440p instead


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 20, 2017)

redeye said:


> My thoughts on Overwatch...
> 
> Equipment does not matter, Overwatch is a team based shooter... a knowing when to use the right character is very important... maining a single character is fun to start, but often does not win matches. (One star player, 5 backup players)
> 
> ...



So go back to his analogy of the cleats....

that's a great analogy... Do cleats matter to win the game?  Well no - not if we're talking some random fat guy vs a pro soccer player - the soccer player can be using flip flops and would still dominate.

But everything being equal, the equipment really does start to matter...  Not because it gives you this massive competitive edge, but because it sucks playing in flip flops.
Is it done? yes.  Are there people that can play 100x better in flip flops than people with equipment? yes, absolutely.   But if you go out to have fun and compete at something why handicap yourself?


To OPs original question:
http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/15616253/importance-quality-esports-equipment


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 20, 2017)

I play csgo competitively and I went from 60Hz to 100Hz on my monitor and it was noticeable. I wont go back to 60Hz. Id Love to have a 144Hz screen, but I wont go back to TN either, so the only choice I have is Acer or ASUS ROG 27" IPS screens with G-sync but they are $700.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 20, 2017)

running 16 yo monitor, supports 75Hz


----------



## Vario (Feb 20, 2017)

MLG Pro thread


----------



## Komshija (Feb 23, 2017)

Fif23 said:


> 60Hz = You are 40%+ more likely lose the game.
> 
> Correct ?


  Nope. It doesn't matter whether you have a 22" 60 Hz 1080p monitor or 32" 144 Hz 4K monitor if your skills are low. Anyone who claims the opposite is either an idiot or doesn't know what he/she is talking about.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Mar 5, 2017)

can your PC run the game without any Lag and stuttering whatsoever? by saying no lag, I mean a stable 60 fps even at the most demanding visuals(e.g. clashes on dota 2, smokes in CSGO) and stable acceptable ping (less than 100ms)

*If Yes, then Skill is all you need in order to 'be pro'*.
personal experience, I once reached a high rank in CSGO a few years ago playing with a cheap $5 A4tech Mouse
Also, a Philippine team in dota 2, TNC, beat the defending world champs 'OG' in The International by using the same cheap mouse.

*If No, then you need to upgrade, because your specs/internet are bottlenecking your 'pro potential'*

After that making sure you are not bottlenecking your pro potential anymore, you can upgrade for a better gear, mouse, keyboard, headset(important for FPS games), and monitor
It's a better experience with a VERY slight advantage that can be overcome by skill and sometimes luck, that is all.

*Ping/Latency: *It matters second only to skill(first if it's a 'bottleneck') when you are playing online, if playing Lan, it doesn't matter unless you have a considerably shittier LAN Cable than other players
*Resolution and Size: *more field of view, more advantage. you might see enemies you wouldn't otherwise see when playing on another size/resolution
*Keyboard:* Ergonomics and responsiveness. gaming keyboards are more comfortable and easier/faster to press, less mispresses. Less inputlag/response time
*Mouse:* Better Precision and Accuracy, also more comfortable, depending if you've picked the right one. Less inputlag/response time

*144hz vs 60hz:* in action games, you'll easily notice, track, and identify fast moving things when in 144hz, easier on the eyes, less blurring, also, input lag and response time.

also,
60 frames per second
1000ms/60frames = 1 frame is displayed every 16.67ms

144 frames per second
1000ms/144frames = 1 frame is displayed every 6.94ms

A 144hz player will notice the enemy and react quicker than the 60hz player, provided that they have the EXACT same biological reaction time., Internet ping,  response time, input lag


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 5, 2017)

A little off topic but @lyndonguitar ...... :





1,*666  ,* I would make another post quickly! 

Oh and registered at April's fools day!! LOL!


----------



## Komshija (Mar 6, 2017)

lyndonguitar said:


> A 144hz player will notice the enemy and react quicker than the 60hz player, provided that they have the EXACT same biological reaction time., Internet ping,  response time, input lag


 Nope. Average human reaction is not 10 milliseconds but 0,3 seconds (300 milliseconds). The "quickest" individuals can react twice as fast, meaning 0,15 seconds (150 milliseconds), so 144 Hz monitor will certainly not increase your skills. Even the very best players need 1-1,5 seconds to make a good aim, so a couple of milliseconds that you might get from the higher refresh rate will not make any difference. Besides, you must also count a luck factor (eg. noob's lucky headshot that ended your killing spree) and that has nothing to do with hardware or skills.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Mar 6, 2017)

Komshija said:


> Nope. Average human reaction is not 10 milliseconds but 0,3 seconds (300 milliseconds). The "quickest" individuals can react twice as fast, meaning 0,15 seconds (150 milliseconds), so 144 Hz monitor will certainly not increase your skills. Even the very best players need 1-1,5 seconds to make a good aim, so a couple of milliseconds that you might get from the higher refresh rate will not make any difference. Besides, you must also count a luck factor (eg. noob's lucky headshot that ended your killing spree) and that has nothing to do with hardware or skills.



I said "provided that they have the EXACT same biological reaction time., Internet ping, response time, input lag"

lets say both players has the exact same reaction time of 300 milliseconds, with the same input lag and all that delay that goes into it.

That 10 milliseconds will matter if it comes to that, because the 144hz player will be able to react first because he will see the 60hz player 10ms earlier

but in the grand schemes of things it's negligible. It's the skill that matters the most. Did you even read my whole post?


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Mar 6, 2017)

Komshija said:


> Nope. Average human reaction is not 10 milliseconds but 0,3 seconds (300 milliseconds). The "quickest" individuals can react twice as fast, meaning 0,15 seconds (150 milliseconds), so 144 Hz monitor will certainly not increase your skills. Even the very best players need 1-1,5 seconds to make a good aim, so a couple of milliseconds that you might get from the higher refresh rate will not make any difference. Besides, you must also count a luck factor (eg. noob's lucky headshot that ended your killing spree) and that has nothing to do with hardware or skills.



if you could play vs you, 144hz you would win. With this said,  my aim in quake improved dramatically since I switched to high refresh rate/low input lag monitor, thus allowing me to hit more "crazy shots" and win more games. You'd be surprised how much of a difference it made. 60fps/60Hz is considered unplayable in arena type shooters (quake1/2/3/4/live, unreal torunament) and there is a reason for that.


----------



## Toothless (Mar 6, 2017)

Looks like OP ditched once they found out they're wrong and their down-talking to people isn't working. Typical pro-wannabe on a TF2 remake.


----------



## Komshija (Mar 6, 2017)

@lyndonguitar: You misunderstood me. That would be next to impossible because there are many other variants than hardware and skill. Two players with the same reaction time under ideal circumstances might have different reaction time during gameplay, which again depends on a lot of other factors. 
Don't confuse reaction time with time needed for proper aiming and eliminating the enemy.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Mar 6, 2017)

Komshija said:


> @lyndonguitar: You misunderstood me. That would be next to impossible because there are many other variants than hardware and skill. Two players with the same reaction time under ideal circumstances might have different reaction time during gameplay, which again depends on a lot of other factors.
> Don't confuse reaction time with time needed for proper aiming and eliminating the enemy.



hence I said negligible, no one has the same reaction time, and the same hardware, internet and the exact same circumstances in a 1v1 'aiming match'. it's just technical talk because the OP was looking for 'possible advantages' when using 144hz over 60hz. I just listed it.

Skills is what matter. not only reflexes and precision/accuracy, but also tactics, strategies, positioning, map knowledge, etc



Toothless said:


> Looks like OP ditched once they found out they're wrong and their down-talking to people isn't working. Typical pro-wannabe on a TF2 remake.



My guess is that he didn't have the budget or money to buy a 144hz so he needs to justify his serious competitive Overwatch gaming @ 60hz.

and my answer to OP is, Yes, you don't have to buy it to reach the highest levels. 144hz is a better experience though


----------



## Dethroy (Mar 6, 2017)

As long as Overwatch continues to use a 60Hz tickrate the whole argument remains moot.


----------



## qubit (Mar 6, 2017)

Komshija said:


> Nope. Average human reaction is not 10 milliseconds but 0,3 seconds (300 milliseconds). The "quickest" individuals can react twice as fast, meaning 0,15 seconds (150 milliseconds), so 144 Hz monitor will certainly not increase your skills. Even the very best players need 1-1,5 seconds to make a good aim, so a couple of milliseconds that you might get from the higher refresh rate will not make any difference. Besides, you must also count a luck factor (eg. noob's lucky headshot that ended your killing spree) and that has nothing to do with hardware or skills.


It will make a noticeable difference to the player. Trying to work it out like that with reaction times gives you a false picture.

One can easily feel the difference between a 60Hz refresh and a 144Hz one, with the former feeling noticeably laggy. This most certainly helps the gamer to aim and fire more quickly and accurately. I know from experience with my 144Hz monitors.

It sounds like you've never gamed on a monitor with greater than 60Hz refresh. I see that your current monitor is an IPS 60Hz model. Nice colours, but too laggy for proper gaming.

Note that for this to be most effective, the computer must be fast enough able to render without dropping any frames, otherwise stutter and lag result.


----------

