Graphics Clarity Difference For Gaming From 1080p to 1440p

[Mick Naughty]

42 minutes ago, aithos said:

You've got that backwards there champ, the higher the resolution the harder it is to see because it's smaller.  Old people with poor vision tend to use LOWER resolutions.  It also gives you a much larger FOV which for fast paced gaming means a lot more information to process and leads to poorer focus and reaction time, which is why so many professional FPS players use old resolutions like 1024x768 (also 4:3).  It gives them a huge advantage in pixel size for hitting crucial shots and their coordination and teamwork lessens the downside of having less total environment information and a slow sensitivity on their mouse.

 

It will be a long time before either of them are close... which was the point I was making.  We aren't even using high resolution textures in games and the other guy (who I stopped responding to because it was pointless) doesn't understand the difference between an upscaled and a native (uncompressed) texture.  It doesn't matter what the artist rendered it in if they compressed it to 1080p for size/performance reasons, when you upscale it you won't get the same level of detail.  I have 1440p, but I went to it for productivity reasons and to get a fast IPS panel... not because I wanted the higher resolution for gaming.

Don't have anything backwards. Every person I play with that's older then I am have higher res. And they prefer it over 1080. Lower fov is such a disadvantage unless you play with higher mouse sensitivity and like seeing less all the time. Single screen gaming is such a handicap anyway which is why I don't care for 1440 until I can get an ultra wide in it. I'll stick to 3 1080's for now. 

[aithos]

On 3/13/2017 at 7:37 AM, Mick Naughty said:

Don't have anything backwards. Every person I play with that's older then I am have higher res. And they prefer it over 1080. Lower fov is such a disadvantage unless you play with higher mouse sensitivity and like seeing less all the time. Single screen gaming is such a handicap anyway which is why I don't care for 1440 until I can get an ultra wide in it. I'll stick to 3 1080's for now. 

 

So you're anecdotal evidence is somehow proof?  Even if it's true the fact is those people likely have higher resolutions for productivity reasons or because they wanted larger monitors and are then forced into it because of native resolution and input lag.  Regardless, you've still got it all backwards...  having an ultra-wide or multiple screens is a HUGE disadvantage. 

 

The larger the area you have to view the less you can focus on and the slower you will be to react.  Also, a larger FOV requires a HIGHER sensitivity because you have more pixels to cover when you move the mouse.  That's why pros use lower resolution and smaller FOV, it allows them to focus on a more specific area and also enables them to use the ridiculously slow sensitivity for greater accuracy and precision.

 

So yeah, keep spouting nonsense that's backwards... I'll stick to 1440p.

 

Source: former semi-professional CS 1.6 and CSS player who had several teammates play professionally for major organizations in CSS and CSGO.

[IceCold008]

2 hours ago, aithos said:

 

So you're anecdotal evidence is somehow proof?  Even if it's true the fact is those people likely have higher resolutions for productivity reasons or because they wanted larger monitors and are then forced into it because of native resolution and input lag.  Regardless, you've still got it all backwards...  having an ultra-wide or multiple screens is a HUGE disadvantage. 

 

The larger the area you have to view the less you can focus on and the slower you will be to react.  Also, a larger FOV requires a HIGHER sensitivity because you have more pixels to cover when you move the mouse.  That's why pros use lower resolution and smaller FOV, it allows them to focus on a more specific area and also enables them to use the ridiculously slow sensitivity for greater accuracy and precision.

 

So yeah, keep spouting nonsense that's backwards... I'll stick to 1440p.

 

Source: former semi-professional CS 1.6 and CSS player who had several teammates play professionally for major organizations in CSS and CSGO.

Come on guys  keep it sensible hate my thread getting hijacked on something which tbh is not that important or relevant to the subject i originally stated. 

 

However my 2 cents on the subject of Old People with higher resolutions and the subject do with 1080p or 1440P. 

 

First off my MUM which is really OLD shes an MMO gamer and has been for many years lol. She dont like higher resolutions due to her bad eyesight. When using the internet she and my dad both have to increase the text size so they can see better. So from my experience size matter but that dont mean resolution size. However it just depends on the person and each to there own. 

 

As for 1080p to 1440p. Both are good resolutions and again everyone has there preference. Dont no what all the hassle is about lol. 

[Mick Naughty]

3 hours ago, aithos said:

 

So you're anecdotal evidence is somehow proof?  Even if it's true the fact is those people likely have higher resolutions for productivity reasons or because they wanted larger monitors and are then forced into it because of native resolution and input lag.  Regardless, you've still got it all backwards...  having an ultra-wide or multiple screens is a HUGE disadvantage. 

 

The larger the area you have to view the less you can focus on and the slower you will be to react.  Also, a larger FOV requires a HIGHER sensitivity because you have more pixels to cover when you move the mouse.  That's why pros use lower resolution and smaller FOV, it allows them to focus on a more specific area and also enables them to use the ridiculously slow sensitivity for greater accuracy and precision.

 

So yeah, keep spouting nonsense that's backwards... I'll stick to 1440p.

 

Source: former semi-professional CS 1.6 and CSS player who had several teammates play professionally for major organizations in CSS and CSGO.

Sounds like bs to me. Seeing more is an advantage. If you cant comprehend the data then yea it would be a disadvantage.

 

I play all bf games with 3 screens. I would use an ultrawide if I had it. One screen isn't enough and would cause me to play like an average bottom feeder.

 

But I can see how some "gamers" would say its a fact. Say that next time someone is shooting at you and you cant see them. Real world experience trumps all this game bs anyway.  Don't have anything backwards.

[IceCold008]

11 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Sounds like bs to me. Seeing more is an advantage. If you cant comprehend the data then yea it would be a disadvantage.

 

I play all bf games with 3 screens. I would use an ultrawide if I had it. One screen isn't enough and would cause me to play like an average bottom feeder.

 

But I can see how some "gamers" would say its a fact. Say that next time someone is shooting at you and you cant see them. Real world experience trumps all this game bs anyway.  Don't have anything backwards.

Playing BF games with three 3 monitors wouldnt that be more of a disadvantage. Let me try to explain. What i mean is when you have one monitor everything is in your front of you, your head movement is fixed to one direction only right. Now lets put another two monitors into the mix. One left and one right, of your middle monitor.  Now your playing BF game you can see in front of you and to a degree without moving your head left of right you can see part of the game either side. Now someone of something comes into view either from the left monitor or right monitor. You need to move your head in that direction to see whom or what it is. Now that only takes a few seconds or a second. However when that happens your NOT fixed to the centre monitor. In that split second someone is in front of you. By the time you have seen him and adjusted your crosshair onto him. Hes fired and killed you.  

 

Am i wrong or right?

As for getting more immersed into the game with three monitors over one YES its alot better but for reaction times i disgree?

 

[Mick Naughty]

16 minutes ago, IceCold008 said:

Playing BF games with three 3 monitors wouldnt that be more of a disadvantage. Let me try to explain. What i mean is when you have one monitor everything is in your front of you, your head movement is fixed to one direction only right. Now lets put another two monitors into the mix. One left and one right, of your middle monitor.  Now your playing BF game you can see in front of you and to a degree without moving your head left of right you can see part of the game either side. Now someone of something comes into view either from the left monitor or right monitor. You need to move your head in that direction to see whom or what it is. Now that only takes a few seconds or a second. However when that happens your NOT fixed to the centre monitor. In that split second someone is in front of you. By the split second you have seen him and adjusted your crosshair onto him. Hes fired and killed you.  

 

Am i wrong or right?

As for getting more immersed into the game with three monitors over one YES its alot better but for reaction times i disgree?

 

You never move your head. You use peripheal vision then simply turn your mouse to make it become your center monitor. You only turn your head in flight sims. Its a real simple concept when you add a weapon to the mix. Your gun goes where your eyes go. You cant shoot if you only turn your head.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Mick Naughty said:

 Your gun goes where your head/eyes/mouse goes

Might want to fix that.

[Mick Naughty]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

Might want to fix that.

Got it.

[IceCold008]

6 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

You never move your head. You use peripheal vision then simply turn your mouse to make it come your main center monitor. You only turn your head in flight sims. Its a real simple concept when you add a weapon to the mix. Your gun goes where your weapon goes. You cant shoot if you only turn your head.

Fair enough you can tell i've never gamed with three monitors like lol.   

[ARikozuM]

10 minutes ago, IceCold008 said:

Fair enough you can tell i've never gamed with three monitors like lol.   

Wow...

[IceCold008]

14 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Wow...

Well one of the reasons ive never bothered with three monitors is quite simple really. I hate flight sims and racing car sims. They bore the hell out of me. And it also comes down to space on my desk. So buying an extra 2 monitors is really not worth it for me. I have two monitors atm. But i only use one for gaming. the other is for everything else. 

[aithos]

On 3/28/2017 at 7:00 PM, Mick Naughty said:

Sounds like bs to me. Seeing more is an advantage. If you cant comprehend the data then yea it would be a disadvantage.

 

I play all bf games with 3 screens. I would use an ultrawide if I had it. One screen isn't enough and would cause me to play like an average bottom feeder.

 

But I can see how some "gamers" would say its a fact. Say that next time someone is shooting at you and you cant see them. Real world experience trumps all this game bs anyway.  Don't have anything backwards.

 

It's not BS, it's a matter of reaction time and the amount of area that your eyes can focus on at a given time.  You're thinking of it wrong because (I'm guessing) you're a casual gamer and you haven't played at a highly competitive level.  You think "but if I can see more I can shoot you and you can't shoot me"... except that games don't actually work that way in reality. 

 

I can give you specific examples in CSGO if you'd like, but the short explanation is that most (read: virtually all) competitive games/maps are constructed to show you a limited area.  They do that for performance reasons and because there is a limit to how much space a player can focus on, having a larger FOV doesn't really help you since proper positioning and angles are fundamentals of good aim. 

 

In fact, all a larger FOV does is encourage bad crosshair placement and it shrinks the size of sprites making target recognition AND aiming both significantly harder.  In addition it forces you to play with a higher sensitivity, which is less accurate and consistent and the larger space will drastically lower your reaction time when you do spot an enemy.  It is far better to be in a constant state of movement where you focus on a small area than to have a large screen where you only move your eyes. 

 

Aside from making you complacent the larger area will fatigue your eyes more, you should never have a screen you can't comfortable focus on any part of without shifting your eyes.  That's why TV companies recommend minimum viewing distances, IE: you shouldn't have a 60 inch TV that you're only sitting 8 feet from... you can't look at it without moving your eyes and that's bad. 

 

As long as you have a "normal" resolution/FOV like 1080p and a normal widescreen aspect ratio then anything higher or wider is a negative.  I use 1440p because that's what I want for productivity and because I don't play competitively anymore, but if I was still competing I would have a 1080p monitor instead.  Also, for single-player it's totally fine to do whatever you want and a larger screen/FOV can enhance the experience through immersion, but for competitive online games it's definitely a disadvantage.

[aithos]

On 3/28/2017 at 7:14 PM, Mick Naughty said:

You never move your head. You use peripheal vision then simply turn your mouse to make it become your center monitor. You only turn your head in flight sims. Its a real simple concept when you add a weapon to the mix. Your gun goes where your eyes go. You cant shoot if you only turn your head.

That's the point though... you can't focus on something that's directly outside your immediate view whether you have to move your head or just your eyes.  The higher the resolution and the larger the FOV the less ability you have to focus and the longer it will take you to react to anything you see.  That absolutely destroys your ability to play at a high level, and frankly you only sabotage your ability to learn game sense and use sound properly because you're relying too heavily on visual cues.  There's a reason that high level competitive gamers and professionals EXCLUSIVELY use standard resolutions and are highly skewed to lower resolutions and FOV.

 

 

[Mick Naughty]

1 minute ago, aithos said:

 

It's not BS, it's a matter of reaction time and the amount of area that your eyes can focus on at a given time.  You're thinking of it wrong because (I'm guessing) you're a casual gamer and you haven't played at a highly competitive level.  You think "but if I can see more I can shoot you and you can't shoot me"... except that games don't actually work that way in reality. 

 

I can give you specific examples in CSGO if you'd like, but the short explanation is that most (read: virtually all) are constructed to show you a limited area.  They do that for performance reasons and because there is a limit to how much space a player can focus on, having a larger FOV doesn't really help you since proper positioning and angles are fundamentals of good aim. 

 

In fact, all a larger FOV does is encourage bad crosshair placement and it shrinks the size of sprites making target recognition AND aiming both significantly harder.  In addition it forces you to play with a higher sensitivity, which is less accurate and consistent and the larger space will drastically lower your reaction time when you do spot an enemy.  It is far better to be in a constant state of movement where you focus on a small area than to have a large screen where you only move your eyes. 

 

Aside from making you complacent the larger area will fatigue your eyes more, you should never have a screen you can't comfortable focus on any part of without shifting your eyes.  That's why TV companies recommend minimum viewing distances, IE: you shouldn't have a 60 inch TV that you're only sitting 8 feet from... you can't look at it without moving your eyes and that's bad. 

 

As long as you have a "normal" resolution/FOV like 1080p and a normal widescreen aspect ratio then anything higher or wider is a negative.  I use 1440p because that's what I want for productivity and because I don't play competitively anymore, but if I was still competing I would have a 1080p monitor instead.  Also, for single-player it's totally fine to do whatever you want and a larger screen/FOV can enhance the experience through immersion, but for competitive online games it's definitely a disadvantage.

I don't game competitively as I don't have a group that can keep up and have the time. I play pub matches like everyone else. First place every round in every game I play. I don't like looking for stuff. Constantly turning my mouse from side to side. As bf games have horrid sound characteristics. I'm not a twitch gamer anymore since unreal tournament died. I can play just as well on a single screen. No reason to when it's a handicap. 

 

I think about it wrong as it's muscle memory. I wouldn't go into a firefight with a blind eye. Unessary risk vs reward. 

[aithos]

1 minute ago, Mick Naughty said:

I don't game competitively as I don't have a group that can keep up and have the time. I play pub matches like everyone else. First place every round in every game I play. I don't like looking for stuff. Constantly turning my mouse from side to side. As bf games have horrid sound characteristics. I'm not a twitch gamer anymore since unreal tournament died. I can play just as well on a single screen. No reason to when it's a handicap. 

 

I think about it wrong as it's muscle memory. I wouldn't go into a firefight with a blind eye. Unessary risk vs reward. 

That's what I'm saying though, you don't *HAVE* to look for stuff and it's *NOT* a handicap...  You should already know where players are or will be coming from... that's called game sense.  It's a fact that you don't need a multi-monitor or ultra-wide setup to maintain a view of the map if you're using even mediocre angles and pathing through the map.  I don't play either the BF or CoD franchises much because I consider CS to be a vastly superior competitive game, but I've played both enough to know it's not hard to be aware with a standard FOV.

 

What is a handicap is having everything on your screen being smaller, having to play with a higher sensitivity, and having to focus on a larger area making your reaction time to EVERYTHING slower because you aren't actually focusing on what's in front of you.  I don't care if you're first every game, that just means if you were playing with a better FOV and worked on your fundamentals that you could be *significantly* better still.  Just because something works doesn't mean it's a good way of doing it, and just because you're doing something wrong doesn't mean you can't be good.

 

But it's a fact that larger FOV and higher resolution is a handicap.  I'm sorry if you disagree, but ask any competitive player or professional and they will tell you the same thing.  It's like playing with a high sensitivity, there is ZERO benefit to doing it because the only thing is makes "easier" is covering up poor fundamentals with aim, crosshair placement and movement/angles.  There isn't a single professional (or former) FPS player who uses high sensitivity or an ultrawide monitor even at home for fun.

 

[Mick Naughty]

You aren't supposed to focus on something out side of you're peripheral vision. That's what reaction is for. Like the worlds fastest shooters use reflex sights, not magnification. Reaction and speed. Has nothing to do with sound. Just what's natural. Unlike tunnel vision. 

[Mick Naughty]

Any professional gamer will get taken out just like anyone else. 64 player servers are different then a 4v4 spam fest. You can't react to what you can't see. You can't hear someone aim at you. 

 

No pro player will also say they agree that 60fps is enough. Yet people on here still say it is. 

 

Mouse sensitivity never changes, whether I'm on one or 3 screens. 

Can't use game sense on bf games. Only works on easier gameplay like cs and cod. 

 

Seeing less is a handical. 

[aithos]

20 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Any professional gamer will get taken out just like anyone else. 64 player servers are different then a 4v4 spam fest. You can't react to what you can't see. You can't hear someone aim at you. 

You're missing the point.  If it is in your peripheral vision you aren't "seeing" it, and in your example if they are aiming at you it's already too late.  You're cherry-picking some fantasy situation where you see something that someone with good game sense doesn't and like I said: it doesn't work that way.  You aren't actually gaining any actionable information that wouldn't be available to anyone using good angles, crosshair placement and other information such as audio.

 

20 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

 

No pro player will also say they agree that 60fps is enough. Yet people on here still say it is. 

Exactly, and the people on here who say that: ARE WRONG.  60fps is garbage.  It's higher motion blur, and it's less accurate positional information which means your aim is less accurate and you will have worse overall shot registration as well.  The higher your refresh rate/fps the more precise the hitboxes will be and the better you will be able to place your crosshair.  People who claim 60fps is adequate are idiots.  Just like people using higher sensitivity or too large a FOV are wrong.

 

20 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

 

Mouse sensitivity never changes, whether I'm on one or 3 screens. 

Not true.  The higher your resolution the higher your sensitivity needs to be to cover the same amount of screen space.  If you have 800dpi and a 1 sensitivity in 1080p and try to use the same setting in 1440p or on an ultra-wide the same mouse movement will cover significantly less screen space.  That means you need to increase your sensitivity.  Now going from 1080p to 1440p it isn't a big deal as long as your "effective" sensitivity is the same.  HOWEVER, when you use an ultrawide or multi-monitor setup you need to go EVER HIGHER to cover the greater width (FOV) and that makes your accuracy lower.  If you're playing the same sensitivity then you have no consistency.

 

20 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Can't use game sense on bf games. Only works on easier gameplay like cs and cod. 

LOL.  That's complete nonsense.  First of all, BF isn't "harder" or "more complex" at all.  The maps are just different depending on the number of people you're playing against.  The same principles of FPS games apply, you learn angles, likely hiding spots, use sound to place people not in your immediate vision, etc.  Also, CS is considerably harder to be good at than either CoD or BF and requires a lot more game sense.

 

20 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

 

Seeing less is a handical. 

What I'm saying is that you're not seeing less.  If you have a larger FOV it means that you can be more sloppy with your positioning and angles, so you aren't actually seeing more... you're only seeing more from POOR positions and angles.  By using proper angles and crosshair placement you'd see exactly the same thing, so all you're doing is learning bad habits.  Like I said: FPS games aren't so wide open where there are always 4 directions you're being attacked from, that would make for an awful game.

 

Also, you still haven't addressed any of my other points relating to sprite size and reaction time.  You're selectively arguing, and this is a waste of time because you don't understand what I'm saying or you aren't willing to admit you're wrong because you have to justify your choice.  In either case I'm done, it's a FACT that ultrawide is a handicap in a competitive FPS just like 60hz or high sensitivity or input lag.  Deny it if you want, but you don't "see" any more than I do, you see less.

[Mick Naughty]

The fact the sound sucks in bf4 means I can't hear people like other game. If ran parallel with people who clearly can't see me. Thus that's an advantage. Then snipers who are waiting on a clear shot and there glint giving them away which is on a side monitor. Give me ample time to react and counter. All the games are the same to me. Same with the game play. 

 

My mouse speed never changes. That is a fact. Doesn't need to be fast because I see more. there isn't a way to see more, plain and simple. Nothing more needs to be addressed, it's a fact. 

 

If seeing more is a disadvantage then that means everyone uses 60 fov. Do you walk around or drive with one eye? As using two is too much to focus on?

[aithos]

26 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

The fact the sound sucks in bf4 means I can't hear people like other game.

I've never had any problem with sound in any BF game, it works just fine.

 

Quote

If ran parallel with people who clearly can't see me. Thus that's an advantage.

Just because someone has poor situational awareness doesn't prove anything, that's anecdotal.  I've walked up behind people who didn't know I was there, doesn't mean it has anything to do with their FOV or any kind of advantage.  Again, you're creating situations that are meaningless and have no context.

 

Quote

 

Then snipers who are waiting on a clear shot and there glint giving them away which is on a side monitor. Give me ample time to react and counter. All the games are the same to me. Same with the game play. 

More vague situations that don't make sense. 

 

If there is a sniper on a secondary screen and you have time to turn, aim and counter then it was a mistake on their part and had nothing to do with your FOV.  In that type of a situation there is nothing you can do to prevent them taking a shot (assuming they have seen you), so you're playing reactively and relying on them making a mistake.  You could have just as easily checked the likely angles as you moved into the area, spotted the same glare and taken a pre-emptive shot before they had a chance to take a shot.  That's playing proactively and it's what I'm talking about with proper angles, crosshair placement and movement.

 

That's the fundamental difference I'm talking about here.  If you have good game fundamentals and you know the map, then you should know where that sniper location is and you should already be turning to check that spot (with good crosshair placement) as soon as you come into the area.  You should NEVER be waiting to "see" something in your peripheral vision or you're already dead.

 

If you were to play CSGO and you went through CT double doors on Dust2 it doesn't matter whether you can see more of what's behind the door on a side monitor.  The fact is that if someone is waiting there you are either 1) already turning to check that spot and MIGHT have a chance to shoot or 2) you aren't turning to check that spot and you're dead whether you see them or not.  Having the extra FOV is just a distraction in many cases.  So here's an example:

 

Same situation, you're going through double doors and someone is waiting behind the door or in the corner of Lower B.  You spot a glimmer in your peripheral vision and weren't already moving to check that spot but start reacting and die, your team loses the round because you got picked off in rotation.  Now instead say you had a normal 1080p monitor and you make the same push without checking the right side (which is a mistake, but for consistencies sake let's go with it).  This time you don't get distracted by the guy who's about to kill you and you spot an enemy further up mid by palm tree or right mid and take a shot because your crosshair is already in that position, you kill the enemy with a good shot at the same time his teammate kills you for the one:one trade-off.  Your team may still lose the round but at least they aren't down a man.

 

It's a pretty specific example, but shit like that happens ALL THE TIME in first person shooters.  Having more FOV doesn't improve your ability to play well, you're either already moving to check those angles with your crosshair or you're not.  Relying on someone else making a mistake and impeding your ability to make good shots by destroying your focus is a bad way to play.  I've played at a highly competitive level in several FPS games, trust me, I know.

 

Quote

 

My mouse speed never changes. That is a fact. Doesn't need to be fast because I see more. there isn't a way to see more, plain and simple. Nothing more needs to be addressed, it's a fact. 

You aren't understanding what I'm saying and it means you've never bothered to learn what a "proper" sensitivity is.  If I had to guess I'd wager you play with a much higher sensitivity than you should be and if you were up against skilled opponents you'd get destroyed, but that's probably also why you play BF instead of a more competitive game.  A 64 person map is a joke, there can't be any strategy, coordination or teamwork in a map of that size.

 

Quote

 

If seeing more is a disadvantage then that means everyone uses 60 fov. Do you walk around or drive with one eye? As using two is too much to focus on?

That doesn't make any sense, and again you're not understanding what I'm saying.  There is a limited amount of screen space you can actively look at, it's determined by the size of your screen, the resolution and the viewing distance.  Anything larger than a "normal" viewing amount (the area you can focus on and maybe half again that size in any other direction) is where the additional FOV becomes irrelevant.  Anything less and you're impeding your ability to assess your surroundings and that would be negative as well, which is why 1024x768 is stupid for non-professional play. 

 

They can get away with a tiny FOV because they can rely on their team in ways a casual or even mid-high level competitive player can't, so they take the disadvantage because the trade-off is MUCH easier pixel peeking and reactive shots when a 1ms difference can win or lose a match.  If you've never pixel peeked on CSGO it basically means placing your crosshair on a razor sharp angle where you can only see a pixel of the enemy when they come into view and have to shoot immediately.  Most people can't hit that shot, both because their reactions and timing aren't good enough but also because they play in a normal resolution and so identifying a moving target the INSTANT it becomes visible is impossible at the size of sprites they are using.  The size of a player model in 1024x768 is substantially bigger than 1080p, making it much easier to aim.

 

So again, once you go above a "normal" FOV (which anything ultrawide is above) then it's a disadvantage just like having an abnormally small FOV is.

[aithos]

For that matter, if you take my second example where you hit the shot on the guy further up mid a step further... the only situation where you kill him (the guy on the right) before he kills you (with or without a large FOV) is if he misses his shot.  So with the large FOV your best case is that he misses and you turn and kill him... at which point the guy mid has had ample time to take aim and kill you because you didn't see him. 

 

On the other hand if you hit the shot mid and the guy to your right misses, you still have the audio queue alerting you.  At which point you can turn and take a shot while his recoil has to reset (or he sprays and loses all accuracy), giving you the potential to get a double kill and basically win the round for your team if you were even in numbers prior to that.  You don't really even need time to process the information at that point, because you know from game knowledge what the situation is instinctively. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I've pulled off shots like that through good crosshair placement and proper movement.  It's called pre-aiming and you should know exactly what the progression is from spot to spot as you move through the map.  It's the biggest difference watching someone who knows how to play and someone who doesn't, and it's why so many high level players get accused of wall-hacking... because proper crosshair placement is pretty similar.

 

To give you a specific example, on Dust2 if you're coming up Catwalk to A if you are approaching the stairs you should be checking the corner and then the barrel and then in a progression from top left to bottom right.  IE: CT boxes, goose, site boxes/upper ramp, lower ramp, car/crossing.  It doesn't matter what your FOV shows, your crosshair should be going to each of those locations REGARDLESS (and in that order) because that's the order the positions become visible and therefore where you become visible.  If you're waiting until you see someone then you're dead because more likely than not they are pre-aimed waiting for you.

[Mick Naughty]

Sounds like you're only thinking of cs gaming. Not ever game is corner camping and deagle spamming. I know dam well the sound in bf4 isn't good enough to hear people as clearly as it should. 

 

Basically it would be going against my nature to have tunnel vision. Complacency, that's what gets people killed. I just don't wonna dumb myself down for a game. 

 

I dont play for the team work. 4v4 snd isn't nun game style. Maybe back in the day being on twl ladders I would be on a single screen but that's also boring with a poor team. 

 

I use 1100 dpi on either res I play on. Sensitivity is never changed. Only acceleration if the game has bad settings for it. 

 

So yea in a game against a so called pro I would lose. But put that same kid in a shoot house and I guarantee they would lose point to point. 

 

 

So youre right, anything above an narrow 1080 is completely pointless and the best anyone's can ask for. I should just get a 720 and download cs again. 

[liilMatt]

I figure I got a little bit of insight into what you are thinking about, and I hope what I say has a bit of value.

 

As of now I have an ASUS MG279Q (1440p, 120hz, ips).

Before that - a 22in 1080p 60 hz

then 1080p 144hz

then 1440p 60hz.

 

I also have a 4k UN65JU7100 (super-low response time tv) for gaming in the living room (Yes, I have two gaming PCs)

 

As far as your CPU is concerned, you should experience any real bottlenecking. I have my 1080 running my ASUS MG279Q right now, with a 5820k (so about the same per core performance as the 4770k). As far as I have seen, looking at the 6700k and 7700k, maybe a 10% to 15% difference in CPU-Instensive games, so not every game. And to do that, would cost the same almost as buying another 1080ti haha.

 

My gtx 1080 pulls pretty damn close to that 144hz mark in most games at 1440p. I am mostly talking about BF1 as that is my primary go to for gaming. From what I have seen from benchmarks, there is a (give-or-take) 20-25% boost to framerates from a 1080 to a 1080ti, so playing at 1440p 144hz should be very obtainable.

 

As for what others are saying regarding 4k at 144hz...... I wouldn't wait for it. And if and when it comes out, I wouldn't invest in it. At 4k using the 1080 for my media pc (which has a 4770k), I was maybe getting 45-60 fps. But that was at medium settings or less. Even SLI 1080tis would have trouble pushing 4k at more that 80fps (as scaling at 4k is not going to be great) and that is ASSUMING games are going to support SLI.

Then think about how much those monitors are going to cost. At LEAST 1000$, probably closer to 1500$.

 

I personally have been looking at one of the Predator monitors (3440p ultrawide 100hz curved) and getting a 1080ti for that, but haven't been able to justify the money for that.

Don't do triple monitor gaming. I thought it would be super cool, it isn't. Only for racing games.

 

I think 1440p at 144hz is the best upgrade path tbh. I got my monitor (though it doesn't have g-sync) for 460$ about 8 months ago maybe?

It does give a considerable difference, noticable... I hate 1080p gaming, I can see the pixelation. I can't see it with 1440p with FXAA on.

4k on a 27" is honestly not going to do ya much good. Yes, on a 65 4k tv, 4k looks great. But at that small of a screen 1440p is sufficient.

[IceCold008]

26 minutes ago, liilMatt said:

I figure I got a little bit of insight into what you are thinking about, and I hope what I say has a bit of value.

 

As of now I have an ASUS MG279Q (1440p, 120hz, ips).

Before that - a 22in 1080p 60 hz

then 1080p 144hz

then 1440p 60hz.

 

I also have a 4k UN65JU7100 (super-low response time tv) for gaming in the living room (Yes, I have two gaming PCs)

 

As far as your CPU is concerned, you should experience any real bottlenecking. I have my 1080 running my ASUS MG279Q right now, with a 5820k (so about the same per core performance as the 4770k). As far as I have seen, looking at the 6700k and 7700k, maybe a 10% to 15% difference in CPU-Instensive games, so not every game. And to do that, would cost the same almost as buying another 1080ti haha.

 

My gtx 1080 pulls pretty damn close to that 144hz mark in most games at 1440p. I am mostly talking about BF1 as that is my primary go to for gaming. From what I have seen from benchmarks, there is a (give-or-take) 20-25% boost to framerates from a 1080 to a 1080ti, so playing at 1440p 144hz should be very obtainable.

 

As for what others are saying regarding 4k at 144hz...... I wouldn't wait for it. And if and when it comes out, I wouldn't invest in it. At 4k using the 1080 for my media pc (which has a 4770k), I was maybe getting 45-60 fps. But that was at medium settings or less. Even SLI 1080tis would have trouble pushing 4k at more that 80fps (as scaling at 4k is not going to be great) and that is ASSUMING games are going to support SLI.

Then think about how much those monitors are going to cost. At LEAST 1000$, probably closer to 1500$.

 

I personally have been looking at one of the Predator monitors (3440p ultrawide 100hz curved) and getting a 1080ti for that, but haven't been able to justify the money for that.

Don't do triple monitor gaming. I thought it would be super cool, it isn't. Only for racing games.

 

I think 1440p at 144hz is the best upgrade path tbh. I got my monitor (though it doesn't have g-sync) for 460$ about 8 months ago maybe?

It does give a considerable difference, noticable... I hate 1080p gaming, I can see the pixelation. I can't see it with 1440p with FXAA on.

4k on a 27" is honestly not going to do ya much good. Yes, on a 65 4k tv, 4k looks great. But at that small of a screen 1440p is sufficient.

Yea loving 1440p g-sync 144hz. Your right once you go 1440p there aint no going back to 1080p anymore. And a 27inch monitor you get more of a feel for the game as most of your eye sight spectrum is taken up with the monitor. You get pulled into the games more. Anyone on the botherline of upgrading from 1080p to 1440p trust me its worth the upgrade but only if you can power it. I myself have a 1080 TI. Playing on Max Settings is great.  

[liilMatt]

45 minutes ago, IceCold008 said:

Yea loving 1440p g-sync 144hz. Your right once you go 1440p there aint no going back to 1080p anymore. And a 27inch monitor you get more of a feel for the game as most of your eye sight spectrum is taken up with the monitor. You get pulled into the games more. Anyone on the botherline of upgrading from 1080p to 1440p trust me its worth the upgrade but only if you can power it. I myself have a 1080 TI. Playing on Max Settings is great.  

Haha, it took me until I had finished the post to realize that, thought activity was recent, that the original post was over a month old. Glad to hear it though, what do you think of g sync?