Re: Asus PG27U and Acer X27 Impressions (4k/144hz/features)
Posted: 07 Aug 2018, 02:34
My direct experience trumps your placebo. Qualitatively and quantitatively I perform much better on the 240hz Acer. I spent several hours at minimum on the pg27uq and a couple of matches with the x27. I dropped 300-400 sr, with about 20 per loss, mostly losing. That was from a stable rating I have maintained, including recently, and exceeded over the course of months playing mostly the same hero, Widowmaker. My "subjective feeling" of how I'm performing, stats, and match outcomes dropped precipitously. Switching back is a breeze, with each category improving dramatically. I might also have much more experience with Overwatch as a game as well; you don't need to describe Overwatch to me. Spend over a thousand hours playing it in competitive mode and have well over a hundred hours of Widowmaker play in the past few seasons and then claim that I'm oversimplifying the game. This reminds me of people historically downplaying and downright dismissing higher refresh rate. I should know better, wow!
I should also point out I've historically one-tricked three heroes- Soldier, McCree, and Widowmaker (with a smattering of Hanzo). These are very much the three to four heroes that stand to benefit the most from factors like monitors given they are extremely aim-dependent damage dealers. If you're a support or tank player, or say a Doomfist main (Genji and Tracer should be less affected as well), what monitor you're playing on may be much less significant. And Overwatch is a particularly dynamic game in terms of motion, which conceivably could be further increasing the importance of say monitors for aim-defined heroes. What I know with a high degree of confidence is that monitors have been a major factor in my performance. These 4k monitors are a downgrade in this respect, which begs a good explanation.
This is particularly rich given the forum we're on. Here's some more of my experience that continues to likely exceed yours. I have played Overwatch in comp for significant periods of time on a 60hz monitor, on a 144hz monitor, on a 27-inch 1440 165hz monitor, on a 27-inch 240hz, and lastly on these new monitors (for the fewest hours). The first two jumps were clear. I immediately performed consistently better, surpassed my average and peak. Went from plat to diamond, then from diamond to hitting master. At the third and final performance jump I improved my peak to 90 short of grandmaster and improved my average as well. Your claim is nothing short of ridiculous, especially given you've found your way to this forum. I was not new to the game before starting to upgrade monitors. These were immediate and clear monitor dependent "skill" improvements.mello wrote:You should know that the kind of comparison you did is kinda a waste of time, because there are many different things at play that affect your results in a game and the monitor you are using it far far down on that list.
I should also point out I've historically one-tricked three heroes- Soldier, McCree, and Widowmaker (with a smattering of Hanzo). These are very much the three to four heroes that stand to benefit the most from factors like monitors given they are extremely aim-dependent damage dealers. If you're a support or tank player, or say a Doomfist main (Genji and Tracer should be less affected as well), what monitor you're playing on may be much less significant. And Overwatch is a particularly dynamic game in terms of motion, which conceivably could be further increasing the importance of say monitors for aim-defined heroes. What I know with a high degree of confidence is that monitors have been a major factor in my performance. These 4k monitors are a downgrade in this respect, which begs a good explanation.