I obviously ask. before you go on nipping at the mouth. Considering this game uses projectiles. And not hit scan you probably need to look up that. Also you should probably look at the comparisons of games that run at 60 FPS versus 120. There are pc players that are running this game at 140 and 180. With next to no bullet magnetism. If I see an enemy and I’m running at 60 FPS and I shoot where they’re at but I’m a half a frame behind My three burst really is it gonna count for crap now is it. But when they move and they are half a frame in front. I’m at a disadvantage you probably should do your research. 
1 Like
Already being worked on, but no, controllers don’t have any advantage, and the magnetism’s the same regardless of input
and you should do yours… if you knew even a fraction of anything about PC gaming is that you’d realize most people are not using 3-5000 USD Monster Rigs to Game… hell, you can even access some of the steam survey results to realize most of the userbase on steam alone is still using old gen intels or AMD CPUs and 10 series Cards… and as crappily optimized as this game currently is, most of us are having a hard time as is keeping the game running at 50 FPS in lowest settings, let alone 120 FPS…
sad thing is, the performance issues will most likely not be addressed until sometime near the end of next year if that, assuming the game has a healthy population left by then…
Saying controller is not better simply isn’t true in this case. Sure, some of the magnetism is the same, but what is not is reticle friction. MnK players can actually have more precise aim, but will still get 5-6 burst BR kill, whereas the controller would 4 burst with the friction. Adjustments will be made here due to controller being so much more powerful.
1 Like
lol for real? if it works i might drop in to show these MnK purists what’s up in Halo. Jk. that’s unfortunate.
Haha well that’s exactly why they are doing it. Controller is such a more powerful input, that they can take advantage of that playing in an all KbM lobby.
Ummm?
Well aware of how first person shooter mechanics work. Not sure what this has to do with recognizing someone else’s framerate. But I suppose we’ll see what you think it does.
Edit: guess it didn’t have much to do with it at all.
Twice the frames, twice the visual data, twice the data interpreted by the system. That’s clear.
Mhmm yeah, still not sure what this has to do with identifying opposing player’s framerate.
I’ll give you credit, you put some honest effort into this one. But that’s not necessarily how it works, and a “half a frame” (which isn’t how that works, frames drop they don’t divide) isn’t going to affect you as often as you are making it sound.
A person playing at 60fps isn’t slower than a person at 120fps because it’s the common serverside data being turned into visual data on the user’s end. Network latency is the most likely factor you’re referencing and experiencing in your example, not framerate differences.
Framerate is data being interpreted by the GPU. A higher framerate means more data bandwidth, which can translate to a larger perception of data if you have the hardware that can display it appropriately.
A higher framerate also means less input lag as it’s data being interpreted by the system. Someone playing on a 60hz monitor but has 240fps is going to feel a massive difference in feedback performance than someone playing at 120fps or 60fps even if they can’t see the framerate visualized.
I’m aware of the mechanics behind framerate/refresh rate and how they work, I understand they offer a potential advantage (hit high Diamond on a 60hz monitor in Overwatch, couldn’t squeeze above low Masters at 144hz) but my question wasn’t “I dunno what this FPS/hz thing is, please tell me”, my question still remains:
How do you know that you lost to someone playing at 30/60/120/144/160/180/240/300fps?
I don’t need a lengthy response telling me how fps works, or that people have high refresh rate monitors, I know all that to a reasonable degree. I want to know how you deduce that someone is running at a higher framerate when there is no infographic way to do so in game.
In a perfect world yeah, but the aim assist in this is god awfully weak and barely works at all. The reticule slow and stickiness can be there, but almost always turns off prior to a fight or randomly turn off while aiming in a fight (even if they aren’t shieldless.) Can lead you to massively overcorrect a shot because the stickiness and slow should be there, but suddenly you’re way off target to the right because it decided to turn off. Or the tracking people like bringing up. If you’re standing still and the enemy is moving, not sprinting, it’s okay, I’ll give it that, but it straight breaks if you’re both moving or jumping, and adding that onto how inconsistent it already is… Yeah, there’s not really any advantage. Like it’s worse than 3 and Reach, and Reach was already bad with generally weak AA and large bloom.
What most people see as there being an advantage is either based on the horribly flawed accuracy stats that were brought up awhile ago, or they’re fighting in close range where the veterans or even mildly experience controller users fight at so they’re inherently losing in an experience and muscle memory scenario.