Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Gamers At High FPS Have Better Kill-To-Death Ratios In Battle Royale Games (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Gaming enthusiasts and pro-gamers have believed for a long time that playing on high refresh rates displays with high frame rates offers a competitive edge in fast-action games like PUBG, Fortnite and Apex Legends. The premise is, the faster the display can update the action for you, every millisecond saved will count when it comes to tracking targets and reaction times. This sounds logical but there's never been specific data tabulated to back this theory up and prove it. NVIDIA, however, just took it upon themselves with the use of their GeForce Experience tool, to compile anonymous data on gamers by hours played per week, panel refresh rate and graphics card type. Though obviously this data speaks to only NVIDIA GPU users, the numbers do speak for themselves.
The more powerful the GPU with a higher frame rate, along with higher panel refresh rate, generally speaking, the higher the kill-to-death ratio (K/D) for the gamers that were profiled. In fact, it really didn't matter hour many hours per week were played. Casual gamers and heavy-duty daily players alike could see anywhere from about a 50 to 150 percent increase in K/D ratio for significantly better overall player performance. It should be underscored that it really doesn't matter what GPU is at play; gamers with AMD graphics cards that can push high frame rates at 1080p or similar can see similar K/D gains. However, the new performance sweet spot seems to be as close to 144Hz/144FPS as your system can push, the better off you'll be and the higher the frame rate and refresh rate the better as well.
The more powerful the GPU with a higher frame rate, along with higher panel refresh rate, generally speaking, the higher the kill-to-death ratio (K/D) for the gamers that were profiled. In fact, it really didn't matter hour many hours per week were played. Casual gamers and heavy-duty daily players alike could see anywhere from about a 50 to 150 percent increase in K/D ratio for significantly better overall player performance. It should be underscored that it really doesn't matter what GPU is at play; gamers with AMD graphics cards that can push high frame rates at 1080p or similar can see similar K/D gains. However, the new performance sweet spot seems to be as close to 144Hz/144FPS as your system can push, the better off you'll be and the higher the frame rate and refresh rate the better as well.
Could it perhaps be that those with more expensive rigs are just more serious gamers who play more and are thus more skilled?
Further, the headline had me scratching my head for a moment as I wasn't sure if it were people who were high playing a FPS...
Perhaps players who invest more in hardware (higher FPS players) are more dedicated than average (lower FPS) players, and their better stats are explained by their time spent, experience, and skill. This is obvious, and I bet NVIDIA didn't control for it in any statistically scientific way.
Is anyone actually surprised that a gaming hardware manufacturer says that better/newer/more expensive gaming hardware makes gamers better at games? You know they cherry-picked stats in an obvious way, right? This is marketing, not news.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
The study also accounts for hours played per week. Non-serious gamers ( 5 hours a week) had an edge too.
Are they non-serious gamers or are they non-serious about that particular game?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Video card manufacturer produces study that says more expensive video cards are better.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I couldn't possibly see a conflict of interest with a company funded study concluding that their higher priced items will give you a significant competitive edge in a competition.
Did they try to take players who were used to playing at 30 FPS and gave them a 120 FPS rig, did they try to take players used to playing at 120 FPS and gave them a 30 FPS rig, or did they just compare current FPS levels with K:D levels?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
At a certain point the difference is dominated by your reaction speed, network latency, etc.
That means my absolute suck at Fortnite must be due to framerate, and not related to skill whatsoever!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Correlation is not causation. A favorite beginner's mistake, repeated time and again and often made intentional to push faulty ideas in politics, marketing and other disciplines primarily focused of creating a false reality via lies. If you have A~B, you can have A->B or B->A or, and that is often the real situation, there is a C with C->A and C->B.
In this case here, it is very likely that more serious shooter gamers (C) have both better kill rates (A) and higher FPS (B). Also, there is factor D, namely that Nvidia wants to sell higher powered gaming cards to earn more money, which makes even the data suspect and most certainly the interpretation. Caveat emptor.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Are they non-serious gamers or are they non-serious about that particular game?
Or they're semi-serious players with obligations. I'd say the presence of a 144 Hz gaming monitor and a graphics card to match probably says a lot about your interest and competitiveness in FPS games. It's like trying to measure how a sports car makes you drive while ignoring who buys a sports car in the first place.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You're not wrong about any of those points, however, I noticed over a decade ago that I performed noticeably better with some mice vs. others. I later learned it had to do with the refresh rate of the mouse.
120Hz may sound awful high to matter, and I salute your skepticism- but that's 8ms of latency. Which I assure you is a lifetime when you're doing precision hand-eye coordination that is largely autonomous.
These results don't surprise me in the slightest. I have seen this myself in a hundred LAN parties over the years. Even relatively unskilled players perform better on machines with higher refresh rates. It's smoother, and their brain simply does a better job at aiming, or shooting from the hip.
If you're telling me with a straight face that 24FPS is smooth, I'm forced to conclude one of a few things.
Either you have simply never seen a higher framerate newscast,
Your brain somehow can't pick up the difference,
Or you're just fucking lying.
Given that the 24FPS of celluloid wasn't in any way the "most a person can notice" but a tradeoff between the cost of the celluloid and "smooth enough", I'm going with the latter. You act like you've got skin in the game... You one of those nVidia haters?
That's not true. 24fps became standardized because it was the slowest frame rate at which mouth movements didn't get garbled (note that the cinema standard was 18fps before talkies.)
If you've bought a TV lately you'll note that most suffer from a bug called "soap opera effect" whereby their attempts to show 24fps look terrible because a small insect known as a "Marketing Executive" corrupted the TV's spec and inserted a line about "motion smoothing", something that wasn't noticed until long after the TV was designed, built, and sold to an unwitting customer.
Soap opera effect - where a TV extrapolates the in-between frames of 24fps content to product 60fps content - is noticeable, and wouldn't be if the people could only see in 24fps.
60fps is getting close to the high end of where you think you see perfectly smooth movement, but it isn't the limit. VR systems like the Vive use 90Hz, for example.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.