I seriously doubt MGE stats is going to be an accurate way to measure this kind of thing...

i'll see about doing this with a bud of mine, i've thought about this before but thought it would probably be dumb and not work out too well but fuck it

Hasn't it already been established in many many monitor threads that 120hz+ is better than 60hz in every possible way?

After getting my 120hz monitor, I realized that I perform just as well as I would on my 60hz. The 120hz just has less strain for me and it doesn't hurt my eyes as much.

Back on topic, I think your experiment is flawed considering that there are many factors as to why people win/lose mge whether it would be play style, skill in general, or maybe even flaws with a person's setup that makes the person inconsistent.

To fix this a bit (it still wouldn't be perfect though), you should have Person A switch hz and person B should use the same hz for the trials. The problem with that is mentioned in the previous statement from before.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that there is no quantifiable way that proves that a 144/120hz is better than a 60hz and that it's different for everyone.

twice the frames twice the dpm

bear- what would be a better scenario? It doesn't get much more controlled than the exact same tiny arena and 1v1 duel. Yes there is a large amount of variability one round to the next but depending on the number of trials you can also determine if it's statistically significant. That's what statistics is all about.

In the interest of time it makes sense to have both players swap at the same time as you're going to get a bigger delta.

Tom- the whole point is to collect data to back it up.

In the interest of control, wouldn't it be better to have them both play against another player on different monitors?

If time and logistics weren't a challenge, probably, but you don't really lose much this way. You are playing against the same opponent for the entire test, so the opponent is already controlled in essence.

The only variable that is changed is the refresh rate of the monitor. Same setup, same arena, same class, you're just taking the sum of two people's results at once.

I would like to help with this, pls accept my friend request pheesh :(

This website explains the differences in motion blur in correlation to different LCD operating modes.

MGE probalby wouldn't be the best way to quantify performance. The scenario is very controlled and you only have one target to focus on. Reducing motion blur makes it easier to see things that move across the screen - things most likely in the peripheral of your screen and not the center. It's also much easier to make out the animations in Lightboost mode as opposed to 60 Hz because the blurring can be bad enough to obscure these twitchy details, especially if you're panning your crosshair.

So the benefits of higher refresh rates, or strobed modes, are substantial. It's possible to see things you may have missed due to blurring, and the things you were seeing before are easier to see. There is less strain because more focus can be allocated to playing the game rather than trying to figure out what you're seeing. Your reaction time will be quicker to unexpected events because of these things, thus standard game modes would see a bigger benefit than MGE because MGE is a more predictable environment.

You're also neglecting any skill gap could easily introduce error into your results. A good player on 60hz is almost always going to outplay a bad player on 120/144hz. A noble idea, but I don't think this is the right way to approach this problem. Perhaps having one person track something on a 60hz monitor vs 120/144hz and recording the accuracy rate combined with a large sample size is more like what you're looking for

or somethin like that

yo marm lets do this but with 60 and 120 proof liquor instead

I can confirm this.

well, in quakelive, my LG went up 2-3% when I switched to a 120hz monitor (40.5% to 43% average) which is a moderate increase. lightboost would probably help even more.

I would say its worth it to get a 120hz/144hz but its not as important as some other things (eg: your internet connection)

I have done this with friends in mge a handful of times. It usually causes me to get between 30-50% more frags on 144hz.

Their's also alot of other variables with just monitors alone. cause I guarantee you will see very different results from these match ups

60Hz 1ms GTG vs 120Hz 5ms GTG

60Hz 5ms GTG vs 120Hz 1ms GTG

60Hz 5ms GTG vs 120Hz 5ms GTG

60Hz 1ms GTG vs 120Hz 1ms GTG

can't forget their's also monitors out their with 12ms, 8ms, and 2ms GTG as well.
I have done -some- eye/play test on several monitors

60Hz 5ms
60Hz 8ms
75Hz 5ms
75Hz 2ms
120Hz 1ms
144Hz 1ms

and I have to say by and far the biggest difference in monitors is the pixel response time in terms of gaming, with 120Hz being only a minor-moderate boost in itself over 60Hz. While 1ms vs 5ms gtg is literally night and day, thank you to my roommate for letting me use his BenQ to learn this :/

that and other small things like an FPS Cap is detrimental to some systems for reasons I can't explain and if one player has it on and their system doesn't agree with it they will not perform as well as they should.

i have been signaled and i have arrived and agreed.

Now that I'm used to 120hz, I'm not nearly as good on a 60hz monitor so that must say something about them. I found right away it was just easier to track people on a 120hz monitor, its just so smoooooth.

Comparing 120hz to 60hz is like comparing a Porsche 911 to a Honda Civic. The civic is fine as long as you're just doing basic shit (not playing fps). There's no need to do an A/B comparison between the two because it's comparing apples to oranges.

This test also wouldn't take the placebo effect into account. confidence has a huge impact on playing ability.

I've used a 120hz monitor for the past two years. When I came home for my uni break I left my 120hz monitor at my uni house because I'm dumb, so I'm using a 60hz monitor until I get back there. I pretty much play the same as I normally do, the smoothness is noticeable, but it doesn't seem to have affected me.

remember that a good monitor is not just the refresh rate
when I upgraded to a 120hz I was amazed by how much better it was, but it turned out to be so much better because my old one had loads of screen tearing
the refresh rate doesn't matter so much when compared to ghosting and screen tearing

Screen tearing is greatly reduced (much less noticeable) largely as a consequence of the 120hz/144hz refresh rate, so I think they kind of play into eachother.

Ggglygy sorry about that, was at work, accepted now.
I usually am not free until 9/9:30 pm pst most nights, you an eastie?

hows the gas mileage on your monitor

bad
u?

And if anything it differs so much on a class to class basis, meaning scout/sniper will probably be affected by this the most, then soldiers, demos, and medics.

This is very true; soldier doesn't feel much worse on 60hz than 120.