what I said doesnt apply here
im a sorry idiot

I don't understand why you people can't wrap your head around anything else than "they won't support it because its different". Why does it matter that its different?
Read what I posted above.

Oh go die in a fire please, why does everyone always twist this into 6v6 vs Highlander.
You're completely missing my point. Why can't these two things coexist?
And besides the point do you really think that weapon sales account for a worthy margin of their revenue? The only reason Highlander doesn't alienate 5 out of 9 classes is because you're forced to use them, 4 of the classes are practically useless and highly reward lack of skill. Go whine about your slightly co-ordinated pub somewhere else.

Back to my point, why should the fact that 6v6 doesn't use all the weapons or all the classes hold anything back. That has nothing to do with it, it is an established "promod" version of their casual pub format and what's stopping them from implementing it as the competitive format of the game. Take the already insanely popular and deep game within your game and make it theirs.

They wouldn't have to admit they're wrong because they're not. Lots of these weapons are very fun to use in public games, public sit&go servers meant for nothing more than casual play. What I'm trying to say is they could take the competitive format and implement it as the competitive format, without the need of the two sides of clashing for some reason.

HNNNNG, not this argument again. Stop pandering towards their flawed reasoning for not supporting tf2.
Our version of competitive tf2 doesn't have to be pretty far removed from everyone's idea of tf2, they can oh so easily make it the idea of tf2. TF2 at its core is a very deep and complex team based arena shooter, albeit with some minor adjustments and tweaking. Adjustments and tweaking we, the community, have already gone and established for them, classlimits, weapon bans, class lineup, and etc.. What we have made is essentially a promod of tf2
What is there to stop valve from taking this promod, that we've gone and established for them, and making it theirs. What is there to stop them from simply implementing 6v6/promod into their game, be it a gamemode with or without matchmaking. You have a massive community already doing all the work for you and all it needs to grow is just some basic acknowledgement and support. What if you could simply select 6v6 in the gamemode menu for competitive maps, just like you can select competitive for the competitive maps in CS:GO.

Although I do understand that they have no need to do this since TF2 as it is is already raking in enough money for them and implementing competitive could be a risk that could possibly not end up in any profit and is not really viable according to the massive timespent:income efficiency of their current business module.

I see that you're trying to vouch for the reasoning from the admins themselves, I can assure you their main point is not so the coders can avoid coding the movement(like Askior discarded just earlier). But so that the cheaters themselves don't study the similarities the admins notice and avoid doing them themselves.

EDIT: Also cheating on LAN is just as possible as cheating on not LAN, don't know why you gullible people think LAN proves anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iit0XMd6iQw

I had puush running at that time and specifically remember seeing puush.daemon.exe is not responding as I was shutting my pc down.
I've got 2way auth on all my passwords, although I think my old opera browser has some saved that aren't protected, but I'm terrified of that keylogger, I used both my credit cards yesterday evening.
Stuck at work with no idea what passwords my old browser had saved.
fuck
me

All hope is not lost however. There is a technique called triple-buffering that solves this VSync problem. Lets go back to our 50FPS, 75Hz example. Frame 1 is in the frame buffer, and 2/3 of frame 2 are drawn in the back buffer. The refresh happens and frame 1 is grabbed for the first time. The last third of frame 2 are drawn in the back buffer, and the first third of frame 3 is drawn in the second back buffer (hence the term triple-buffering). The refresh happens, frame 1 is grabbed for the second time, and frame 2 is copied into the frame buffer and the first part of frame 3 into the back buffer. The last 2/3 of frame 3 are drawn in the back buffer, the refresh happens, frame 2 is grabbed for the first time, and frame 3 is copied to the frame buffer. The process starts over. This time we still got 2 frames, but in only 3 refresh cycles. That's 2/3 of the refresh rate, which is 50FPS, exactly what we would have gotten without it. Triple-buffering essentially gives the video card someplace to keep doing work while it waits to transfer the back buffer to the frame buffer, so it doesn't have to waste time. Unfortunately, triple-buffering isn't available in every game, and in fact it isn't too common. It also can cost a little performance to utilize, as it requires extra VRAM for the buffers, and time spent copying all of them around. However, triple-buffered VSync really is the key to the best experience as you eliminate tearing without the downsides of normal VSync (unless you consider the fact that your FPS is capped a downside... which is silly because you can't see an FPS higher than your refresh anyway).

I hope this was informative, and will help people understand the intracacies of VSync (and hopefully curb the "VSync, yes or no?" debates!). Generally, if triple buffering isn't available, you have to decide whether the discrete framerate limitations of VSync and the issues that can cause are worth the visual improvement of the elimination of tearing. It's a personal preference, and it's entirely up to you.

It is impossible to get more FPS than your refresh rate on your monitor.
This is not true. If you use VSync, you will lock your FPS to your refresh rate. The thing is if you have it off, your GPU can render as many frames as it can before your monitor refreshes. Now, here is the thing. Let's say the refresh rate on your monitor is 60Hz, and you are getting 120FPS in your game. So, with VSync off, your GPU will render 2 frames before your monitor updates, so your monitor will update every other frame basically. (Frame 1, 3, 5, 7, etc.) So in reality it is actually skipping frames. Now, tearing will only occur if your GPU is rendering frames proportionally to your monitor's refreshes. Lets say your refresh rate is 60Hz and your FPS is 100. In this case, your GPU will render 1 frame and 2/3 of another frame, and that will cause a tear. I am not 100% sure on this one, but it will make sense that depending on the percentage of the next frame that is rendered, will tell where the tear will actually be on your screen. For example if you do 1 and 2/3 frames, the tear would be roughly 2/3 down your screen.

Should I use VSync or not?
Well, I would say if you have the hardware to handle it, you may as well. What I mean is if you have a high end CRT with 100Hz+ refresh, then it would probably be better to use VSync. But even if you have 100Hz refresh rate I would not use VSync if your actual FPS is over 100, so if you have VSync off and your FPS is 200 or more, I would just leave it off. Also, if you have a refresh rate of lets say 100Hz, but your video card can only do 90 FPS, your GPU can only do 9/10 of every frame, and you would only render 1 frame every 2 refreshes, and that would cut your frame rate down to 50. You can improve that by enabling Triple Buffering however, but it will eat more of your resources.

Plagiarized from http://www.overclock.net/t/371648/info-explanation-of-fps-vs-refresh-rate

There's also this paper from BBC R&D about 300fps
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf

I recently learned that how I thought vsync worked was wrong, and now knowing the way it really does work, I think it would be worthwhile to make sure everyone here understands it.

What is VSync? VSync stands for Vertical Synchronization. The basic idea is that synchronizes your FPS with your monitor's refresh rate. The purpose is to eliminate something called "tearing". I will describe all these things here.

Every CRT monitor has a refresh rate. It's specified in Hz (Hertz, cycles per second). It is the number of times the monitor updates the display per second. Different monitors support different refresh rates at different resolutions. They range from 60Hz at the low end up to 100Hz and higher. Note that this isn't your FPS as your games report it. If your monitor is set at a specific refresh rate, it always updates the screen at that rate, even if nothing on it is changing. On an LCD, things work differently. Pixels on an LCD stay lit until they are told to change; they don't have to be refreshed. However, because of how VGA (and DVI) works, the LCD must still poll the video card at a certain rate for new frames. This is why LCD's still have a "refresh rate" even though they don't actually have to refresh.

I think everyone here understands FPS. It's how many frames the video card can draw per second. Higher is obviously better. However, during a fast paced game, your FPS rarely stays the same all the time. It moves around as the complexity of the image the video card has to draw changes based on what you are seeing. This is where tearing comes in.

Tearing is a phenomenon that gives a disjointed image. The idea is as if you took a photograph of something, then rotated your vew maybe just 1 degree to the left and took a photograph of that, then cut the two pictures in half and taped the top half of one to the bottom half of the other. The images would be similar but there would be a notable difference in the top half from the bottom half. This is what is called tearing on a visual display. It doesn't always have to be cut right in the middle. It can be near the top or the bottom and the separation point can actually move up or down the screen, or seem to jump back and forth between two points.

Why does this happen? Lets take a specific example. Let's say your monitor is set to a refresh rate of 75Hz. You're playing your favorite game and you're getting 100FPS right now. That means that the mointor is updating itself 75 times per second, but the video card is updating the display 100 times per second, that's 33% faster than the mointor. So that means in the time between screen updates, the video card has drawn one frame and a third of another one. That third of the next frame will overwrite the top third of the previous frame and then get drawn on the screen. The video card then finishes the last 2 thirds of that frame, and renders the next 2 thirds of the next frame and then the screen updates again. As you can see this would cause this tearing effect as 2 out of every 3 times the screen updates, either the top third or bottom third is disjointed from the rest of the display. This won't really be noticeable if what is on the screen isn't changing much, but if you're looking around quickly or what not this effect will be very apparant.

Now this is where the common misconception comes in. Some people think that the solution to this problem is to simply create an FPS cap equal to the refresh rate. So long as the video card doesn't go faster than 75 FPS, everything is fine, right? Wrong.

Before I explain why, let me talk about double-buffering. Double-buffering is a technique that mitigates the tearing problem somewhat, but not entirely. Basically you have a frame buffer and a back buffer. Whenever the monitor grabs a frame to refresh with, it pulls it from the frame buffer. The video card draws new frames in the back buffer, then copies it to the frame buffer when it's done. However the copy operation still takes time, so if the monitor refreshes in the middle of the copy operation, it will still have a torn image.

VSync solves this problem by creating a rule that says the back buffer can't copy to the frame buffer until right after the monitor refreshes. With a framerate higher than the refresh rate, this is fine. The back buffer is filled with a frame, the system waits, and after the refresh, the back buffer is copied to the frame buffer and a new frame is drawn in the back buffer, effectively capping your framerate at the refresh rate.

That's all well and good, but now let's look at a different example. Let's say you're playing the sequel to your favorite game, which has better graphics. You're at 75Hz refresh rate still, but now you're only getting 50FPS, 33% slower than the refresh rate. That means every time the monitor updates the screen, the video card draws 2/3 of the next frame. So lets track how this works. The monitor just refreshed, and frame 1 is copied into the frame buffer. 2/3 of frame 2 gets drawn in the back buffer, and the monitor refreshes again. It grabs frame 1 from the frame buffer for the first time. Now the video card finishes the last third of frame 2, but it has to wait, because it can't update until right after a refresh. The monitor refreshes, grabbing frame 1 the second time, and frame 2 is put in the frame buffer. The video card draws 2/3 of frame 3 in the back buffer, and a refresh happens, grabbing frame 2 for the first time. The last third of frame 3 is draw, and again we must wait for the refresh, and when it happens, frame 2 is grabbed for the second time, and frame 3 is copied in. We went through 4 refresh cycles but only 2 frames were drawn. At a refresh rate of 75Hz, that means we'll see 37.5FPS. That's noticeably less than 50FPS which the video card is capable of. This happens because the video card is forced to waste time after finishing a frame in the back buffer as it can't copy it out and it has nowhere else to draw frames.

Essentially this means that with double-buffered VSync, the framerate can only be equal to a discrete set of values equal to Refresh / N where N is some positive integer. That means if you're talking about 60Hz refresh rate, the only framerates you can get are 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, etc etc. You can see the big gap between 60 and 30 there. Any framerate between 60 and 30 your video card would normally put out would get dropped to 30.

Now maybe you can see why people loathe it. Let's go back to the original example. You're playing your favorite game at 75Hz refresh and 100FPS. You turn VSync on, and the game limits you to 75FPS. No problem, right? Fixed the tearing issue, it looks better. You get to an area that's particularly graphically intensive, an area that would drop your FPS down to about 60 without VSync. Now your card cannot do the 75FPS it was doing before, and since VSync is on, it has to do the next highest one on the list, which is 37.5FPS. So now your game which was running at 75FPS just halved it's framerate to 37.5 instantly. Whether or not you find 37.5FPS smooth doesn't change the fact that the framerate just cut in half suddenly, which you would notice. This is what people hate about it.

If you're playing a game that has a framerate that routinely stays above your refresh rate, then VSync will generally be a good thing. However if it's a game that moves above and below it, then VSync can become annoying. Even worse, if the game plays at an FPS that is just below the refresh rate (say you get 65FPS most of the time on a refresh rate of 75Hz), the video card will have to settle for putting out much less FPS than it could (37.5FPS in that instance). This second example is where the percieved drop in performance comes in. It looks like VSync just killed your framerate. It did, technically, but it isn't because it's a graphically intensive operation. It's simply the way it works.

ALL
APP
FUNCTIONALITY
REMOVED
FUCK
SPOTIFY

The worst game designer in the history of video games just quit and is trying to create autistic drama over it, oh no!

Been using it for the past 2 weeks.
Seems pretty flawless so far, haven't noticed any jitter or forced/neg accel at all. In design it feels a lot like g400, except it's a bit longer(which I personally find less comfortable, minor inconvenience and maybe I just have small hands).

There was a similar video made not so long ago which included scenes from a much larger variety of games(even tf2 for that matter), and was a lot better made aswell.

edit: found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJAEDfPEdB4

GJ strawmanning my argument into 6v6 vs Highlander.

Just like every other viable competitive game ever?

That's such flawed logic though.
They're blaming the gamemode for being too different, what's there to stop them from making it normal. Why not just incorporate the 6v6 gamemode into the game!?
Shitty ass tunnel visioned designers.