Assuming your hardware can handle the higher range of settings and still run somewhere between 144 and 240+ hz, do you guys still choose to stay on low settings?
Yup. I like my frames number being higher. Also higher graphics just put more clutter on the map.
9 Likes
Nope. If you dont play pro or your PC cant handle high graphics there is no reason to play on low. Maybe if you get distracted easily, but playing at 200 or 600 FPS for example has no meaningful effect. Most monitors have 144 to 165 hrz and therefore playing with 200 FPS is already overkill. I also have the feeling that you miss a lot of the magic on low.
6 Likes
Whatever settings are the most consistent for me (aka, during full on 5v5/6v6 team fights where all abilities are being used, etc), I donāt care what the settings are as long as I hold a steady 144hz.
For me with my current hardware, those settings are āHighā.
I still play on low. I can get 150fps on med/high just fine, but thereās been enough times where the frames spike down to 30 because of a sudden asset load or ultimate in play that Iād rather just avoid it.
Yes. Graphics are overrated and just add clutter. Having a high stable framerate is way more important than seeing reflections in puddles on the ground.
5 Likes
Yes because it gets hot and thereās not much benefit otherwise
Yes, but only because I canāt do all high on 1440p and 360hz. I do have some things maxed though
Most low except:
- model detail medium, low models look terrible
- texture quality high - has very negilible impact if you have enough memory on gpu
- texture filtering quality 16x.
- force dlss with DLAA with nvidia inspector for best anti aliasing + sharpening via nvcp
DLAA is somewhat heavy on gpu, but the image clarity benefits are to my eyes really good.
1 Like
I play on low regardless when it comes to pvp games. At first it was purely about the frames but as i got used to it, some games on higher quality started to give me a headache.
All the detail and noise coming in at once was doing my head in.
2 Likes
Yup. 300 FPS > 200 FPS. 400 FPS > 300 FPS. Just feels better, and I care more about feel than look.
1 Like
I donāt have this feature, being an AMD user, but you bring up a good point and I might go through the bother of looking if thereās anything new and beneficial in Radeonās AA and sharpening settings.
I think if I switched off low settings my laptop would catch on fire
2 Likes
I always play on low. Too much clutter on high and a disadvantage.
1 Like
It depends but generally yes, and I think this is the standard in many other competitive FPS where aim is important.
First, thereās still a diff how long it takes time to generate a frame even if itās 240+.
Second, how easy/fast it is for you to notice the important objects/characters.(itās often simpler = easier). This is the most important for me actually.
Third, less clutter in many games.
It could feel like a placebo, but considering the human reaction time diff is actually very small(often under 10ms) esp. in the same rank, it can turns the scale.
Also, it can make you stop blaming your settings.
I play with low setting because I prefer simple looking games. I canāt stand visual mess where you would never find objects you can pick up without ādetective visionā. I donāt like photorealism and donāt want it. After ten minutes on a map you stop noticing details anyway.
Is this a dig at the Arkham games?
Not really, itās an easily understandable name for that function in many games with overly detailed graphics.
1 Like
I have my settings on pretty high. More important than a high framerate is a consistent framerate. There are diminishing returns when it comes to higher framerates, especially when the framerate is higher than your monitorās refresh rate. 600FPS in a game isnāt very useful on a 60Hz monitor.
1 Like
Nope. Max cos it feels like Iām playing in a Pixar movie. Especially when I look around in maps like Rialto, Dorado etc
2 Likes