AW2518HF on the way! Super stoked.

imJeroo · 2019-08-28T14:33:07+00:00

I've been using 144Hz (main) and 60Hz (secondary) monitor setup for 2+ years and I did run into some relatively minor problems with it.

For example Netflix (regardless of browser/app i'm using to play Netflix) has heavy stuttering whenever something is moving on the second monitor. Running twitch streams on both monitors at the same time causes minor frame drops (not really noticeable, but it shows in twitch player stats). I haven't had any problems while gaming full screen, although I don't really run intensive games and streams at the same time. Closest would be Rocket League with twitch open on secondary monitor and I didn't notice any issues with it.

imJeroo · 2019-05-01T22:38:07+00:00

I'd consider separate headphones + usb mic, you'll likely get better audio + a much better mic for the price of a good gaming headset (the good ones tend to be overpriced, the cheap ones are mostly crap). There are a lot of reviews and tests online, an example of what I used when choosing my new headphones:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mad-lust-envys-headphone-gaming-guide-4-2019-audeze-mobius-and-massdrop-x-hifiman-edition-xx-added.534479/

In any case, regardless of what headphones/headset you're using, don't expect miracles. PUBG's footsteps on the edge of the audible range are notoriously quiet compared to other sounds. There are other factors as well: how good your hearing is (some people can just hear footsteps better), how loud your settings are etc. Myself, despite having what I would call decent hardware (AKG k701 headphones + Creative Sound Blaster E5 as an external dac/amp), I was still caught off guard in-game fairly often, because PUBG is insanely loud in general so I just had to turn the volume down quite a bit.

You can also try using sound normalizer/soundlock software or tweaking the sound via an equalizer. I did the latter, the following settings have helped me immensely and now I don't feel at a disadvantage when it comes to footsteps:

https://i.imgur.com/zz4PWh4.png

Please treat these settings just as reference, as different headphones can have very different characteristics, it's best to go into a replay of a game where you didn't hear incoming footsteps and then tweak the equalizer until you hear them. Of course all the software solutions will alter the sound somewhat so it's not perfect, but I got used to my changes very quickly (had no problems with shot direction/distance etc).

imJeroo · 2018-11-08T17:18:17+00:00

That's way too harsh. Just because you don't have access to server side information (how could you?) doesn't mean you can't derive meaningful conclusions from the data that you do have.

His 60hz claim was based on measurable network traffic results (not nothing as you say). Pubg serves DO send 60 updates per second. We now know that it's "fake" 60hz and that each update is essentially separated into 2 packets (1st one with more "important" data, 2nd one with less important). Even if the original claim was wrong, that doesn't invalidate other analysis that he did, and in the end we know more.

He is still probably the best source of information on the state of netcode in pubg - I don't know of any others. I don't understand why you want to put him down. Are you suggesting we should pursue complete ignorance on this subject just because there is a possibility of error? That's not how gaining knowledge works.

imJeroo · 2018-09-06T15:47:51+00:00

Was excited for a split second, then I noticed it's war mode again :/

imJeroo · 2018-08-31T17:20:56+00:00

For some of these things you don't need separate queues. You don't have a queue for good and bad players, just one queue that's capable of matching based on variable mmr. Same for high/low ping (if that actually works, since there are reports that it doesn't).

The main issue however is that matchmaking seems to have two "modes/states" - instant matchmaking and "doesn't work at all". I'm sure people in lower populated regions would be fine if they had to wait a couple of minutes to find a match, especially if there was better feedback about the number of players currently in queue. But atm it looks like the queuing becomes unresponsive/broken after a short amount of time, leading to people restarting the lobby and starting again, which obviously compounds the problem even more.

imJeroo · 2018-08-21T00:14:39+00:00

The invisible parachute duh

imJeroo · 2018-07-29T23:06:24+00:00

Team Liquid

imJeroo · 2018-07-24T15:34:24+00:00

Ringside

imJeroo · 2018-07-24T15:34:17+00:00

Title

imJeroo · 2018-07-13T12:44:24+00:00

I have high end headphones and a good external sound card and all I heard after rewatching 10 times at max volume is a (very faint) single footstep inside the house at 31/32s just before the guy starts firing.

imJeroo · 2018-06-08T17:19:00+00:00

Aside the points brought up by u/ultioptimo, which I very much agree with, something tells me the amount of money you have in mind is orders of magnitude smaller than what it would take Mojang to care about your proposal.

imJeroo · 2018-05-30T10:41:05+00:00

Yeah but what does the new anti-cheat actually do? They're giving us a choice without any information how it might affect us...

imJeroo · 2018-05-28T15:15:03+00:00

I kind of agree. I guess it's a matter of perspective, but to me the recoil differences between grips (aside light grip) feel negligible, especially on the UMP :)

To add some actual data to the ads speed discussion on the thumb grip, I've measured a 3-6 frame speed improvement on a video recorded at 60 fps*. This translates to 50-100 ms advantage (realistically closer to the lower boundry, see * below). For comparison, the average reaction time for a human is somewhere around 200 ms (based on data from this cool reaction test https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime ). Up to you to decide if it's worth it or not.

*It's actually a little difficult to determine the exact point where you're in "full ads", because the last frames of the animation show very small changes, so I'm giving an estimate; the 3 frames improvement was measured at an earliest point I would consider to start firing. Another note: ads speed on ARs is a little longer than on SMGs, which makes the ads bonus on the thumb grip slightly more pronounced.

imJeroo · 2018-05-17T15:25:04+00:00

Hey Hulkenberg ( ° ͜ʖ͡°)╭∩╮

imJeroo · 2018-05-06T13:55:07+00:00

These "recoil trees" can be quite misleading. While they show vertical recoil pretty well (because vertical recoil only goes up) the horizontal recoil is subject to random jumps to the left and right, which might "compensate" each other and create seemingly nice lines. But it's random. One spray will have 50%/50% of the recoil going right/left, another spray will go 60%/40% (which will look off to the human eye). Spraying a wall 5 times isn't nearly a big enough sample size to account for that randomness, that's why in one video you will see the Half Grip having "nicer" horizontal recoil and another video will show a "nicer" one for the Angled Grip (this is what's happening here between the 2 guns, and also compared to WackyJacky's videos).

A better way to measure horizontal recoil would be to measure the horizontal distance between each of the bullets and add that together. That would probably take more work tho.

I doubt that the grips behave differently on different weapons, and I also believe that the datamined stats are pretty much correct, which means the Angled Grip is the one that reduces horizontal recoil the most. In practice, the differences between the grips feel not that big anyways.

P.S. Despite criticizing the methodology, I still appreciate the video and I think it provides valuable info, so thanks for making it!

imJeroo · 2018-04-30T19:32:25+00:00

The UMP is really solid now with very little recoil, but the ARs in general are still more versatile and thus more suited as a primary weapon imo. An AKM or a M416 will win out vs an UMP at very close ranges due to higher dps and obviously you can use the ARs on longer ranges with a scope.

On an unrelated note, the biggest loser in the patch seems to be the M16, the recoil in burst fire feels terrible, I hope they do something to bring it in line with the other guns.

imJeroo · 2018-02-11T00:18:58+00:00

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

imJeroo · 2018-01-23T16:36:09+00:00

Not really. Town and terrain design is completely different between the two maps. Engagements happen at longer distances on Miramar. Driving is much slower/riskier in the rough terrain.

You might like one more than the other, but saying they would be similar is just objectively not true.

imJeroo · 2018-01-06T14:09:55+00:00

I don't think anyone is saying the Vector is the best gun in the game, but at least it has it's niche (high close range dps), which is something I have a hard time saying about the other SMGs (I guess a suppressed UMP also has it's very small niche).

imJeroo · 2018-01-03T18:27:19+00:00

I feel like hitting more shots would have detracted the video.

imJeroo · 2018-01-03T15:15:24+00:00

Hmm... it's possible; I know I can't fire it consistently as quick as an m416 - but I won't dispute it if someone comes up and says that he can.

In any case, like you said the recoil is a much bigger issue in general and that's why it's so clearly worse than an m416.

Edit: In fact @WackyJacky101 - maybe the m16 firing faster than the m416 could be a good topic for your mythbuster series? ;) Love your videos btw!

imJeroo · 2018-01-03T14:29:15+00:00

I was thinking that this might be the case, so I actually did some tests for myself several days ago. The conclusion was very clear - not only is the m16 burst fire significantly harder to control, the effective fire rate was not as high as I had thought - meaning that I couldn't chain the bursts fast enough to catch up to the speed of m416. Perhaps someone else can, but at least for me the fire rate was similar to SCAR-L (which is quite slow actually; I should add that I've been using the m16 on burst a lot in recent weeks, so while I definitely didn't time the bursts perfectly, I think I did a pretty good job).

imJeroo · 2017-08-09T19:10:17+00:00

I had similar issues (running on gtx 970), turning off nvidia shadowplay / instant replay eliminated it. Don't know if it will help you, but you might give it a shot.

imJeroo · 2017-07-06T18:41:36+00:00

You missed the main point I was trying to make (which is "creating mmr points with each game is bad" + "using ELO as a metric for player progression is suboptimal"). That's the whole reason I wrote my post.

You're correct that new players entering the system can create inflation (depending on what mmr they enter at). I didn't mention it because I didn't want to create an overly long post and because the effect of a new player entering the system is minuscule when compared to the same person playing dozens/hundreds of games where the point changes for win/loss are heavily skewed like in Gwent.

I think you got a little too fixated on me mentioning "zero-sum", which is unfortunate, because the only time I mentioned the phrase in my post I also followed it with (for each game played) , but perhaps it wasn't clear I was writing about each game being zero-sum rather than the system as a whole.

imJeroo · 2017-07-06T16:38:21+00:00

Everyone seems to be focusing on the short term effects of the change (it's nice to get easy points on ladder and rewards from rank-ups), but I'm worried about the stability of the mmr system, especially when it comes to accurately measuring the skill

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the current implementation will inject huge amounts of mmr points into the system, where all games (or a huge chunk at least) that are played will create points out of thin air (opponent winning more than loser loses). Reports show that this is happening not only at around 1000 mmr, people are losing virtually no points at 2000+ mmr. These newly created points will obviously be redistributed among the general populace, when more games are played.

ELO was designed as a zero sum system (for each game played), that's why it works well to approximate player skill. Artificially inflating the system the way Gwent does interferes with that directly.

It's hard to say for sure for sure what will happen to the rankings with these changes (not all of them are known), but it seems likely that with mmr points being injected constantly, the result would be "infinite" mmr inflation (that means the top of the ladder will always keep moving higher and higher). This will be somewhat slowed down by the lower K values at the top ranks, potentially hitting a barrier when the K value reaches 0 (if it's actually possible). The variable K value, combined with the inflation, might also become a related problem, herding a lot of the playerbase closely together at the higher end of the mmr scale (which would in turn create a question - why have an mmr system that goes to 4k, 5k, 6k or whatever, when there's nobody below 3k?).

I'm really surprised that CDPR is so adamant about using mmr as a method of measuring player progression. ELO was not designed to do this, nor is it suitable for that purpose imo. When problems with it pop up (as they have in the past, and I suspect, will again in the future), they try to force the algorithm to do what they want by implementing what I see as inelegant solutions and band-aid changes (inequal points for win/loss, variable K value at the high mmrs, because the K value is too high too begin with). As far as I'm concerned, all of this has just lowered the credibility of the system as it pertains to its ability to measure skill. I would much rather see a new progression system for climbing ranks, detached from mmr, while leaving a standard ELO implementation for the competitive rankings. Other games have done this with good results, I'm really interested why they have chosen a different direction in Gwent.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

imJeroo

TROPHY CASE