Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
1 second is 1000 miliseconds, now ask yourself, are 3ms really that big of a difference?
Ofcourse the answer is yes, if the server counts you shooting 3ms later than opponent then his shot will land first and you may die. and because of that your team might lose round which will cause money issues for later rounds and you go into spiral of losing and before you know it instead of winning 16-0 you lost 16-4
No offense, but who are you to speak for everyone? Someone might very well find a big difference. Who knows? In a game like Counter-Strike, even the slightest difference is a huge one.
The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus.
That is 250ms for visual stimulus aka opponent on a screen, people that train this stuff professionally can go down to probably like 150ms response time but it's literally impossible to find a difference in 0.001s and 0.004 response time, it's all a placebo and a marketing strat by companies to show how EPIC their monitors are.
But I think more than a few people are swallowing the marketing hype and probably overpaying.