6 ms·

I have trouble believing that 6.5ms in increased latency would be perceptible to any more than a fraction of a percent of the most elite gamers. Most the people

by rez9x 2y ago

I have trouble believing that 6.5ms in increased latency would be perceptible to any more than a fraction of a percent of the most elite gamers. Most the people claiming that this level of difference is impacting their gameplay are victims of confirmation bias.

xyst 2y ago
You may think 6.5 ms of input latency is imperceptible. But combine it with the rest of the stack (monitor refresh rate, local network latency, RTT between client and server, time for server to register input from client and calculate “winner”), and it becomes the diff between an L and W. In the case of pros, the diff between a multimillion dollar cash prize and nil.
sapiogram 2y ago
I would postulate that 100% of professional (i.e. elite) competitive gamers would be able to tell the difference. See this old touchscreen demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
Strilanc 2y ago
It doesn't need to be perceptible to cause a difference in a game. Suppose two players notice each other at the same time (e.g. as would naturally happen when walking around a corner in a shooter), first to shoot wins, and their total latencies are identical Gaussians with a standard deviation of 100ms. Then a 6.5ms reduction in latency is worth an additional 2.5% chance of winning the trade. Maybe you won't notice this on a moment by moment basis, but take statistics and its impact should be measurable. In ELO terms a 2.5% gain in win rate is around a 10 point increase (simplifying by assuming that single Gaussian is the entire game). That's small, but if you were a hardcore player and all it took to raise your ELO by 10 points was using a better monitor/mouse/OS... why not? Doing that is cheap compared to the time investment required to improve your ELO another 10 points with practice (unless you're just starting). Also, I think you'd be surprised what people can perceive in a context where they are practiced. Speed runners hit frame perfect tricks in 60FPS games. That's not reaction time but it does intimately involve consistent control latency between practice and execution.
- pests 2y ago
  Slightly off topic… > Suppose two players notice each other at the same time (e.g. as would naturally happen when walking around a corner in a shooter) This is not true for third person games. Depending on a left sided or right sided peek and your angle or approach, players see asymmetrically. For example, Fortnite is a right side peek game. Peeking right is safer than peeking left as less of your body is exposed before your camera turns the corner. I believe distance also plays a part in the angles.
  - Strilanc 2y ago
    Yeah, network latency and client side prediction and accuracy will also play huge roles. The actual distributions will be very complex, but in general reacting faster is going to be better.
- wink 2y ago
  Do people not play deathmatches on LAN parties anymore these days? 2.5 is huge if the game lasts long enough that someone would be leading with 200. ;)
cma 2y ago
There are noticability thresholds where this could push it over. For fighting games if you have the reactions to whiff punish N frame recovery moves this may push you to only being able to punish N+1 recovery moves and really impact your ranking. This is a little over 1/3rd of a 60hz frame.
Hikikomori 2y ago
About the difference between 60hz and 120hz monitor, instantly noticeable just by moving the mouse in windows (just by looking at the distance cursor updates as it moves). Would you argue that all gaming monitors are placebo?
- layer8 2y ago
  Just to nitpick, that difference is still above 6.5 ms.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I actually would. Gaming monitors are the equivalent of fancy audiophile gear. It's a way to fleece people by making them think they can perceive a difference that isn't really there.
  - sapiogram 2y ago
    But the difference between 60hz and 120hz is instantly noticeable in a blind test, without even opening a game. That's by definition not placebo.
  - tuna74 2y ago
    There have been actual tests showing players have better accuracy up to 360 fps displays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Guess you think all speakers are the same.
tolciho 2y ago
David Eagleman has done some work with drummers. Granted the audio system might be a bit more accurate than the visual, or maybe drummers are just weird. On the other hand, vim taking 30 milliseconds to start (ugh) and having sluggish cursor motions is why I'm on vi now. Haven't tried Wayland. Maybe in some number of years once it's more portable and more developed? (And how many years has it already been out?) > “I was working with Larry Mullen, Jr., on one of the U2 albums,” Eno told me. “ ‘All That You Don’t Leave Behind,’ or whatever it’s called.” Mullen was playing drums over a recording of the band and a click track—a computer-generated beat that was meant to keep all the overdubbed parts in synch. In this case, however, Mullen thought that the click track was slightly off: it was a fraction of a beat behind the rest of the band. “I said, ‘No, that can’t be so, Larry,’ ” Eno recalled. “ ‘We’ve all worked to that track, so it must be right.’ But he said, ‘Sorry, I just can’t play to it.’ ” > Eno eventually adjusted the click to Mullen’s satisfaction, but he was just humoring him. It was only later, after the drummer had left, that Eno checked the original track again and realized that Mullen was right: the click was off by six milliseconds. “The thing is,” Eno told me, “when we were adjusting it I once had it two milliseconds to the wrong side of the beat, and he said, ‘No, you’ve got to come back a bit.’ Which I think is absolutely staggering.”
AnthonBerg 2y ago
Those sorts of latencies actually are noticeable! As an example, 6.5ms latency between a virtual instrument and its UI is definitely noticeable. I didn’t think it was. But it is. I promise! It’s not necessarily a reaction-time game-winning thing. It’s a feel. With virtual instruments, my experience is that when you get down to ~3ms you don’t notice the latency anymore… but!, when you go below 3ms, it starts feeling more physically real.
bandrami 2y ago
Now download Mixxx and try DJing and using the waveforms for cueing

by rez9x 2y ago

xyst 2y ago

You may think 6.5 ms of input latency is imperceptible. But combine it with the rest of the stack (monitor refresh rate, local network latency, RTT between client and server, time for server to register input from client and calculate “winner”), and it becomes the diff between an L and W. In the case of pros, the diff between a multimillion dollar cash prize and nil.

sapiogram 2y ago

I would postulate that 100% of professional (i.e. elite) competitive gamers would be able to tell the difference. See this old touchscreen demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4

Strilanc 2y ago

It doesn't need to be perceptible to cause a difference in a game. Suppose two players notice each other at the same time (e.g. as would naturally happen when walking around a corner in a shooter), first to shoot wins, and their total latencies are identical Gaussians with a standard deviation of 100ms. Then a 6.5ms reduction in latency is worth an additional 2.5% chance of winning the trade. Maybe you won't notice this on a moment by moment basis, but take statistics and its impact should be measurable. In ELO terms a 2.5% gain in win rate is around a 10 point increase (simplifying by assuming that single Gaussian is the entire game). That's small, but if you were a hardcore player and all it took to raise your ELO by 10 points was using a better monitor/mouse/OS... why not? Doing that is cheap compared to the time investment required to improve your ELO another 10 points with practice (unless you're just starting). Also, I think you'd be surprised what people can perceive in a context where they are practiced. Speed runners hit frame perfect tricks in 60FPS games. That's not reaction time but it does intimately involve consistent control latency between practice and execution.

pests 2y ago
Slightly off topic… > Suppose two players notice each other at the same time (e.g. as would naturally happen when walking around a corner in a shooter) This is not true for third person games. Depending on a left sided or right sided peek and your angle or approach, players see asymmetrically. For example, Fortnite is a right side peek game. Peeking right is safer than peeking left as less of your body is exposed before your camera turns the corner. I believe distance also plays a part in the angles.
- Strilanc 2y ago
  Yeah, network latency and client side prediction and accuracy will also play huge roles. The actual distributions will be very complex, but in general reacting faster is going to be better.
wink 2y ago
Do people not play deathmatches on LAN parties anymore these days? 2.5 is huge if the game lasts long enough that someone would be leading with 200. ;)

cma 2y ago

There are noticability thresholds where this could push it over. For fighting games if you have the reactions to whiff punish N frame recovery moves this may push you to only being able to punish N+1 recovery moves and really impact your ranking. This is a little over 1/3rd of a 60hz frame.

Hikikomori 2y ago

About the difference between 60hz and 120hz monitor, instantly noticeable just by moving the mouse in windows (just by looking at the distance cursor updates as it moves). Would you argue that all gaming monitors are placebo?

layer8 2y ago
Just to nitpick, that difference is still above 6.5 ms.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
I actually would. Gaming monitors are the equivalent of fancy audiophile gear. It's a way to fleece people by making them think they can perceive a difference that isn't really there.
- sapiogram 2y ago
  But the difference between 60hz and 120hz is instantly noticeable in a blind test, without even opening a game. That's by definition not placebo.
- tuna74 2y ago
  There have been actual tests showing players have better accuracy up to 360 fps displays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Guess you think all speakers are the same.

tolciho 2y ago

David Eagleman has done some work with drummers. Granted the audio system might be a bit more accurate than the visual, or maybe drummers are just weird. On the other hand, vim taking 30 milliseconds to start (ugh) and having sluggish cursor motions is why I'm on vi now. Haven't tried Wayland. Maybe in some number of years once it's more portable and more developed? (And how many years has it already been out?) > “I was working with Larry Mullen, Jr., on one of the U2 albums,” Eno told me. “ ‘All That You Don’t Leave Behind,’ or whatever it’s called.” Mullen was playing drums over a recording of the band and a click track—a computer-generated beat that was meant to keep all the overdubbed parts in synch. In this case, however, Mullen thought that the click track was slightly off: it was a fraction of a beat behind the rest of the band. “I said, ‘No, that can’t be so, Larry,’ ” Eno recalled. “ ‘We’ve all worked to that track, so it must be right.’ But he said, ‘Sorry, I just can’t play to it.’ ” > Eno eventually adjusted the click to Mullen’s satisfaction, but he was just humoring him. It was only later, after the drummer had left, that Eno checked the original track again and realized that Mullen was right: the click was off by six milliseconds. “The thing is,” Eno told me, “when we were adjusting it I once had it two milliseconds to the wrong side of the beat, and he said, ‘No, you’ve got to come back a bit.’ Which I think is absolutely staggering.”

AnthonBerg 2y ago

Those sorts of latencies actually are noticeable! As an example, 6.5ms latency between a virtual instrument and its UI is definitely noticeable. I didn’t think it was. But it is. I promise! It’s not necessarily a reaction-time game-winning thing. It’s a feel. With virtual instruments, my experience is that when you get down to ~3ms you don’t notice the latency anymore… but!, when you go below 3ms, it starts feeling more physically real.

bandrami 2y ago

Now download Mixxx and try DJing and using the waveforms for cueing