unlimited frame rate option has been removed from the client on 5.0

[WaterShield]

Because fps beyond what your monitor can display is wasted. You don't suddenly get a better experience running a 60hz display at 200 fps.

I feel like it's mostly people who don't understand how monitors work who are getting in a tizzy about this. Especially those who don't understand how the game functions in regards to refresh rates.

I've had the in game limiter on since release, as I have a 60hz panel, and I don't feel like heating up my room excessively for no gains in playability. I have an overclocked 4770k and a 980ti. I can easily get over 120 fps in areas, but there is no point. The panel caps at 60 hz, so running the hardware extra is pointless.

I've tried upgrading to higher refresh rate or resolution panels, and I've had absolutely terrible luck with dead pixel clusters and backlight bleeding. I went through about 6 monitors in the last 3 years, none of which weren't defective.

What does the bold bit have to do with your argument? Seems like you're just bashing a particular technical spec for no reason with that part. Obviously many people (including myself) have purchased such monitors and had no trouble, thus why those devices are still sold.

As to the rest of it, of course extra fps beyond refresh rate of display isn't displayed. Personally, I'm mainly upset with the wording of the patch note (Max 90 FPS). It can be interpreted that they intend to cap everyone at that and no higher. It can also be read as this only replacing the uncapped option leaving the others alone, (such as 1/1) allowing you to match your displays refresh rate.

Given that it's Square communicating a new change... no one can know for sure which is meant, until the patch drops or they clarify the note.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

What does the bold bit have to do with your argument? Seems like you're just bashing a particular technical spec for no reason with that part. Obviously many people (including myself) have purchased such monitors and had no trouble, thus why those devices are still sold.

As to the rest of it, of course extra fps beyond refresh rate of display isn't displayed. Personally, I'm mainly upset with the wording of the patch note (Max 90 FPS). It can be interpreted that they intend to cap everyone at that and no higher. It can also be read as this only replacing the uncapped option leaving the others alone, (such as 1/1) allowing you to match your displays refresh rate.

Given that it's Square communicating a new change... no one can know for sure which is meant, until the patch drops or they clarify the note.

I was trying to head off the "you only use a 60hz panel, you don't know what you are talking about" responses that usually come up. I'm not bashing the spec, I have terrible luck. Maybe reread what I said.

I'd love to have better monitors, I'm stuck with pretty crappy 1080p TN panels.

[WaterShield]

I was trying to head off the "you only use a 60hz panel, you don't know what you are talking about" responses that usually come up. I'm not bashing the spec, I have terrible luck. Maybe reread what I said.

I'd love to have better monitors, I'm stuck with pretty crappy 1080p TN panels.

I had no way of knowing this additional information. Rereading it would not add clarity to what was written. There is a similar issue with the patch note in question. The way it was worded, and the lack of additional information (all other options are unchanged) lead to people not knowing exactly what is happening. This could be resolved by changing the way it is worded, or adding that additional information for clarity.

Regardless, I am glad to know that you aren't trying to argue that additional FPS is pointless in general.

As an aside, have you tried any of BenQ's offerings for monitors? I've had several good monitors from them, including the 144Hz 1440P monitor I'm currently using.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

I had no way of knowing this additional information. Rereading it would not add clarity to what was written. There is a similar issue with the patch note in question. The way it was worded, and the lack of additional information (all other options are unchanged) lead to people not knowing exactly what is happening. This could be resolved by changing the way it is worded, or adding that additional information for clarity.

It's stated in my post that I use a 60hz panel. Right above your original bolded section in your first response.

I've gone through 2 dells, 2 LG's (both different models, and ultrawides), and the "best" 1440p Asus monitor.

I'm done for now lol, I spent 6 months arguing with Amazon and my credit card that one of the monitors had been returned and Amazon had signed for it.

[WaterShield]

It's stated in my post that I use a 60hz panel. Right above your original bolded section in your first response.

I've gone through 2 dells, 2 LG's (both different models, and ultrawides), and the "best" 1440p Asus monitor.

I'm done for now lol, I spent 6 months arguing with Amazon and my credit card that one of the monitors had been returned and Amazon had signed for it.

Again, this doesn't really tell me as much as you think. It also gives the implication that due to the number of "defective" monitors you had, that they were bad in general. Hence the question. Anyways, I understand the why of it now and I'm reallly not trying to argue with you about that.

With being done attempting to upgrade for now, I can definitely understand why that would be the case, given the poor experience on return to Amazon.