It would be alright if you would actually suggest things with a proper tone. Now you try to persuade me that 4:3 ****. You won't coz at the most point you're wrong. Check how this discussion started. I said that i use 1024x768, and you "made me an idiot". I never told that 16:9 is bad. I told its player's own preference. You started saying that 16:9 is "way much better", when it actually doesn't have any advantages in competitive play. Using low effect details only gives advantages. 16:9 has downsides as well as 4:3 have. But both of them has advantages. I gave facts and some kind of explanations, why would you use it 4:3 and why seeing little bit more to the sides in competitive play doesn't really give much advantage. YES, at SOME point you might get unlucky. But it will happen 1 out of 300 times.
I did agreed on your opinion that 16:9 is alright, but you keep saying that everyone should use it and 4:3 is ****(obviously you never explained why, with a proper arguments).
Having more fps gives you a smoother, more stable look. I use 144hz monitor. So its important for me to have above 180fps. And yes, even if someone would have CRT monitor, you probably would never win against a good player, even tho you use your ****** 60hz and 2k resolution.
Now explain to me, where exactly im not right. Underline it.
I did agreed on your opinion that 16:9 is alright, but you keep saying that everyone should use it and 4:3 is ****(obviously you never explained why, with a proper arguments).
Having more fps gives you a smoother, more stable look. I use 144hz monitor. So its important for me to have above 180fps. And yes, even if someone would have CRT monitor, you probably would never win against a good player, even tho you use your ****** 60hz and 2k resolution.
Now explain to me, where exactly im not right. Underline it.

Last edited:
, I'm amused at the fact he is trying to insult my csgo skills despite the fact I don't play it. I bet he is rubbish at making dumplings!!