View Poll Results: Should we add ranks to the user list?
Yes
20 Votes / 100.00%
No
0 Votes / 0%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll
View Poll Results
View Poll Results
Originally Posted by panttersin
Yeah, that sens he is using is pretty low compared to the average player, retardedly slow =/= low.
you must be global because you have the lowest sens of all of us! No but seriously, accel?
Its not a competition who has the lowest sensitivity. If you can do a fast 180 its fine. If you cant do a 180 comfortably you're gonna have a bad time when going into sites. 1.1 400 dpi (which is your sens) is on the line of unviable, since you pretty much have to move half a meter to do a 180, ive tried it and its pretty darn slow.
I'm currently playing 2k dpi 0.35 which is around 400 dpi 1.5 id say. I think that is my personal sweetspot, still on the slow side but I can entry if needed. Honestly doe, accel is pretty stupid, you can play with it, but there is a reason like no top tier player plays with it. (except phantasy in cod4). the inconsistency is easily a problem with accel.
Personally id say anything between (400 dpi) 1.2/1.3 - 3 is fine. Above or below that and you'll prolly have some problems.
saying accel is stupid because it's not in the majority of pro players because most simply didn't play with it. ok then.
it's down to personal preference, isn't it? i thought we had this discussion before except it being about 16:9 and 4:3. it's personal preference, and the only reason i would change it is if i can't frag at all, whether the enemy is behind me or infront of me.
currently i'm able to get consistant 180's, whether i think about it or not. i get my aim to where i want it in the time i need it.
if it's retardly low sens and stupid to play with accel, okay. good for you. i'm able to kill at my current rank, and if i ever get problems with it and come to the conclusion that it's my sens/accel, then i'll change it.
M I N I V A N
Originally Posted by Hours
saying accel is stupid because it's not in the majority of pro players because most simply didn't play with it. ok then.
it's down to personal preference, isn't it? i thought we had this discussion before except it being about 16:9 and 4:3. it's personal preference, and the only reason i would change it is if i can't frag at all, whether the enemy is behind me or infront of me.
currently i'm able to get consistant 180's, whether i think about it or not. i get my aim to where i want it in the time i need it.
if it's retardly low sens and stupid to play with accel, okay. good for you. i'm able to kill at my current rank, and if i ever get problems with it and come to the conclusion that it's my sens/accel, then i'll change it.
The problem with accel is simple. When you have 1:1 mouse to game ratio you have 1 variable to learn, the distance your mouse travels. But when you have accel in there there are 3 things you have to concider, the distance, the speed and their correlation. The reason why pro players dont use it is because 1 variable is more consistent than 3, sure you CAN use accel, but there is a reason people dont use it.
Regarding 16:9 and 4:3:
They have different qualities, 4:3 stretch for example zooms in closer than 16:9, so you choose between atributes like fov and bigger targets. With accel, you dont gain any advantage compared to no accel, which is why I dont like the "its prefrence" wording there.
You can say "I like 60hz monitors more, its just prefrence", but I dont think any pro players use 60hz monitors anymore, and trust me, if there was a way to get an advantage, professional players would use it. I think its the same thing with mouseaccel, sure you can use it and its probably not going to harm you alot. But it's pretty widely accepted that there are better options.
Last edited by panttersin; Feb 22, 2016 at 04:53 PM.
New operation is pretty cool, too bad about RIP fps tho. Hopefully volvo get their shit together soon 
FYI that "guide" is 100% bullshit made up. Yes CS uses elo, but that's about as far as this guide is accurate.
Not true, when you are flicking you don't think "ok so this guy is about 20 pixels south south east so I need to move my wrist south south east 20mm", flicking is 100% muscle memory, in which case it doesn't make a difference if you use accel or not.
Some pros do actually use accel (fer comes to mind). It's 100% player preference since it's 100% muscle memory. You /might/ be able to argue that it's harder to build muscle memory for accurate large distance flicks because the technique for learning them requires you to move the mouse slowly, but really, it doesn't matter. There's a whole debate around practicing at full speed vs practicing at slow speed. It really depends how you want to do it.
Using unstretched resolutions and lower frequency monitors are both measurably bad, they are not user preference. This is completely different to mouse accel because there is no real reason to think mouse accel to cause any inaccuracy for experienced users.
Originally Posted by panttersin
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil.../?id=312582297
FYI that "guide" is 100% bullshit made up. Yes CS uses elo, but that's about as far as this guide is accurate.
Originally Posted by panttersin
The problem with accel is simple. When you have 1:1 mouse to game ratio you have 1 variable to learn, the distance your mouse travels. But when you have accel in there there are 3 things you have to concider, the distance, the speed and their correlation. The reason why pro players dont use it is because 1 variable is more consistent than 3, sure you CAN use accel, but there is a reason people dont use it.
Not true, when you are flicking you don't think "ok so this guy is about 20 pixels south south east so I need to move my wrist south south east 20mm", flicking is 100% muscle memory, in which case it doesn't make a difference if you use accel or not.
Some pros do actually use accel (fer comes to mind). It's 100% player preference since it's 100% muscle memory. You /might/ be able to argue that it's harder to build muscle memory for accurate large distance flicks because the technique for learning them requires you to move the mouse slowly, but really, it doesn't matter. There's a whole debate around practicing at full speed vs practicing at slow speed. It really depends how you want to do it.
Originally Posted by panttersin
Regarding 16:9 and 4:3:
They have different qualities, 4:3 stretch for example zooms in closer than 16:9, so you choose between atributes like fov and bigger targets. With accel, you dont gain any advantage compared to no accel, which is why I dont like the "its prefrence" wording there.
You can say "I like 60hz monitors more, its just prefrence", but I dont think any pro players use 60hz monitors anymore. I think its the same thing with mouseaccel, sure you can use it and its propably not going to harm you alot. But it's pretty widely accepted that there are better options.
Using unstretched resolutions and lower frequency monitors are both measurably bad, they are not user preference. This is completely different to mouse accel because there is no real reason to think mouse accel to cause any inaccuracy for experienced users.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by panttersin
The problem with accel is simple. When you have 1:1 mouse to game ratio you have 1 variable to learn, the distance your mouse travels. But when you have accel in there there are 3 things you have to concider, the distance, the speed and their correlation. The reason why pro players dont use it is because 1 variable is more consistent than 3, sure you CAN use accel, but there is a reason people dont use it.
Regarding 16:9 and 4:3:
They have different qualities, 4:3 stretch for example zooms in closer than 16:9, so you choose between atributes like fov and bigger targets. With accel, you dont gain any advantage compared to no accel, which is why I dont like the "its prefrence" wording there.
You can say "I like 60hz monitors more, its just prefrence", but I dont think any pro players use 60hz monitors anymore, and trust me, if there was a way to get an advantage, professional players would use it. I think its the same thing with mouseaccel, sure you can use it and its probably not going to harm you alot. But it's pretty widely accepted that there are better options.
more things to think of or not, once you've played with it for 5+ years, you're comfortable with it and you know what's going to happen once you make adjustments.
and no, there's no better options to personal preference (if you're able to do the things you want without problems). the only reason why one would listen to other pro players, is if they haven't tried out what they're being told. i've spent some time comparing playing with accel and without, and to me personally, i do horrible without it.
so, for an example, i was playing on d2, doing dm because i was playing without accel. i was on the bottom of ramp, watching down long. someone came short and started shooting at me. with accel, i would have gotten my aim to him without a problem. now, i only came halfway to short with my aim. yes, this was because of my low sens. clearly, if i had higher i would have made it without problems. but, with higher i wouldn't have been able to get those long distance headshots, because i couldn't have made those small corrections i would have needed.
yes, it comes down to getting used to it and takes a while, but why would i spend that time to get used to something when i'm already able to do what needs to be done during a match?
i can fully rely on the mouse accel. the only thing i consider whilst playing is the position of the enemy, and where my crosshair placement is.
also, i didn't ask you to get onto the 4:3 and 16:9 subject. it doesn't have to be talked about.
M I N I V A N
