Mouse acceleration at Dirty Bomb

(Ghosthree3) #61

And see this is where you demonstrate you don’t understand how the driver works and thus aren’t qualified to rebut it.

You don’t adjust the sensitivity in-game when using it. The sensitivity value in the driver - the GUI you mention - actually doesn’t do anything. What’s important is the post-scale value.

The post-scale takes the input of the mouse - say 2,000 DPI - and scales it, effectively changing the sensitivity. Eg. if you have 2,000 DPI and change the post scale to 0.5 then you get the same sensitivity you would get with 1,000 DPI, or half the speed.

By first using 0.4 post scaling and then using 0.25 he almost halved the sensitivity he was using in-game but kept the same acceleration curve and maximum speed increase. The max actually isn’t really relevant for the speeds he was moving his mouse at though, pretty much just the curve.

(Jurmabones) #62

The setting “sensitivity” never changed from 1, so it’s pretty understandable that I would say “his sensitivity remained at 1 the entire video” since that’s what reality is. I don’t know why you keep trying to play semantics to make a point when (a) you’re constantly misusing words and (b) it doesn’t do anything at all to support your argument.

As for how the mouse driver works, I appreciate the explanation, but the video is still somebody shooting slow, predictable bots and still having obvious inaccuracy (he continuously made left-right adjustments and was never able to cleanly track even such an easy target). It’s not a video of someone performing at a high level in Dirty Bomb after making radical adjustment to mouse behavior.

Besides which, what he did in the video in terms of adjusting the mouse driver is incomparable to reducing your in-game sensitivity (in this case Dirty Bomb) by 67% and your dpi by 45%. And I don’t mean necessarily just in a quantifiable difference from the one setting to the other, but the fact is he’s playing a totally different game, against AI, and only adjusting input scaling in a custom mouse driver. That’s almost completely irrelevant to the topic.

(Ghosthree3) #63

Yes at first he is clearly making mistakes, you expected him to adapt instantly? Even once adapted though, 100% accuracy is far from expected.

No but it is someone being able to adjust quickly to a significant change in sensitivity.

The fact the sensitivity is being scaled by the driver isn’t really relevant. He could have changed the in-game sensitivity and adjusted the curve to match the changes if he’d really wanted to. The fact it’s against bots doesn’t mean everything either. Have you played against Quake bots? It’s not super easy to stick to them like glue.

(Jurmabones) #64

Like I said, his aim was poor before and after making changes. And it’s obviously harder to hit a decent player actively trying to throw your aim off than it is to hit AI. And he wasn’t even on Dirty Bomb. The video does not demonstrate anything meaningful.

(Ghosthree3) #65

If you say so. I wouldn’t call that poor, nor would I call it top tier. But he’s not a top tier player.

Also you said you’d like to see someone adjust within 30 minutes and that you thought it would be impossible to do so. Considering he only spent 20s on it I think he did pretty well.

(Vampwood) #66

Everything about these posts in one sentence. " Please cut the crap about facts/science and everything else." Accel can be used if set up correctly, arguing otherwise shows your inexperience in this matter. Saying it is objectively bad when there are plenty of anecdotal evidence and PROFESSIONAL Players using it is just ignoring data. It is not for everyone.

(Ctrix) #67

Holly shit, I missed a massive flame war :smiley:

You tell em Jurma[quote=“Raw;70694”]Calm it down there people. You’re arguing an opinion. Not a fact of science. It’s okayy… Shhhhhh[/quote]
This isn’t about music or even politics. It’s very much factual and scientific.

Go tell that to every Quake pro. I’m sure they could use your insight to up their game.[/quote]
Please don’t argue this.

Mouse accel is impractical, period.

It completely interferes and messes with your brains ability to learn and develop muscle memory when aiming. After long periods of time you can learn to play with mouse accel but without it, it’s way faster to learn and you are way more consistent.

[/quote]
Interesting, got any scientific papers on this?
[/quote]
As if any behavioural scientists were bored enough to do a study on that.

(Black) #68

Go tell that to every Quake pro. I’m sure they could use your insight to up their game.[/quote]
Please don’t argue this.

Mouse accel is impractical, period.

It completely interferes and messes with your brains ability to learn and develop muscle memory when aiming. After long periods of time you can learn to play with mouse accel but without it, it’s way faster to learn and you are way more consistent.

[/quote]

Interesting, got any scientific papers on this?

I mean sure, not having to train your brain/muscles to also account for speed differences is propably easier to pick up. But I kinda doubt that adjusting to accel takes much longer than a month tops (tho, without proper studies, it is just a hunch based on every other kind of training).

However, I think the benefit of accel. is pretty clear.
With no accel. You use one single sensitivity. For alot of players and games that is just fine. You experiment till you find that perfect sens. Under which you perform best and thats it. No accel. will be better in that case, since it needs less control, and easily allows you to get reproducable results independent of the speed of your movement.

Accel seems to be great tho if you feel that there is no golden sensitivity setting, if you constantly transition between situations where lower sens. would be better and those where high sens would be benefitial.
Sure you could setup a dpi switch and in situations that have a clear transition (like sniping) that would work great aswell. But if you need situational on the fly change I can see the use of accel.[/quote]

I’m not saying no accel is better than no accel. I’m saying learning with no accel is easier and more consistent with muscle memory.

Sensitivity really all comes down to preference…

(Gi.Am) #69

[quote=“Ctrix;70879”]Holly shit, I missed a massive flame war :smiley:

You tell em Jurma[quote=“Raw;70694”]Calm it down there people. You’re arguing an opinion. Not a fact of science. It’s okayy… Shhhhhh[/quote]
This isn’t about music or even politics. It’s very much factual and scientific.

Go tell that to every Quake pro. I’m sure they could use your insight to up their game.[/quote]
Please don’t argue this.

Mouse accel is impractical, period.

It completely interferes and messes with your brains ability to learn and develop muscle memory when aiming. After long periods of time you can learn to play with mouse accel but without it, it’s way faster to learn and you are way more consistent.

[/quote]
Interesting, got any scientific papers on this?
[/quote]
As if any behavioural scientists were bored enough to do a study on that.

[/quote]

Why should they be bored for this seems to be a rather interesting topic around the question what types of movement “muscle memory” can adapt to or wether non linear results will hamper the learning process. Actualy it sounds like a great topic for a Master thesis in quite a few fields (neuro biologists, ergonomics, sport students, medical fields, computer science…). Games are subject to studies all the time and one look at the IG Nobel Prize shows that crazier stuff gets studied every year. So there could very well be a paper out there with numbers.

I asked because partly I am indeed sceptical aswell that such a paper exists. However you are claiming that “It’s very much factual and scientific.” but are not able/willing to show some scientific evidence for it. Which makes it anecdotal at best.

Partly I asked, because I would love to read such a paper, could be very interesting and might inform my stance on the subject in the future.

In the end right now, it is coming down to personal preferences.

(watsyurdeal) #70

I have to side with the anti accel a bit here if only for the twitch aim, twitch relies on good muscle memory, and getting those flick shots…if it is possible to get with accel I’d like to watch and observe.

But then again, whatever helps you dominate without cheating of course, I say go for it, if you have to play with a mouse that’s shaped like a dick on a mouse pad shaped like a pair of breasts, hey man whatever works.

(Vampwood) #71

[quote=“Watsyurdeal;70915”]I have to side with the anti accel a bit here if only for the twitch aim, twitch relies on good muscle memory, and getting those flick shots…if it is possible to get with accel I’d like to watch and observe.

.[/quote]

Check out my youtube sparks vids, I use accel.

(watsyurdeal) #72

Btw Vamp, do you also play Kira, I think I played with you some time ago on Chapel, but wasn’t sure since it’s pretty possible to run into posers.

It happened a lot on tf2, where people would take the name of someone famous for the sake of getting noticed.

(Vampwood) #73

[quote=“Watsyurdeal;70926”]Btw Vamp, do you also play Kira, I think I played with you some time ago on Chapel, but wasn’t sure since it’s pretty possible to run into posers.

It happened a lot on tf2, where people would take the name of someone famous for the sake of getting noticed.[/quote]

Yes I play Kira as well

(watsyurdeal) #74

Just watched a bit, how do you see your crosshair if it’s that tiny?

I’m going to have to get used to that, I’m seeing it a lot.

(Vampwood) #75

[quote=“Watsyurdeal;70953”]Just watched a bit, how do you see your crosshair if it’s that tiny?

I’m going to have to get used to that, I’m seeing it a lot.[/quote]

Im playing on a 1080p monitor in 720p, its larger then normal and im also sitting very close to the monitor with a low FOV so its not really a problem for me

(Ghosthree3) #76


This is not the best aimer in the Quake scene, he is more known for his brains - though his aim is pretty good now, this is 2010 though. However the clips in this video are pretty good at demonstrating what you want. He uses a very low base sensitivity with some pretty high accel, watch him flick rocket shots. Start at 1:10.

Accel is all about letting you get those twitch shots, it’s pretty much the reason to use it. Otherwise you’d just use a low base sensitivity and no accel.

(B_Montiel) #77

Base sensitivity will not change the acceleration effects. Putting simple maths/physics :

x is the mouse distance you’ve applied during a move. No matter the speed, x will be the same. If there’s no acceleration involved, the generated movement on the screen will remain the same. x centimetres on your table will generate n degrees of rotation on screen, no matter you’re doing it at 1cm/s or 30cm/s.

Basically, mouse acceleration will calculate the speed of your movements and then generate an acceleration factor (which is also multiplied by the strength of the acceleration you’ve selected in your drivers). If you consider two situations :

  1. this x distance on your table done in 2 seconds. Considering acceleration is (very roughly) the distance divided by the square of the ammount of time (dx/dt²), the acceleration factor will be very low not to say negligible, since the ammount of time for the movement is considerably high. So you’ll almost get a usual x centimeters on table = n degrees on screen.
  2. this x distance on your table done in 0.1 seconds. Following the same idea, the acceleration factor will be high, because the ammount of time is very low. So you’ll get x centimeters on table = n + n*(acceleration factor) degrees on screen.
    That’s very rough, but that was just to give you an idea of how it works.

This said, it’s all about being able to handle different parameters : some prefer to only deal with distance and speed (2), some also add acceleration (3). Both solutions have pros and cons. Using only distance and speed is a consistent choice while acceleration allow you to flickshot easily without doing three full moves on your mouse pad. Both solutions are in my mind equal, that’s totally a matter of preferences.