|
On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine.
Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"?
I mean, just look at professional sports, how many stupid things those pros do just to feel confident - like in Tennis how many players have a "ritual" to change rackets at certain points in the game, which, tbh, isn't related to the "feeling" but just makes them feel better.
Therefore, why not have the "perfect" settings to feel calm and good when you play? Of course you are true that these are placebos to some exten - my point is: why the hell not? It doesn't cost you money and won't hurt anybody
|
On November 03 2010 23:40 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine. Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"? I mean, just look at professional sports, how many stupid things those pros do just to feel confident - like in Tennis how many players have a "ritual" to change rackets at certain points in the game, which, tbh, isn't related to the "feeling" but just makes them feel better. Therefore, why not have the "perfect" settings to feel calm and good when you play? Of course you are true that these are placebos to some exten - my point is: why the hell not? It doesn't cost you money and won't hurt anybody
Lets pretend that in a game you move your mouse dead on to the pixel edge of a unit. With a 1:1 mouse you have a 100% chance of hitting, otherwise you have a 50% chance because your mouse might drift 1 pixel. But on the flip side, lets say you move your mouse just a tad bit further during play. With a 1:1 mouse you have a 0% chance of hitting, while otherwise you would have a 50% chance of the mouse being 1 pixel short. In the end, your odds of a misclick effectively about the same either way. And how many times does anyone really just accidentally miss by a pixel? Units are like 50 pixels wide anyway and unless you are really new to using a mouse you are clicking them near the center in the first place.
Also, it certainly costs money if you have to find the perfect DPI mouse. 1:1 pixel accuracy only helps if your mouse sensitivity is also perfect in the first place. If you have to use an uncomfortable sensitivity to reach 1:1 pixel accuracy then your gameplay is going to be hurt 100x more then it ever could be because your arm will get tired or feel uncomfortable or w/e. A mouse with the right DPI to suit your preferred sensitivity might not even exist, or if it may the mouse shape may suck or the buttons may feel bad, etc. A mouse being a poor form is also going to hurt you much more then occasionally missing by 1 pixel. So unless you have thousands of dollars worth of time and money to spare testing every mouse in creation you are best off just getting the most comfortable mouse and changing the sensitivity as you please.
If you want to make an argument that something helps you 'feel better' about your play, then absolutely everything is up for grabs. Memorize trignometric integrals, pray to Cthulu, milk your cat, mess with your mouse sensitivity, whatever. These are all equally helpful things and if they make you feel good go ahead and do them.
|
On November 03 2010 23:40 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine. Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"?
If you can't hit a 10x10 pixel target the problem is not your mouse/screen ratio. Even if your mouse skips every other pixel, that's still a tiny difference compared to the amount you overshot the center of that 10x10 pixel target by.
And placebos are bad because they detract you from things that actually improve your play.
|
On November 03 2010 23:49 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 23:40 sleepingdog wrote:On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine. Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"? If you can't hit a 10x10 pixel target the problem is not your mouse/screen ratio. Even if your mouse skips every other pixel, that's still a tiny difference compared to the amount you overshot the center of that 10x10 pixel target by. And placebos are bad because they detract you from things that actually improve your play.
Every game and sport has little things like these that serious players try to use to get an edge. This is a forum for serious players so I think it's more than appropriate for these threads to exist. Obsessing over pixel perfect mouse movement is a distraction, but just dismissing sensitivity tweaks as placebos does a disservice to people who may be playing with sub-optimal settings.
|
On November 04 2010 00:53 MysteryHours wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 23:49 kojinshugi wrote:On November 03 2010 23:40 sleepingdog wrote:On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine. Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"? If you can't hit a 10x10 pixel target the problem is not your mouse/screen ratio. Even if your mouse skips every other pixel, that's still a tiny difference compared to the amount you overshot the center of that 10x10 pixel target by. And placebos are bad because they detract you from things that actually improve your play. Every game and sport has little things like these that serious players try to use to get an edge. This is a forum for serious players so I think it's more than appropriate for these threads to exist. Obsessing over pixel perfect mouse movement is a distraction, but just dismissing sensitivity tweaks as placebos does a disservice to people who may be playing with sub-optimal settings.
Low-dpi, imprecise mice are bad. Uneven mouse surfaces are bad. Unwieldy keybinds are bad. Randomly changing tracking speed is bad.
Getting your mouse tracking to 1:1 vs screen pixels is cargo cult handwaving based on technologically ancient paradigms, and obsessing over shit like that is a net loss.
And your implication that advocating objectively effective methods of improving ones play makes one a "non-serious player" is hard to describe, in that I can't figure out if it's more arrogant than it is ignorant.
|
This discussion seems to be completely moot. In theory it sounds great to have 1:1 ratio, but what do people do? They increase Dpi to get comfortable high sensitivity, but that introduces more room for errors..
hand -> [sensitivity&Dpi] -> screen
Both values are linked, it doesn't really matter which one you adjust. Let's say you only feel comfortable with a sensitivity of 1cm = 200px.
If you have a mouse with 1:2 ratio, it tracks 1mm movement and you have 100 possible steps.
If you have a mouse with 1:1 ratio, it tracks 0.5mm movement and you have 200 possible steps.
Sounds great but who is that gosu, that he can move his hand with 0.5mm accuracy?
All this theory is only valid for fps players that play with very low sensitivity. Since losing pixels would make their surface-to-pixel ratio even bigger and skipping pixels would defeat the purpose of low sens. But honestly how many people play RTS/use windows with low sens?
For high sens players it just doesn't matter, as hand movement by default is to inaccurate (especially on fast motions). The only option would be to increase the surface-to-pixel ratio (lower sens) and not just the tracking resolution, but if you feel uncomfortable with lower sens/suffer from fatigue, that isn't an option.
The only advantage to adjust sensitivity through Dpi is, that you can change the horizontal&vertical sensitivity independently and most gaming mice allow storage of multiple settings, so you can switch sensitivity levels on the fly and not just inside the options menu, which might be handy for players who prefer different sens based on the weapon they currently have. (of course that doesn't apply to SC at all xD)
edit: A better topic would probably a technical discussion about different mice, their accuracy&tracking rate. A cheap optical mice might lose tracking on very fast movements, while a gaming grade mice still tracks fine (regardless of movement speed), because it has a faster&more reliable tracking rate.
|
So I play at 11/11, and I 91-94% for Sc2. I'd like to increase my precesion without sacrificing my speed.
I've never used a gaming mouse, but I do have the Logitech M400 laser mouse (800 DPI) but I do not have a mousepad, I just use a wooden surface. Would a quality gaming mousepad help increase me out more, or would a different mouse be a lot better?
Great thread too.
|
Can someone explain why acceleration is bad? i had it "on" for many years now and didnt seem to have any problems.
I turned it off now to test it a few days(to get used to it) but for now I can say that I dont like it so far :p
What exactly is the advantage of no acceleration?
|
On November 04 2010 03:23 Sewi wrote:
Can someone explain why acceleration is bad? i had it "on" for many years now and didnt seem to have any problems.
I turned it off now to test it a few days(to get used to it) but for now I can say that I dont like it so far :p
What exactly is the advantage of no acceleration?
You can't predict where the mouse will go when you pan across the screen because it depends on the speed at which you move it and not just the distance you move your hand/wrist.
|
On November 04 2010 03:30 Lumb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 03:23 Sewi wrote:
Can someone explain why acceleration is bad? i had it "on" for many years now and didnt seem to have any problems.
I turned it off now to test it a few days(to get used to it) but for now I can say that I dont like it so far :p
What exactly is the advantage of no acceleration? You can't predict where the mouse will go when you pan across the screen because it depends on the speed at which you move it and not just the distance you move your hand/wrist.
Ok thanks, I understand this so far.
But are there any disadvantages besides that? Because it seems that this doesnt really effect precision as long as someone is used to it.
As I explained, I am very used to acceleration and i always hit everything I want (with my mouse)
Now, that I tried no acceleration, I always move my mouse too far :p
If there are no disadvantages besides "being used to one or the other setting" I dont think it is worth changing it for me.
|
On November 04 2010 03:34 Sewi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 03:30 Lumb wrote:On November 04 2010 03:23 Sewi wrote:
Can someone explain why acceleration is bad? i had it "on" for many years now and didnt seem to have any problems.
I turned it off now to test it a few days(to get used to it) but for now I can say that I dont like it so far :p
What exactly is the advantage of no acceleration? You can't predict where the mouse will go when you pan across the screen because it depends on the speed at which you move it and not just the distance you move your hand/wrist. Ok thanks, I understand this so far. But are there any disadvantages besides that? Because it seems that this doesnt really effect precision as long as someone is used to it. As I explained, I am very used to acceleration and i always hit everything I want (with my mouse) Now, that I tried no acceleration, I always move my mouse too far :p If there are no disadvantages besides "being used to one or the other setting" I dont think it is worth changing it for me.
Its easy to still think you are fine with it but in reality you are probably often overshooting or undershooting your target and being forced to correct while moving, which slows you down a bit. Its very hard to recognize if you are used to correcting for the error but it still slows you down. Ideally you should be able to snap your mouse between two points without needing to look at the screen and check where your mouse cursor went, and you can't do that with acceleration.
|
I had a 400 dpi logitech optical I used before until it broke and I'm using a logitech 800 dpi mini optical now and I honestly don't think I could be able to tell the difference between having everything set correctly and just jacking up the mouse sensitivity. I don't want to sacrifice the higher sensitivity I like and I guess I could buy a high dpi mouse but I haven't really noticed a problem with what I'm using now and the lmo feels great.
|
I don't think there is a mathematically ideal way to set your mouse sensitivity, seems to me that it everyone should simply setup their mouse so that it works for THEM. I've got my sensitivity acceleration etc. set up what is just right for me, and I never have mis-clicks happen that are mouse related, if I mis-click its because I actually missed. Also most gaming mice (if not all) should allow you set the sensitivity, speed, and even polling rate from the mouse driver options menu. In other words always set your windows and in-game sensitivity to an arbitrary amount, lets say 50%, and then let the mouse software do its job. This will result in at LAN you simply set windows/game to 50%, and your mouse will always work the way it did at your house.
|
congratz 6/11 is not 50%
....
l2live life?
|
I'm confused.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |10|11|
| -5 | -4 | -3 | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
There's 11 spaces. I thought that was how it worked. Or something similar.
In game sensitivity I believe is preference, and you can do whatever you want with it. But windows sensitivity should always be 6.
|
On November 04 2010 00:59 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 00:53 MysteryHours wrote:On November 03 2010 23:49 kojinshugi wrote:On November 03 2010 23:40 sleepingdog wrote:On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine. Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"? If you can't hit a 10x10 pixel target the problem is not your mouse/screen ratio. Even if your mouse skips every other pixel, that's still a tiny difference compared to the amount you overshot the center of that 10x10 pixel target by. And placebos are bad because they detract you from things that actually improve your play. Every game and sport has little things like these that serious players try to use to get an edge. This is a forum for serious players so I think it's more than appropriate for these threads to exist. Obsessing over pixel perfect mouse movement is a distraction, but just dismissing sensitivity tweaks as placebos does a disservice to people who may be playing with sub-optimal settings. Low-dpi, imprecise mice are bad. Uneven mouse surfaces are bad. Unwieldy keybinds are bad. Randomly changing tracking speed is bad. Getting your mouse tracking to 1:1 vs screen pixels is cargo cult handwaving based on technologically ancient paradigms, and obsessing over shit like that is a net loss. And your implication that advocating objectively effective methods of improving ones play makes one a "non-serious player" is hard to describe, in that I can't figure out if it's more arrogant than it is ignorant.
It certainly wasn't my intention to suggest that other more important ways of improving your game are somehow for non-serious players. My point was that while yes, posts like these are of little use to casual players, they have their place in a forum of serious players (along with "objectively effective methods of improving ones play", obviously).
There are in depth posts here about all sorts of aspects of the game that have little to no actual bearing on how well you actually play (analysis of how the ladder works, for example). If people choose to obsess over these things instead of actually improving their gameplay, well that's their problem. No one here should be saying 1:1 mouse tracking is going to massively improve your game, it's just a 'the more you know' thing.
|
On November 04 2010 09:20 MysteryHours wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2010 00:59 kojinshugi wrote:On November 04 2010 00:53 MysteryHours wrote:On November 03 2010 23:49 kojinshugi wrote:On November 03 2010 23:40 sleepingdog wrote:On November 03 2010 23:29 Cyclon wrote:On November 03 2010 23:01 kojinshugi wrote:
Anyone who thinks 1:1 ratio is uber important has a seriously inflated opinion on the accuracy of human motor control. Indeed. Distractions like this are just placebos to make people feel like they are somehow improving their game. The bottom line is that there is no game in which you ever have a use for pixel perfect accuracy. When Blizzard patches SC2 to allow you to zoom out and see the whole battlefield then we can talk about 1:1 pixel accuracy when every unit ends up being 1 pixel tall. Until then, as long as your cursor can comfortably and quickly reach all 4 corners of the screen your sensitivity is fine. Still, why don't you "want" to remove technical reasons for misclicks if you "can"? If you can't hit a 10x10 pixel target the problem is not your mouse/screen ratio. Even if your mouse skips every other pixel, that's still a tiny difference compared to the amount you overshot the center of that 10x10 pixel target by. And placebos are bad because they detract you from things that actually improve your play. Every game and sport has little things like these that serious players try to use to get an edge. This is a forum for serious players so I think it's more than appropriate for these threads to exist. Obsessing over pixel perfect mouse movement is a distraction, but just dismissing sensitivity tweaks as placebos does a disservice to people who may be playing with sub-optimal settings. Low-dpi, imprecise mice are bad. Uneven mouse surfaces are bad. Unwieldy keybinds are bad. Randomly changing tracking speed is bad. Getting your mouse tracking to 1:1 vs screen pixels is cargo cult handwaving based on technologically ancient paradigms, and obsessing over shit like that is a net loss. And your implication that advocating objectively effective methods of improving ones play makes one a "non-serious player" is hard to describe, in that I can't figure out if it's more arrogant than it is ignorant. It certainly wasn't my intention to suggest that other more important ways of improving your game are somehow for non-serious players. My point was that while yes, posts like these are of little use to casual players, they have their place in a forum of serious players (along with "objectively effective methods of improving ones play", obviously). There are in depth posts here about all sorts of aspects of the game that have little to no actual bearing on how well you actually play (analysis of how the ladder works, for example). If people choose to obsess over these things instead of actually improving their gameplay, well that's their problem. No one here should be saying 1:1 mouse tracking is going to massively improve your game, it's just a 'the more you know' thing.
The problem is that the mere existence of this thread implies that 1:1 pixel accuracy is some pro-approved way to improve your play. No noobie reads up on the ladder system expecting to improve their SC play from it, but they may end up doing silly things with their settings while operating on the incorrect notion that there is some 'correct' settings they should be using.
|
Why are so many going on and on about "one pixel doesn't matter, you are not better player because of 1:1 etc"?
The OP had a great finding and he shared that with the community. Whether you like the suggestion or not there is no reason to jump on the "hey, lets diss the 1:1 pixel ratio bandwagon".
Like someone said. Every sport has it's own gimmicks. You probably have your favourite graphics options/favourite keyboard etc when in reality the effects of that on your gameplay would hardly be noticable even if you convince yourself it is. But still it matters to you.
Why 1:1 pixel ratio is "good" is self explanatory regardless of the actual (non) implication on your game.
You move one pixel - the cursor moves one pixel. No probabilistic (like the example someone gave with 50% chance of hitting right), no fancy equations on mouse acceleration, pixel skipping and rounding to closest pixel etc.
It simplifies the settings you have to do. But if you feel comfortable on having different enhancement options whether in SC2 settings or in windows then do it but it is getting a bit old that whenever these threads pop up someone feels the need to discuss "why it doesn't matter".
|
Okey I bought new razer abyssus mouse and have few questions 
So firstly if I make SC2 sensitivity to 54 then I can't adjust mouse dpi for my needs - 450dpi is too low, 1800dpi is too high and 3500dpi is also too high sensitivity for me. So it's best to put mouse dpi on max(3500) and make SC2 sensitivity just like it is comfortable for me, or? Now on SC2 it is only 17, and on windows it's 2/11. Is there any advantage in lowering mouse dpi and increasing windows/SC2 sensitivity?
|
Canada13389 Posts
On December 29 2010 00:57 Alpina wrote:Okey I bought new razer abyssus mouse and have few questions So firstly if I make SC2 sensitivity to 54 then I can't adjust mouse dpi for my needs - 450dpi is too low, 1800dpi is too high and 3500dpi is also too high sensitivity for me. So it's best to put mouse dpi on max(3500) and make SC2 sensitivity just like it is comfortable for me, or? Now on SC2 it is only 17, and on windows it's 2/11. Is there any advantage in lowering mouse dpi and increasing windows/SC2 sensitivity?
Not really since the high dpi is just the mouse's own sensitivity. I run 1500 dpi 6/11 and i think I have default sc2 sensitivity. If you use another mouse for any reason you will have to re-fit the sensitivity on your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
