|
Post by robesh on Sept 16, 2009 16:01:02 GMT -5
I've heard countless times that high sensitivities give an advantage, and I can see how it helps you railgun, but does it really help that much?
I think a higher sensitivity is better, but there is a point where it doesn't help. For example, the default sensitivity is too slow, while the maximum sensitivity is too fast, unless you're trying to get some PC style snipes.
Also, it'd be nice to know what sensitivity you play on.
This applies to the Xbox 360 and the PS3 more than it does with the PC.
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Sept 16, 2009 16:14:19 GMT -5
Higher sensitivity is always better if you can get used to it because it allows you to do things that are impossible on lower sensitivity. That said, you have to get used to the higher sensitivity, and the benefits are pretty small. So yes, higher sensitivity is ALWAYS better if you can play it, but it still isn't a big deal.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Sept 16, 2009 17:17:06 GMT -5
The only benefit from higher sensitivity is turning around faster. If you can do a 360° or even just a 180° without having to pick up your mouse, that's more than enough.
As for thumbsticks, well turning as fast as possible is always a good thing, but unless you have really good dexterity so to tilt the stick in very minute directions from the dead zone, then you should slow it down to be able to aim.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod6134 on Sept 16, 2009 17:40:33 GMT -5
I always play with the highest sensitivity when I get a game. To get used to it I just gradually move up 2 or 3 settings every game and then when I hit maximum it isn't a huge change.
|
|
iKONIG
True Bro
Don't know what to put here, Just something random.
Posts: 220
|
Post by iKONIG on Sept 17, 2009 15:01:55 GMT -5
After spending about 2 months on insane, you begin to notice how bad your aim actually is.
Since then i'v been playing at about 5 or 6.
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Sept 17, 2009 22:22:41 GMT -5
After spending about 2 months on insane, you begin to notice how bad your aim actually is. Since then i'v been playing at about 5 or 6. Agreed, I did the same thing. I am used to fast sensitivity, but there are those instances where I twitch wrong and don't kill the guy, while there are some instances where someone is behind me and I spin around really fast and knife them. Both are rare, but when it happens, it seems like you made the best/worst choice. I've moved down to 5 from playing on 9-10, and I can aim with the M16 and with SMGs better, but it is much harder to sniper, and especially snipe with flare.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Sept 17, 2009 23:24:57 GMT -5
Accuracy should always be priority #1. The best sensitivity is the highest sensitivity you can get to without compromising on accuracy. Obviously higher is better, but it's hardly mandatory- I know a guy with a 2.5 k/d ratio on the lowest sensitivity setting.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Sept 18, 2009 0:48:58 GMT -5
the MLG pros (online and obviously xbox) use from 2-5. the flashy sniper/no scope kids use 7-10. It seems that when sniping (becuase your sens is relatively decreased) a high sensitivity is better, but with ARs and M16 and what not a more mid-low range one is better. I would assume a SMG/CQB/Shotty person would want a mid to high range one through.
BUT, with everything about game controls use what you feel is best/ what you feel comfortable with. try something new for 3 games and if you can't adjust or don't like it then use something else. Remember if you do better than everyone else it doesn't matter what sensitivity you are on, you still win.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod6134 on Sept 18, 2009 1:04:48 GMT -5
Interesting, I'm going to try lowering my settings.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Oct 2, 2009 1:35:58 GMT -5
the overall accelleration curve is what fucks the game up. (stick deflection VS speed). here's what it is (found by holding 1% additional stick deflection held through my mouse adapter from 20%-100% stick deflection) you can see it's humpty dumpty. The amount of deadzone fucks the controllers up too as it's not a changeable setting on consoles and ALL the controllers shitty, crap cheap, inaccurate designs with junk materials. speed/sens setting wise there's a big difference in them. 3-4 is good for AR's, 4-6 is good for SMG'ing. the higher you use from there is going to depend alot on how well (your super shittily inaccurate) controller works. you can SMG higher than 6 but your accuracy at range is going to go to hell if it doesn't recenter exactly. 4-6 will give you good accuracy at range with an SMG while being fast enough up close to not worry about being "out sped" by someone trying to be faster who is relying on autoaim when i pickup a controller it immediately goes to 3-5 range. when im playing with my mouse/kb it stays on maximum (tho a handful of games play poorly at max settings and need something slightly slower)
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 2, 2009 16:14:12 GMT -5
I would also say 3-5 is best. (mayb 10 for quickscoping M40 ACOQ though
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Oct 12, 2009 1:59:33 GMT -5
ya. i dont snipe much and i dont contoller as often as i use to. when i do snipe / acof M40 i tend to advise people 7-10 & me autoaim mking the shot for you. works like a charm! (computer tracking FTW)
i was hosting / speccing two friends tonight on shipment & immediately commented (to the player who eventually lost) that he needed to raise his from 4 to 6 because it looked like the other friend was using 8.
he was using 4. other was using 7 LoL! its a huge change (and i was happy about being so close!)
|
|
|
Post by mw0swedeking on Oct 25, 2009 21:42:18 GMT -5
those are great points! I increased my sensitivity because sniping looked fun (and it is!). I think I'm at 7, maybe 6, but anyway I didn't really notice it but now that you mention it, my performance with SMGs and ARs has suffered. Good thoughts people, thanks for sharing.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Oct 25, 2009 22:40:58 GMT -5
Also sitting closer to your TV/Monitor will allow you to have a higher sensitivity.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Oct 26, 2009 18:28:51 GMT -5
yup! and for any TV players out there... FFFF your TV in the ass and play on a monitor. For a reasonable 17-24" (ish) monitor youll be sitting at a distance that allows you to scan the entire scene without *having* to move around or thinking about doing it. Plus all the characters will be huge. And... If you have really good eyes & accuracy you can set your display to a 4:3 resolution & turn the widescreen option on. Which will increase your FOV from say 65 to more 75 or 80 (like the PC guy slike doing) beware of players about as large as your stock resolution RDS tho! (can be real hard to hit!) and console guys on joysticks have no idea how laggy their equipment is. the amount of post processing in both TV's and A/V recievers (who are marked that they are just "passing through" HDMI video).
Play on a VGA DVI or HDMI monitor, good to go! even if it's a relatively old 12ms panel. Play on an hdmi tv and you hurl. Change that to component on the TV and it's playable, but still alot more processing than on the monitor! (i play on a 17" LCD monitor 1280*1024, 19" CRT monitor 1920*1200, 36" crt tv 480p, 40" samsung 550, 52" Samsung ln750 & 105" (or larger now) projector @ 1280*1024) CRT monitor smokes everything, but a big difference in the 17" lcd monitor on VGA and the 52" samsung running straight HDMI (and in game modes no less) input lag is 3 frames (25ms) on it VS 6-7 frames (50-60ms) on the samsung 750 (haven't tested it on component but it is much less floaty on the mouse, so its probably around 30-40ms still.)
have the same problem anytime i play on HDTV's. Especially those using HDMI, and even more so on those connecting throguh A/V recievers. doo-doo makes you want to puke its so behind what you're doing!
stated panel lag is inconciquential. theyve been beyond what you could tell for acouple years. the lag that kills you is from the processing they never tell you about! they really need to start testing input lag on TV's now b/c people just dont know how bad it is!
|
|
qupie
True Bro
Posts: 12,400
|
Post by qupie on Oct 27, 2009 10:08:42 GMT -5
Hmm dont really know about that, but there are special gaming TV's now... I have a plasma from panasonic (full HD ofc ) and I think it is pretty fast... But im not that sure. A bigger (and HD) tv really helps though... I never could use the standard sights of the M4 or M16 for example, with HD it is just lovely btw, 35 ms difference? (60-25) that is not a that big prob guy.... a blink is around 400 ms... mayb you can see the difference, maybe you have a VERY small advantage, but it is not that big of a problem....
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Oct 27, 2009 19:13:03 GMT -5
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Oct 31, 2009 19:16:51 GMT -5
its like this. buy /mod a cotroller with a light board synced to the control inputs or buy an xim2. take the fastest video recorder you have access too (my cell's is 120fps. 8.333ms/frame) now record what you're playing on. the VAST majority of the lag in the system, regardless of what you play on is processing time. panel time at this point is absolutely irrelevant. if you record my xim2 run off a CRT monitor & the xbox 360 output on a CRT monitor (your practical ideal set) youll have your primary aim input & primary trigger inputs updates in 3 frames, or 25ms. if i do the same test on my two LCD monitors (8ms acer & 5ms asus), same result. if i do it on my 52" samsung with game mode & AS MUCH image processing as i can cut off. it's slightly laggier. yet the panel itself is signifigantly faster (2ms).
listed panel responce times on LCD monitors became totally meaningless to how the game feels somewhere in the 12-15ms quality range. (beyond that and you run a race between terrible process & gaudy ass screen quality) less you want to play on a PC at rediculous frame rates. all the lag in any system you precieve at this point is pure image processing.
what they should do is throw ALL panel times out the window & report processing time from screen input to panel update.
|
|