COMBINING MONITOR DISTANCE COEFF W/ ADS MULTIPLIERS

[theferaltaint]

This is more or less a conceptual question/proposal for those of you who have been working with methods of mouse sensitivity calculations across various in-game FOV's for many years now. Personally, I have tried all of the different conversion methods and coefficients. There are pros and cons to each one for me specifically. That's beside the point. My question for you guys is:

Do you think that an ADS multiplier applied to let's say 0% vertical monitor distance would provide more aim consistency than increasing the coefficient to 133% if you find 0% to be a little too slow and do not want to increase your base hipfire sensitivity? That way the increase in "turning speed" is consistent across all FOV's, and is simply applied over the monitor distance calculation? You are not changing the point on the screen at which the matching has been calculated per say. You are simply multiplying all matched values by another number thus increasing each by the exact same amount.  

For example: 1.06(0% MDV of 1x optic), 1.06(0% MDV of 2x optic), and so on and so forth.

Also, if you wanted high magnification optics to be much faster than lower magnification optics, would it not be better to just increase the multiplier rather than the coefficient?

For example: 1.33(0% MDV of 6x optic), 1.33(0% MDV of 8x optic), and so on and so forth.

The "monitor distance match" more or less remains the same. The way I see it, all you're doing is increasing the speed at which the center of the screen reaches that point without effecting that underlying monitor match consistency across all FOV's, but I could be entirely wrong about that. This is the approach to ADS sensitivity that I've found works best for me. When I try to increase the monitor distance match to increase speed, my aim across all FOV's feels way off. They all feel way too fast. Rather than adjusting my monitor distance with each game, I just change the multiplier until it all feels right, and my tracking/flicking is as accurate as possible. 

For example, on Modern Warfare/Warzone, I use 133% MDV match with a 1.06 multiplier on the low zoom optics, and a 1.33 multiplier on the higher zoom optics. On Apex Legends, I am currently using 133% MDV match with a 1.03 multiplier across all optics, though I have also used 1.06 on low and 1.33 on high magnification in the past. 

Again, I am just curious to know what you guys think about this. 

[theferaltaint]

@DPI Wizard Would love to get your take on this.

[TheNoobPolice]

The coefficient is already a multiplier.

if you set scaling to 0% in an options menu, and then scale up the global ADS sens by a fixed linear percentage, it is no longer 0% scaling.

What you are describing is effectively another variable coefficient to the one I describe in the other thread, but inversely. If we take your example of an added fixed linear 1.06x multiplier to 0% scaling, then it would begin as equivalent to a high monitor distance for low zooms, and as zoom increases this added multiplier to the 0% scale would become less dominant, and it would get closer and closer to 0% (probably around 40% for the actual zoom amounts that exist in games).

This would definitely be the wrong way around for my preference, but clearly is the right way around for you.

Although, I would go a step further and say this approach has potentially an “objective” (using the term loosely) flaw, in that for a very low zoom, such as one that would result in a multiplier of say 0.96x with 0% scaling, if you then scale up by a fixed linear multiplier of 1.06x on top then your ADS sens ends up being faster than hipfire sens even though the FOV has reduced. In other words, there would have to be sensibly low multiplier values and a minimum zoom level for it to apply and be logical. Even then, low / medium zooms would still likely have a monitor distance far out of screen space even with e.g only a 1.1x multiplier etc.

That’s not to say it’s wrong for you to prefer a faster aiming sensitivity than hipfire, it’s just that it’s not really logical IMO.

Edited July 23, 2022 by TheNoobPolice

[theferaltaint]

Could you link me to this thread. Always interested to try out new methods.

[TheNoobPolice]

2 hours ago, theferaltaint said:

Could you link me to this thread. Always interested to try out new methods.