Windows pointer speed relates the that 'some' distance moved for each count mentioned in the prior question. The reason 6/11 is accepted as the right setting for gaming is that here the multiplier for that 'some' distance is 1, and 1 x anything is itself so this means the data coming from your mouse to motion in non-raw input games is as if windows wasn't messing with the data (even if it is still adding a slight delay/packet loss which is why raw input is the better option).
But 6/11 isn't the ONLY correct option as lots of places seem to state: here is the list of acceptable ones (this post has further correct options but they involve registry edits).
Control panel notch:
6/11 --> 1x count multiplier
4/11 --> 0.5x count multiplier
3/11 --> 0.25x count multiplier
2/11 --> (1/16)x count multiplier
1/11 --> (1/32)x count multiplier
Why are these valid options? Well you can multiply all the multipliers by a integer to get back to 1x because they're all fractions in the form 1/n
What this means practically is that even with these options you'll never miss an equivalent spot where 6/11 would be correct, so no skipping.
This means if you use a higher DPI for games to be more precise (skip less angles) but it means your desktop sensitivity feels too high for you, you can chose one of these options to get it back to a desktop sensitivity you'd prefer.
If you match at 0%, you will judge the necessary mouse distances properly, since the distances scale proportionately with the fov, whereas any other method is going to be counter intuitive for this, despite the whole concept being to match a a perceived speed or match a screen distance.
Instead, these alternative methods give the illusion of better, more consistent aim because they maintain the area on your mouse pad that you use to aim within your field of view. This lets you become very proficient in a single aiming style/method (such as wrist aiming) with specific swiping distances as you don't have to scale your input with the fov.
It also lets you get away with low sensitivity at high fovs (people reduce sensitivity for instant results instead of just improving their mechanical skill) due to the same reason, not having to scale your input.
Since 0% does not match a distance, it instead matches the velocity, and since other methods are not 0%, they have to result in different speeds in order to accomplish what they were made to do. Matching the velocity has to result in different perceived speeds and different required mouse movement as every fov is unique. The amount of information and distortion scales with the fov. The very essence of increasing the fov is increasing the number of degrees that you can see. So naturally, if you pan the camera, there is going to be a lot more activity on your screen and it is going to look faster than a lower, flatter, more zoomed in fov. So it makes sense that the correct conversion is going to be something where the distance and view speed is not matched. If you do match the view speed instead, then you are slowing the velocity of the camera down for high fovs and increasing the velocity for low fovs in order to make them look the same. The biggest issue with this is that low fovs will feel too sensitive as the required mouse distances are far shorter than assumed. Only 0% will have the correct distance scaling.
The reason why you can judge distances properly with 0% is because the distance scales with the zoom. If you zoom in 2x, the target will be 2x further away on your screen, and will require 2x more mouse movement to flick to compared to before the zoom. If you make this a fair comparison and scale the distance between you and the target to counteract the zoom, then the mouse distances will be the same. This will also benefit tracking, since the perceived movement speed, size, and distance of the movement will scale with the zoom, and so will the sensitivity. So if the distance between you and the target scales with the zoom also, then a target will move the same speed across your screen, and require the exact same mouse movement.
As for the question about 'match at' percentages and matching a distance in general, the best distance match IMO is the inverse of your aspect ratio, multiplied by 100. E.g. 9/16 * 100 = 56.25. It will match the distance to the radius of the 1:1 aspect ratio. Higher percentages, like 75% are close to matching viewspeed, which suffers from the sensitive low FOV issue. Besides, all distance match methods are arbitrary, and you will get drastically different results depending on what fov measurement you use. 0% is the only method that has the same result regardless of the measurement used.
Matching the view speed, screen distance, or 360 distance, is only going to be detrimental to aim performance in the long run. You will have to compromise and develop unique muscle memory for a wide range of fov and hope that your brain can fill in the blanks for fovs in between. These methods will only improve comfort and may give better results, but only in the short term (due to being only proficient in one aiming style, or having a low sensitivity for a high fov, or not having enough mouse pad space in general). They only seem correct because when you zoom in/out, the distance between you and the reference point is remaining static, you don't teleport forward/back to counteract the zoom.
For long term, you need to get used to 0%. Ignore the deceptive issues with view speed and the variance in mouse movement. You won't really have to develop muscle memory for every fov, as you will figure out the distances automatically as they scale with the zoom, but the different distances will require you to master your aim with all the styles, such as micro, finger, wrist, and arm (from elbow and shoulder) movement, and you will probably have to use a higher sensitivity in general.
And yes, for anyone wondering, I have switched over to 0%.
