# True Aim Using Golden Ratio

#### klasbo

##### New member
Kerr Cameron said:
What is this...I don't even...none of this math makes any logical sense.
But it must to some level. It truly works. Don't be closed minded, try this out, and if you know more about math I would love for someone to more clearly explain it. Consider I'm not great on math, and I struggle to understand what is actually happening, so I could only go with patterns I saw. If I had better terminology and knew more about how math is expressed it surely could be more clear.
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE NUMEROLOGIST

It's absolute bullshit. Your in-game aim is a function of resolution (the mapping of dots per inch to radians/degrees) and trained eye-hand feedback. I can play with a vertical sensitivity that is 5x higher than horizontal sensitivity, it just takes me a few hours to get used to it.

This is absolute nonsense. I know people who play LAN tournaments and don't give a damn about neither mouse nor sensitivity, they just play and win cash prizes. Come back when you're able to do this using your phi-formula..

#### jesco

##### New member
klasbo said:
Kerr Cameron said:
What is this...I don't even...none of this math makes any logical sense.
But it must to some level. It truly works. Don't be closed minded, try this out, and if you know more about math I would love for someone to more clearly explain it. Consider I'm not great on math, and I struggle to understand what is actually happening, so I could only go with patterns I saw. If I had better terminology and knew more about how math is expressed it surely could be more clear.
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE NUMEROLOGIST

It's absolute bullshit. Your in-game aim is a function of resolution (the mapping of dots per inch to radians/degrees) and trained eye-hand feedback. I can play with a vertical sensitivity that is 5x higher than horizontal sensitivity, it just takes me a few hours to get used to it.

This is absolute nonsense. I know people who play LAN tournaments and don't give a damn about neither mouse nor sensitivity, they just play and win cash prizes. Come back when you're able to do this using your phi-formula..
^^^

Thank you for actually injecting some sanity into the discussion. I wouldn't even dignify his ill-informed nonsense as a "formula," it's just a bunch of "ooh, numbers are magic and this will fix everything" BS that numerologists are infamous for. Just don't try telling _them_ that, once they've gone off the deep end there's no coming back.

#### klasbo

##### New member
jesco said:
klasbo said:
Kerr Cameron said:
What is this...I don't even...none of this math makes any logical sense.
[snip - random nonsense and back-pedalling]
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE NUMEROLOGIST

[snip - pointing out the random nonsense]
^^^

Thank you for actually injecting some sanity into the discussion. I wouldn't even dignify his ill-informed nonsense as a "formula," it's just a bunch of "ooh, numbers are magic and this will fix everything" BS that numerologists are infamous for. Just don't try telling _them_ that, once they've gone off the deep end there's no coming back.
You can't reason yourself out of a position you haven't reasoned yourself into. Some people say that ridicule is somehow arrogant, but it is honestly the only way to plant that seed of doubt.

But I didn't expect this nonsense to infiltrate the gaming community, especially when "perfect aim" can easily be measured. 30º spin to a perfect headshot in 0.18 seconds? I've done that, several times, and no thanks to this piece of crap! (This is including reaction time + mouse inertia + mouse click + game input lag)
In one way this is bragging, on the other hand this is just the result of practice. There's nothing more to it. Just practice. No formula or special equipment. Just sit down and play the same game for 3500 hours.

#### jesco

##### New member
You can't reason yourself out of a position you haven't reasoned yourself into. Some people say that ridicule is somehow arrogant, but it is honestly the only way to plant that seed of doubt.

But I didn't expect this nonsense to infiltrate the gaming community, especially when "perfect aim" can easily be measured. 30º spin to a perfect headshot in 0.18 seconds? I've done that, several times, and no thanks to this piece of crap! (This is including reaction time + mouse inertia + mouse click + game input lag)
In one way this is bragging, on the other hand this is just the result of practice. There's nothing more to it. Just practice. No formula or special equipment. Just sit down and play the same game for 3500 hours.
I don't think that's bragging at all, it's a perfectly reasonable explanation -- you practice at something for long enough and you get good at it. No magic tricks, no special "divine" numbers. What baffles me is how someone could arrive at the conclusions he reached in the first place without being mentally ill, but I suppose expecting sense out of someone whose so helplessly deluded by their own BS is expecting too much.

#### XMark

##### New member
The width of your screen, even the aspect ratio have absolutely no bearing on which sensitivies will be more effective. (wider screen = more peripheral vision but that's a different issue entirely).

Sensitivity only determines how fast your character rotates, which is entirely independent of how it's being displayed on the screen.

#### Kerr Cameron

##### New member
You are all entitled to say that because I was unable to properly explain things, that means this doesn't work. It would have been a lot better if I could explain it. But it does work actually. I just don't know why it does. Someone needs to explain why it works.

You only need to try it and you will see that it works. I know I'm repeating myself, but one tends to do that when there happens to be only one answer.

The reason I deleted my posts was to clear things up, so that a person who wants to try it out will have an easier time doing it, and when they have a question, they won't be confused by my speculations. I'm not embarrassed about it, I just want a person to just be able to easily read the steps and when they read down, they won't see me trying to explain it (unless I was quoted), because I was just trying to understand, but made the mistake of leading on like I understood. Now I'm trying to correct that.

The reason I said I wouldn't participate because at that moment I was a little doubtful. I went back in the game, saw my perfect aim again, then I came back and changed my mind. So I'm solid that it works, I just don't know why.

You can plant many seeds of doubt. But there is something about the numbers that all of us don't understand, which when used this way makes you aim well. I tried it on, yes, a random idea, and it worked. I tried to explain it, maybe hoping I'd luck on the answer by talking about it . . . but it is true that I cannot do that.

If you try this, any of you, with the exception of someone with a handicap that makes his or her hand shake uncontrollably, you will aim better than before. This will work if you change the pitch and yaw so that it is very low but using the digits I described, and then setting the mouse sensitivity very high with a set of digits from Phi as well, the result is the same if the measurements work out.

If you try my method and you feel you can't aim any better or even worse, THAT is a placebo effect. You aren't even seeing the different behavior of the crosshair! You need only look at how it goes over time and the answer is right there.

As more and more people express how much this doesn't work, your responses become less and less intelligent, until you are reduced eventually to calling me a dummy and that you won't ever invite me to your birthday party. Those sorts of responses don't matter to me. What I'm hoping for is some serious explanation from someone here that can explain this result.

If you have a hand tremor, lowering the overall sensitivity makes sense, but the digits of Phi have to be there still. I had explained that you can use sensitivities that perform a 360 in ANY LENGTH that is in Golden ratio to the width of your screen.

So what one of you needs to do is explain why it works, not why it doesn't work. See, the placebo effect is effecting you, not me.

Elsewhere I had been confronted with the question: "Do you think that everyone else is wrong and that only YOU are right?!" Quite blatantly YES! The METHOD works, my explanations of it were just speculation, and therefore subject to ridicule, that I've accepted. But yes, all of you who say it doesn't work have no idea what you're talking about, shown over time by the decreased level of thinking in your responses.

#### Kerr Cameron

##### New member
Sensitivity only determines how fast your character rotates, which is entirely independent of how it's being displayed on the screen.
Can you prove that using a whole number plus a fraction won't make the crosshair curve?

Or, can you prove that your statement is absolutely true? There's no way for me to test this theory.

Edit: I'll be more clear still. Is it true that you say the sensitivity just determines the speed of the turn, and that adding certain decimal numbers does not make the screen accelerate and decelerate differently?

Here is what I'm proposing from observation:

Mouse sensitivity set as a whole number seems to accelerate and decelerate as if sliding over a flat surface. Setting decimals somehow makes the crosshair accelerate and decelerate a little differently, making the crosshair seem like it is gliding over a shaped surface. I'm not stating this as fact, this is just what I see and how I feel I must describe it.

##### New member
Pardon my ignorance...what is true aim?

#### jesco

##### New member
Oh that's right. We're just not "seeing" the miraculous effect of your numbers because of the "placebo effect." Which you obviously don't know the meaning of. It's when a patient experiences improvements from a medication that has no therapeutic value. Try reading a dictionary next time instead of whatever bizarre cult literature you're into. We're all ignorant and you've found the TRUE AIM OF THE GODS thanks to your magic fucking numbers. We just can't see the miraculous new movement of the crosshair in a game that hasn't been updated in six years because of the evil "placebo effect" clouding our minds.

I love it how you keep spouting utter nonsense and yet you claim the responses here don't matter. They obviously do, because you feel personally insulted by them, and you should be. You're either sick in the head, a troll or both.

Feel free to continue to live in the delusion that you made some exciting discovery and the rest of us are too ignorant to see it, you're so laughably inept and crazy that you don't deserve any more attention than you're already begging for. You actually think that you can come back here and insult everyone's intelligence yet you expect your numerology nonsense to be taken seriously by the same group of people you're insulting? Very convenient position for you to take. "Oh, it definitely works, and if it doesn't work then it's your fault because it definitely works." Were you dropped on your empty head as a child?

#### Kerr Cameron

##### New member
So I define it as setting the mouse crosshair behaviour, using a precise sequence of digits with the decimal placed strategically, exactly so that it behaves in a similar nature to how your hand actually moves.

#### jesco

##### New member
Pardon my ignorance...what is true aim?
It's a bullshit term he used to describe more bullshit terms. Seriously, don't even bother, you might as well be trying to argue with a schizophrenic. If you argue with him all you'll get is "try it, it works." If you tell him that it doesn't work then he'll tell you that it's your fault and it still works.

#### jesco

##### New member
Kerr Cameron said:
So I define it as setting the mouse crosshair behaviour, using a precise sequence of digits with the decimal placed strategically, exactly so that it behaves in a similar nature to how your hand actually moves.
A "precise sequence of digits with the decimal placed strategically?" What exactly is "precise" about selecting a bunch of decimal places from an irrational number? Nothing. You keep using words that you obviously don't know the meaning of and yet apparently WE'RE the ignorant ones.

Take your bullshit back to whatever rock you crawled out from under.

#### jesco

##### New member
Can you prove that using a whole number plus a fraction won't make the crosshair curve?
Can you prove that it does? On every computer with every configuration, every type of mouse with every resolution, in every game? No, you can't. You can't even explain what you're talking about so that it makes any sense to a rational human being.

Or, can you prove that your statement is absolutely true? There's no way for me to test this theory.
Again with the asking for proof. You're the one making the bogus, bullshit claim, the burden of proof is on you, not us. And no, "try it, it just works" isn't proof. It's just your uninformed, insane opinion.

Mouse sensitivity set as a whole number seems to accelerate and decelerate as if sliding over a flat surface. Setting decimals somehow makes the crosshair accelerate and decelerate a little differently, making the crosshair seem like it is gliding over a shaped surface. I'm not stating this as fact, this is just what I see and how I feel I must describe it.
But you are stating it as a fact. Hell, in one of your last posts you called all of us ignorant and claimed that you were right. You're a liar and a fucking nut.

#### Kerr Cameron

##### New member
I will use this response to point out why there is no actual value to it at all. I will highlight the sentences where the auther lost his or her train of reasoning, and had to use an insult instead. They will be in bold.

Oh that's right. We're just not "seeing" the miraculous effect of your numbers because of the "placebo effect." Which you obviously don't know the meaning of. It's when a patient experiences improvements from a medication that has no therapeutic value. Try reading a dictionary next time instead of whatever bizarre cult literature you're into. We're all ignorant and you've found the TRUE AIM OF THE GODS thanks to your magic fucking numbers. We just can't see the miraculous new movement of the crosshair in a game that hasn't been updated in six years because of the evil "placebo effect" clouding our minds.

I love it how you keep spouting utter nonsense and yet you claim the responses here don't matter. They obviously do, because you feel personally insulted by them, and you should be. You're either sick in the head, a troll or both.

Feel free to continue to live in the delusion that you made some exciting discovery and the rest of us are too ignorant to see it, you're so laughably inept and crazy that you don't deserve any more attention than you're already begging for. You actually think that you can come back here and insult everyone's intelligence yet you expect your numerology nonsense to be taken seriously by the same group of people you're insulting? Very convenient position for you to take. "Oh, it definitely works, and if it doesn't work then it's your fault because it definitely works." Were you dropped on your empty head as a child?
What the person has forgot to do is to try my method out once or twice and at least test it. Since he or she not prepared to make that step, but still interested in having good aim, he is offended by my claim. Only people who are offended lead themselves into this sort of use of the language.

So directly to this person: All I offer is that the method works. If you are happy with your mouse sensitivity, please hold aloof. Your input is not required. If you can help us understand why the mouse crosshair curves, surely I will listen. If not, I will read your responses, but I won't listen to them.

#### jesco

##### New member
Oh that's right, because if I tested it and I found out it didn't work, you'd tell me that it was just my fault. Very, very convenient.

Good on you for learning how to highlight things in bold though, it's the first sign of you actually having learned anything useful to contribute. Nutcase. That's the best you can come up with? No defense for what you say, no argument that supports your case, just a simple, childish "oooh, I'm not the offended one, you are! And you're offended because of how right I am!"

You're going to have to do better than that, psycho. And you're going to have to spin your bullshit tale to someone else because you've been reported and stuck on my ignore list. The last thing a fool like you deserves is an audience, you trolling asshat.

Best part of all of this is he describes himself as a "sandwich artist" in his profile. Yeah, I'm going to be schooled on math by a guy who works in a fast food joint. I highly fucking doubt it. Now go take your pills like a good boy.

#### p3t3r

##### New member
okay this whole thing is silly if your golden ratio is an infinite non repeating decimal then every sequence of numbers exists probably one perfect with what my mouse is right meow.

##### New member
Unless I'm mistaken, in step 4 you are telling us to find our number somewhere along the infinite number that is "Phi" and then making a new number by starting from that point.

So, let's say "Phi" was 5.23858285923948 (I know it isn't), and I liked my sensitivity to be on 8. I would then set my sensitivity to 8.58285923948 because that's where it first appears in the number. If this is really what you're suggesting at one point, then your theory cannot work. It makes no sense whatsoever, as the new number is not related to the old one in any real mathematical way. As people have mentioned before, it is possible that a placebo effect is making you think it has improved your aim, in fact it's even possible that the placebo effect has actually improved your aim, but that's all purely psychological.

If that isn't what you're trying to say then you need to work on your explanation, because it isn't very clear.

#### jesco

##### New member
p3t3r said:
okay this whole thing is silly if your golden ratio is an infinite non repeating decimal then every sequence of numbers exists probably one perfect with what my mouse is right meow.
Lunncal said:
Unless I'm mistaken, in step 4 you are telling us to find our number somewhere along the infinite number that is "Phi" and then making a new number by starting from that point.

So, let's say "Phi" was 5.23858285923948 (I know it isn't), and I liked my sensitivity to be on 8. I would then set my sensitivity to 8.58285923948 because that's where it first appears in the number. If this is really what you're suggesting at one point, then your theory cannot work. It makes no sense whatsoever, as the new number is not related to the old one in any real mathematical way. As people have mentioned before, it is possible that a placebo effect is making you think it has improved your aim, in fact it's even possible that the placebo effect has actually improved your aim, but that's all purely psychological.

If that isn't what you're trying to say then you need to work on your explanation, because it isn't very clear.
Don't even bother, it's blatantly obvious at this point that he's trolling but go read his posts if you don't believe it. Arguing with him is just going to result in him saying "well you didn't test it so you're wrong," if you do test it and it doesn't work then he'll say "well you're just experiencing the placebo effect," even though he has NO CLUE WHAT IT FUCKING MEANS.

#### Scipio1770

##### New member
So um, what game are you playing that required you to get that level of precision?

#### jesco

##### New member
Probably the game where he switches his medication with his mother's birth control pills for a week.