True Aim Using Golden Ratio

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
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.
Acceleration applied to mouse movements is a software thing, and varies by game/application. Some games allow you to set the degree of acceleration and/or smoothing.

The sensitivity and acceleration only determine the speed of the turn. The linear movements of your mouse on the mouse pad translate into degrees of turning. Given the same sensitivity settings and the same amount of mouse movement you will turn exactly the same amount, no matter what size or aspect ratio your monitor is. The monitor has absolutely nothing to do with your mouse sensitivty.

My complaint with your theory is that you are using the monitor dimensions for the first step in the calculations. Since monitor size does not affect your mouse movements or the sensitivity at all, the entire mathematical formula is already broken at the first step, no matter what comes after it.
 

jesco

New member
Jan 19, 2012
14
0
0
XMark said:
Kerr Cameron said:
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.
Acceleration applied to mouse movements is a software thing, and varies by game/application. Some games allow you to set the degree of acceleration and/or smoothing.

The sensitivity and acceleration only determine the speed of the turn. The linear movements of your mouse on the mouse pad translate into degrees of turning. Given the same sensitivity settings and the same amount of mouse movement you will turn exactly the same amount, no matter what size or aspect ratio your monitor is. The monitor has absolutely nothing to do with your mouse sensitivty.

My complaint with your theory is that you are using the monitor dimensions for the first step in the calculations. Since monitor size does not affect your mouse movements or the sensitivity at all, the entire mathematical formula is already broken at the first step, no matter what comes after it.
That's the ONLY complaint you have? The fact that he grabs a bunch of decimal places from an arbitrary number and claims that they have magical aiming powers doesn't strike you as a little bit odd?

Please don't degrade mathematics by calling what this numerologist crackpot is spouting a "formula." He's not even trying to be taken seriously anyway, he's just trolling the boards for attention. Probably starved of it, I'm guessing this is the first time he's ever had an audience for his insanity. Take it away from him so he'll go the fuck away and haunt some other board with his brain-dead theories.
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
You misunderstand me. Nothing in his entire "formula" makes the least bit of sense. What I'm trying to say is that, even if by some odd chance, anything past the first calculation made sense (which it doesn't), it would be completely moot because the number resulting from the first step is completely random and unrelated to anything that could possibly translate to aiming efficiency in any way.

With math, if you make a mistake early on, it gets compounded with further calculations. If the first step results in a completely arbitrary number with no connection to anything, it doesn't matter what comes after it. So I'm not even attempting to examine the following steps and only commenting on the first one.
 

jesco

New member
Jan 19, 2012
14
0
0
XMark said:
You misunderstand me. Nothing in his entire "formula" makes the least bit of sense. What I'm trying to say is that, even if by some odd chance, anything past the first calculation made sense (which it doesn't), it would be completely moot because the number resulting from the first step is completely random and unrelated to anything that could possibly translate to aiming efficiency in any way.

With math, if you make a mistake early on, it gets compounded with further calculations. If the first step results in a completely arbitrary number with no connection to anything, it doesn't matter what comes after it. So I'm not even attempting to examine the following steps and only commenting on the first one.
My apologies, this thread is so rife with nonsensical BS that I didn't understand where you're coming from. But yes, you're absolutely right, nothing about it makes any sense. It's not supposed to -- it's a less-than-stellar attempt at trolling the boards that's managed to garner him some attention, attention that isn't deserved. Do everyone and the boards a favour and report him so that he'll have to take his crazy-ass ball and go home.
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
I dunno, it sounds like he genuinely believes it. And I noticed most of the other posts in this thread were just saying "this is bullshit" without really explaining into why it is. I guess I'm a little over-optimistic about getting people to see reason on the internet :)
 

jesco

New member
Jan 19, 2012
14
0
0
XMark said:
I dunno, it sounds like he genuinely believes it. And I noticed most of the other posts in this thread were just saying "this is bullshit" without really explaining into why it is. I guess I'm a little over-optimistic about getting people to see reason on the internet :)
Trust me, there's no way someone whose swimming in the deep end is going to listen to reason. A lot of people, myself included also pointed out flaws in his logic, and what did he have to say in response? "Try it, it works." That's it. That's his entire argument, in support of a theory that makes no sense to anyone with half a brain (that doesn't flip burgers for a living). If by some miracle you actually try it out of curiousity and it doesn't work? Placebo effect, even though it's quite obvious that he has no idea what the placebo effect actually is. Notice how that cute little turd's version of my post highlighted all of the insults and none of the arguments _against_ what he had to say? That's because he can't defend himself, and he doesn't want to. He just wants people to pay attention to him. That's all. The longer that people pay attention to him the more bullshit he's going to flood the boards with.

The fact that he's allowed to make these blatantly fraudulent claims and yet I'm the one who gets warned for them tells me two things: one, the basement dwelling child is reporting me, and two, the moderators actually _approve_ of his nonsense. And if said moderators are reading this, I'd ask that you actually use your heads for a minute and realize this guy is a TROLL, not some innocent whack-job. He IS A TROLL. Is it not the duty of a board moderator to eliminate trolls from their own boards? Or are the moderators numerologists as well?
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
p3t3r: I tested that to a great extent, using several elaborate arrangements of digits.

I even used Avagadro's Number!! Avagadro, whose name I care not to even spell right, could not aim, apparently.

But seriously in the case this randomly chosen set of numbers didn't work. Aiming was horrid and discouraging. I didn't use it long enough to form a picture or a way of explaining, it was just messed up.

Jesco: I am aware that you cannot answer to me why this works. Neither can I. It is a mystery to us both.

There are different ways to show the Golden Ratio for the purpose of examination or manipulation: As a picture, as a number, in algebra with the formula I gave a link to in the beginning, which of course contains all this about the Golden Ratio, and etc. Here's a question: Suppose I need to jump to another level of math? And what if the essential level of mathematics required is in terms that I am just not familiar with? I can't even try to explain it accurately, but only form images using subjective language.

In order to understand that what I'm proposing works to improve your aim, we might need to understand calculus more in-depth. I'm not saying that we necessarily do. I do not understand calculus at this time.

People will use this method, and instantly, or at least over a period of about an hour of play, will be sure that it is an incredibly effective way to set the aim. I expect that with a well-developed dexterity a person using this would find the game almost too easy. They would be subject to verbal stoning on coming here to say it works. They are likely enjoying themselves though. But to me that notion is mildly unfair, which is why I hoped to encourage more people to do it, or to at least spend time adjusting your sensitivity until you aim the way you can using my method . . . because you won't consistently beat certain people who use it.

Can I beat you every with my method? I can't be sure. If I use this method, and you, you being anyone is the world, uses just something like 6, I will be superior in aim. You would essentially be handicapped in the gaming world.

Try using a whole number close to your present sensitivity with no decimal numbers after, if it is that your present sensitivity has say perhaps 2 or more digits after the decimal, just something close. Say for example you use 5, 6, 10, 1, 2, 50, whatever.See if you can adjust! On the whole number, getting the crosshair to the target becomes unreliable. No one can aim properly with a whole number, and it is time for such people to find another pastime, because they aren't even trying to be good at the thing they are doing, nor will they ever be capable if they are too lazy to experiment with different sensitivity.

Consider how easy it is to just move the slider, and already a decimal appears on it due to the way the slider moves. That's convenient. But should you force a whole number point "uh-oh"!, you can't aim anymore. I, and certainly everyone using .04 will have superior aim to you.

Surely there is an explanation that can be given using mathematics at some level, because it is this sequence of numbers that will always work, whereas if you pick another random bunch out of your head, there is only a chance that it will work. By watching the crosshair I have then characterized a pattern which can be described in a way that matches the nature of the number I chose: With a whole number and nothing after the decimal it gave a flat feel, With pi it was a round feel, with random digits it was a strange and sometimes uncomfortable feel, with Mr. A's number it was for whatever reason not good, and with Phi it was an absolutely natural feel.

Any reader of this thread is free to try, and they will see this same exact behavioral pattern of the crosshair.

Could it be that you just don't want to try something that you don't understand for the purposes of perhaps expanding your understanding? Are you a little bit apprehensive about understanding more, which also forces you to admit that you don't know as much as you believed you did?

I am in no way convinced that my result is an illusion.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
I should repeat that I have only tried this using Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. That might be important for people to remember.

But there are plenty of people playing ET right now that don't appear to do this, they do not aim at all as good as I can now. It's all Phi, I barely extend my aggression at all into the game now, there is far less effort.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
On a scale of 1-10, being able to set a decimal for fine tuned aim is one thing and obviously advantageous compared to only using whole integers. Being forced to make 10% jumps in sensitivity is pretty huge. On the other hand, that has absolutely nothing to do with the golden ratio.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
jesco said:
Wolfram01 said:
On a scale of 1-10, being able to set a decimal for fine tuned aim is one thing and obviously advantageous compared to only using whole integers. Being forced to make 10% jumps in sensitivity is pretty huge. On the other hand, that has absolutely nothing to do with the golden ratio.
Nothing he has said so far has anything to do with the golden ratio, that's the point. Look at the things he's actually saying and then ask yourself, is this someone who is trying to be taken seriously? Or is this someone who is just attention starved and doing his best to try and reel in as many victims with his trolling to satisfy his childish, puerile desires? All he's done is measure his monitor, set his mouse value to something comfortable and then throw a bunch of random digits from an arbitrary number on the end and he's claiming that it improves your aim in an FPS. Just THINK about that for a minute. He's just trolling you. I admit, I fell for it myself, for a little while I thought he actually believed what he was saying, but it's too nonsensical and full of logical flaws to be taken seriously. He is a troll. The question is, when are people going to stop paying attention to him so that he'll take his desperate little game of "look at me everybody" elsewhere? The best way to treat a troll is to pay no attention to them. I've stopped replying to him because one, I know he's a troll, and two, even if he weren't, he's still utterly and hopelessly WRONG, yet claims that WE are the ones who are deluded and his little fantasy world is reality.

Don't feed the trolls and don't encourage the insane to sink deeper into their own little worlds. Just ignore him. Sooner or later the little bastard will get the hint and shove off.
If you go back, I was the 12th reply to this thread and clearly stated I think the whole thing is nonsensical.

I would actually argue that while the OP is delusional about his magic formula, you are in fact the only one here trolling. You're being a huge jerk to him in every way possible, AND you've been replying to almost everything he or someone else says which only serves to keep this thread going.

Telling me not to feed the troll? Little hypocritical don't you think?

Seriously, you need to lighten the hell up. It doesn't matter to you, me, or anyone else if the OP is right or wrong or hopelessly crazy. Just drop it.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
It does have to do with the Golden Ratio, because it is from that set of numbers that you can pick a sensitivity in the way I described. Also you are using the Golden Ratio to determine your 360-degree-turn mouse length, which must be in ratio to the width of your screen.

It is only under these conditions that I got the result I've described.

I repeat as well for clarity that in regard to the mouse sensitivity setting my choice to pick Pi, then try subtracting Pi or multiplying Pi, then finally trying Phi, was purely esthetic reasons. I just tried the numbers for fun! But they did produce this pattern that I describe, in the way they move the crosshair. It was only then that I thought to measure my screen, and the effect was overwhelming, to the point that none of you can convince me that I am imagining it, but instead I try to present more questions: Have you tried it? Do you know about calculus and can describe how to produce a curve with the crosshair this way? Is there a calculation I am missing that is being done by the computer which makes these digits work? I say how, not thinking for a moment that it doesn't work. I see. I do. I play. It's real.

So a question remains, if only to me: How can I be doing this? It cannot be explained yet.
 

Zukhramm

New member
Jul 9, 2008
194
0
0
Why would a random sequence of numbers that appears in the golden ratio have some magical properties to make aim better? If the decimals (which they don't) has any big impact it's one that's essentially completely random.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
I feel it necessary to again point out the lack of thought put in to the participants of this thread. I will again highlight points that ruin the effectiveness of the speaker by highlighting them in bold:

If you go back, I was the 12th reply to this thread and clearly stated I think the whole thing is nonsensical.

I would actually argue that while the OP is delusional about his magic formula, you are in fact the only one here trolling. You're being a huge jerk to him in every way possible, AND you've been replying to almost everything he or someone else says which only serves to keep this thread going.

Telling me not to feed the troll? Little hypocritical don't you think?

Seriously, you need to lighten the hell up. It doesn't matter to you, me, or anyone else if the OP is right or wrong or hopelessly crazy. Just drop it
Notice how this reply is not elaborating or clarifying. This is evident of a step-by-step breakdown of a point using only attack. Only one point as a "weapon" it seems: That I might be crazy.

He has even ventured to suggest that another person joining the thread is also crazy or malicious.

That's quite useless. That will not help anyone to set this up and try it, and then perhaps helping us find out why it works. Only some of the content of this reply seems meant to show an interest in finding a true answer, but the parts in bold show clearly the speaker's interest in energetically discouraging any further investigation by you the reader.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
What is this? My brain is full of fuck.

People who are good at aiming are good at aiming because they practice aiming and use tools they feel the most comfortable with.

This 'formula' is essentially a modern day electronic snake oil advert.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
I should point out, and hope to be corrected if anyone can for me, that the digits of Phi and Pi are random only in the sense that you cannot predict what the next digit will be if you perform a more accurate calculation. The value can never be expressed accurately as a real number.

The decimal system then sort of sloppily represents irrational numbers. That is how it appears to me at this point, not understanding math in more depth.

So the train of thought, that this number might mean more than I expected after I had tried so many other random numbers that I picked from my head, lead me to try Pi, and so on, which lead to Phi. And using Phi lead me to measure my screen.

I did take Pi, and Phi as essentially a random source of digits. That is true. But why is it that when I take these digits in the way I have described it makes the crosshair curve differently than when on a whole number? Why is it that when I use many digits of the irrational number, this consistency is intensified? I don't know why this is any more than anyone here does.

The likelihood of someone who understands mathematics in depth enough to participate and explain is now grim, due to the awful lack of thought put in to refuting me.

Once I fetch digits that have already been determined by a calculation, they are no longer random. We then have in this case Phi to many digits, then rounded so it is then of course a different number that cannot be called Phi but nonetheless very close, then multiply by the power of ten for the purpose of moving the decimal, then chop off the digits in front. Yes visually you just delete them. I know, it seems utterly strange, but why is it that any sequence I pick from said number gives me this consistency? You cannot see unless you try, and when you try you will see.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
The golden ratio is only being applied if you are creating a ratio between two things with the number to as many decimal places as you are allowed. Picking numbers from some point within "phi" is NOT using the golden ratio.

If you wanted to make, say, 360° in game relate to the width of your mouse pad via the golden ratio, go for it. If you want to make the area of your screen relate to the area of your mouse pad via the golden ratio, go for it.

What you describe is not what you think it is.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Daystar, you are another person who has nothing to contribute. You must be far more bored than you realize, because your reply is only repeating what other thoughtless people have said, as if you just saw the flow of the thread and joined in on what you hoped was an attack, and you figured you'd be on the winning side.

But I offer no hostility to any of you, because I know (and I can't help but smile), that if you try it, especially using Wolf ET when using Phi's digits because I tested it on that specifically, it will not only work but you will enjoy it.

"How could I ever have played any other way?" You'll think.

This is why I am so persistent.

What I am proposing is that when people "feel" what sensitivity is best they are really just drawing closer to the measurements I describe. This method lets you do that swiftly and you will be perfectly calibrated. Then to use Phi's digits in the way I've described makes it absolutely comfortable and easy.

It's unfortunate that I cannot describe in terms of adequacy how this works.
 

not_you

Don't ask, or you won't know
Mar 16, 2011
479
0
0
Kerr Cameron said:
1. Measure the width of your screen. For example, let us use 14 inches.
Whoever has a 14 inch screen now-a-days isn't on the internet... you know, I kinda had a laugh at this... I know it's an example, but really, funny stuff....

Kerr Cameron said:
5. Now your mouse sensitivity would look like this with many digits of Phi in it:

4.989484820458683436563811772030917980576286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113748475408807538689175212663
Uhhh, right....

Get a really, really, REALLY long number and I'm sure it's going to have many digits of any "number" in it...
I mean, take this number for example:
4.167345094836481673451576734215928868373752628794876725012108767245197885
(facerolled on num-pad for a bit)
See? there are lots of digits from "Pi" in there, that doesn't mean it makes any sense...

then again, numbers were never my strong point...
 

jesco

New member
Jan 19, 2012
14
0
0
If you go back, I was the 12th reply to this thread and clearly stated I think the whole thing is nonsensical.

I would actually argue that while the OP is delusional about his magic formula, you are in fact the only one here trolling. You're being a huge jerk to him in every way possible, AND you've been replying to almost everything he or someone else says which only serves to keep this thread going.

Telling me not to feed the troll? Little hypocritical don't you think?

Seriously, you need to lighten the hell up. It doesn't matter to you, me, or anyone else if the OP is right or wrong or hopelessly crazy. Just drop it.
You're right of course, and I apologize. I admit, I fell for his trolling. You see, when I see someone serving up "snake oil" I tend to argue against it out of principle. He's a liar and a fraud, much like the many deluded numerologists who he probably derives inspiration from and as a skeptic I find it particularly infuriating when such people are given an audience. But if I'm advising people not to feed the trolls, I should take your advice and just drop it. He's not worth it anyway, because he is "hopelessly crazy" as you put it, and there's no convincing him that his fantasy world is anything other than just that. Why I tried in the first place I don't know. If you want to continue to take his bait and give him more reason to crapflood the boards with his nonsense that's your decision and I shouldn't interfere with it or this thread any longer. I will say this however -- he's a liar and he's utterly wrong in every sense of the word. I'm sure if that doesn't matter it's at least blatantly obvious to pretty much everyone except him.
 

Kerr Cameron

New member
Apr 7, 2010
66
0
0
Wolffram, so like many others have stated, using these digits is not using the Golden Ratio.

That is true it seems. I'm not setting the Golden Ratio as a sensitivity, I'm . . . taking the digits along its decimal sequence, derived from the calculation required to get Phi, and using those. Either way you look at it, in essence I am most certainly using Phi, because without it I would instead just set them to feel, and I have found that to be not as reliable as setting it using Phi's digits, over trial and error, using many different numbers.

So again I encourage someone to explain why this works, and stop pointing out over and over how I chose my numbers. I am aware my method of choosing was just random, but I have inadvertently found the right sequence of digits to perfectly stabilize the crosshair, while coincidentally using the same equation of the Golden Ratio to do a 360. It doesn't just work well, it is uncanny.

I wouldn't be so persistent if I was achieving just a mediocre aim. I achieved that on my own.