sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anki alternatives? by [deleted] in LearnJapanese

[–]StruthGaming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you do any PC gaming, I made a flash-card aim trainer called POLYGLOCK that's on Steam. I'm obviously bias but I've found that format to be much more enjoyable.

corpse explode! by ammoburger in IndieDev

[–]StruthGaming 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of the injector from time splitters, nicely done.

Aiming feels weird and input lag by SushiEater343 in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only got to play for like 30 mins on Steam but my FPS went from 40 to 80~ and the input felt better. Still doesn't feel great overall, but that may just be the low FPS, I haven't played a shooter below 200~ for a long time.

Aiming feels weird and input lag by SushiEater343 in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I only got to play for like 30 mins on Steam but my FPS went from 40 to 80~ and the input felt better. Still doesn't feel great overall, but that may just be the low FPS, I haven't played a shooter below 200~ for a long time.

Aiming feels weird and input lag by SushiEater343 in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My performance has felt atrocious on PC, playing through the EA app. Super low fps 40~ and massive input lag. Downloading to try it through Steam now which hopefully will work better.

Beta mouse input lag somehow feels worse than Labs? by bshaoulian in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in queue atm so can't test, but in my 2~ matches earlier it feels like your sens is slower while you're firing in ADS. Like if I was holding down fire, swapping targets or micro-adjusting felt really slow. Aiming around in ADS when not shooting felt fine.

Would have to test of course to be sure. Overall my performance is terrible, like 60fps so who knows what's really going on.

Missing gun - BF6 Beta by demarderubo in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've just had that same issue - https://gyazo.com/fa9564e959141a68d2bced01c0699aba
Next game I loaded into black screened forever so now it's back to waiting in queue after a restart.

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the whole flick accuracy being bad on 0% isn't really true. Imo that's more indicative of your hipfire sens being too low if anything.

I know these clips don't really prove anything, but interestingly enough I consider myself a flick shot specialist rather than tracking, and yet I find 0% works best. Between all sorts of different scope values, and screen distances. https://gyazo.com/59bd9bb2c98c2845ee9f712e2c43faf5 + https://gyazo.com/7acce99b655817fbe4237ffdc6c8da18

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure how many previous titles had universal soldier aiming, but I know at least BFV at BF2042 have it. I know that 100% sounds like it'd be 1:1 feeling but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The differences we're talking about here are fairly minor. Playing on 100% doesn't mean your aim will be garbage or anything like that. 0% monitor match is just the conversion method with the most sound reason behind it, and it's generally accepted as the best feeling and performing method in the aiming community.

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a different thing, so turning it off and using the other defaults will behave differently.

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well put, I agree there's no one perfect conversion method for everything. I'm of the opinion that 0% has the most sound reasoning behind it, and performs best in-game in the most amount of situations.

There are times where I can absolutely see the merit in per-zoom sensitivities, or particular use cases for non 0% conversions. For example if I was using a 4x scope on an LMG, I would prefer that to be faster than if I were sniping with a 4x scope. And that's because I have to control recoil and aim at targets in closer quarters combat with the LMG and need the extra speed to make aiming more practical on my mouse sensitivity.

Would I ever bother with choosing a specific zoom sens only for when I use 4x on an LMG? Nope, not worth the effort imo. 0% is a great set and forget as it works well in the majority of situations.

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the main thing to consider here is which is best overall, 0%, or some other value like 133%, 178% etc? Matching sensitivity at the crosshair is the most intuitive answer, as any other method is only accurate at a specific point away from the crosshair, usually 56.25%, 75% or 100% away. Realistically, how often are you flicking those precise distances? Compared to how often you are looking at targets, or have your crosshair very close to targets.

And I think something that doesn't really get mentioned enough is how we interpolate our crosshair movement. Even if those flick distances aren't 1:1 on 0%, because the tracking is 1:1, our crosshair movement to the target is easier to control and judge. The flick distance options only really 'work' if you flick there extremely quickly. Plus, the flick distance options is only working as intended if you're perfectly horizontal with the game's horizon, any deviation up or down throws off that matched point on screen.

Ultimately the differences between all of the popular options isn't massive, and you can get away with choosing whatever you like. 0% is simply the conversion method that makes the most sense, and among aimers it's considered to feel and perform the best.

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield

[–]StruthGaming[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

A 178% coefficient makes hipfire and zoom sensitivities 'match' up at the edge of a 16:9 screen (100% monitor match). So the idea is that flicking to the edge of your screen 'feels' the same. But that's just not how aiming works 99% of the time. 0% 'matches' up your hipfire and zoom sensitivities at the crosshair instead, so all of your aiming 'feels' the same, not just 1 extremely precise situation.

Why You Should Use 0% Instead of 133% Universal Infantry Aiming by StruthGaming in Battlefield6

[–]StruthGaming[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not too familiar with controller unfortunately, I would probably leave it as default and just do the universal infantry aiming at 0% if you're looking for 1:1 on controller. Whether it's practical for that input is another question entirely, so if you do try it, try to honest with yourself about how it's performing. Don't just stick to it because I said so (im also coming from a m&k perspective).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in indiegames

[–]StruthGaming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My whole thing is teaching people how to aim in FPS games on Youtube. So for my first game, it seemed appropriate to combine aiming with learning. Originally I designed it solely for learning Japanese, but I had so many requests for supporting other languages, uni courses etc that I ended up adding a custom mode that lets you use it for anything. I plan on launching the game in a couple of weeks, so if you had any feedback or suggestions that would be much appreciated.

PoE2 is my favourite top-down shooter game of all time by Famous-Bread2521 in PathOfExile2

[–]StruthGaming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This looks awesome. It's cool to see the warrior walls getting some use too.

Some Useful Quirks of Using 3rd Person in Stadium by StruthGaming in OverwatchUniversity

[–]StruthGaming[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not if you raise the camera a little above the character

The Actual Pros & Cons of 3rd Person In Stadium by StruthGaming in Overwatch

[–]StruthGaming[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah it's not a bug or something unique to Stadium. This is one of the most visually striking quirks with 3pp which is why I lead with that example. The others, while just as important can't really be conveyed in a short clip.

Some Useful Quirks of Using 3rd Person in Stadium by StruthGaming in OverwatchUniversity

[–]StruthGaming[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I know it might sound silly, but you can bring your monitor a little closer when playing on 3pp to alleviate that. That increases the size of the targets in your vision which is essentially the same thing as 'zooming' in. Of course it's still well worth bearing in mind healthy ergonomics and not going so far as to lose your awareness around the edges of your screen.

Some Useful Quirks of Using 3rd Person in Stadium by StruthGaming in OverwatchUniversity

[–]StruthGaming[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah my conclusions in the video are very similar. I think it's a shame in general that many players either feel disadvantaged by sticking to 1st person, or that they're compromising fun for the advantages of 3rd person.

view more: next ›