Discussion in 'Transformers Video Game Discussion' started by AngryChad, Oct 9, 2012.
Analog stick or mouse?
I can't aim for crap on my PC. I'm fairly good on PS3, so I choose Analog Stick.
Mouse, no contest. Aiming on a console is usually easier, because the games are made to be played with the stick and often some sort of auto-aim is helping. Mouse is the precisest you can get.
Mouse, but I prefer the analog stick just because I'm used to it.
Analogue stick for me, cause I never really do anything with games on the computer, but for others Pc will be much superior
I feel the analog sticks puts you "in the game" as it feels more involved, yet I can't help but admit that the mouse would be far more accurate and quick in that it allows you to spin around on a moments notice and target faster.
As much as I prefer the joysticks, the mouse would trump it.
This is EXACTLY what I was thinking.
For speed and accuracy, mouse without a doubt. Not even close.
Mice are more accurate for sure. Speed is dependent on the sensitivity setting (I've used some computers where the sensitivity was set so low that it was downright sluggish).
Now, as far as which one is better, THAT'S a matter of opinion. Personally, I prefer using controllers for video games rather than a mouse but that's my personal preferrence.
Mice. I can't aim for shit with analog sticks.
Mouse, HANDS DOWN!
Mouse but I doubt any solider in real life would be able to spin as fast as the player with the mouse
Mouse for me. When I played The Armada game, I had to play on easy mode, and even then I died a lot, because it was a b*** to aim, and run at the same time. Liked the game, but would propably love it, if I could play it the with mouse.
PC players against people that use the joystick, PC would easily win,they can move a good time quicker.
Any device is only as good as it's user.
I disagree. Let's take an example that's dear to my heart. Let's take a skilled, well trained shooter. Now, let's run two tests, first with an AK-47 and next with a M16A2, as an old school baseline example. Both are rifles, both are tools who's only purpose is to send a bullet at a target and kill it, and both are classically compared rifles
Now, MOA, or Minute of Angle in the shooting world, is a measurement of accuracy. The baseline MOA is 1 MOA, which means at 100 yards, you only have a deviation from the point of aim of 1 inch. 1 MOA is very good on it's own, and with a dedicated sniper platform like the USMC M40A5 sniper rifle, you can get even get MOA under 1, which are known as "sub MOA groups." The engineers who made the M40A5 guarantee a .5 MOA with each shot from the rifle. That's RIDICULOUSLY accurate.
Right, now that you have the basics of our test, our shooter gets to shooting. What are the results?
Classically, an AK-47 has a relatively abysmal MOA. It ranges from anywhere from 2 MOA to 6 MOA, while an M16 shoots .5 MOA to 8 MOA. The larger end number on the M16 is due to the ballistics of the 5.56mm round, which is smaller than the Ak-47's 7.62x39mm round. 5.56mm is affected by drag and wind much sharper than 7.62x39mm, a bigger bullet with more powder behind it. However, the AK is less "fine tuned" than the M16. It's rifling isn't as great or as tight as the M16, the ergonomics aren't as great, and the sights on the AK, although open, are not precise enough for accurate, pinpoint shooting.
This is a test that has been done for decades, and it clearly shows that in the hands of identically skilled shooters, the M16 is a more accurate military rifle than the AK, period. Sure you could have a skilled user pick up an AK and put rounds accurately, but even at the AK's most accurate MOA grouping, it still cannot hit sub MOA groups like the M16 can. I use this gun example, because it's a clear example of one rifle being objectively more accurate than the other. Since we're discussing accuracy of mouse vs. analog stick, it's an apt example. I'm absolutely positive that if you put to the test of speed and precision, mouse vs. analog stick in a controlled environment, then it would be very clear that mouse would be the winner.
In the end, "Any device is only as good as it's user" is an adage that can only go so far. At some point there is a decision to be made to pick an objectively better thing to do whatever task you're doing. You would **NEVER** take a point and click digital camera to shoot wildlife photos for National Geographic, and you'd never use your childhood beginning microscope for a P.hD study on biology. Likewise in video gaming, if you're going to a fighting game tournament where as much as 25,000 dollars was offered to the winner of Street Fighter IV's tournament at EVO 2012, you damn well make sure you pick the right tool for the job.
And I think Planck has just put the nail in that coffin.
You'd think so. But I'm betting that they'll continue to argue that the world is flat.
Great explanation, PlanckEpoch.
Planck's explanation is well said (he is very good at explaining stuff) and to some extent, he is correct: Some devices are designed to be more accurate than others. But, if you put those devices into the hands of incompetent users, that designed accuracy isn't going to count for anything.
The M40A5 might be designed to be more accurate but if you give it to a ******ed monkey on crack that's not gonna count for much. Same with a mouse. Sure, it can be more accurate for aiming, but again, a monkey isn't likely to hit anything with it.
Separate names with a comma.