<!--QuoteBegin-juice+Jul 26 2005, 08:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (juice @ Jul 26 2005, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> number keys... if you're good with them you can blink meta rocket the ground swipe the jp and blink around the corner without touching the ground. what else do you need? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> carapace
<!--QuoteBegin-Grahf+Jul 25 2005, 11:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grahf @ Jul 25 2005, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Using last inv while fading makes things more complicated since you need 3 buttons. And the no matter how fast you are bull **** is just as irrelevent as the scripts are faster debate. If you use numbers normally they will feel very naturally unless you have small hands or something. :o <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but three buttons *can* be used without having to use slots. I.E. I use my lastinv to switch between blink and swipe, and my mouse4 (thumb button) is bound to a metabolize script (metabs, then resets my lastinv to blink/swipe again). This overcomes the cumbersomeness of using slot numbers and still allows me to have complete control over 3 weapons while using only 2 keys, both situated perfectly under my left and right thumbs (alt and mouse4 respectivly).
Also, remember why this topic was created: "why q is not effective as a lastinv". Argueably, one could make the same statement you have about speed not mattering or that 'q' will feel natural if practiced, but to that I say, granted, but this topic was not about "getting used to", because one could also get used to binding q to lastinv without much trouble. The point of this topic was to delve into the specific technicalities as to why q is not as effective. So yes, slot numbers can become accustomed to, but in keeping with the topic, they are not as effective, no matter how practiced, as using lastinv.
How are they not as effective no matter what? Using a script will only limit your flexibity. But as I said q is just as effective as any other button, and your only arguement against it is that you cant strafe while pressing it but you can.
Here's what I'm saying: If you wanted to, you could play with your left strafe as 'a', your right strafe as 'h', your forward strafe as 't' and your back strafe as 'b', you could shoot with your space key and aim with your arrow keys. You could become so accustomed to this that you could argue that you can play as well as any wasd player. However, as spacial logic will dictate, no matter how accustome you are to it, it will never be as effecient. Same applies here. Though you could become greatly accustomed to using 1,2,3,4 and covering your 'a' key with another finger while hitting 'q', it will never be as effecient as leaving each finger in its natural position, each to do its own task. I'm not arguing that you can't push the boulder up the hill, I'm arguing that your methods of doing so are less effecient. (effectivity vs. effeciency)
Wow, flipping read. What I do DOES NOT use my strafing finger, it IS NOT less effective in any way.
And your example for movement keys wouldnt work because its lopsided and aiming with the arrow keys is limiting(like your meta script), these issues are irrelevent so you have no point.
edit: Effectivity isnt a word and I have no idea what you mean by it.
Once again, you are neglecting to realize that the more switching and extending of your fingers being done, the less effeciency you have. You claim that it is not any less effective, but offer no reasons why. No matter, I agree with you: it is not any less *effective*, however it is less effecient. To be of the utmost clarity and fairness, I will reread your initial statement and show you where you err: <!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually after observing my hand I noticed that when im strafing left I use my middle finger or pinky(if im backpeddling too) for it, maybe you just lack coordination. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, and correct me if I am mistaken, you use your middle finger or pinky for left strafe? Obvious problems there: 1) when using your pinky to strafe, if +duck is bound to shift/ctrl, you no longer have quick access to your crouch key. 2) when using your middle finger, you now have only your forefinger to cover all of forward,back, and right strafe.
Either way the finger placements are less effecient than if you were to leave them in their original locations and thus have quicker access to your movement keys.
Also, I am glad that you are confident that my example would not work, because I portrayed it as such. By criticizing it, you criticize your own layout. Just as you blatantly saw that the layout was lopsided and drastically ineffecient, is as your layout is lopsided and ineffecient, of course to a much lesser degree, but the example seeked to show that the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is notwithstanding because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency.
For definitive purposes, "effectivity" is the noun form of the adjective "effective"<!--QuoteBegin-Bookshelf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bookshelf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ef·fec·tive (i-fek?tiv) adjective
1.a. Having an intended or expected effect. b. Producing a strong impression or response; striking: gave an effective performance as Othello. 2.Operative; in effect: The law is effective immediately. 3.Existing in fact; actual: a decline in the effective demand. 4.Prepared for use or action, especially in warfare. — ef·fec?tive·ness or ef´fec·tiv?i·ty noun<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The way I have used it is to illustrate the important difference between "what" is being done and "how" it is being done. Person A and Person B can both get a boulder to the top of the hill, thus they both have 100% effectivity (the effect of their efforts was a 100% in completion of the task); however Person A expended a lot less energy and time than Person B and thus Person A has better effeciency (the greatest amount of effort formed from the least amount of resources) than Person B. As pertains to the current situation: You can perform movements and weapon switches in NS as well as I, however your methods of doing so are less effecient given the excessive and unnecessary finger switching.
I must have been half asleep when I said that. I strafe left with my ring finger and use the same finger for lastinv, but when im strafing left I use my pink instead.
Now I wasnt pointing out that the set-up you gave as an example was bad, I said your example was bad, im starting to think you just skip half the words and look for **** you can use. Since the example was lopsided, its ineffeincies had nothing to do with this.
Your main point seems to be the distance of a key. Maybe you havent noticed that a milisecond does not effect battle(it will usually be a whole frame or two at most), such small differences dont actually effect the effectiveness...? Maybe you are refering to ease of use? Maybe you are just agrueing out of your ****? I dont know.
<!--QuoteBegin-TOmekki+Jul 26 2005, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TOmekki @ Jul 26 2005, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-juice+Jul 26 2005, 08:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (juice @ Jul 26 2005, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> number keys... if you're good with them you can blink meta rocket the ground swipe the jp and blink around the corner without touching the ground. what else do you need? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> carapace <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> nub fade
So where do you guys put Voicecom? I've got Voice on Q, and 1234 for weaps. I do sometimes have difficulties doing Q and the right movement keys at the same time--but when I run into that trouble, I can always just stop using Voice, since its not a battle critical button. And I can usually hit my slot buttons with a free finger while I'm not using the corresponding movement button--for example, while I'm in the air and the Forward key doesn't help anyway.
Now, heres the part that ties in to this debate. Whether you are reaching for a key bound to "lastinv" or a key bound to "slot1", you still have to free up a finger to do it. A "slot1" key is not inherently more inefficient than a "lastinv" key. The real question is where to put it.
If you put 1 (or more) weapon switch keys on your mouse, then you don't lose access to movement keys while reaching for your weapon switch. But I've actually been moving away from mouse-binds. I have now moved every key except "fire" off my mouse and onto the keyboard, because its so much easier to accidently hit the wrong button on a mouse. Sometimes mouse software will even trigger a wrong button press on its own without you even hitting that button. And in my experience, hitting the WRONG button is substantially more damaging than taking a fraction of a second longer to hit the correct button. Once you get used to a keyboard combination, however time-inefficient the setup may be, you almost never hit a key by mistake.
The WASD key config shortchanges you at least 3-4 keys that could be in easy reach if you just shift your left hand one key over to home position (and use ESDF instead of <b>W</b>e <b>S</b>uck <b>A</b>t <b>D</b>eathmatch <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
Moving over gives you W and X instead of Q and Z, but adds A-Q-Z to capslock-shift-tab as pinky finger targets; anybody who does a lot of touch typing should be used to hitting those keys with a pinky finger anyway. You might need to rebind your weapon keys a slot over to keep slot 1 easy to hit while holding your forward key, but that's a small price to pay for having 3 extra keys for your pinky that let you still move/strafe with your other three fingers and jump with your thumb at the same time. Anything that prevents moving your hand off of the standard keys is a good thing... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I strafe left with my ring finger and use the same finger for lastinv, but when im strafing left I use my pink instead.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're still half asleep <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->... you strafe left using your ring finger, but when you strafe left you use your pinky finger instead <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Maybe you meant to say, "but when I hit lastinv, I use my pinky to strafe left"? In which case, your ring finger would overlap your pinky in an awkward position.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the example was lopsided, its ineffeincies had nothing to do with this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh contrare, since the example is lopsided it appealed to the lopsidedness of your layout as well (the one you suggested while "half asleep"). The example was created lopsided on purpose. Furthermore, it was more "spaced out" than "lopsided" since a,h,t, and b, fall in a wasd pattern, just with more space between them.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your main point seems to be the distance of a key. Maybe you havent noticed that a milisecond does not effect battle(it will usually be a whole frame or two at most), such small differences dont actually effect the effectiveness...?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe you still aren't understanding I am not talking about effectiveness. I am talking about *effeciency*. I already addressed your concerns about "practicality": <!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is notwithstanding because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Meaning that, it doesn't matter if it is only a millisecond's difference, nor if you can perform the same functions as I, in the same amount of time; that is not what effeciency is about, that is effectivity. As I said, given your logic, I could argue that T,A,B,H and space to shoot is an equally as good setup to wasd because I have mastered it and can perform functions on it as well as you, but irregardless of my effectiviness with such a zany layout, my effeciency on this layout is much less than on wasd. In this case, it *is* the small difference that becomes the big difference. As I said in the beginning: this topic was not created about broad generalizations, it was created to address the *technicalities* and *specifics* of the reasons why q as lastinv is not optimal. Thus, in keeping with the topic, I am providing technical, detailed, and very specific responses as to why q, and other certain layouts are not optimal. If you cannot cope with the technicalities presented in this topic and would rather deal with broad generalizations about overall practicality (as you said: "milliseconds does not effect battle"), then I suggest this topic is not for you.
--------------------------------- p.s., I used to be a firm supporter of ESDF, and used it exclusivly for my first 2-3 years throuhg q3a and CS, but I eventually came to realize, you gain access to some more keys, but you lose access to your "big keys" which prove vital when you need to slam something and slam it fast (i.e. shift, capslock, alt)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 1 2005, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 1 2005, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So where do you guys put Voicecom? I've got Voice on Q, and 1234 for weaps. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> mouse4 . that way i can do everything while telling my team exactly what i'm doing, without any loss in control whatsoever!
<!--QuoteBegin-xes+Aug 1 2005, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xes @ Aug 1 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 1 2005, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 1 2005, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So where do you guys put Voicecom? I've got Voice on Q, and 1234 for weaps. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> mouse4 . that way i can do everything while telling my team exactly what i'm doing, without any loss in control whatsoever! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> except comm.
We are talking about the effectiviness of settings, so if I can do the same thing in the same amount of time as you with just as much ease then my set up is just as effective if not better... A milisecond does not effect anything in the half life engine because it does not update that fast.
Yes, it does take a tiny amount of time more, but in game this does not effect anything so shut the **** up about that already. The only reason I said that the distance of a key was not going to change the effectiveness was because I thought this was obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you're still half asleep biggrin-fix.gif... you strafe left using your ring finger, but when you strafe left you use your pinky finger instead confused-fix.gif Maybe you meant to say, "but when I hit lastinv, I use my pinky to strafe left"? In which case, your ring finger would overlap your pinky in an awkward position.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are now just blatantly changing what I say then refuting falacies, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore because it seems you lack the ability to comprehend simple concepts.
And that is how a pro can kick your ****. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Grahf+Aug 2 2005, 05:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grahf @ Aug 2 2005, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We are talking about the effectiviness of settings, so if I can do the same thing in the same amount of time as you with just as much ease then my set up is just as effective if not better... A milisecond does not effect anything in the half life engine because it does not update that fast. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> *Scratches head, wonders if anyone is home...* Grahf, you really aren't understanding that this entire topic, is useless to your way of thinking. We are debating why q is not an optimal bind for lastinv, regardless of how accustomed you are to it, it is not a bind of which you should be accustomed to. Insisting that milliseconds do not matter and that effectiveness is the only thing of importance is to agree with my zany layout, because if one could get used to playing with A,T,H,B, and could do it as well as you, is that not okay by you? Yet by the same token, you claim that such a layout is lopsided and should not be used, so you contradict yourself. If I learned to aim with my arrow keys equally as well as you, would you still not assert that an equal amount of time spent on learning to aim with the mouse instead would amount to more results? If you answer yes, you agree with me that results (the effect) is not the only thing to be considered, but the method (effeciency) should be considered almost equally. If you answer no, you agree with me that my zany layout is completely fine and good to use. Either way, you contradict yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, it does take a tiny amount of time more, but in game this does not effect anything<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Recognizing that there is a negative impact is key in realizing that, if there exists another layout that decreases this impact, it is opimal. If I were to play with my feet so well that, in game you were to think I was playing with my hands, would that not effect anything either? That's tunnel-vision reasoning.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only reason I said that the distance of a key was not going to change the effectiveness was because I thought this was obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it was obvious which is why it did not need to be stated because, once again, this topic does not call into question *effect* but rather *effeciency* (not what, but how). No one is concerned about *what* (effect) you can perform with certain binds, because as I said, I could perform as well as you if I practiced binding aiming to my arrow keys. What is of concern is *how* (effeciency) you perform while using your binds.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are now just blatantly changing what I say then refuting falacies, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore because it seems you lack the ability to comprehend simple concepts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> lool, okay sherlock, explain your way out of this nonsensical stament that you made: <!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I strafe left with my ring finger and use the same finger for lastinv, but when im strafing left I use my pink instead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you cannot see how this statement makes no sense, then I am at a loss for an explanation...
Speaking of simple concenpts... after repeating myself incessantly about effectivity vs effeciency, I still believe you do not grasp the difference between the two and how it impacts greatly on the relevance of this topic. Please respond when you are better equipped to do so.
For example, take my excursion with the new Logitech Mx518 mouse and removal of mouse acceleration. I've been using a Intellimouse and mouse acceleration since NS was released, and when I switched to the formentioned, by most people considered optimal, set-up I saw a drastic decrease in my ability to play the game. This lasted through the entire month I tried to play with this setup.
My point anyway being that even though a setup might be "optimal" in a purely logical and detached way it is really most important that you feel comfortable with what you use.
I dont use lastinv. I didnt know it existed when I started playing computer games, and so I have never gotten used to it. I still use 1-4 to switch between weapons, and the only change I've made to the original layout is binding mousewheel for jumping and switching voice comm and duck around.
If this was an introduction course for new players I'd agree with your reasoning about lastinv and the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of setups, but as it is a discussion among already proficient players the discussion is moot.
Actually Renegade, your entire arguement is flawed. It doesn't matter how *effective* or *efficient* your key placements are. Whatever you're used to will work for you until you change it.
Besides, its more efficient to have lastinv on your mouse than anywhere on your keyboard.
And don't start saying that it isn't because you have to move fingers around. You have 5 fingers on your right hand too, its easy enough to use all of them.
<!--QuoteBegin-tjosan+Aug 4 2005, 03:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (tjosan @ Aug 4 2005, 03:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's another side to it. What you're used to.
For example, take my excursion with the new Logitech Mx518 mouse and removal of mouse acceleration. I've been using a Intellimouse and mouse acceleration since NS was released, and when I switched to the formentioned, by most people considered optimal, set-up I saw a drastic decrease in my ability to play the game. This lasted through the entire month I tried to play with this setup. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> same, except that my razer diamondback was propably more expensive <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ever since I read this topic, I am paying more attention to my Q actions... I dont think I would re-bind it to other button... (I tried, I keep pressing Q <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin-Golden+Aug 4 2005, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Golden @ Aug 4 2005, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually Renegade, your entire arguement is flawed. It doesn't matter how *effective* or *efficient* your key placements are. Whatever you're used to will work for you until you change it. And don't start saying that it isn't because you have to move fingers around. You have 5 fingers on your right hand too, its easy enough to use all of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In the scope of this topic, my arguement is completely apt, yours does not belong. According to your flawed reasoning, as I presented previously, I could "get used" playing NS with my toes... apparently, so long as I am used to it, it would be a good idea to you?... I should hope not. The fact of the matter is time spent getting used to a bad habit is time better spent getting used to a good habit. Time spent "getting used" to hitting q or slot # in awkward positions would yeild better results if said time were spent using more effecient binds.
Yes people are set in their ways, perhaps so much so that change will not see them any good before too much bad is done. However, of what use is that in a topic discussing technicalites such as this?\ I am saying: "Playing NS with your toes is not a good setup because more effecient and intricate movemenats can be achieved by your fingers." Whereas you are saying (along with grahf): "Well, I've spent 5 years playing with my toes, and I can do it as well as you if not better, it doesn't matter whats better, its what your better *with*" (excuse the gross exaggerations, but it is necessary to get the point across). Both are valid arguements. HOWEVER in the scope of this topic, discussing WHY certain binds yeild better effeciency (in and of themselves, notwithstanding acclimitization as a cause for effeciency), my statement is of more accuracy and thus pertinency.
You see Golden, you came in here, read the last 3 arguements and commented without understanding or caring what the topic was about. To inform you (if you have not yourself) the topic was about why Q is not a suitable lastinv key. We are not here to discuss "getting used to", for if that were the case, one could have simply replied "Even though Q is not a suitable key to bind lastinv to, one could get used to it"- end of story. However no, we are not discussing whether you can or cannot get used to a certain bind, we are discussin WHY it is not the best bind and what are other, more plausible solutions. I suggest you read the entirety of the thread to fully understand that this thread was made to discuss technicalites thus, your defence was already attended to long before you even posted it (I forsaw it coming), hence why I stated the following previously (which you should have read before posting): <!--QuoteBegin-Renegade @ July 29 2005+ 7:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ July 29 2005 @ 7:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, remember why this topic was created: "why q is not effective as a lastinv". Argueably, one could make the same statement you have about speed not mattering or that 'q' will feel natural if practiced, but to that I say, granted, but this topic was not about "getting used to", because one could also get used to binding q to lastinv without much trouble. The point of this topic was to delve into the specific technicalities as to why q is not as effective. So yes, slot numbers can become accustomed to, but in keeping with the topic, they are not as effective, no matter how practiced, as using lastinv .... the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is <b>notwithstanding</b> because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--------------------- <!--QuoteBegin-Golden+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Golden)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, its more efficient to have lastinv on your mouse than anywhere on your keyboard. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is more on topic, however you neither provided reasons for or against it, so it is a statement without support. Anyways, yes, lastinv on your mouse is still a better alternative to 'q'. however, if I am to assume you are binding it to a thumb button, you must take into account that the action of hitting the button may cause force in a horizontal direction misaligning your aim, forcing you to practice applying counter force when hitting this button and switching weapons; and since most weapon switching is done from LMG to Pistol, aim is of the essence when using it. Binding lastinv to a reachable and comfortable key (such as alt on a Natural Keyboard) ensures both easy and quick access without fear of compromised aim.
Guys, apples to apples. IMHO, I just read like 6 posts in a row that say pretty much the same thing... just worded differently. You can either agree or disagree with a playstyle, but argueing over which one is best just seems moot.
-off topic- moot seemed like the best "fit" word for this... after minutes of investigation on dictionary dot com I decided it was the best plan of attack.
<!--QuoteBegin-tjosan+Aug 7 2005, 05:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (tjosan @ Aug 7 2005, 05:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now I feel somewhat put off, I think I wrote a good reply to renegade, but he didnt respond. Then digz steals my word.
You monkeys! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lol, I responded to both your post, goldens, and grahfs in one almalgamatted post since you were all basically saying the same thing. Truthfully, I think I was put off, because (admit it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) you didnt read my entire post did you? Your point was and still is duly noted, and as I said, was preconceived by myself, so I adressed it numerous times in previous posts. Read my last quote in my last post. It basically acknowledges that comfortability as a result of extended practice is of importance in your practical bind layout, however, is <b>notwithstanding</b> in this topic, due to the fact that we are discussing optimal binds in and of themselves, without respect to acclimitization (since it is very subjective based on personal experience). Since there is no benefit in discussing subjectivity of certain binds, this topic rather discusses objectivity of these binds (in and of themselves). I believe I outlined this in the previous analogy about "playing NS with your toes". (^see previous post^)
Comments
NS-Slots:
bind "q" "slot1"
bind "MOUSE2" "slot2"
bind "MOUSE3" "slot3"
bind "4" "slot4"
Works pretty well for me (Laptop keyboard + MX510).
carapace
Yes, but three buttons *can* be used without having to use slots. I.E. I use my lastinv to switch between blink and swipe, and my mouse4 (thumb button) is bound to a metabolize script (metabs, then resets my lastinv to blink/swipe again). This overcomes the cumbersomeness of using slot numbers and still allows me to have complete control over 3 weapons while using only 2 keys, both situated perfectly under my left and right thumbs (alt and mouse4 respectivly).
Also, remember why this topic was created: "why q is not effective as a lastinv". Argueably, one could make the same statement you have about speed not mattering or that 'q' will feel natural if practiced, but to that I say, granted, but this topic was not about "getting used to", because one could also get used to binding q to lastinv without much trouble. The point of this topic was to delve into the specific technicalities as to why q is not as effective. So yes, slot numbers can become accustomed to, but in keeping with the topic, they are not as effective, no matter how practiced, as using lastinv.
If you wanted to, you could play with your left strafe as 'a', your right strafe as 'h', your forward strafe as 't' and your back strafe as 'b', you could shoot with your space key and aim with your arrow keys. You could become so accustomed to this that you could argue that you can play as well as any wasd player. However, as spacial logic will dictate, no matter how accustome you are to it, it will never be as effecient.
Same applies here. Though you could become greatly accustomed to using 1,2,3,4 and covering your 'a' key with another finger while hitting 'q', it will never be as effecient as leaving each finger in its natural position, each to do its own task.
I'm not arguing that you can't push the boulder up the hill, I'm arguing that your methods of doing so are less effecient. (effectivity vs. effeciency)
And your example for movement keys wouldnt work because its lopsided and aiming with the arrow keys is limiting(like your meta script), these issues are irrelevent so you have no point.
edit: Effectivity isnt a word and I have no idea what you mean by it.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually after observing my hand I noticed that when im strafing left I use my middle finger or pinky(if im backpeddling too) for it, maybe you just lack coordination. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, and correct me if I am mistaken, you use your middle finger or pinky for left strafe? Obvious problems there:
1) when using your pinky to strafe, if +duck is bound to shift/ctrl, you no longer have quick access to your crouch key.
2) when using your middle finger, you now have only your forefinger to cover all of forward,back, and right strafe.
Either way the finger placements are less effecient than if you were to leave them in their original locations and thus have quicker access to your movement keys.
Also, I am glad that you are confident that my example would not work, because I portrayed it as such. By criticizing it, you criticize your own layout. Just as you blatantly saw that the layout was lopsided and drastically ineffecient, is as your layout is lopsided and ineffecient, of course to a much lesser degree, but the example seeked to show that the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is notwithstanding because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency.
For definitive purposes, "effectivity" is the noun form of the adjective "effective"<!--QuoteBegin-Bookshelf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bookshelf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ef·fec·tive (i-fek?tiv) adjective
1.a. Having an intended or expected effect. b. Producing a strong impression or response; striking: gave an effective performance as Othello.
2.Operative; in effect: The law is effective immediately.
3.Existing in fact; actual: a decline in the effective demand.
4.Prepared for use or action, especially in warfare.
— ef·fec?tive·ness or ef´fec·tiv?i·ty noun<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The way I have used it is to illustrate the important difference between "what" is being done and "how" it is being done. Person A and Person B can both get a boulder to the top of the hill, thus they both have 100% effectivity (the effect of their efforts was a 100% in completion of the task); however Person A expended a lot less energy and time than Person B and thus Person A has better effeciency (the greatest amount of effort formed from the least amount of resources) than Person B. As pertains to the current situation: You can perform movements and weapon switches in NS as well as I, however your methods of doing so are less effecient given the excessive and unnecessary finger switching.
Now I wasnt pointing out that the set-up you gave as an example was bad, I said your example was bad, im starting to think you just skip half the words and look for **** you can use. Since the example was lopsided, its ineffeincies had nothing to do with this.
Your main point seems to be the distance of a key. Maybe you havent noticed that a milisecond does not effect battle(it will usually be a whole frame or two at most), such small differences dont actually effect the effectiveness...? Maybe you are refering to ease of use? Maybe you are just agrueing out of your ****? I dont know.
carapace <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
nub fade
Now, heres the part that ties in to this debate. Whether you are reaching for a key bound to "lastinv" or a key bound to "slot1", you still have to free up a finger to do it. A "slot1" key is not inherently more inefficient than a "lastinv" key. The real question is where to put it.
If you put 1 (or more) weapon switch keys on your mouse, then you don't lose access to movement keys while reaching for your weapon switch. But I've actually been moving away from mouse-binds. I have now moved every key except "fire" off my mouse and onto the keyboard, because its so much easier to accidently hit the wrong button on a mouse. Sometimes mouse software will even trigger a wrong button press on its own without you even hitting that button. And in my experience, hitting the WRONG button is substantially more damaging than taking a fraction of a second longer to hit the correct button. Once you get used to a keyboard combination, however time-inefficient the setup may be, you almost never hit a key by mistake.
Moving over gives you W and X instead of Q and Z, but adds A-Q-Z to capslock-shift-tab as pinky finger targets; anybody who does a lot of touch typing should be used to hitting those keys with a pinky finger anyway. You might need to rebind your weapon keys a slot over to keep slot 1 easy to hit while holding your forward key, but that's a small price to pay for having 3 extra keys for your pinky that let you still move/strafe with your other three fingers and jump with your thumb at the same time. Anything that prevents moving your hand off of the standard keys is a good thing... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think you're still half asleep <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->...
you strafe left using your ring finger, but when you strafe left you use your pinky finger instead <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Maybe you meant to say, "but when I hit lastinv, I use my pinky to strafe left"? In which case, your ring finger would overlap your pinky in an awkward position.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the example was lopsided, its ineffeincies had nothing to do with this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh contrare, since the example is lopsided it appealed to the lopsidedness of your layout as well (the one you suggested while "half asleep"). The example was created lopsided on purpose. Furthermore, it was more "spaced out" than "lopsided" since a,h,t, and b, fall in a wasd pattern, just with more space between them.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your main point seems to be the distance of a key. Maybe you havent noticed that a milisecond does not effect battle(it will usually be a whole frame or two at most), such small differences dont actually effect the effectiveness...?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you still aren't understanding I am not talking about effectiveness. I am talking about *effeciency*. I already addressed your concerns about "practicality":
<!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is notwithstanding because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meaning that, it doesn't matter if it is only a millisecond's difference, nor if you can perform the same functions as I, in the same amount of time; that is not what effeciency is about, that is effectivity. As I said, given your logic, I could argue that T,A,B,H and space to shoot is an equally as good setup to wasd because I have mastered it and can perform functions on it as well as you, but irregardless of my effectiviness with such a zany layout, my effeciency on this layout is much less than on wasd. In this case, it *is* the small difference that becomes the big difference. As I said in the beginning: this topic was not created about broad generalizations, it was created to address the *technicalities* and *specifics* of the reasons why q as lastinv is not optimal. Thus, in keeping with the topic, I am providing technical, detailed, and very specific responses as to why q, and other certain layouts are not optimal. If you cannot cope with the technicalities presented in this topic and would rather deal with broad generalizations about overall practicality (as you said: "milliseconds does not effect battle"), then I suggest this topic is not for you.
---------------------------------
p.s., I used to be a firm supporter of ESDF, and used it exclusivly for my first 2-3 years throuhg q3a and CS, but I eventually came to realize, you gain access to some more keys, but you lose access to your "big keys" which prove vital when you need to slam something and slam it fast (i.e. shift, capslock, alt)
mouse4 . that way i can do everything while telling my team exactly what i'm doing, without any loss in control whatsoever!
mouse4 . that way i can do everything while telling my team exactly what i'm doing, without any loss in control whatsoever! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
except comm.
Yes, it does take a tiny amount of time more, but in game this does not effect anything so shut the **** up about that already. The only reason I said that the distance of a key was not going to change the effectiveness was because I thought this was obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you're still half asleep biggrin-fix.gif...
you strafe left using your ring finger, but when you strafe left you use your pinky finger instead confused-fix.gif Maybe you meant to say, "but when I hit lastinv, I use my pinky to strafe left"? In which case, your ring finger would overlap your pinky in an awkward position.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are now just blatantly changing what I say then refuting falacies, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore because it seems you lack the ability to comprehend simple concepts.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->bind "UPARROW" "+forward"
bind "DOWNARROW" "+back"
bind "LEFTARROW" "+moveleft"
bind "RIGHTARROW" "+moveright"
bind "CTRL" "+duck"
bind "SHIFT" "+jump"
bind "DEL" "+use"
bind "MWHEELDOWN" "invnext"
bind "MWHEELUP" "invprev"
bind "MOUSE1" "+attack"
bind "MOUSE2" "+popupmenu"
bind "MOUSE3" "+showmap"
bind "MOUSE4" "lastinv"
bind "MOUSE5" "+reload"
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
And that is how a pro can kick your ****. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*Scratches head, wonders if anyone is home...*
Grahf, you really aren't understanding that this entire topic, is useless to your way of thinking. We are debating why q is not an optimal bind for lastinv, regardless of how accustomed you are to it, it is not a bind of which you should be accustomed to. Insisting that milliseconds do not matter and that effectiveness is the only thing of importance is to agree with my zany layout, because if one could get used to playing with A,T,H,B, and could do it as well as you, is that not okay by you? Yet by the same token, you claim that such a layout is lopsided and should not be used, so you contradict yourself.
If I learned to aim with my arrow keys equally as well as you, would you still not assert that an equal amount of time spent on learning to aim with the mouse instead would amount to more results? If you answer yes, you agree with me that results (the effect) is not the only thing to be considered, but the method (effeciency) should be considered almost equally. If you answer no, you agree with me that my zany layout is completely fine and good to use. Either way, you contradict yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, it does take a tiny amount of time more, but in game this does not effect anything<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Recognizing that there is a negative impact is key in realizing that, if there exists another layout that decreases this impact, it is opimal. If I were to play with my feet so well that, in game you were to think I was playing with my hands, would that not effect anything either? That's tunnel-vision reasoning.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only reason I said that the distance of a key was not going to change the effectiveness was because I thought this was obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it was obvious which is why it did not need to be stated because, once again, this topic does not call into question *effect* but rather *effeciency* (not what, but how). No one is concerned about *what* (effect) you can perform with certain binds, because as I said, I could perform as well as you if I practiced binding aiming to my arrow keys. What is of concern is *how* (effeciency) you perform while using your binds.
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are now just blatantly changing what I say then refuting falacies, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore because it seems you lack the ability to comprehend simple concepts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lool, okay sherlock, explain your way out of this nonsensical stament that you made:
<!--QuoteBegin-grahf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (grahf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I strafe left with my ring finger and use the same finger for lastinv, but when im strafing left I use my pink instead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you cannot see how this statement makes no sense, then I am at a loss for an explanation...
Speaking of simple concenpts... after repeating myself incessantly about effectivity vs effeciency, I still believe you do not grasp the difference between the two and how it impacts greatly on the relevance of this topic. Please respond when you are better equipped to do so.
For example, take my excursion with the new Logitech Mx518 mouse and removal of mouse acceleration. I've been using a Intellimouse and mouse acceleration since NS was released, and when I switched to the formentioned, by most people considered optimal, set-up I saw a drastic decrease in my ability to play the game. This lasted through the entire month I tried to play with this setup.
My point anyway being that even though a setup might be "optimal" in a purely logical and detached way it is really most important that you feel comfortable with what you use.
I dont use lastinv. I didnt know it existed when I started playing computer games, and so I have never gotten used to it. I still use 1-4 to switch between weapons, and the only change I've made to the original layout is binding mousewheel for jumping and switching voice comm and duck around.
If this was an introduction course for new players I'd agree with your reasoning about lastinv and the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of setups, but as it is a discussion among already proficient players the discussion is moot.
Besides, its more efficient to have lastinv on your mouse than anywhere on your keyboard.
And don't start saying that it isn't because you have to move fingers around. You have 5 fingers on your right hand too, its easy enough to use all of them.
For example, take my excursion with the new Logitech Mx518 mouse and removal of mouse acceleration. I've been using a Intellimouse and mouse acceleration since NS was released, and when I switched to the formentioned, by most people considered optimal, set-up I saw a drastic decrease in my ability to play the game. This lasted through the entire month I tried to play with this setup.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
same, except that my razer diamondback was propably more expensive <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And don't start saying that it isn't because you have to move fingers around. You have 5 fingers on your right hand too, its easy enough to use all of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the scope of this topic, my arguement is completely apt, yours does not belong.
According to your flawed reasoning, as I presented previously, I could "get used" playing NS with my toes... apparently, so long as I am used to it, it would be a good idea to you?... I should hope not. The fact of the matter is time spent getting used to a bad habit is time better spent getting used to a good habit. Time spent "getting used" to hitting q or slot # in awkward positions would yeild better results if said time were spent using more effecient binds.
Yes people are set in their ways, perhaps so much so that change will not see them any good before too much bad is done. However, of what use is that in a topic discussing technicalites such as this?\
I am saying:
"Playing NS with your toes is not a good setup because more effecient and intricate movemenats can be achieved by your fingers."
Whereas you are saying (along with grahf):
"Well, I've spent 5 years playing with my toes, and I can do it as well as you if not better, it doesn't matter whats better, its what your better *with*" (excuse the gross exaggerations, but it is necessary to get the point across).
Both are valid arguements. HOWEVER in the scope of this topic, discussing WHY certain binds yeild better effeciency (in and of themselves, notwithstanding acclimitization as a cause for effeciency), my statement is of more accuracy and thus pertinency.
You see Golden, you came in here, read the last 3 arguements and commented without understanding or caring what the topic was about. To inform you (if you have not yourself) the topic was about why Q is not a suitable lastinv key. We are not here to discuss "getting used to", for if that were the case, one could have simply replied "Even though Q is not a suitable key to bind lastinv to, one could get used to it"- end of story. However no, we are not discussing whether you can or cannot get used to a certain bind, we are discussin WHY it is not the best bind and what are other, more plausible solutions.
I suggest you read the entirety of the thread to fully understand that this thread was made to discuss technicalites thus, your defence was already attended to long before you even posted it (I forsaw it coming), hence why I stated the following previously (which you should have read before posting):
<!--QuoteBegin-Renegade @ July 29 2005+ 7:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ July 29 2005 @ 7:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, remember why this topic was created: "why q is not effective as a lastinv". Argueably, one could make the same statement you have about speed not mattering or that 'q' will feel natural if practiced, but to that I say, granted, but this topic was not about "getting used to", because one could also get used to binding q to lastinv without much trouble. The point of this topic was to delve into the specific technicalities as to why q is not as effective. So yes, slot numbers can become accustomed to, but in keeping with the topic, they are not as effective, no matter how practiced, as using lastinv
....
the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is <b>notwithstanding</b> because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
---------------------
<!--QuoteBegin-Golden+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Golden)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, its more efficient to have lastinv on your mouse than anywhere on your keyboard. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is more on topic, however you neither provided reasons for or against it, so it is a statement without support. Anyways, yes, lastinv on your mouse is still a better alternative to 'q'. however, if I am to assume you are binding it to a thumb button, you must take into account that the action of hitting the button may cause force in a horizontal direction misaligning your aim, forcing you to practice applying counter force when hitting this button and switching weapons; and since most weapon switching is done from LMG to Pistol, aim is of the essence when using it.
Binding lastinv to a reachable and comfortable key (such as alt on a Natural Keyboard) ensures both easy and quick access without fear of compromised aim.
-off topic-
moot seemed like the best "fit" word for this... after minutes of investigation on dictionary dot com I decided it was the best plan of attack.
You monkeys!
You monkeys! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol, I responded to both your post, goldens, and grahfs in one almalgamatted post since you were all basically saying the same thing. Truthfully, I think I was put off, because (admit it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) you didnt read my entire post did you?
Your point was and still is duly noted, and as I said, was preconceived by myself, so I adressed it numerous times in previous posts. Read my last quote in my last post. It basically acknowledges that comfortability as a result of extended practice is of importance in your practical bind layout, however, is <b>notwithstanding</b> in this topic, due to the fact that we are discussing optimal binds in and of themselves, without respect to acclimitization (since it is very subjective based on personal experience). Since there is no benefit in discussing subjectivity of certain binds, this topic rather discusses objectivity of these binds (in and of themselves).
I believe I outlined this in the previous analogy about "playing NS with your toes". (^see previous post^)