Overwatch Linear And Exponential ST Needs A Retrain

[GoodAimButATankMain]

Okay, did more test's and the xy ratio seems to actually be close to 1.44 throughout the curve. Mustve misjudged the 35% stick tilt by like a frame because the rest of the curve seems to stay the same... So maybe this game just has unpredictable movement and isnt able to get perfect 1:1 movements???

[GoodAimButATankMain]

I really think overwatch must have an unpredictable aim pattern now. If this is the case (which i think it is), then can we update the official ST settings page to say that the game has unpredictable movement like other games???

[OBsIV]

I really think overwatch must have an unpredictable aim pattern now. If this is the case (which i think it is), then can we update the official ST settings page to say that the game has unpredictable movement like other games???

Overwatch used to be marked with a "U" for this reason, but, we removed it because one of the updates in the past made in better in this area (i.e. less temporal acceleration). I'll speak to mist4fun about it.

[GoodAimButATankMain]

Okay thank you! This would explain everything haha, I always thought the game had nothing wrong with it so thats why I was so confused as to why the movements dont line up 1:1, but if there is unpredictable aim then that explains everything lol

[OBsIV]

Blizzard isn't the worst on designing quality aiming systems, but, there are up there. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some game makers. People using a XIM tend to notice it more, but, whatever we notice, people using controllers will notice too.

[GoodAimButATankMain]

I personally never noticed it when i played controller before my xim, but when i got my xim, compared to other games, it feels really bad to me... Then, when i looked at the settings page to make sure it was set up right, it doesnt say anything about the game having unpredictable movements so i assumed it felt this bad because a problem with the creation itself. As for why my configs feel better than the original for me and others, i still have no clue... maybe its just the way the original ST creation differs from my creation? I spin for 3 to 5 minutes on each point and only on the horizontal axis trying to get rid of any acelleration at all, where it sounds like the original ST doesnt spin but instead flicks in each direction (could be wrong on this but its still different from mine in some way)? Either way, if the game has unpredictable aim then neither 1 will be perfect so that explains why they feel different. I can suggest that in games w temporal acelleration, spinning for longer to make sure it has virtually no effect would help i would think, if you guys want to take that into consideration when creating ur ST's. I realize this wont help in every game, but this might explain why my config feels better to me and others.

[antithesis]

The ST trainer doesn't flick, that was mist manually testing to replicate your result.

The trainers maps the entire look mechanic by recording movement along all vectors at all velocities and working its magic for deadzone size, shape, acceleration, velocity jumps etc.

As OBsIV said, that'd be akin to creating millions of curves in one ST, but it doesn't work that way (we don't know exactly how, that's XIM Tech IP).

You can see a little bit of that automation in this video (keep in mind this is from 9 years ago) -

[GoodAimButATankMain]

Yeah definitely not flicks, but its still similar (moving in 1 direction for a short ammount of time and then changing the angle). Maybe since the translation is changing angles so much, the acelleration would affect the ST more than my curve creation where i spin for 3 minutes at one angle? I realize the translation process is probably different but still very similar

[antithesis]

The trainer moves constantly for 12-24 hours per viewport (HIP vs ADS) along all vectors and velocities to map the look mechanics. You're way oversimplifying it.

[GoodAimButATankMain]

Okay, but the amount of time u do circles doesnt matter if the acelleration kicks in when changing angles, and if the accelleration does change that could explain why my configs feel better for me and many others. Im not saying its a simple process or anything, im just saying if the accelleration keeps changing it will mess up the data collected

[antithesis]

XIM accounts for changes in acceleration and velocity in OW, that's what OBsIV means by temporal velocity and velocity jumps. OW has had this issue from day dot, but it has improved significantly over time to the point where the game is no longer marked "U". That doesn't mean OW's look mechanics are perfect, but it's in the best state it's ever been.

OBsIV is a computer scientist who has built the most advanced console look mechanic modelling in the world over the course of 12 years. Please trust that he knows his job and there is nothing you've mentioned that hasn't already been considered.

mist has stated that testing showed that the default OW ST has more predictability than your curve. If you like it, use it, but it's futile to keep looking for fault where none lies. OBsIV has got this covered.

As a new player in the FPS market, Blizzard's look mechanics in OW feel nowhere near as crisp on console as the established Unreal, Frostbite and iD Tech engines powering most PC and crossover games like CoD and Battlefield (they've been ruined instead by AA). The same can be said for other controller-centric titles, like Destiny. Ubisoft does a consistent job of ruining controller look mechanics when m/kb works fine on PC. Even Epic screwed the pooch with Fortnite's controller look mechs and they invented Unreal Engine.

[GoodAimButATankMain]

But when i test my curve compared to mists, mines more predictable. Idk what were doing differently, but with my setup I land noticably closer to the target with my curves than using the default ST during my accuracy tests. And i never said Obs1v isnt smart or anything like that, but since no one has ever come up with my way of creating a 1:1 curve (or at least have done it), then I thought giving my input on it is still good. Sure, maybe he has come up with a way to work arround the acelleration for his ST creation, but with my method the accelleration is 100% gone, and im going to post my thought's because if they have always used circles to make their curves or whatever, then maybe they never thought about trying it my way or incorperating it in. Im not saying my way is perfect, and im also not saying their way is perfect, but if its a new method never taken into consideration before then maybe a combination of the 2 could help with accelleration games, or even maybe just the info would be good. And again, the time you have doing something does not matter, other people sometimes think differently and can catch your mistakes or come up with new ideas.... Just like with medicine in the dark ages compared to now, you could be a doctor in the dark ages for 50 uears and still have worse medicine treatments than a doctor of our time, because some people came up with new ideas and discovered new things. Same thing can be applied here, im not saying hes not smart or anything, all im saying is if theres a new idea that could potentially help then i am not going tl assume they thought about it, otherwise no progress will ever be made.