This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Gaming mice

24

Comments

  • That's a lot of buttons.
    With WoW I could think of so many actions to program into those buttons. I might just get the next downgrade of the Razer, but who knows. It does feel nice and I like how it's raised.
  • That's a lot of buttons.
    I like how it's raised.
    Razr mice are fed only an all-grass diet and are massaged twice daily.
  • edited March 2011
    Turns out Gaming mice might actually not be any significant amount better than cheapo $12 bog standard mice.

    Of course, someone is going to have a problem with this, so let the flamewar commence. Extra points if you claim that the tiniest difference matters because of your skill.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Well my problem is that they seem to be talking about just clicking when the gaming mice are more about the features they have, and the higher DPI that makes them better.
  • edited March 2011
    Turns out Gaming mice might actually not be any significant amount better than cheapo $12 bog standard mice.

    Of course, someone is going to have a problem with this, so let the flamewar commence. Extra points if you claim that the tiniest difference matters because of your skill.
    The primary function of a mouse is not clicking, but moving the pointer.
    Try moving the pointer from one end of the screen to the other really quickly on a cheap mouse. It's going to screw up terribly, because the sensor can't keep up with the movement.

    Basically, the most important characteristic of a mouse is proportionality. A good mouse needs to have the rate of movement of the cursor be directly proportional to the rate of movement of the mouse across as wide a range of movement speeds as possible. Mouse acceleration, such as the "enhance pointer precision" option in Windows, is a very bad thing as it destroys this proportionality - it exists only to help make up for mice that are already quite bad in the first place.

    Particularly high DPI isn't that important, either. Why? Larger mouse movements are generally better than smaller ones. To make a mouse movement, you have to overcome the static friction first. The problem is that having to overcome static friction introduces an inherent nonlinearity, and hence makes the movement less controllable. The larger/faster your mouse movement is, the less of an impact the static friction has compared to the entire motion, and so the more linearly the mouse behaves.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited March 2011
    The primary function of a mouse is not clicking, but moving the pointer.
    Try moving the pointer from one end of the screen to the other really quickly on a cheap mouse. It's going to screw up terribly, because the sensor can't keep up with the movement.
    Absolutely correct, absolutely irrelevant. This test was about interaction with the interface, not how good the sensor is - because the point is to sell a mouse that has a bunch of buttons to input commands faster, instead of the usual "HOLY SHIT WE'VE GOT LIKE A MILLION DPI RIGHT HERE AND SOME FANCY WEIGHTS AND SHIT".
    In fact, in the article, it notes that the two things most important in determining the speed of a mouse are the sensor, and the User's familiarity with the device.

    However, that does not make a difference beyond a certain point - because there is a certain point where the input device is actually more precise than you have the ability to be in your fallible human body - essentially, it's ability to sense it's position accurately is greater than the accuracy of your Proprioception. Once you hit that limit, it's just a case of making your PC accessory dick bigger, essentially, it's the Gucci handbag for PC Gamers. Except Scott, whose PC gamer Gucci handbag is an actual Gucci handbag.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Absolutely correct, absolutely irrelevant.
    Irrelevant? Hardly. Look at your own statement - "Turns out Gaming mice might actually not be any significant amount better than cheapo $12 bog standard mice." - which as I said is plainly false.
    In fact, in the article, it notes that the two things most important in determining the speed of a mouse are the sensor, and the User's familiarity with the device.
    With regards to sensors, it's hardly just an issue of laser vs optical, as the article suggests. There is much, much more to sensor quality than that; indeed, the Razer DeathAdder had for quite a while the best mouse sensor available, and it uses an optical sensor, not a laser sensor.
    However, that does not make a difference beyond a certain point - because there is a certain point where the input device is actually more precise than you have the ability to be in your fallible human body - essentially, it's ability to sense it's position accurately is greater than the accuracy of your Proprioception.
    It does make a difference, but I do agree - in the future, for quality mice, that difference will become increasingly negligible compared to your own failings.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that currently there are quite a lot of mice around that fail to perform on a basic level. High-quality mouse sensors are far from ubiquitous at the moment.
  • edited March 2011
    Irrelevant? Hardly. Look at your own statement - "Turns out Gaming mice might actually not be any significant amount better than cheapo $12 bog standard mice." - which as I said is plainly false.
    Yeah, So I'm starting an argument on possibly the world's most argumentative ivory tower for my own amusement. Sue me.
    With regards to sensors, it's hardly just an issue of laser vs optical, as the article suggests. There is much, much more to sensor quality than that; indeed, the Razer DeathAdder had for quite a while the best mouse sensor available, and it uses an optical sensor, not a laser sensor.
    Well, all the article says is that the VP of the company that manufactures the mouse they're trying to sell said "Metalocity proves that the multi-button interface is the the first significant advance in mouse technology since the move from optical to laser sensors." It doesn't suggest much, other than that their VP said it, and he thinks it's a big deal. It also suggests they're cleverly trying to imply a big leap, though at no point to they state that's a big leap, nor that this is anything but the VP's remark on the issue.
    It does make a difference, but I do agree - in the future, for quality mice, that difference will become increasingly negligible compared to your own failings.
    Yes, I did put that poorly - I should have said something more along the lines of "If the difference between two mice is beyond the level of your capability, then the difference between those in your use of that mouse is irrelevant, because despite the difference, both are able to outperform the user."
    However, that doesn't change the fact that currently there are quite a lot of mice around that fail to perform on a basic level. High-quality mouse sensors are far from ubiquitous at the moment.
    Of course it doesn't change the fact. However, as a counterpoint, it also doesn't change the fact that there is negligible if any utility in buying some hundred dollar Gaming mouse that has more features than your car and more flair than tom cruise in cocktail, over a simpler, cheaper mouse.

    (Also, as a purely personal side note, it amuses me that the same sort of gamer who will carry on about console gamers getting accessories to give them faster, more accurate response in games, control games better, blah blah blah, are a reason that consoles suck, but will have absolutely zero problem with showing off their fancy new gaming Mouse and Keyboard setup that exists essentially for the same purpose. It's nothing to do with the argument, it's just that hypocrisy of that type amuses me.)
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited March 2011
    However, that doesn't change the fact that currently there are quite a lot of mice around that fail to perform on a basic level. High-quality mouse sensors are far from ubiquitous at the moment.
    Of course it doesn't. However, as a counterpoint, it also doesn't change the fact that there is negligible if any utility in buying some hundred dollar Gaming mouse that has more features than your car and more flair than tom cruise in cocktail, over a simpler, cheaper mouse.
    If both have the same sensor, then much of the utility is gone, yes. Nonetheless, apart from the main concern of the sensor, there are other features that do matter. 5 buttons vs 3 buttons matters; the shape of the mouse matters; high-quality mouse drivers matter. Also, that feature that Rym keeps talking about, "sniping mode" - that seems very useful as well.
    (Also, as a purely personal side note, it amuses me that the same sort of gamer who will carry on about console gamers getting accessories to give them faster, more accurate response in games, control games better, blah blah blah, are a reason that consoles suck, but will have absolutely zero problem with showing off their fancy new gaming Mouse and Keyboard setup that exists essentially for the same purpose. It's nothing to do with the argument, it's just that hypocrisy of that type amuses me.)
    Yeah, that is amusing.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • If both have the same sensor, then much of the utility is gone, yes.
    Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. I'm really off today, for some reason. Normally, I can at least mostly complete a vaguely coherent thought. Eh, whatever.
    Nonetheless, apart from the main concern of the sensor, there are other features that do matter. 5 buttons vs 3 buttons matters; the shape of the mouse matters; high-quality mouse drivers matter.
    Barring the drivers, I'd call that mostly a matter of taste. I'm fine with a 3 button mouse right now - a Razer Krait that arrived in my hands though another long story - because I pretty much never use more than three buttons if I'm playing an FPS, and FPS games are 90% of what I play online, if I'm playing multiplayer online. Someone who plays starcraft or WOW might have a different opinion on the issue of buttons. Shape is purely personal - for example, I have big hands, and I find tiny mice annoying to use, so I go for larger mice, whereas someone with tiny hands might go for something else.
    Also, that feature that Rym keeps talking about, "sniping mode" - that seems very useful as well.
    As we've covered many times before, I'm no programmer, but I don't think that would be terribly hard to whip up a program to do. I'm sure I've seen something like that around before, but I honestly couldn't tell you where as I took little notice - didn't seem useful at the time I saw it.
  • edited March 2011
    Shape is purely personal - for example, I have big hands, and I find tiny mice annoying to use, so I go for larger mice, whereas someone with tiny hands might go for something else.
    It depends on your hands, but the point is that shape does matter. Also, whether or not you use them, thumb buttons provide additional functionality without requiring much effort. Your thumb typically sits on the side of the mouse doing nothing, so it makes sense to use it. Personally, I use my mouse thumb buttons for voice chat, and I think it's very convenient.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited March 2011
    Personally, I use my mouse thumb buttons for voice chat in games, and I think it's very convenient.
    Not a bad idea, actually - I mostly use the middle button on my mouse, since I rarely use the actual button, and my mouse lets me click down and scroll at the same time - though I rarely use voice chat in games, to be honest, unless I'm playing with friends, which is rare of late, and when it does occur, skype is usually the program of choice - since my steam library is thin on multiplayer games right now - It's pretty much down to Guns of Icarus and Alien swarm, though I could play the Stalker games online, I suppose.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • I don't think a lot of PC game makers really take advantage of the interface the best they could, some examples:
    1) Turn the mouse speed up when I'm using a shotgun and down when I zoom with a sniper rifle.
    2) For voice chat, have a button to toggle between voice activated and mute mic.
    3) Hold down the mouse button on a sniper rifle to zoom, release to fire but stay zoomed in for a few moments to confirm the hit. Snap out if the player gets hit and is not holding the button down.
  • 3) Hold down the mouse button on a sniper rifle to zoom, release to fire
    Old FPSs did this.
  • 3) Hold down the mouse button on a sniper rifle to zoom, release to fire
    Old FPSs did this.
    and now begins another argument of how old fps's are far superior to new ones.
  • 3) Hold down the mouse button on a sniper rifle to zoom, release to fire
    Old FPSs did this.
    and now begins another argument of how old fps's are far superior to new ones.
    Eeeeyup.
  • and now begins another argument of how old fps's are far superior to new ones.
    They contained some superior elements which have surprisingly not been integrated into modern FPSs in certain cases.

    Also, NS2 is a new FPS.
  • Rym, have you tried any of the COD4 games?
  • The Naga has too many buttons to my liking and I probably won't ever need them since I no longer play WoW. So, I got the Imperator instead. No more wireless mice for me.
  • Eh. I like my wireless moOops, ran out of batteries.
  • I use a DeathAdder optical with the thumb buttons mapped to 3500DPI (most tasks) and 900DPI (precision editing, sniping) and it is a joy. I'm glad I didn't spend the extra money to get the laser one, which has a 5000 DPI max.
  • I use the Logitech VX Revolution which I got a couple years back on sale at Walmart for $30. Its a great little mouse bit its not exactly a gaming mouse. I think its only 1000dpi. Its definitly not worth the $66 price tag on amazon. I'll probably buy one of the Razers this summer when I get a new videocard.
  • edited March 2011
    So at work I have a Logitech MX1000, but it's wearing out. The middle click doesn't always work. If anyone wants it, let me know.

    I've got a Logitech G5 at home, that I do like a lot. I think I'm going to get a Logitech G500 or Logitech MX518 or Steelseries Xai for home, and move the G5 to work.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited March 2011
    I use the Logitech VX Revolution which I got a couple years back on sale at Walmart for $30. Its a great little mouse bit its not exactly a gaming mouse. I think its only 1000dpi. Its definitly not worth the $66 price tag on amazon. I'll probably buy one of the Razers this summer when I get a new videocard.
    Don't worry so much about DPI. All else being equal, 1000 DPI means that for a 1 inch movement you'll be off by at most 0.1 percent compared to an infinity-DPI mouse - it really isn't going to matter. With regards to DPI, the point Churba made is quite applicable, though there are some possible exceptions (e.g. if you have very little room for mousing, you can only make small motions, and so DPI becomes much more relevant).

    However, although DPI is mostly irrelevant past several hundred DPI, which AFAIK is ubiquitous at the moment, there are other factors influencing mouse accuracy and precision. The most important factor is, as I said before, linearity across a wide range of speeds.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Get 2000-4000 DPI to get yourself started and then you can later think about moving up to one of the high end mice if you feel like it. Games these days (With all their rock music and cars.) aren't going to be pushing 2000+ much. 1000Hz polling (How often the PC checks the mouse.) is nice but not essential, it mostly makes your movement feel much smoother.
  • Rym or Scott, have you guys played any of the new COD4 games?
  • edited March 2011
    Rym or Scott, have you guys played any of the new COD4 games?
    I don't even know what COD4 is.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Wow, Call of Duty 4.
  • edited March 2011
    Games these days (With all their rock music and cars.) aren't going to be pushing 2000+ much.
    What does this statement even mean? What impact are you suggesting DPI has?
    2000 DPI means you can move your mouse 1mm and it will register this distance to a precision of roughly 1%. That precision is simply not needed, as your own accuracy in moving the mouse such small distances is the primary bottleneck.

    1000Hz polling can be essential for linear response of the mouse, however, possibly even more so if it has high DPI. At lower polling rates, there will be a saturation speed, after which the mouse will no longer move faster on your screen even if you move it faster by hand - you can see experimental results here. Additionally, a higher polling rate gives you a faster response time - with 125Hz it's a max. of 8ms while with 1000Hz it's a max of 1ms. This is also relevant to mousing, definitely much more than DPI is.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Wow, Call of Duty 4.
    I have no interest in doody, or the ways in which it calls.
Sign In or Register to comment.