Oh my gosh… Once and once again.
Dias, if you have different list of weapons every 4 minutes as for deathmatch — you have to watch a HUD in the corner of a screen not to miss.
Ok with un-real weapon fast_switch it’s maybe a less problem for deathmatch, but when I play singleplayer I try to stay realistic.
Sorry, but I simply don’t believe you. Did you watch the video? He can switch between any two weapons, no matter how many “clicks” are between them, instantly. He’s not using “fast weapon switch”, so you can tell from the sound effects and the menu itself that he’s using the keyboard and not scrolling. He sometimes does it so fast that the menu is only visible for a single frame or not at all.
I submit that it’s not even theoretically possible to achieve the same speed using any control scheme that requires you to pass more intermediary selections before getting to the desired one. Can you find a video demonstrating otherwise?
I don’t have a position in this issue/argument, but I’d like to point out just for the sake of reason that this is argumentum ad ignorantiam. You made a proposition and then attempted to support it by demanding proof of the negative… That is counter to reason.
If you want him to prove his claims, you can ask for some proof or evidence, but you can’t make a proposition and then attempt to support it with a demand for proof to the contrary.
Your proposition may well be correct, but your argumentation isn’t.
OK - carry on.
Zen, I think you haven’t looked at the first sentence on its own closely enough and assume that the second sentence is what my belief is based on. My proposition stands alone: I believe it’s theoretically impossible because of simple math - passing more selections before reaching the desired one logically takes more time. I could have made that point just fine without asking for a video.
Asking for a video is still reasonable since I have already provided one of my own as well as presenting my reasoning. Dias has provided neither reasoning nor video evidence. I only have his word to go on so far.
That’s what you have to do. If you want to make the proposition, then that’s what you have to do.
Again, I’m not interested in involving myself in the discussion/debate, I’m just pointing out that you can’t prove anything or make a proper argument by making a proposition and then supporting it by shifting the burden of disproof to the other guy. If it’s your proposition, then it’s your burden of proof. That’s all I’m saying - I’m completely uninterested in the issue itself, and I’m only pointing out that you won’t be able to get anywhere with your discussion by utilizing bad argumentation like that.
Good luck.
Of course. What I was just explaining to you is that I already did do that. The question at the end is separate from the argument I made. You incorrectly assumed that everything I said was predicated on the lack of a video. To make my meaning perfectly clear, here is the same thing slightly reworded:
Better? :freeman:
OK, look, I didn’t intend for my comment to take the thread to a discussion about argumentation or something like this, So, I’m going to make this one last comment in reply to yours, then I ask that you return to the discussion proper, and my apologies to the thread for the brief diversion:
No, it’s clearly not. You’re making this proposition, and then asking him to post a video to disprove the proposition. The question itself references the proposition: “Can you find a video demonstrating otherwise?”
No, that’s not what I was getting at all. I was looking at the argumentative structure. I’m not arguing with you about the issue itself, nor against the other guy.
No, that’s not really better. It’s the same thing except the supporting argument is simply in a new paragraph. When you say, “I submit”, you’re making a proposition “that it’s not even theoretically possible for such a control scheme to achieve the same speed”. That’s fine for you to make a proposition. But now you have to support it, but your supporting argument is “Can you find a video demonstrating otherwise?” He doesn’t have to do that. You made a proposition, now you have to support that. He doesn’t have to prove that your proposition is incorrect, you have to prove that it is correct.
You should rather not have made any proposition yourself and simply requested that he prove his claim, rather than make a claim yourself. Now that you’ve made a proposition, you have to show some math, or make comparison videos of both methods, etc. He doesn’t have to do anything, because you’ve swooped in and made a proposition. Now it’s your argument to prove, not his to disprove.
But more importantly, your proposition is something else entirely, a different argument. You’re not saying that it’s not possible for someone using a mousewheel to switch weapons as quickly as the player in this vid - it certainly is - you’re saying that one config is mathematically faster than other - but that would only be given that if the two players were of an equal skill level. In other words, it reframes the issue in terms of a comparison between the performance ceilings of each config. But that doesn’t speak to player skill or to dias’ claim, which I do not doubt.
As for the specifics of the argument itself, I don’t want to be involved in the discussion myself. But I’ll tell you this: this is more an issue of skill level. I would also be interested in seeing dias submitting a vid showing his switching. In the way you’ve framed the argument, he doesn’t have to now, but I have no doubt that he can switch weapons at least as fast as in the previously posted vid using the mousewheel.
That’s has to be a video error which makes it appear as if he’s doing it a lot faster than he actually is, because it’s not possible to do it that quickly in-game.
Like I asked before; how do you know the guy in this “random playthrough” uses the keyboard to switch? How do you know he didn’t have a key bound to:
bind 4 "slot4; slot4; wait; +attack1; wait; -attack1"to swap to the crossbow or something?
Zen, I think he was simply requesting a video out of interest, not demanding one as proof.
In any case, I’m pretty sure all of this depends entirely on what you’re used to and what you’ve learned to do best.
In my case, using the number buttons is way faster because it requires only a few keypushes. Scrolling requires scrolling all the way until you reach the desired weapon.
If you’ve memorized how far to scroll, scrolling will be faster. If you’ve memorized how many times to push a button, using the buttons will be faster.
No, that’s what he was doing. I really only commented because of the argumentation, not because I have an interest in the issue really. It seems trivial to me. Targ made a new proposition that shifted the discussion. So, the issue is not framed as “Can someone switch weapons with a mousewhee as quickly as the player has switched weapons on the vidl?”, it gets shifted to “One method is faster than another.”
Well, that’s likely true, that the ceiling of one method is greater than another method, the ceiling being the top speed. And that’s not really the original frame here, which was “I don’t believe that Dias can switch weapons that quickly with a mousewheel.”
So, targ makes a shift to a new proposition - that it’s not even theoretically possible to achieve the same speed using any control scheme that requires you to pass more intermediary selections before getting to the desired one - and then asks dias to post a vid to demonstrate otherwise. That’s argumentum ad ignorantiam. And if dias can’t provide a vid to disprove the statement, then the statement must be true, and therefore, dias can’t switch weapons with a mousewheel as quickly as the player in the vid.
The issue isn’t that, but rather “can a player using a mousewheel switch weapons as quickly as the player in this vid”, not “is one method inherently and potentially faster than another for a discrete player”. Of course one method may be potentially faster than another when all other factors are equal. But targ has made this proposition to support a larger argument that: since one method must be faster than another when all other factors are equal, and, since that method is not the one used by dias, then dias can not switch weapons as fast as the player in this vid.
That’s not a good argument in itself, but then he employs argumentum ad ignorantiam by asking dias to find a vid to demonstrate that his method proposition is false… If he wants to say that a specific method is faster than another, then the burden of proof falls on targ, not dias.
But, again, an establishment that one method is ideally faster than another, is irrelevant to whether or not dias can switch weapons as quickly as the player in the video. At the very most, one could only say that dias could switch weapons faster if he practiced using the method favored by targ, but it doesn’t prove that dias, or anyone else, can not switch weapons as quickly with a mousewheel as in this vid.
It’s just not a good argument.
He should have really just asked dias to give a demonstration, rather than try to make a rhetorical argument, which mucks things up.
I agree.
Here’s how it could theoretically be faster:
If you know it takes four mouse-wheel clicks to get from one weapon to the other, you can simply and quickly do the four mouse-wheel clicks. If you have to get to that same weapon by using one of the number keys along the top of the keyboard, it’s possible that you have to STILL scroll through the multiple weapons assigned to that number.
So, let’s take Half-Life as a for example.
You are currently on the 1st weapon of the 4 key, the rocket launcher, then you want to get to the crossbow, which is the 3rd weapon on the 3 key. To get to the crossbow, you have to hit 3 three times. With the mousewheel weapon switch, it’s a single mousewheel click in the up direction.
Also, depending on how your keybindings are, it might still take the same amount of time or longer to go from your fingers on WASD to the 5 key twice as it does to do 6-10 mousewheel clicks.
Just because YOU can’t do it doesn’t mean others cannot.
Reference doesn’t imply dependence.
No, that is not the supporting argument! Read the first sentence. Ignore the second one. I reworded it to make it as clear as I could the fact that it stands on its own.
Again, reference doesn’t imply dependence: just because I mention both points in the same post doesn’t mean I’m saying one is supported by the other.
Everything you’re saying stems from this false presumption that proposition A is predicated on proposition B. I never said that it was. I believe it’s theoretically impossible, as well as continuing to doubt that Dias is specifically capable of outperforming this guy.
Let me break it down for you:
-
I DON’T believe the lack of comparative video is proof that it can’t be done faster.
-
I DON’T believe a comparative video would prove one way or the other whether it is theoretically possible at the upper limits.
-
I DO believe that more inputs per command results in a longer time to complete a command (this is my basis for believing it to be theoretically impossible).
-
I DO believe that a comparative video would give credence to Dias’s claim that he can do it faster.
Really, you’re going to claim “video error” instead of admitting the possibility that it’s real? As I said, you can also tell from the sound effects the method he’s using. I have first-hand experience that this is possible; it looks just the same when I’m playing myself (with the keyboard, of course). Why on Earth would he go through the trouble of console bindings as opposed to turning on fast weapon switch – just to fool you into thinking he’s pressing buttons when he’s not? Seems like you’re contriving far-fetched possibilities just to deny the obvious.
+
Both good points.
-
There are more cases overall where keyboard-switching would be faster. The only time it wouldn’t would be in cases exactly like the one you describe where you’re switching to one of the weapons at the end of the list just to the left of the one you’re currently in.
-
Yeah it will vary from person to person – I have long fingers and don’t have any issue until I have to reach over to 6 (which I don’t in this game) – but overall muscle memory works better when it’s not context-dependent, which it is with the mousewheel.
Stop. I only made that comment to point out an obviously bad argumentation, in the same way someone would point out a mathematical error. I have no interest in your argument itself or this issue in general. I had no intention of making any further comment.
Look, man, L&R is real stuff that people learn in school, use in their job, teach, and research. Like other subjects, some people have some knowledge, some people don’t.
Here’s the structure of your argument:
“dias can not switch weapons with a mousewheel as quickly as the guy in the vid.”
then you support that assertion with this:
because “it’s not even theoretically possible to achieve the same speed using any control scheme that requires you to pass more intermediary selections before getting to the desired one.”
and you support that with:
“Can you find a video demonstrating otherwise?”
That’s the structure. It’s not difficult, it’s not exotic, it’s not couched in some complex rhetorical structure in the middle of someone’s scholarly paper. It’s pretty plain and simple. So, please stop with the dilettantism - the “false presumption” and “proposition A predicated on proposition B”, etc. It’s meaningless and incorrect. I only made that original comment to point out an error that, to me, is no more significant than pointing out a mathematical error, I wasn’t trying to bust yer balls or something. Just take the correction (or don’t) gracefully, and move on.
In any event, a strand of the thread has become more a discussion of argumentation, rather than weapon-switching, and we should probably end the discussion about argumentation and get closer to the topic.
Yeah that makes sense. So as long as I know the amount of my…uh, “mousewheel clicks”, then I should theoretically be able to do it probably faster than using the keyboard and some practice? (that’s assuming I dont go from, say, the glock to the gluon gun).
I find the numbers more reliable when under pressure
I never said that he was doing it to fool anybody. People often do create pretty ridiculous keybindings for reasons beyond me. As for fast weapon switch, he clearly was not using it, as you could see the weapon belt in the video.
Yeah I know he’s not using fast weapon switch, that’s what I said:
I don’t know why you think it’s impossible. Press a button and click immediately after, and the menu is barely visible.
All right people
Lets discuss the topic itself!
I think original Half-life’s weapon switching is better and that’s why:
We played Half-life games for 14 years, we just get used to it.
HL was my first ever love (I didn’t played Quake I-II before) I started my PC-gaming with Half-life. And, there were Quake III Arena demo, and I compared HL’s and Q’s weapon switching. I can understand the idea - when you take out an Big F%%king Gun of the pocket - it wont come easy, as reaching the [9] key on the keyboard. But I definitely liked HL style. Slowly clicking the [5] to choose how to blow up a foe.
Yes, I still understand the Black Mesa’s switching, like different weapons… emm, tied up with a rope and Gordon hanging around with 4 ropes on him and a crowbar on the belt o_O
No, I don’t really understand it, but it’s somehow useful…
PS Still, we have [q] to fast switch on weapons we need one by one
Didn’t we have a thread on this already? I’m pretty sure that the weapon switch going to the next in the queue instead of starting at the top every time we hit a number slot was mentioned. (I’d like to have 2 pressed twice be my magnum, not 2 pressed twice suddenly pulling out the 9mil instead because of a quirk in the menu.)