Digital Joysticks provide better control than Analog Joysticks

[potatohead]

I suspect that's a "flaw", easily cited as a reason others shouldn't prevail. Same with speculation.

 

He's got the same rope a dope (make questionable assertions), and shake and bake (make others the subject) in play constantly.

 

Call it the "Win by not appearing to lose" strategy.

 

Edit: LOL!! Spock. Of course! That is so fucking golden! Bet it's 100 percent true too. :lol:

 

So Lovesspockmorethansexski, not only have you got a good, solid self refute on record here, but you've compounded it several times with broken arguments! When does it start to make sense to quit looking like such the ass?

 

Everybody here is cool. Remember, all it takes is one admission and it's all over. Or, to continue will simply mean getting picked apart and documented to the point where the crap you pull will be common knowledge, easily marginalized, useless, not authoritative.

 

The way I see it, you've only got so many suckers here. Educating them one at a time means eventually running out of new suckers, looking the fool. It's happening right now, by the way.

Edited December 22, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

I don't know for what you are asking "test plan". If it's for these joysticks, they were tested with hundreds of games with some of them listed in post #114.

When real scientists conduct an experiment, they write a test plan. It documents exactly what actions will be done, what measurements will be taken, how those measurements will be taken, etc. Details about how cables are connected, configuration of test equipment, etc. are all outlined. A 'simple experiment' can easily have a 40 page+ test plan.

 

The purpose is to force the researcher to design a proper experiment, ensure that the experiment is conducted as designed, and most importantly provide for peer review.

 

With the test plan, another interested individual can duplicate the exact testing conditions and can independently verify the results. If you are going to offer your conclusions up for review (say in a published paper, or on AA), you need to provide the reader with the ability to verify your claims.

I already outlined earlier what I did with the joystick simulator. If they want some 40+ page report, they shouldn't be arguing against me then and just be looking for a report. But it's quite clear, what the experiment is and it's repeatable as described.

 

You can conduct experiments whenever you want. My point is that if you have logic/mathematical proofs, they are superior to experiments. That's why I listed those catagories earlier:

 

(1) Logic/Math

(2) Experiments

(3) Mental Speculation/Emotional

(4) Blind following the blind

 

They are in order of importance. For example, 5-11's claim that "it's only valid for me" is catagory (3). He has not conducted any experiment nor has he any logical/mathematical proof.

 

5-11's analysis is correct (he's analyzing the limited data you provided about your experiment) Your experience with a joystick is can't be applied to the general population. It is only valid for YOU.

You are grossly mistaken as he is as well. If I fail miserably using paddles with a set of games vs. a digital joystick, the data applies to everyone who repeats the experiment as I know how to use both controllers. You are speculating it applies to me only. How do you know? Skill doesn't play a role as I already described. And I gave reasons why the analog joysticks are inferior as per their spec and logic. Those are always true so I can say as a FACT that they are inferior and the data will apply for everyone. You can't since you only played with an analog joystick. That's more like a joke-- playing with one joystick and drawing conclusion about the other.

 

Several possible explanations for the phenomena you observed have been reported. (this is the peer review part). In order for you to defend your assertion, you must find a way to extend your observation to the general populace. Normally you would accomplish this by repeating your experiment across a larger set of the population. Repeatability is fundamental to the scientific method.

Repeating the experiment is done by others, not part of the experiment one performs. As the case is to determine which joystick provides better control not how people fare at various games.

 

Going back to your analogy of the monitor, the spec. does tell you the exact size as that's based on what the manufacturer of the monitor used. If you measure it experimentally, you may or may not get it to the exact size of the manufacturer especially if it was some irrational number like PI*8 by PI*4. See even in your own analogy, it favors the logic/math over experiment.

If the spec says 27 inches, and I measure 26.9, the exact size is 26.9, period, end of story. Measurement produces the true value, the spec is only an approximation. Your logic/math argument would require ever single monitor of this model to be the exact same size, but that is impossible to accomplish, there will be some variances. math/logic fails here.

That's so wrong, I am wasting my time even bothering with you. Things are manufactured according to spec or schematic. I know this as I manufacture many types of cables. They are ALL exactly according to spec. If they screwed up in the manufacturing, then the spec. is wrong. That's normally not true. Nor does your experiment prove it's 26.9" either. It may be 26.89999. It's subject to defects whereas logic/math proofs remain forever. And don't just try to pick out some exception as the general cases are all the logic circuits out there that reduce their states using logic, all the mathematical proofs given in various books, all the logic analysis in various logic/philosophy books, etc. etc.

 

And I gave you my own analogies-- trying to determine the functionality of the GTIA chip, trying to prove the quadratic equation, etc. It's based on assumptions which are accepted by both parties as obvious. For example,

 

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Socrates is mortal.

 

And therein lies the fundamental flaw in your arguments. Your assumptions are accepted by YOU, but not anyone else. removing those assumptions destroys your proof. If your assumptions are not accepted, you must prove them as well.

I didn't even state my assumptions. That's your biggest flaw in your arguing. You jump to conclusions without even understanding what is being stated. Only assumptions of mine are what constitutes a digital joystick and analog joystick and a keyboard. You want to disagree with that-- be my guest. Your entire reply is more emotional than realistic.

 

...You are never going to get a controlled experiment just by playing with one joystick. Nor can you draw any conclusion about either joystick. It doesn't matter how the others fair-- their skill level is different so you have the following: S0(g)*A vs. S1(g)*D. You can't draw any conclusion.

 

We have that their skill level is greater than mine.

ie: S(g_poobah) < S(g_fandal), so for your equality to hold, A is necessarily greater than D. (not that I agree with any of this alleged math you are trying to pull, but your own argument falls apart in this case)

 

Did fandal even participate first of all? Secondly, skill level inequality you state is speculative. Maybe he isn't as good at some games. However, I agree if you can establish S(poobah) < S(fandal) and fandal uses digital joystick and you use analog joystick for the same game and you played enough times, that would be okay.

 

My experience with HSC is that I sometimes play a game only once since I don't like the game and some others I play many many times so there's that uncontrolled factor which wouldn't exist if you went by the same person using both joysticks.

 

Replace fandal with bountybob, or any of a number of HSC participants who are better than me at these games.

In order for your argument to hold, on any game where I won (or even tied), A is necessarily greater than D, and we only need one case where that is true to disprove your assertion. Since we have many instances where this is true, your assertion is refuted.

 

You don't make any sense at all. You are comparing your skill level with someone else's rather than digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks. For many games, I can beat people with analog joystick while they are using digital joysticks. That PROVES NOTHING about the joysticks. It only shows that I'm good at the games. I have to play with both types of joysticks. You have provided no information on how to establish the inequality.

[atariksi]

It's been mentioned before, but it needs to be mentioned again: This test is only valid for the person performing the test. If this wasn't true, then under the same conditions, different players would get the same score.

Go back to the F=ma analogy discussed earlier. Be consistent and say the samething about that. And your second sentence doesn't follow at all. I guess it's already answered earlier. You can only prove things experimentally for yourself. But there's NO WAY you can prove it's ONLY valid for the person performing the test. In fact, the opposite follows. If I perform the experiment that shows digital joysticks provide better control then I have NO REASON to think it won't work for others as the skills don't play a role. Just to PROVE my point using a simpler example: play Pac-man with paddles and then play with a digital joystick. Use all the skills you want, you will get inferior results with the paddles. And given the inferior control, only conclusion you can draw is that others will also experience similar failure. To say otherwise is just mental speculation (drivel).

 

Medication tests are similar in this way: the effect of the person is key. Everyone's body is different in the way they respond to medication; everyone's gaming ability is different in the way they respond to different joysticks.

 

People have gaming skills and people have ability to use controllers. Lets not mix the two. The ability to use joysticks isn't a big deal. Medication analogy doesn't apply at all.

 

Just repeating the same points (as this was refuted earlier) without taking the facts into account won't help you.

Sorry, I'm not going to find the F=ma analogy discussed earlier. I've no time for that. If I haven't stated my points on that, then others have, more eloquently.

Only points that were refuted. Newton conducted the experiment and he can say it's good for others based on his tests just like I can. But YOU CAN NEVER SHOW that it's only good for me since to do that you would have to go and try it for every person in existence. So your remark is just speculation (drivel).

 

To flip the coin, there's no way you can prove it's valid for others performing the test. It's your "experiment", and you should be the one to prove it's valid for others. Write up that report, and lay it bare, for all to see.

It's not flip the coin. To say something so specific from an experiment like "only you" implies knowledge of all other people in existence. I hope that's clear now.

 

I'll play Pac-Man with paddles when you play WaveRace 64 with a digital (i.e. 9 states) joystick. Deal? I had an Etch-A-Sketch when I was a kid, so I'm guessing I might actual do okay with the paddles.

Did you even notice the point being made-- that the CONTROLLER makes a difference that doesn't depend on the skill of how you play the game. You are stretching your imagination if you think you can do as good in pac-man with a paddle as with a digital joystick. You need to try it out and not speculation like you do most of the time. It's obvious for people who have used paddles and joysticks. It's easy to try if you can't think it out-- just hook up two paddles to Atari 5200 version of pac-man.

 

"The ability to use joysticks isn't a big deal", eh? Then what are we doing here, ~40 pages later?

You don't need much skills or training to use a digital or analog joystick. I see you missed this easy point as well. Learning to master games is a longer time training event whereas using joysticks being discussed isn't.

First of all, write the experiment/study report. This is so passionate for you, it should be an enjoyable experience.

Regarding the "experiment" and the individual performing the experiment. I've said my points; you've said yours, and I have no new information to add. I will underline this, though: Just remember that the individual is a key variable in the "experiment", that cannot be ignored. I hope that's clear now.

I actually think I could do quite well with the paddles. By the way, thanks for letting us discuss paddles again, because paddles are awesome. I like the idea of separating the X from the Y, as far as control goes. Paddles provide better control than digital joysticks. I will provide more arguments as needed and later.

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

[atariksi]

No, it does not. voting is not relevant to establishment of facts.

 

I let that go since I didn't use the voting system to establish my fact. However, it's an example where you generalize without sufficient knowledge like you did in your previous reply. We know for a fact who the president of the US is and it's a fact established by voting. QED.

[potatohead]

Working the formula.

 

In the posts above, we have false equivalence! Voting to establish facts, as done here, is invalid. Only preferences / opinion are known as a result of the poll votes. NO AUTHORITY is conveyed, nor implied by that poll, despite shakeandbakeski implying it is so. Votes can establish facts, however, they cannot work toward validating the refuted assertions made here.

 

Combine that with making the other person the subject, and you've got the classic Atariski shake 'n bake, right there! Now the other person is on the defensive, likely to argue over being made the subject, leaving the refuted material off on the sidelines.

 

Easy to see, once you start looking, isn't it? Bunch of crap really. Atariski does this OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

 

Notice how the original link back to the discussion at hand is lost in the above? A claim of authority is made, despite Atariski having NO CREDENCE on this matter at all!

 

Also notice, he's claiming a FACT, where really he's got a REFUTED ASSERTION, and is making the other person the subject to build THAT CASE FOR A FALSE FACT, at their expense.

 

Nice use of implied favor too! Since he's such a intellectual power house, and the other party has so many flaws, they should feel so lucky that he would forgive...

 

Looks like assholish-behavior to me.

 

I call "shake and bake", which is how I will refer to that formula from now on.

 

The key element to understand here is any mistake made, or knowledge gap somebody may have is used to marginalize them, ignoring whatever impact their point brings to the table. Go back through the thread, and it's everywhere.

 

"you messed up in understanding"

Edited December 22, 2010 by potatohead

[atariksi]

The Atariski formula

 

1. Look for faults in others

 

2. Ignore own faults, invoking any plausible reason

 

3. Make others the subject, while claiming purity, or implying authority

 

4. Wash, rinse, repeat.

You forgot :

1 - Chewbacca defense / straw-man argument

2 - Ignore evidence in posts that counter his arguments

3 - Believe that his opinion is fact and everyone who disagrees is wrong and or stupid

4 - Rely on logic more than Admiral Spock while supposedly ignoring emotion

5 - MOST IMPORTANT - he is never wrong, has never been wrong, and will never be wrong

 

As I said mental speculations and drivel like the above is worth ZERO to me. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would see that item (1) Chewbacca applies to 5-11s distorting things regarding paddles, (2) was in fact done by the analog side in this thread -- no evidence has been given that analog joystick will outperform digital joystick, (3) facts were listed about analog joysticks in one of the posts (post #951), (4) is meaningless gibberish, (5) how can I be wrong if I am stating things based on logic/math/experiment and others are just speculating.

 

If you think stating that the "moon is made of yellow cheese" counters my argument that it's made of mostly inedible material, then you are locked in your bubble.

[potatohead]

It is not possible to get out of your mess by making others the subject because you asked for this.

[+5-11under]

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick. Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

 

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

 

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

 

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

 

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

[potatohead]

Worth zero?

 

Well that is very selfish and elitist. I sure would not want to be tagged with that.

 

So what is worth it? Affirmation of your intellect?

 

Lol!!!

[potatohead]

Re: The individual.

 

Absolutely true!! Cannot be ignored. People operate differently, and in this case, the game, time, device and individual are all relevant!

 

Atariski, there is a good reason why we put qualifiers on things like this. Without them, you are trying to assert a universal truth; namely, digital is better, which is the core of your assertion here.

 

It's not.

 

And there are a lot of cases shown here that easily demonstrate that. We don't know, as a people, very many universal truths. A lot of what we operate on is FAITH, and that's something to discuss as well, but in a moment. It quite simply is not universally true that digital joysticks provide BETTER CONTROL than analog ones do.

 

Fact. Not a matter for discussion, as the arguments on this thread are more than inclusive enough to refute your too general assertion.

 

I think you know that. You just have some issue with admitting that somebody is able to call you out on something and be right about it. The rest of the thread really is either entertaining side discussions, or you working every angle possible to avoid accounting for your glaring failure to properly qualify your assertion to a state where some consensus can be reached.

 

That's your fuck up, nobody elses.

 

Now, you said [that drivel] is worth ZERO. We know this, I know this. Not news.

 

So let's talk faith for a moment. It's clear you are devout just by looking at your signature. I really don't care what that faith is either. We all are free to do what we believe works for us in that regard.

 

However, what faith condones this behavior? What faith validates such pride, arrogance and complete disregard for others? Your whole approach is all about raising your authority profile at the expense of others. Do you know what that means?

 

It means the net conversation with you, ON THE NET, FROM DAY ONE, is a loss! That's what it means. When the kind of approach I've highlighted here is taken, it means that others will be devalued, and or must tolerate insults just to have the conversation, and apparently do so, without any real hope of you actually returning the favor in like kind.

 

When it's not a option to admit fault, or a point taken fairly, it's a ONE WAY conversation, a broadcast, selfish, and of little value for anybody but the broadcaster.

 

So what are you broadcasting? Your faith? Well, if it condones those things, no thanks!! In this, you are not being a good ambassador to it, just so you know. Wouldn't touch what appears to be cultist with a 10 foot pole! Is that worth something?

 

Is that dogma how our female friend came to be here among us? I can picture it now...

 

Divya, you see these uncouth, unenlightened heathens? You must stand strong...

 

LOL!!

 

Or, it's all a lie, caughtinadressski.

 

What's worth what?

[+5-11under]

When I create a new thread at AtariAge, it's for one of these general reasons: Buying, selling, requesting information/knowledge, sharing information/knowledge/humour/projects. In each case, there is a very specific purpose behind the thread.

 

SkiAtari, what is the purpose of this thread that you've created. What is your intended goal?

[atariksi]

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that.

 

Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

Again, you are wrong. You can't have one person play with a digital joystick and another with analog. That's not a controlled experiment. Each person has to know how to use both types of joysticks in order to begin the experiment. The experience and knowledge of the game is different from learning to use the joysticks. The latter is trivial. Let's stick to the joysticks at hand. I don't want to discuss N64's 12 buttons and multiple analog joysticks although the argument would carry over to that as well.

 

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

The analogy does not apply as you have already misunderstood what the point of the experiment is. It's not the exact value of the score. If a newcomer plays game Z and scores 30,000 average with digital joystick and 22,000 with analog joystick, that just shows that he performed better with digital joystick. Then another person scores 70,000 with analog joystick and doesn't play with digital, that doesn't mean digital joysticks are inferior (as Poobah and yourself seem to be implying). He also has to play with both and know how to use both.

 

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

Because you are inept at seeing the flaw in your own statement. You are ASSUMING that both are opinions. But I went through the trouble of performing all the experiments and the logic/math, so why should I bring myself down to your state of uncertainty that it's just an opinion. I'll prove to you that what you wrote which you keep repeating is actually drivel-- you wrote that the experiment data only applies to me. FYI, I had 4 people play donkey kong and pac-man with both types of joysticks and they all faired better with the digital joystick. All I need is one other person to perform better with digital joystick to disprove your absurd claim (which Poobah also claimed). It's utter rubbish. Why should I accept that "earth is flat" and "earth is round" are just two opinions if I have the facts to back up my claim. You are in need of a psychologist if you think people who have proven stuff should also accept it's just an opinion because you happen to not understand or know for sure. I don't care if you don't understand it. You are not the authority on the subject unless you have some proof. If there's something I don't know for sure, I can say "it's my opinion", but I can't ASSUME it's also an opinion for others. That's your flaw here.

 

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

 

I didn't argue every point with you. But your blatant lies that "experiment only applies to me" has been repeated by you few times although already refuted already. When I'm presenting some experiment, I am not trying to learn what I did. That has to be a given in order to present the experiment. So your question is unjustified in this topic. Perhaps, you can ask that in some topic which I'm not sure about. Once again, imposing uncertainty on others because you yourself are not sure. Don't assume others are in the same state as you.

 

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

 

The paddle analog with pac-man is what I was referring to. You think paddles provide better control because "you are lost" in understanding that analogy and thought I was now discussing paddles. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Nothing to do with classy or not classy. It's the truth.

[+5-11under]

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that.

 

Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

Again, you are wrong. You can't have one person play with a digital joystick and another with analog. That's not a controlled experiment. Each person has to know how to use both types of joysticks in order to begin the experiment. The experience and knowledge of the game is different from learning to use the joysticks. The latter is trivial. Let's stick to the joysticks at hand. I don't want to discuss N64's 12 buttons and multiple analog joysticks although the argument would carry over to that as well.

 

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

The analogy does not apply as you have already misunderstood what the point of the experiment is. It's not the exact value of the score. If a newcomer plays game Z and scores 30,000 average with digital joystick and 22,000 with analog joystick, that just shows that he performed better with digital joystick. Then another person scores 70,000 with analog joystick and doesn't play with digital, that doesn't mean digital joysticks are inferior (as Poobah and yourself seem to be implying). He also has to play with both and know how to use both.

 

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

Because you are inept at seeing the flaw in your own statement. You are ASSUMING that both are opinions. But I went through the trouble of performing all the experiments and the logic/math, so why should I bring myself down to your state of uncertainty that it's just an opinion. I'll prove to you that what you wrote which you keep repeating is actually drivel-- you wrote that the experiment data only applies to me. FYI, I had 4 people play donkey kong and pac-man with both types of joysticks and they all faired better with the digital joystick. All I need is one other person to perform better with digital joystick to disprove your absurd claim (which Poobah also claimed). It's utter rubbish. Why should I accept that "earth is flat" and "earth is round" are just two opinions if I have the facts to back up my claim. You are in need of a psychologist if you think people who have proven stuff should also accept it's just an opinion because you happen to not understand or know for sure. I don't care if you don't understand it. You are not the authority on the subject unless you have some proof. If there's something I don't know for sure, I can say "it's my opinion", but I can't ASSUME it's also an opinion for others. That's your flaw here.

 

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

 

I didn't argue every point with you. But your blatant lies that "experiment only applies to me" has been repeated by you few times although already refuted already. When I'm presenting some experiment, I am not trying to learn what I did. That has to be a given in order to present the experiment. So your question is unjustified in this topic. Perhaps, you can ask that in some topic which I'm not sure about. Once again, imposing uncertainty on others because you yourself are not sure. Don't assume others are in the same state as you.

 

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

 

The paddle analog with pac-man is what I was referring to. You think paddles provide better control because "you are lost" in understanding that analogy and thought I was now discussing paddles. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Nothing to do with classy or not classy. It's the truth.

Just pretend I've written between all of your quotes... this is much easier...

 

The individual still matters. Regarding my response, you messed up in understanding^TM. My son will score higher with the analog joystick than with the digital joystick. You will score the opposite way, it looks like. How does your equation account for this?

 

The same analogy was shown regarding Phil Collins and the stage hands, with the drum playing and stage making. Obviously Phil didn't attempt to make a stage, but the assumption, which most people would be okay with in this example, is that the stage hands would be able to build the stage better than Phil could. You then have both people performing both tasks. What is missing?

 

Four or five sample does not disprove my claim. It proves it for the 4 or 5 of you under the given circumstances. You could probably make some generalizations here, but that does not equal a proof.

 

Regarding arguing most points, once again, you messed up in understanding^TM... what have you learned in this thread?

[atariksi]

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that.

 

Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

Again, you are wrong. You can't have one person play with a digital joystick and another with analog. That's not a controlled experiment. Each person has to know how to use both types of joysticks in order to begin the experiment. The experience and knowledge of the game is different from learning to use the joysticks. The latter is trivial. Let's stick to the joysticks at hand. I don't want to discuss N64's 12 buttons and multiple analog joysticks although the argument would carry over to that as well.

 

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

The analogy does not apply as you have already misunderstood what the point of the experiment is. It's not the exact value of the score. If a newcomer plays game Z and scores 30,000 average with digital joystick and 22,000 with analog joystick, that just shows that he performed better with digital joystick. Then another person scores 70,000 with analog joystick and doesn't play with digital, that doesn't mean digital joysticks are inferior (as Poobah and yourself seem to be implying). He also has to play with both and know how to use both.

 

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

Because you are inept at seeing the flaw in your own statement. You are ASSUMING that both are opinions. But I went through the trouble of performing all the experiments and the logic/math, so why should I bring myself down to your state of uncertainty that it's just an opinion. I'll prove to you that what you wrote which you keep repeating is actually drivel-- you wrote that the experiment data only applies to me. FYI, I had 4 people play donkey kong and pac-man with both types of joysticks and they all faired better with the digital joystick. All I need is one other person to perform better with digital joystick to disprove your absurd claim (which Poobah also claimed). It's utter rubbish. Why should I accept that "earth is flat" and "earth is round" are just two opinions if I have the facts to back up my claim. You are in need of a psychologist if you think people who have proven stuff should also accept it's just an opinion because you happen to not understand or know for sure. I don't care if you don't understand it. You are not the authority on the subject unless you have some proof. If there's something I don't know for sure, I can say "it's my opinion", but I can't ASSUME it's also an opinion for others. That's your flaw here.

 

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

 

I didn't argue every point with you. But your blatant lies that "experiment only applies to me" has been repeated by you few times although already refuted already. When I'm presenting some experiment, I am not trying to learn what I did. That has to be a given in order to present the experiment. So your question is unjustified in this topic. Perhaps, you can ask that in some topic which I'm not sure about. Once again, imposing uncertainty on others because you yourself are not sure. Don't assume others are in the same state as you.

 

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

 

The paddle analog with pac-man is what I was referring to. You think paddles provide better control because "you are lost" in understanding that analogy and thought I was now discussing paddles. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Nothing to do with classy or not classy. It's the truth.

Just pretend I've written between all of your quotes... this is much easier...

 

The individual still matters. Regarding my response, you messed up in understanding^TM. My son will score higher with the analog joystick than with the digital joystick. You will score the opposite way, it looks like. How does your equation account for this?

The individual matters as much as in F=ma experiment. And FYI, if F=ma was subjective, it wouldn't be science. If I drop a ball from the roof and measure the time, I can expect others to get similar results. Similarly, if I see high failure rate in games mentioned in #114 and others, I can expect the same for others.

 

There are flaws in the analog joystick and that's what leads to worse results. It's undeniably true. You can concoct whatever excuses you want about your son. He should play the same games with both digital and analog joystick and so far for N64, it's off-topic as you can't use the Atari 2600 joystick with those games. Another screw-up on your part.

 

The same analogy was shown regarding Phil Collins and the stage hands, with the drum playing and stage making. Obviously Phil didn't attempt to make a stage, but the assumption, which most people would be okay with in this example, is that the stage hands would be able to build the stage better than Phil could. You then have both people performing both tasks. What is missing?

AS I said, your analogy is wrong so there's no point in discussing it.

 

Four or five sample does not disprove my claim. It proves it for the 4 or 5 of you under the given circumstances. You could probably make some generalizations here, but that does not equal a proof.

I'm saying that even one is good enough. It just so happens I used four people and you were claiming earlier it was only good for "ME" as in one. So I refuted one speculation and you came up with another unfounded claim. There's a science behind why there's high failure rate for the analog joysticks. The experiment is never exhaustive but it shows that those flaws show up in game play. Humans are similar in the way they use joysticks. So it's perfectly find to make a claim for all humans as long as they know how to use both joysticks.

 

Regarding arguing most points, once again, you messed up in understanding^TM... what have you learned in this thread?

 

Go joke around with your flawed comments first. You totally messed up your reply.

[+poobah]

I already outlined earlier what I did with the joystick simulator. If they want some 40+ page report, they shouldn't be arguing against me then and just be looking for a report. But it's quite clear, what the experiment is and it's repeatable as described.

Your description of your experiment does not satisfy the most liberal view of test plan requirements.

If you want to try and play with people who actually do this stuff, try to at least be professional about it.

 

If you write a sufficiently detailed test plan, I will be more than happy to objectively repeat your test.

 

 

5-11's analysis is correct (he's analyzing the limited data you provided about your experiment) Your experience with a joystick is can't be applied to the general population. It is only valid for YOU.

You are grossly mistaken as he is as well. If I fail miserably using paddles with a set of games vs. a digital joystick, the data applies to everyone who repeats the experiment as I know how to use both controllers. You are speculating it applies to me only. How do you know?

Because you've only proven it for YOU. It is entirely possible that someone can play the game better than you using paddles.

 

Skill doesn't play a role as I already described. And I gave reasons why the analog joysticks are inferior as per their spec and logic. Those are always true so I can say as a FACT that they are inferior and the data will apply for everyone. You can't since you only played with an analog joystick. That's more like a joke-- playing with one joystick and drawing conclusion about the other.

You assert that analog joysticks are inferior per their spec and logic. NO ONE else agrees with you, you haven't proven that assertion, so you may NOT use it in your proof.

 

Several possible explanations for the phenomena you observed have been reported. (this is the peer review part). In order for you to defend your assertion, you must find a way to extend your observation to the general populace. Normally you would accomplish this by repeating your experiment across a larger set of the population. Repeatability is fundamental to the scientific method.

Repeating the experiment is done by others, not part of the experiment one performs. As the case is to determine which joystick provides better control not how people fare at various games.

 

If i put 1 purple jellybean in a bag, and randomly choose 1 from the bag, I cannot conclude that all jellybeans are purple. My experiment has to have a large enough sample size to eliminate other biases (ie, my jellybean bag should contain a representative sample of all jellybeans).

 

Going back to your analogy of the monitor, the spec. does tell you the exact size as that's based on what the manufacturer of the monitor used. If you measure it experimentally, you may or may not get it to the exact size of the manufacturer especially if it was some irrational number like PI*8 by PI*4. See even in your own analogy, it favors the logic/math over experiment.

Things are manufactured according to spec or schematic. I know this as I manufacture many types of cables. They are ALL exactly according to spec.

I guarantee all your cables are not exactly identical. They all have some variance. You cannot know the exact value of those parameters merely by looking at the spec.

 

And therein lies the fundamental flaw in your arguments. Your assumptions are accepted by YOU, but not anyone else. removing those assumptions destroys your proof. If your assumptions are not accepted, you must prove them as well.

I didn't even state my assumptions. That's your biggest flaw in your arguing. You jump to conclusions without even understanding what is being stated. Only assumptions of mine are what constitutes a digital joystick and analog joystick and a keyboard. You want to disagree with that-- be my guest. Your entire reply is more emotional than realistic.

I pointed out one of your flawed assumptions above. Refusing to acknowledge your assumptions does not mean they do not exist.

 

Replace fandal with bountybob, or any of a number of HSC participants who are better than me at these games.

In order for your argument to hold, on any game where I won (or even tied), A is necessarily greater than D, and we only need one case where that is true to disprove your assertion. Since we have many instances where this is true, your assertion is refuted.

You don't make any sense at all. You are comparing your skill level with someone else's rather than digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks. For many games, I can beat people with analog joystick while they are using digital joysticks. That PROVES NOTHING about the joysticks. It only shows that I'm good at the games. I have to play with both types of joysticks. You have provided no information on how to establish the inequality.

It's YOUR inequality (which I don't even agree with.). I have used your argument and your equation to prove you wrong.

 

If fandal (or anyone else) has more skill than I at a given game, then from YOUR equation, I would need to have a controller that made up for that deficit. Yet, I used a controller that you allege gives me a handicap. Not only would I have to be more skilled at the games than they are (which I am not), but I would need an additional skill above and beyond to make up for the analog handicap, which you claim is huge. Either the assumption of skill level is incorrect (doubtful with so many trials) OR the assumption that the analog controller provides a handicap is incorrect. (Or your equation is wrong).

 

Interestingly, here you claim skill is relevant, yet a mere few paragraphs above, you claim quite vociferously: "Skill doesn't play a role as I already described". Sounds very P and -P ish to me....

[atariksi]

When I create a new thread at AtariAge, it's for one of these general reasons: Buying, selling, requesting information/knowledge, sharing information/knowledge/humour/projects. In each case, there is a very specific purpose behind the thread.

 

SkiAtari, what is the purpose of this thread that you've created. What is your intended goal?

 

It's in post #1. Oh, I did answer that a couple of posts ago as well.

 

And you can stop trying to change the subject to "what have you learned?" In relation to you, all I have learned is that you distort things and change your views as you go.

[+Stephen]

When I create a new thread at AtariAge, it's for one of these general reasons: Buying, selling, requesting information/knowledge, sharing information/knowledge/humour/projects. In each case, there is a very specific purpose behind the thread.

 

SkiAtari, what is the purpose of this thread that you've created. What is your intended goal?

It would seem to me(maybe because I am a stupid envious snake) and quite a few others that he has a massive inferiority complex. He comes here and spouts his opinion as fact and tries to claim moral purity and no emotional bias. This makes him feel that he is better than the rest of us here.

 

I cannot see why anyone would need to engage in this trollish behavior on such a regular basis. I guess some people feel the need to argue constantly and put other people down to feel better about their own flaws. But you know, this cannot be the case with dual-personality-ski because he has no flaws. He is all knowing and perfect. Maybe he is just trying to educate the stupid people here (i.e., every person that disagrees with him).

[+Stephen]

You don't make any sense at all. You are comparing your skill level with someone else's rather than digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks. For many games, I can beat people with analog joystick while they are using digital joysticks. That PROVES NOTHING about the joysticks. It only shows that I'm good at the games. I have to play with both types of joysticks. You have provided no information on how to establish the inequality.

What conclusion would you come to if I 100% of the time score better using the analog thumbsticks on my Xbox 360 controller as opposed to the digital d-pad (by the way, I do, and have for years)? What conclusion would you come to if you scored the same way?

[+5-11under]

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that.

 

Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

Again, you are wrong. You can't have one person play with a digital joystick and another with analog. That's not a controlled experiment. Each person has to know how to use both types of joysticks in order to begin the experiment. The experience and knowledge of the game is different from learning to use the joysticks. The latter is trivial. Let's stick to the joysticks at hand. I don't want to discuss N64's 12 buttons and multiple analog joysticks although the argument would carry over to that as well.

 

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

The analogy does not apply as you have already misunderstood what the point of the experiment is. It's not the exact value of the score. If a newcomer plays game Z and scores 30,000 average with digital joystick and 22,000 with analog joystick, that just shows that he performed better with digital joystick. Then another person scores 70,000 with analog joystick and doesn't play with digital, that doesn't mean digital joysticks are inferior (as Poobah and yourself seem to be implying). He also has to play with both and know how to use both.

 

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

Because you are inept at seeing the flaw in your own statement. You are ASSUMING that both are opinions. But I went through the trouble of performing all the experiments and the logic/math, so why should I bring myself down to your state of uncertainty that it's just an opinion. I'll prove to you that what you wrote which you keep repeating is actually drivel-- you wrote that the experiment data only applies to me. FYI, I had 4 people play donkey kong and pac-man with both types of joysticks and they all faired better with the digital joystick. All I need is one other person to perform better with digital joystick to disprove your absurd claim (which Poobah also claimed). It's utter rubbish. Why should I accept that "earth is flat" and "earth is round" are just two opinions if I have the facts to back up my claim. You are in need of a psychologist if you think people who have proven stuff should also accept it's just an opinion because you happen to not understand or know for sure. I don't care if you don't understand it. You are not the authority on the subject unless you have some proof. If there's something I don't know for sure, I can say "it's my opinion", but I can't ASSUME it's also an opinion for others. That's your flaw here.

 

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

 

I didn't argue every point with you. But your blatant lies that "experiment only applies to me" has been repeated by you few times although already refuted already. When I'm presenting some experiment, I am not trying to learn what I did. That has to be a given in order to present the experiment. So your question is unjustified in this topic. Perhaps, you can ask that in some topic which I'm not sure about. Once again, imposing uncertainty on others because you yourself are not sure. Don't assume others are in the same state as you.

 

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

 

The paddle analog with pac-man is what I was referring to. You think paddles provide better control because "you are lost" in understanding that analogy and thought I was now discussing paddles. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Nothing to do with classy or not classy. It's the truth.

Just pretend I've written between all of your quotes... this is much easier...

 

The individual still matters. Regarding my response, you messed up in understanding^TM. My son will score higher with the analog joystick than with the digital joystick. You will score the opposite way, it looks like. How does your equation account for this?

The individual matters as much as in F=ma experiment. And FYI, if F=ma was subjective, it wouldn't be science. If I drop a ball from the roof and measure the time, I can expect others to get similar results. Similarly, if I see high failure rate in games mentioned in #114 and others, I can expect the same for others.

 

There are flaws in the analog joystick and that's what leads to worse results. It's undeniably true. You can concoct whatever excuses you want about your son. He should play the same games with both digital and analog joystick and so far for N64, it's off-topic as you can't use the Atari 2600 joystick with those games. Another screw-up on your part.

 

The same analogy was shown regarding Phil Collins and the stage hands, with the drum playing and stage making. Obviously Phil didn't attempt to make a stage, but the assumption, which most people would be okay with in this example, is that the stage hands would be able to build the stage better than Phil could. You then have both people performing both tasks. What is missing?

AS I said, your analogy is wrong so there's no point in discussing it.

 

Four or five sample does not disprove my claim. It proves it for the 4 or 5 of you under the given circumstances. You could probably make some generalizations here, but that does not equal a proof.

I'm saying that even one is good enough. It just so happens I used four people and you were claiming earlier it was only good for "ME" as in one. So I refuted one speculation and you came up with another unfounded claim. There's a science behind why there's high failure rate for the analog joysticks. The experiment is never exhaustive but it shows that those flaws show up in game play. Humans are similar in the way they use joysticks. So it's perfectly find to make a claim for all humans as long as they know how to use both joysticks.

 

Regarding arguing most points, once again, you messed up in understanding^TM... what have you learned in this thread?

 

Go joke around with your flawed comments first. You totally messed up your reply.

Comparing ability with joysticks to F=ma is absurd. For joysticks, different people = different results.

Now you're limiting the conversation to Atari 2600 joysticks? Why? Why is the N64 joystick off-topic? Silliness.

My analogy regarding Phil Collins is pretty good, I think. It looks complete to me. Why would you think otherwise?

One sample is nowhere near good enough. The scope of your "experiment" is limited. You can't discount the individual, because everyone will react differently depending on circumstances such as what joystick is used (analog versus digital, for instance).

 

More importantly, I'm still most interested in if you've learned anything from this thread, and what your purpose for this thread is (deep down). The arguing is turning to rubbish, and not much different from page one of this thread, much akin to kids arguing "my dad is bigger than your dad". Concentrate on these questions.

[+5-11under]

When I create a new thread at AtariAge, it's for one of these general reasons: Buying, selling, requesting information/knowledge, sharing information/knowledge/humour/projects. In each case, there is a very specific purpose behind the thread.

 

SkiAtari, what is the purpose of this thread that you've created. What is your intended goal?

 

It's in post #1. Oh, I did answer that a couple of posts ago as well.

 

And you can stop trying to change the subject to "what have you learned?" In relation to you, all I have learned is that you distort things and change your views as you go.

The arguments are pointless. The psychology of this thread is more interesting.

[atariksi]

I already outlined earlier what I did with the joystick simulator. If they want some 40+ page report, they shouldn't be arguing against me then and just be looking for a report. But it's quite clear, what the experiment is and it's repeatable as described.

Your description of your experiment does not satisfy the most liberal view of test plan requirements.

If you want to try and play with people who actually do this stuff, try to at least be professional about it.

 

If you write a sufficiently detailed test plan, I will be more than happy to objectively repeat your test.

As I wrote earlier, I played the games using the same machine (Atari 800) with analog and digital joysticks. The pictures are given in post #1. The results were consistently better for digital joysticks even when I tried with a few other people. I suppose I could write up a formal paper.

 

[quote[

 

5-11's analysis is correct (he's analyzing the limited data you provided about your experiment) Your experience with a joystick is can't be applied to the general population. It is only valid for YOU.

You are grossly mistaken as he is as well. If I fail miserably using paddles with a set of games vs. a digital joystick, the data applies to everyone who repeats the experiment as I know how to use both controllers. You are speculating it applies to me only. How do you know?

Because you've only proven it for YOU. It is entirely possible that someone can play the game better than you using paddles.

Well I did try a few other people and I don't see how the results will change for someone else. How will the regions of uncertainty, the longer throw, the inexact analog values or the inexact sampling go away when you change the person. On the contrary, you speculate it only applies to me. Many people have experienced this failure besides those that experimented with me. And for that example of Paddles with pac-man, if same person plays with paddles and digital joystick, results will go in favor of digital joystick. This is blatantly obvious.

 

Skill doesn't play a role as I already described. And I gave reasons why the analog joysticks are inferior as per their spec and logic. Those are always true so I can say as a FACT that they are inferior and the data will apply for everyone. You can't since you only played with an analog joystick. That's more like a joke-- playing with one joystick and drawing conclusion about the other.

You assert that analog joysticks are inferior per their spec and logic. NO ONE else agrees with you, you haven't proven that assertion, so you may NOT use it in your proof.

Those items were listed in post #951. They are obvious and proveable for those that don't see them as obvious. And once again you generalize to "NO ONE else agrees with you." There are MANY people that agree with me.

 

Several possible explanations for the phenomena you observed have been reported. (this is the peer review part). In order for you to defend your assertion, you must find a way to extend your observation to the general populace. Normally you would accomplish this by repeating your experiment across a larger set of the population. Repeatability is fundamental to the scientific method.

Repeating the experiment is done by others, not part of the experiment one performs. As the case is to determine which joystick provides better control not how people fare at various games.

 

If i put 1 purple jellybean in a bag, and randomly choose 1 from the bag, I cannot conclude that all jellybeans are purple. My experiment has to have a large enough sample size to eliminate other biases (ie, my jellybean bag should contain a representative sample of all jellybeans).

Once again like 5-11, an invalid analogy. If I throw a ball from the roof 100 times and it takes around same time, I can conclude that other humans who do throw the ball from the same roof will get similar times. It's the games and joysticks that are the subject of the experiment and NOT on what score different people get. The comparison is more important than the score. Why don't you try playing pac-man with paddles and digital joystick and see if I'm right rather than speculate that it only applies to me.

 

Going back to your analogy of the monitor, the spec. does tell you the exact size as that's based on what the manufacturer of the monitor used. If you measure it experimentally, you may or may not get it to the exact size of the manufacturer especially if it was some irrational number like PI*8 by PI*4. See even in your own analogy, it favors the logic/math over experiment.

Things are manufactured according to spec or schematic. I know this as I manufacture many types of cables. They are ALL exactly according to spec.

I guarantee all your cables are not exactly identical. They all have some variance. You cannot know the exact value of those parameters merely by looking at the spec.

Believe me, the specification, schematic, etc. from manufacturer is more important than the experiment you perform to determine it. Ever heard of reverse-engineering? That's an experimental method and they screw up something usually. Just look at the x86 clones, some chips had bad instructions or missing instructions because they didn't know the exact engineering diagram and were trying to determine experimentally. Logic/Math > experimental methods.

 

And therein lies the fundamental flaw in your arguments. Your assumptions are accepted by YOU, but not anyone else. removing those assumptions destroys your proof. If your assumptions are not accepted, you must prove them as well.

I didn't even state my assumptions. That's your biggest flaw in your arguing. You jump to conclusions without even understanding what is being stated. Only assumptions of mine are what constitutes a digital joystick and analog joystick and a keyboard. You want to disagree with that-- be my guest. Your entire reply is more emotional than realistic.

I pointed out one of your flawed assumptions above. Refusing to acknowledge your assumptions does not mean they do not exist.

In the analogy, the assumption was "All men are mortal." That's not a flaw but something that's obvious to most people.

 

Replace fandal with bountybob, or any of a number of HSC participants who are better than me at these games.

In order for your argument to hold, on any game where I won (or even tied), A is necessarily greater than D, and we only need one case where that is true to disprove your assertion. Since we have many instances where this is true, your assertion is refuted.

You don't make any sense at all. You are comparing your skill level with someone else's rather than digital joysticks vs. analog joysticks. For many games, I can beat people with analog joystick while they are using digital joysticks. That PROVES NOTHING about the joysticks. It only shows that I'm good at the games. I have to play with both types of joysticks. You have provided no information on how to establish the inequality.

It's YOUR inequality (which I don't even agree with.). I have used your argument and your equation to prove you wrong.

 

If fandal (or anyone else) has more skill than I at a given game, then from YOUR equation, I would need to have a controller that made up for that deficit. Yet, I used a controller that you allege gives me a handicap. Not only would I have to be more skilled at the games than they are (which I am not), but I would need an additional skill above and beyond to make up for the analog handicap, which you claim is huge. Either the assumption of skill level is incorrect (doubtful with so many trials) OR the assumption that the analog controller provides a handicap is incorrect. (Or your equation is wrong).

 

Interestingly, here you claim skill is relevant, yet a mere few paragraphs above, you claim quite vociferously: "Skill doesn't play a role as I already described". Sounds very P and -P ish to me....

 

Because you are misunderstanding. If two different people are involved using the two joysticks, skill IS RELEVANT. If you play the same game with two different joysticks, skill gets factored out. It's so simple of a point that I can't believe you keep missing it. As far as your speculation that you have less skills at the game than those you defeated, that's not proven any way with your claim. You have not shown that those few that you topped were more skillful than you at that game at the time. Remember now that skill changes the more you play over months, years, etc. So my claim that S0(g)*A < S0(g)*D is a controlled experiment. Whereas your claim S0(g)*A > S1(g)*D is uncertain and speculative. What was their skill then? How many times did they all play the game? Does the game even involve failure points that show up for analog joysticks? You can play River-raid with both types of joysticks and for the first few bridges not notice much difference if you go off by a few pixels here or there as you have plenty of leeway. But for Miner 2049er or Donkey Kong, it shows up much more often.

[atariksi]

 

You are just beating around the bush. I said play paddles with pac-man and donkey kong vs. a digital joystick. If you can't read properly, don't bother replying because your distorting of such simple statements is blatantly obvious to the unbiased. My data is as good as a good study report and the facts that I stated about the inherent flaws of the analog joysticks as undeniably true. You don't understand a word of what's stated in this thread if you think the individual plays a more important role than joysticks. You are lost. I wasn't discussing paddles but giving a more easily understandable example which you somehow misunderstood as well.

 

If you think you have better control with paddles than with digital joysticks for pac-man, donkey kong, and other games listed in post #114, no amount of reports or studies will help you. You are lost case-- a blind following the blind.

The individual cannot be ignored. You get a certain score using a digital joystick, and a certain different score using an analog joystick. Other individuals will get different, possibly unrelated scores for both. What's the key difference? The individual. Just as important as the joystick.

That's not the point. People get better control with the digital joystick is the issue. I already admitted I can get higher scores with analog joystick when comparing with other people playing with digital joysticks. That's an uncontrolled experiment. Skills have to be factored out so that's why I can't compare like that.

 

Some will get higher scores with digital; others with analog. My son knows how to use a digital joystick, but he is more capable with the N64 analog joystick than anything else. Yes, he has more experience with it. However, that cannot be ignored or factored out of your "experiment".

Again, you are wrong. You can't have one person play with a digital joystick and another with analog. That's not a controlled experiment. Each person has to know how to use both types of joysticks in order to begin the experiment. The experience and knowledge of the game is different from learning to use the joysticks. The latter is trivial. Let's stick to the joysticks at hand. I don't want to discuss N64's 12 buttons and multiple analog joysticks although the argument would carry over to that as well.

 

I heard a story regarding Phil Collins. He's got a certain sound, which is often recognizable as his. Phil finished a sound check on his drum kit, and left. A few helpers decided to give the kit a try, assuming they would magically sound like him. Short answer: failure. The reason, it's more about the person than the tools. The same can be said regarding people and joysticks. The individual cannot be ignored. Phil's helpers were probably pretty good at setting up the stage... better than Phil... in the same way that you can't equate drum playing versus stage set-up, you can't equate analog joysticks versus digital joysticks, and assume that if someone is good at one, they'll be good at the other. The joysticks may be more similar in this example, but they are still different.

The analogy does not apply as you have already misunderstood what the point of the experiment is. It's not the exact value of the score. If a newcomer plays game Z and scores 30,000 average with digital joystick and 22,000 with analog joystick, that just shows that he performed better with digital joystick. Then another person scores 70,000 with analog joystick and doesn't play with digital, that doesn't mean digital joysticks are inferior (as Poobah and yourself seem to be implying). He also has to play with both and know how to use both.

 

I am not the blind following the blind. I have my own mind, and I am quite capable of making up my own mind. Whether I am in the minority or majority is of little importance to me. At the same time, I am quite able to appreciate others opinions, whether very similar... or very different. The thing is, though, it's much easier, of course, when the people I am discussing things with don't always feel the need to state their opinions as if theirs is the only true or divine option, without virtually any room to accept other opinions as least plausible or worthy of consideration, or in the very least, of respect. In this I find you lacking. In my mind, that leads me to think something "ain't quite right", and I wonder if this is your on-line persona, which is quite possible, or whether you are like this in real life (or would be, if nothing was stopping you). You, I see more as a psychology subject rather than someone I am having a discussion with.

Because you are inept at seeing the flaw in your own statement. You are ASSUMING that both are opinions. But I went through the trouble of performing all the experiments and the logic/math, so why should I bring myself down to your state of uncertainty that it's just an opinion. I'll prove to you that what you wrote which you keep repeating is actually drivel-- you wrote that the experiment data only applies to me. FYI, I had 4 people play donkey kong and pac-man with both types of joysticks and they all faired better with the digital joystick. All I need is one other person to perform better with digital joystick to disprove your absurd claim (which Poobah also claimed). It's utter rubbish. Why should I accept that "earth is flat" and "earth is round" are just two opinions if I have the facts to back up my claim. You are in need of a psychologist if you think people who have proven stuff should also accept it's just an opinion because you happen to not understand or know for sure. I don't care if you don't understand it. You are not the authority on the subject unless you have some proof. If there's something I don't know for sure, I can say "it's my opinion", but I can't ASSUME it's also an opinion for others. That's your flaw here.

 

In this thread, I'm sure others don't agree with everything I've said, but something inside them stops them from feeling the need to argue almost every point with me, the way you do. In the same way, I look at other people's posts, and can appreciate their opinions and insights, whether I agree with them 0%, 100%, or, somewhere in between. I've learned things from at least several of them, whether about joysticks or not. What have you learned? Are you even willing to be taught by someone other than yourself?

 

I didn't argue every point with you. But your blatant lies that "experiment only applies to me" has been repeated by you few times although already refuted already. When I'm presenting some experiment, I am not trying to learn what I did. That has to be a given in order to present the experiment. So your question is unjustified in this topic. Perhaps, you can ask that in some topic which I'm not sure about. Once again, imposing uncertainty on others because you yourself are not sure. Don't assume others are in the same state as you.

 

Why do you say such things as "you are lost" or "you are [a?] lost case"? Not very classy. It's one thing if you were joking (I could appreciate that, if done artfully and in good taste), but it doesn't look like it to me. I wouldn't agree with you, but you would gain or retain more respect if you would word it more like "your case is lost".

 

The paddle analog with pac-man is what I was referring to. You think paddles provide better control because "you are lost" in understanding that analogy and thought I was now discussing paddles. Sorry, I have to disagree with you. Nothing to do with classy or not classy. It's the truth.

Just pretend I've written between all of your quotes... this is much easier...

 

The individual still matters. Regarding my response, you messed up in understanding^TM. My son will score higher with the analog joystick than with the digital joystick. You will score the opposite way, it looks like. How does your equation account for this?

The individual matters as much as in F=ma experiment. And FYI, if F=ma was subjective, it wouldn't be science. If I drop a ball from the roof and measure the time, I can expect others to get similar results. Similarly, if I see high failure rate in games mentioned in #114 and others, I can expect the same for others.

 

There are flaws in the analog joystick and that's what leads to worse results. It's undeniably true. You can concoct whatever excuses you want about your son. He should play the same games with both digital and analog joystick and so far for N64, it's off-topic as you can't use the Atari 2600 joystick with those games. Another screw-up on your part.

 

The same analogy was shown regarding Phil Collins and the stage hands, with the drum playing and stage making. Obviously Phil didn't attempt to make a stage, but the assumption, which most people would be okay with in this example, is that the stage hands would be able to build the stage better than Phil could. You then have both people performing both tasks. What is missing?

AS I said, your analogy is wrong so there's no point in discussing it.

 

Four or five sample does not disprove my claim. It proves it for the 4 or 5 of you under the given circumstances. You could probably make some generalizations here, but that does not equal a proof.

I'm saying that even one is good enough. It just so happens I used four people and you were claiming earlier it was only good for "ME" as in one. So I refuted one speculation and you came up with another unfounded claim. There's a science behind why there's high failure rate for the analog joysticks. The experiment is never exhaustive but it shows that those flaws show up in game play. Humans are similar in the way they use joysticks. So it's perfectly find to make a claim for all humans as long as they know how to use both joysticks.

 

Regarding arguing most points, once again, you messed up in understanding^TM... what have you learned in this thread?

 

Go joke around with your flawed comments first. You totally messed up your reply.

Comparing ability with joysticks to F=ma is absurd. For joysticks, different people = different results.

Now you're limiting the conversation to Atari 2600 joysticks? Why? Why is the N64 joystick off-topic? Silliness.

You are really lost. You can't just state something and expect people to accept your speculations. In all my experiments, the results are NOT different for different people as in F=ma. The topic of the thread is those joysticks in post #1, but even if they weren't you are really lost as you can't just have someone play a game on N64 and compare with games played on a different system. Now you know why I keep saying: "you are lost."

 

My analogy regarding Phil Collins is pretty good, I think. It looks complete to me. Why would you think otherwise?

One sample is nowhere near good enough. The scope of your "experiment" is limited. You can't discount the individual, because everyone will react differently depending on circumstances such as what joystick is used (analog versus digital, for instance).

But they don't have different results. That's just your speculation and your example of N64 is completely absurd an inapplicable. It's not even a controlled experiment to begin with. The analogy of F=ma is better for this sort of science. You think that the analog joystick's longer throw will magically diminish when a different person plays or that the regions of uncertainty will go away with your magic wand. Think again.

 

More importantly, I'm still most interested in if you've learned anything from this thread, and what your purpose for this thread is (deep down). The arguing is turning to rubbish, and not much different from page one of this thread, much akin to kids arguing "my dad is bigger than your dad". Concentrate on these questions.

Your argument is rubbish. All you did was declare that you will get different results without any experiment or facts behind your claims. As I said, I learned that you speculate too much and have very little factual material.

[potatohead]

Yeah? Imaginary or real people?

 

Got some devotees who swallowed your dogma whole?

 

We all are chumps? Where is this fan club indenialski?

[+Stephen]

As I wrote earlier, I played the games using the same machine (Atari 800) with analog and digital joysticks. The pictures are given in post #1. The results were consistently better for digital joysticks even when I tried with a few other people. I suppose I could write up a formal paper.

May I ask why you do not see the bias inherent in your original post? You make a blanket statement but only use games like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong. They are designed for digital sticks.

 

If I repeatedly play two games, Breakout and Pong, clearly designed to be used with a paddle, and then try them with a digital stick, I will repeatedly score better with the paddles. If I therefore infer (and make the pompous claim) that paddles offer better control than digital sticks, it's a scientific fact, I am sure you will agree I am incorrect.

[potatohead]

A formal paper?

 

Yes! That would be great to see. Please do.