what does hud_fastswitch got to do with lastinv? i have it on, and i have lastinv in q

Thing is, hud_fastswitch 1 being on implies that you're using slot keys directly to select weapons. That's what I think...

slot1 and 3 switch

my alternative to lasinv, works in bs 1 servers too.

well duh but you can use both lastinv and hud_fastswitch 1

No, it means switch up fingers when you press it, I have to do this all the time as any class except commander. Left handed + arrow keys FTW.

Also note that those of us that are left handed have to use lastinv for the most part, you run out of buttons to bind stuff to on 4 button mice. I manage to have 3 slots bound as any given alien except lerk, which I use 2 + lastinv to get.

If it was not obvious, that was pertaining to the majority (right handed) of gamers. In any event, it is less effective... even with a left-handed configuration.

On a wasd layout, the ring finger falls over 'a'. If you have to continually shift your middle finger to cover left strafe/backpedal, then you lack effeciency. Though it may work after being accustomed to it, it is not as effecient as using a unique finger for each movement key, since either your forward key 'w', lacks coverage or your right strafe key 'd' (depending on how you compensate) when strafing.

carapace

Yes, but three buttons *can* be used without having to use slots. I.E. I use my lastinv to switch between blink and swipe, and my mouse4 (thumb button) is bound to a metabolize script (metabs, then resets my lastinv to blink/swipe again). This overcomes the cumbersomeness of using slot numbers and still allows me to have complete control over 3 weapons while using only 2 keys, both situated perfectly under my left and right thumbs (alt and mouse4 respectivly).

Also, remember why this topic was created: "why q is not effective as a lastinv". Argueably, one could make the same statement you have about speed not mattering or that 'q' will feel natural if practiced, but to that I say, granted, but this topic was not about "getting used to", because one could also get used to binding q to lastinv without much trouble. The point of this topic was to delve into the specific technicalities as to why q is not as effective. So yes, slot numbers can become accustomed to, but in keeping with the topic, they are not as effective, no matter how practiced, as using lastinv.

So, and correct me if I am mistaken, you use your middle finger or pinky for left strafe? Obvious problems there:
1) when using your pinky to strafe, if +duck is bound to shift/ctrl, you no longer have quick access to your crouch key.
2) when using your middle finger, you now have only your forefinger to cover all of forward,back, and right strafe.

Either way the finger placements are less effecient than if you were to leave them in their original locations and thus have quicker access to your movement keys.

Also, I am glad that you are confident that my example would not work, because I portrayed it as such. By criticizing it, you criticize your own layout. Just as you blatantly saw that the layout was lopsided and drastically ineffecient, is as your layout is lopsided and ineffecient, of course to a much lesser degree, but the example seeked to show that the defense of "well I'm accustomed to it and can do it equally as well" is notwithstanding because, though one could become accustomed to my zany example layout, it should be of no trouble to point out that it still lacks effeciency.

For definitive purposes, "effectivity" is the noun form of the adjective "effective"

The way I have used it is to illustrate the important difference between "what" is being done and "how" it is being done. Person A and Person B can both get a boulder to the top of the hill, thus they both have 100% effectivity (the effect of their efforts was a 100% in completion of the task); however Person A expended a lot less energy and time than Person B and thus Person A has better effeciency (the greatest amount of effort formed from the least amount of resources) than Person B. As pertains to the current situation: You can perform movements and weapon switches in NS as well as I, however your methods of doing so are less effecient given the excessive and unnecessary finger switching.

nub fade

I think you're still half asleep ...
you strafe left using your ring finger, but when you strafe left you use your pinky finger instead Maybe you meant to say, "but when I hit lastinv, I use my pinky to strafe left"? In which case, your ring finger would overlap your pinky in an awkward position.

Oh contrare, since the example is lopsided it appealed to the lopsidedness of your layout as well (the one you suggested while "half asleep"). The example was created lopsided on purpose. Furthermore, it was more "spaced out" than "lopsided" since a,h,t, and b, fall in a wasd pattern, just with more space between them.

Maybe you still aren't understanding I am not talking about effectiveness. I am talking about *effeciency*. I already addressed your concerns about "practicality":

Meaning that, it doesn't matter if it is only a millisecond's difference, nor if you can perform the same functions as I, in the same amount of time; that is not what effeciency is about, that is effectivity. As I said, given your logic, I could argue that T,A,B,H and space to shoot is an equally as good setup to wasd because I have mastered it and can perform functions on it as well as you, but irregardless of my effectiviness with such a zany layout, my effeciency on this layout is much less than on wasd. In this case, it *is* the small difference that becomes the big difference. As I said in the beginning: this topic was not created about broad generalizations, it was created to address the *technicalities* and *specifics* of the reasons why q as lastinv is not optimal. Thus, in keeping with the topic, I am providing technical, detailed, and very specific responses as to why q, and other certain layouts are not optimal. If you cannot cope with the technicalities presented in this topic and would rather deal with broad generalizations about overall practicality (as you said: "milliseconds does not effect battle"), then I suggest this topic is not for you.

---------------------------------
p.s., I used to be a firm supporter of ESDF, and used it exclusivly for my first 2-3 years throuhg q3a and CS, but I eventually came to realize, you gain access to some more keys, but you lose access to your "big keys" which prove vital when you need to slam something and slam it fast (i.e. shift, capslock, alt)

mouse4 . that way i can do everything while telling my team exactly what i'm doing, without any loss in control whatsoever!

except comm.

You are now just blatantly changing what I say then refuting falacies, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore because it seems you lack the ability to comprehend simple concepts.

And that is how a pro can kick your ****.

*Scratches head, wonders if anyone is home...*
Grahf, you really aren't understanding that this entire topic, is useless to your way of thinking. We are debating why q is not an optimal bind for lastinv, regardless of how accustomed you are to it, it is not a bind of which you should be accustomed to. Insisting that milliseconds do not matter and that effectiveness is the only thing of importance is to agree with my zany layout, because if one could get used to playing with A,T,H,B, and could do it as well as you, is that not okay by you? Yet by the same token, you claim that such a layout is lopsided and should not be used, so you contradict yourself.
If I learned to aim with my arrow keys equally as well as you, would you still not assert that an equal amount of time spent on learning to aim with the mouse instead would amount to more results? If you answer yes, you agree with me that results (the effect) is not the only thing to be considered, but the method (effeciency) should be considered almost equally. If you answer no, you agree with me that my zany layout is completely fine and good to use. Either way, you contradict yourself.

Recognizing that there is a negative impact is key in realizing that, if there exists another layout that decreases this impact, it is opimal. If I were to play with my feet so well that, in game you were to think I was playing with my hands, would that not effect anything either? That's tunnel-vision reasoning.

Yes, it was obvious which is why it did not need to be stated because, once again, this topic does not call into question *effect* but rather *effeciency* (not what, but how). No one is concerned about *what* (effect) you can perform with certain binds, because as I said, I could perform as well as you if I practiced binding aiming to my arrow keys. What is of concern is *how* (effeciency) you perform while using your binds.

lool, okay sherlock, explain your way out of this nonsensical stament that you made:

If you cannot see how this statement makes no sense, then I am at a loss for an explanation...

Speaking of simple concenpts... after repeating myself incessantly about effectivity vs effeciency, I still believe you do not grasp the difference between the two and how it impacts greatly on the relevance of this topic. Please respond when you are better equipped to do so.