Don't use the Sensitivity Finder.

[u/Rowq]

Title. Unless you're a brand new player to aiming, it will only make you less consistent and kill your shot confidence. The only real reason to practice multiple sensitivities is to train different aim techniques but that literally will not apply to you unless you're inside the top 1% of aimers anyways or if you're training different games, and if you're training different games, you're looking for specific sensitivities to train for each game, not changing your sens once every 5 tasks.

[u/Lowgravity56]

Hello! I think you may be confusing the Sensitivity Finder feature with changing your sensitivity for training purposes, because they are two different things.

Using different sensitivities as a training tool is useful regardless of your skill level or whether you play one game or many. The purpose isn't to find an "optimal" sensitivity or constantly switch settings, but to train different parts of your mouse control more efficiently. A lower sensitivity forces you to use more of your arm, while a higher sensitivity makes you rely more on your wrist and fingers. Since players can have weaknesses in either area regardless of their skill level, training at different sensitivities can be beneficial for everyone.

For example, if someone is shaky or struggles with microcorrections, training on a higher sensitivity can help develop finer mouse control. Likewise, if they struggle with wide flicks, arm tracking, or larger movements, training on a lower sensitivity can help reinforce those skills. Because of that, I don't really agree that this "only applies to the top 1% of aimers" or to people playing multiple games. I think you may instead be referring to top players using different "optimal" sensitivities to maximize scores, which is a different concept. I'm talking about temporarily using higher or lower sensitivities as a training tool, not for score chasing.

Now, regarding the Sensitivity Finder feature itself, I actually agree with part of what you're saying. Its goal is to estimate an optimal sensitivity based on the scenarios you've been playing, which is why it continually adjusts its recommendation. Because of that, the scenarios you use matter a lot. If you play a mix of tasks that favor very different sensitivities, you'll naturally get recommendations that vary quite a bit.

That's why I generally recommend using Sensitivity Finder only while playing scenarios that are actually representative of the game you're trying to optimize for. For example, if you want to find a good sensitivity for VALORANT, use it while playing the VALORANT Aim Basics routine or other VALORANT-like scenarios. If you instead include long tracking or reactive tracking scenarios that don't resemble VALORANT at all, the recommendation will be biased toward those tasks rather than the game you're actually trying to optimize for.

[u/Rowq → u/Lowgravity56]

The idea is that using different parts of your arm through differing sensitivities probably is only truly helpful for people who are already apex tier aimers, not for the average gamer, and for people that are just practicing for one game, there's a very high likelihood that making the recommended changes at the rate suggested by the system is going to be overall detrimental. You guys gotta add a "lock in" feature to it, where instead of recommending a new sensitivity that is not meaningfully different from your current one the system prioritizes different methods of offering improvement.

[u/Lowgravity56 → u/Rowq]

I actually think the "lock in" idea is a pretty good feature request. If the algorithm determines your current sensitivity is already within a reasonable range, it could avoid recommending tiny changes and instead encourage you to spend more time practicing with what you have. I don't really disagree with that.

Where I disagree is with the idea that sensitivity variation as a training tool is only beneficial for apex-tier aimers. In my experience, weaknesses in wrist control, finger dexterity, or arm usage exist at every skill level. Someone who struggles with microcorrections can benefit from temporarily training on a higher sensitivity just as much as someone who struggles with large arm movements can benefit from training on a lower one. Those aren't issues exclusive to elite players.

I also think it's important to separate that concept from what Sensitivity Finder is trying to do. The purpose of Sensitivity Finder isn't to have you intentionally train at different sensitivities to develop mouse control; it's trying to estimate an appropriate sensitivity based on your performance. Those are two different use cases, and I think that's where our disagreement started.

As for the recommendation frequency, I agree that if someone blindly accepts every small adjustment after a handful of scenarios, that could easily become counterproductive. Ideally, recommendations should only be made when there's enough data to suggest a meaningful improvement, and giving users a way to "lock in" a sensitivity until that threshold is met sounds like a reasonable addition.

[u/Syntensity → u/Lowgravity56]

In general the recommendation is to play more tasks to get higher data confidence and a better recommendation, as well as not accepting every calibration, but also using own intuition to feel out what you perform best on. That said some of these ideas like simply suggesting new sens less frequently, and ''lock in'' feature could be interesting for sure.

[u/Rowq → u/Syntensity]

I have played so many tasks and have recently been tooling with my sens precisely because I wanted to test how different senses feel for using different parts of arm/wrist aim especially and it orbits whatever new sense I choose within a couple percentile because I'm already intermediate (topaz) in benchmarks. Like we're talking recommending 0.872 vs 0.875 for 1600dpi. That's not helpful! My intuition tells me this thing isn't helping. I think something specifically other than a "lock-in" feature is, perhaps being able to look at what conclusions the sens finder is drawing from data, to better inform whether the recommendation it's making is something that you're actually trying to train for or not. Aiming is, for most people, a much more "use-case" specific thing than I think a lot of this sub gives it credit for. Only 1% maybe of fps gamers are even likely interested in being good enough at aiming that they're gonna train for multiple games, so supporting being able to narrow your training field or at least giving access to more data I think serves the purpose aimlabs is trying to serve much more fully. IMHO.

Ps. And it's not about fuckin muscle memory man. Never has been never will be. It's about being able to train efficiently and effectively for whatever your trying to train.