"Anyone can frag. Not anyone can aim."
-Anonymous

First off, a high sensitivity typically leads to unnecessary drifting in aim, where the player's crosshair is not very well synced with the movements of the target. As you might have noticed, a low sensitivity is rockin' for long range, but might cripple the player severely, making dodging and flanking the enemy a difficult, if not even an impossible task. So the perfect sensitivity has to lie somewhere in between these two, right?

You could debate forever about which is better, but I think having a sensitivity that matches the movement speed of the enemy is closest to what it should be. In a game like RTCW or ET, this could be somewhere in the low/medium range depending on what size your mousepad is, what dpi you're running, what sort of friction you're dealing with etc. On a small-scale pad you don't have much choice, which is why I urge you to get rid of anything smaller than say, 35-40 cm in width.

Very few players pay attention to something I've described as "the aesthetics of aiming". What I refer to here is the visual aspect of the player's movements in general and those of the crosshair itself. While most people just jerk their mice around carelessly, point and click, and are even perhaps succesful to some extent thanks to improved (or defective?) netcodes, it's only those few who have realized how much a gentle approach can add to precision and concentration. We may not be talking about making everyday aiming an artform, but you get the idea.

Basically, crafting your moves into something more spectacular depends a whole lot on the mousepad/mousefeet-combo, but also the right mindset - to play calm, to think calm, to remain calm. Even in the heat of battle a player with the right style will keep his cool and no matter how pressured he might be, his concentration is not broken and such a player could pull off adrenaline-driven stunts against unfavorable odds with immaculate execution in situations where most simply get shaken and stirred. They are indeed a few.

As said, the mousepad can make a tremendous difference in your finesse. Some surfaces are made for fast moves while the others are suited better for the slow and controlled style. Cloth is clearly more suitable when it comes down to smooth, curvaceous, near ethereal way of moving. Such a style keeps you focused and makes constant adjustments with the mouse something you never let go off - you will find yourself staying in motion, keeping the crosshair on the move for unsuspecting (or suspecting) targets at all times. You approach corners with a clean and gentle 90 degree turn, feather-like in execution, ready for anyone.

One way to achieve the zen-style is to get your arm up and off the mousepad. Now your wrist is no longer the anchor around which you move the mouse and you have full control on the whole area of your mousepad. This style not only adds to the range of motion but also keeps the pad clean, but a lot of people find it quite uncomfortable to not have their arm resting on anything while they play. This is another thing only a few people can achieve and you shouldn't stress yourself trying to get the hang of it if you simply do not feel natural doing it.

A common mistake in aiming is quite frankly the total lack of it. People take the easy way out by holding their mouse still and simply strafing left and right. Make that two guys doing the very same manoeuvre against each other and what you get is a duel with odds of 50/50. Hardly interesting and not my idea of tracking a target, since that involves using the mouse as well. A good player again is aware of this and does what he has to in order to inflict more damage upon his opponent - keep track of the target with his mouse. While this is harder to perform, when done right, it is clearly more deadly and a good aimer will have a higher chance of taking down an unimaginative strafebooster, who is missing a higher percentage of his shots. Keyword is finesse, and your main weapon to hit the target is indeed the mouse, not A and D. You can reach greater results by being the indisputable master of your mouse, carefully adjusting to the target's moves, no matter how small they might be. If you rely too much on strafe, it will cost you accuracy on the long run. The idea is to have your crosshair hauling the opponent's ass non-stop, no matter if you'd have to do a 50 degree turn or take it 2 millimeters to the right. When putting this much emphasis on the actual aiming, you notice how it pays off and you realize it's not just a visual gimmick but a fine line that seperates a good player from a great player.

Also, one thing that is often overlooked and neglected is the crosshair. Another personal preference, correct, but could there be more to it? It's just a crosshair, right?

The most common choice for a crosshair is the dot, or "dot-hair". A lot of people favor the simple, small dot for obvious reasons - a petite spot on the screen does not cover up targets and doesn't hog a lot of space. It is often considered accurate for all occasions, but could there be a better option?

Imagine a 3x3cm ball on the screen. Imagine the ball moving left and right irregularly, as fast as a target usually does in the game of your choice. Now imagine your dot-shaped crosshair on the screen and think about tracking the target with it. Would you stay synchronized with the ball's moves? Would you lose control? Would you be able to keep the dot inside the ball?

Now imagine a box around the ball and forget about the dot. Which seems easier, to keep a dot over the ball while it moves around or keeping the ball inside a box? Getting my point?

This doesn't mean you must have a box as a crosshair, and there aren't too many of those anyway as far as I know, but the catch is simple - to have the enemy inside a crosshair instead of having a crosshair over the enemy's model. This is 100% psychological but most definitely can give aiming a whole different feel. Not only does the dot seem unstable especially on low fps, but it also has a tendency to "disappear" in fast-paced action, resulting in awkward misses. Furthermore, on lower resolutions, the dot can efficiently cover up targets that are far away. This might be the least of the dot's problems, but to my understanding the crosshair is not supposed to work in the sense "when you can't see it, you hit it".

In RTCW and ET, there's a wonderful alternative and quite possibly the most clever crosshair I've used - number 9, which looks like this:

• it's sharp
• it's large enough to remain clearly visible at all times
• it has a very tiny dot in the middle

The sharpness is totally up to your resolution and crosshairsize, but it scales better than a dot for example, and will not blur until reduced in size greatly. The real catch here is how it's a bit bigger than your common little dot or other variations. The ball and box-theory applies directly - instead of tracking the target by holding a small dot over it, you track the target by placing it inside the four crosses and keeping it there. Sounds quite logical, doesn't it? It is just that.

The small dot comes into play when the target is far away from you. Far enough for a sniper for example. But now you don't have to switch classes to hit the few pixels hiding somewhere in the distance, since the dot in the middle is small enough to be used for some nasty smg-sniping action. This is where the regular dot would cover up the whole target leaving you guessing the actual position of it.

No matter how much the trusty number nine is superior to a dot, most have still disliked it.

Please take note that none of the stuff I've talked about here is a direct order telling you to change your settings and way of playing, but to bring in a new perspective based on extensive personal experience and experimentation which I have taken in order to find the most beneficial and optimal solutions. Always demand the best not only from your equipment but also from yourself, and you'll never settle for anything less again.