It was 10% not 20%, and it was an average increase. It isn’t just the (next to nonexistent and extremely weak) aim assist, there’s the other reasons I listed
1 Like
Doesn’t matter how many crazy things the MnK player is doing if they’re consistently losing their fights because of a 10% accuracy difference. Winning those 1v1s and being more accurate in your BR teamshotting is crucial. Being able to 360 quicker or flick better when there’s only sniper weapons on half the map is 100% not compensating for it. There are Halo pros that play MnK and invest serious time into it such as Lethul who play something like 3 years of MCC reach on MnK because that’s his preference but he’s not doing that competitively for Infinite… Because he and every other pro knows MnK isn’t viable.
I’m fully aware that flick shooting and track shooting are different skills. However you were trying to state that the aiming is not a transferable skills between games which any PC players knows to be false. Hell it’s scientifically false.
There are PC pros such as RAPHA, a legendary quake player, who play games (Quake champions) with lots of weapons that feature tracking (and aggressive strafing) and they’re not successful either. You are deluding yourself by thinking that all the PC players are somehow incompetents who have never played a game with high levels of tracking like Halo when there are plenty of PC shooters that reward tracking over flicking. Things are not balanced when PC pros are achieving the same accuracy as console players who are in the 50th percentile (Another stat you can feel free to check). I think you and every other person in this thread thinks MnK players want a reduction across the board of aim assist when most of them really just want BR aim assist nerfed. The rest of the sandbox is fine but the BR by comparison aims itself.
No, I was saying that since no aiming system is 1:1 (unless it’s either in the same franchise or a rip out of the assets) it’s not an instant pick up and be a master. You can still retain quite a bit of skill at it, and you’ll pick it up faster than someone who is a complete beginner at it in general, but it’s not to the point where you can use it as an argument basis.
And for tracking, you’re not helping it at all. Quake, and really most shooters like it, are very minute in the overall area for shooters. Can’t expect every person to want to play Halo on their mouse and keyboard to have previously been a god at a very specific shooting franchise, or something like it. You have to look at what’s the most popular, either concurrent or franchise entries, and the two biggest ones, arguably, are going to be Call of Duty and Battlefield for shooters. Both of which are mostly a “see an enemy and laser them with the incredibly low TTK” with bits of harassing shots for Battlefield. Add in Battle Royale games, not even having to count Warzone, and you get even more a variety that usually favors fast killing as opposed to sustained tracking, and in the cases where you would track, the enemy isn’t strafing to throw your aim off repeatedly.
And no, they aren’t balanced, but it’s the opposite of what you’re thinking. The entire point of the aim assist debacle is that the people who think it’s too strong are those that either don’t know what aim assist even feels like, or they never played a lot of Halo on a controller. The ones saying it’s weak (save for the keyboard disabling it bug) know that it’s unquestionably the weakest it’s ever been in the franchise, and isn’t good, since they’ve got the experience put in. Going to be some that thing the opposite, but by and large it lines up, and when you compare that to the fact I mentioned above that most veterans are on controller, and controllers engage closer, you can see the disparity.
And yes, the BR does need aim assist nerfed, but only a slight tweak to its bullet magnetism, but that will also make M&K users complain because bullet magnetism is a universal aim assist feature regardless of input.
There just isn’t any winning for the aim assist argument for those that think it’s too strong, because if anything it needs buffing to be consistent and not randomly turn off.
2 Likes
45% > 65% is 20%
If you can’t see that there’s a CLEAR ADVANTAGE IN THE STATISTICS, you’re not even worth responding to.
We can agree to disagree. Aim is very easy to transfer between games and you’re making it sound way too difficult. Battlefield and Warzone aren’t even popular on PC and you’re acting like they’re representative of the shooters people play on PC? And you also didn’t address my point that there are those who who play games with substantial tracking like Quake and they’re not great at this game. Either way those 2 are console games my dude. They’re hardly representative of PC games.
The point isn’t to make the inputs completely balanced. It’s to make it so that people can play the input they want to play and not feel like they’re at a huge disadvantage. It’s to welcome potential PC fans who want to enjoy the game using MnK or don’t like controller. You can’t do that right now. You’re generalizing all MnK users to this small percentage that vehemently hates aim assist. Most just want to play the game the way they want to play it and not get destroyed for it my dude. When the top 100 MnK users have the same accuracy as the 50th percentile of console users that’s not happening.
You can sit there and talk about those statistics as though they’re gospel all day. The fact is, they don’t factor in a ton of variables. Anyone who knows statistics, knows you can’t do that, or you get false positives.
The problem here is, the anti AA crowd has one piece of evidence, and -Yoink!- if they’re not going to parade it around in every thread. People have countered that over and over again, and no one has taken 2 seconds to respond to those explanations. If you want to know what I’m talking about, look through any of these aim assist threads, I’m not going to waste my time copy pasting all of it.
Actually read them
1 Like
You can sit there saying statistics don’t matter all you like.
The absolute categoric fact is, there’s increased accuracy on controllers WHEN CONTROLLERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SO NATURALLY UNACCURATE THAT YOU NEED AIM ASSIST
If its so poor, then why not advocate its removal, to prove your point.
I think the best solution would be just to give players the option to turn it on or off? I don’t really care but I feel like players should have that option. It’s a option in every other crossplay game just about to my understanding. It would make que times longer maybe for those individuals but at the end of the day they should have that choice I agree on that
Aim assist is not off or non-existant on console…
I play on console with a controller and I actually wish I had the option to turn the aim assist off for me in the settings. It distracts me in close quarters situations when it slows down my turn speed. And if there are 2 enemies close to each other, sometimes it throws my aim off a little when one enemy moves past another one I already have weakened. The aim assist pulls my crosshair towards the wrong target and that may cost me a kill and sometimes gets me killed.
I don’t advocate for its removal because Halo played well, and was well received for over a decade+ With no issue. It should be more consistent, and better.
Most likely, there should be:
More
2 Likes
melee hit is reliant on cross hair size too
3 Likes
Okay well now you’re bringing in a different set of stats if there was a 20% difference, because the already horrible justification one was roughly 10% and that was easily debunked, but if there’s a 20% one floating around then that’s absolutely fake.
There’s actually no evidence tying the higher accuracy to aim assist.
If you think about it, playing halo for 2 decades really sharpens your aim, too.
2 Likes
Battlefield (using it as a representation of the franchise since its gameplay only ever differs with vehicles and whatever gadgets they add in, gunplay is identical) and Warzone are definitely popular, but if you were expecting something like a majority of everyone who has a PC that they use for gaming playing them then that’s impossible. No game is technically “popular” because of how small a percentage of the actual user base it takes up, but I wasn’t saying either were popular in percentages. Just players. They’re still played a ton, and fit the point I was saying of games that are or have been popular over years, where players from those might jump over and struggle. And for Quake, that goes to things beside aiming. You don’t move as fast in Halo, there’s next to no jump gunfights where you soar across the level etc. Can’t expect to fly off a man cannon and get like six kills midair, it’s more of an infantry fighter.
And no you can’t be more off in the second part. It is absolutely in a state of people can use whatever they want, minor disparity for controller since the aim assist isn’t good and only intermittently works. The only way you wouldn’t be able to play like you wanted, and feel fine doing it, is if you get the placebo affect of seeing the completely invalid stats and then thinking you can’t win on a keyboard and mouse. I’m not generalizing anyone to hating on aim assist.
And for the comparison of stats, again, you can’t base anything off of them. The general outcome of stats are invalid because of all of the variables you can’t account for, like I’ve mentioned before. If you want to use accuracy stats, you have to account for the variables which would equate to someone having to get a massive amount of players from all skill levels, have them play on a controller and on a mouse, using the same weapons in the exact same scenarios, more than once, and make special brackets for people with shooter experience, people with Halo experience, people with no experience etc. You have to actually measure the stats in situations where you can account for everything, not just look at averages that account for nothing. That’s a confirmation bias.
Then why is there aim-assist with controllers if using controllers naturally gives you +20% accuracy over mouse and keyboard - the input renowned for being “more accurate” for decades?
There were posts on these forums stating it…
And since seeing it, I’ve reviewed post-game stats and can clearly see who controller players are in the post-game.
The average accuracy is around 40-42% for M/K users.
The average accuracy for controller users is 55-60% and the highest I’ve seen is 67% accuracy.
It isn’t like players in the game are going from 40-42%, and then having the odd players at 44%, 46%, 48%, 50% all the way to 55-60% to make it a question of skill, its a clear divide where 3-4 players are at 40%~ and 3-4 players are at 55-60%~
This is at Diamond 4 + Diamond 5 ranked games.
Because you can’t play controller without aim assist. It’s super hard.
My point is you can’t play with M/K when controller has a clear advantage because the advantage given to it currently is so over-tuned.
Why is it you want controllers to have an even greater advantage?
EDIT:
and lets just step over the accuracy buff that controllers get.
You also have a strafe bonus, allowing you to full-speed strafe on the spot…
M/K players don’t have that luxury, you have to hold down the key for at least a second to progress from “walk” strafing, to “run” strafing… which makes M/K strafing ridiculously easy to predict, or you face strafing at half the speed which is even easier to track.
And my point was and still is that it’s not overtuned. It’s a game made for controller. Just because you see high accuracy stats doesn’t mean controllee is op. It’s just a statistic.
There’s no proof linking aim assist to be the contributing factor behind it.