If they lower aim assist anymore then the game already lacks I would never play crossplay again and I know I am not the only one.
But you know what? At this point just give PC players what they want and add the ability to turn off crossplay. They will have no players and all will be “balanced”.
reddit did and there are the IRREFUTABLE results
go back
we don’t want crossplay. seems off the Reddit “homework”
Do you remember how you thought I was saying you weren’t engaging in this conversation in good faith?
An argument is a claim, supported by reasons and evidence.
A claim is a statement about what is believed or true.
The above quote is a claim, one of many, made by you.
This is an expression of your disbelief. Your reasoning is because you believe the analysis is flawed.
Did you mean genuinely?
As stated, you have made a counter claim. Saying otherwise is engaging in bad-faith argumentation.
I doubt any amount of evidence would shake you from your firmly held belief that mouse and keyboard is a more accurate input than controller. Some indicative evidence has already been presented to you, and you’ve dismissed it. Seriously, what would it take?
See earlier comment regarding what a claim actually is and forum games. Especially being “careful” not to make a counter claim.
The evidence we have is convincing. You disbelieve it, then disprove it.
A lack of belief in something given evidence of that something is not informed or critical thinking.
I think you have missed the point. Samples need to be useful. If you randomly picked 400 players, you could very well select players who don’t know how to use the input they have used.
Now you have the opposite problem, and the sample is still not representative of what you are trying to measure.
You have also made the claim earlier in one of these threads that the accuracy stat isn’t representative of the average player’s input. Obtaining a dataset containing average player data is equally as problematic as obtaining top player data.
I partially agree with you, you could stuff around with the data in many ways, but why would you? It’s not going to give you anymore information than we already have, so why waste the time, effort and energy?
Usefulness trumps randomness.
I mean sure, you could randomly sample every 10th person in the middle of the leaderboards, and make a statistical inference about the whole population.
But again, why bother? The data we have allows us to make a statistical inference about the top N, alfphies data shows the top 100 and (presumably) 100 in the 50th percentile too. There is a clear and obvious difference between the two inputs.
So do that analysis yourself, and stop shifting the goalposts.
It will average out.
Pseudo-science.
Another counter claim. Present your evidence.
Exactly. You believe you don’t need to do your own work. Because you’re just expressing doubts or just asking questions. I doubt any amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise.
A claim was made, with enough evidence for a reasonably objective and doubtful person to assess that evidence and establish the veracity of the claim. Minor quibbles about method or process aren’t worth discussing.
I genuinely thought MK had the advantage. The numbers indicate otherwise.
It isn’t my job to convince you. I’ve done my part. I’ve made the claim and provided my reasoning and evidence.
It’s a tangent to this thread and you have already engaged in discussion in a manner suggesting you do not assess information which contradicts your worldview in an objective manner. My time is valuable and I would prefer to spend it doing something productive and enjoyable which isn’t an exercise in futility.
Yes, and I don’t appreciate it.
The above quote is a claim, one of many, made by you.
Yes, in my opinion they cannot. I’m not making a general statement that they cannot. I’m saying I am not personally convinced. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. My disbelief requires no proof.
Did you mean genuinely?
Clarification?
As stated, you have made a counter claim. Saying otherwise is engaging in bad-faith argumentation.
What counter claim? That I don’t believe. I don’t. Do you want me to provide evidence that I don’t believe? I’m not claiming they’re wrong. I’m saying I don’t think they have proven they’re right. There is a difference.
I doubt any amount of evidence would shake you from your firmly held belief that mouse and keyboard is a more accurate input than controller.
Did I say it was more accurate? I said I don’t believe the evidence is sufficient. And by the way, my belief requires no proof.
Some indicative evidence has already been presented to you, and you’ve dismissed it. Seriously, what would it take?
Give me a random sample of controller players in a cross play list and keyboard and mouse players in a crossplay list, and I’ll be more convinced. Control for how long they’ve played Halo, and I’d be confident enough with the evidence. I’ve stated why the evidence doesn’t sway me as is.
The evidence we have is convincing.
Not to everyone.
You disbelieve it, then disprove it.
I’m not claiming it’s wrong. I don’t have to disprove it. I’m claiming I don’t think it’s sufficient.
A lack of belief in something given evidence of that something is not informed or critical thinking.
I’m not just saying the evidence is outright to be dismissed. And I support everything it shows. I don’t believe without further evidence that it proves an advantage when it comes to aiming. Being skeptical isn’t illogical. Do you know that I could show you millions of functions that were continuous and all of them somewhere differentiable. That might convince a lot of people that every continuous function was somewhere differentiable. But in comes Weierstrass showing the world that hypothesis is wrong. I repeat, being skeptical isn’t illogical. Stop with the personal attacks please. I’ve not attacked your person have I? If so, it wasn’t intentional, and I am sorry.
I think you have missed the point. Samples need to be useful. If you randomly picked 400 players, you could very well select players who don’t know how to use the input they have used.
If we’re trying to get an idea about the population as a whole, a random sample is typically best. The law of large numbers would tell us the mean of sample means should converge to the population mean given enough trials. That’s not true if we take samples of a small subset.
Now you have the opposite problem, and the sample is still not representative of what you are trying to measure.
Of course it can happen, which is why statistics isn’t an exact science. It’s the of trying to get an accurate sample size for your population, confidence interval, and margin of error. There’s a saying that a statistician is right 95% of the time.
You have also made the claim earlier in one of these threads that the accuracy stat isn’t representative of the average player’s input.
I said we don’t know if it is. That’s not the same as claiming it is not representative.
Obtaining a dataset containing average player data is equally as problematic as obtaining top player data.
Why?
I partially agree with you, you could stuff around with the data in many ways, but why would you? It’s not going to give you anymore information than we already have, so why waste the time, effort and energy?
To get a better model of the population.
But again, why bother? The data we have allows us to make a statistical inference about the top N, alfphies data shows the top 100 and (presumably) 100 in the 50th percentile too. There is a clear and obvious difference between the two inputs.
The top percentile of players who played a specific playlist and not another. Not necessarily the top overall. You’re looking at the best of a small subset. You aren’t taking into account experience. And the author of the data admitted they didn’t factor in if they users had actually played all their games with one input device.
So do that analysis yourself, and stop shifting the goalposts.
I’m not shifting the goalposts. I’m saying the data hasn’t convinced me. I don’t think it can with the limited information we have. My stance on that hadn’t changed.
It will average out.
Average out how? They’re playing playlists with player based using input devices with different evasion levels. How is this being taken into consideration? How will it average out? You want to convince me, explain. If you care not to convince me, don’t bother replying.
Pseudo-science.
Me pointing out variables that these CSR levels don’t necessarily translate isn’t psuedo-sciencd. You can lookup on Halotracker yourself the top players in all three groups. The data is there.
Another counter claim. Present your evidence.
Present my claim that looking at a small subset isn’t necessarily indicative of the average player? Well, a general statement would be that data about a subset isn’t necessarily indicative of the population. I think that is self evidence. But if I must, some species of flower are all white, but not every flower is white. This is easy enough to show, hence information about a subset doesn’t necessarily apply to the population as a whole.
Unless, you’re telling me to prove I have doubts. I don’t have to prove my doubt. That’s not how burden of proof works.
I doubt any amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise.
I’ve given sufficient but not necessary requirements to lift my doubt. Honestly, why do you care so much about my doubt? I’m not claiming they’re wrong.
Minor quibbles about method or process aren’t worth discussing.
I don’t believe everything I brought up was minor. For example, I don’t think it is minor that we don’t know how well these individuals performed in crossplat playlists.
It isn’t my job to convince you.
The I dismiss your claim. If you’re not going to provide more evidence, I don’t believe your evidence, and the burden of proof is on you, then I dismiss your claim.
It’s a tangent to this thread and you have already engaged in discussion in a manner suggesting you do not assess information which contradicts your worldview in an objective manner.
Another personal attack. Those hold no place in logical discussion. And sketicism isn’t an opposition to being objective.
My time is valuable and I would prefer to spend it doing something productive and enjoyable which isn’t an exercise in futility.
Then do so, no one is making you reply. I have obsessive tendencies, and I do enjoy discussion things for the sake of discussing things. If you don’t, and you would rather spend you time elsewhere, than do. Despite your personal attacks, I do wish you well.
Keep in mind that’s only for the BR, not the whole game. The BR has one of the top 5 stickiest reticles in the game, alongside the AR, Bulldog, Hydra, and Mangler, none of which are problem weapons due to other aspects of gameplay like the crazy Mangler recoil, or the AR’s overall inferiority to a KBM Sidekick.
There are less guns in this game that are controller advantaged than there are that are KBM advantaged, and in fact most of the particularly powerful weapons are KBM advantaged (Sniper, Stalker, Skewer, and Shock being the most dominant examples). It just happens that the BR being controller advantaged really impacts ranked for obvious reasons, there are fewer KBM dominant options on the map. The flipside is unranked, where KBM gets an insanely powerful Sidekick that Controller players struggle to deal with.
Some weapons could be nerfed in the AA department for sure, like the BR. But some should be either brought up a smidge (like the Stalker) or be reworked in other ways. Like reducing the recoil on the Sentinel Beam and Commando so they can at least be used consistently. Or replacing the super slow tracking projectiles on the Pulse Carbine with ones that are a little bit faster, but go straight so your own proficiency at leading shots is what makes or breaks an engagement with it. The only fix I can see for the Sidekick that wouldn’t make it busted on controller is actually giving it a constant spread cone instead of Bloom, so that it is always inconsistent at long range regardless of input.
All the comments in this thread really just highlight the issue with nerfing aim assist. All the terrible players in here saying that they can’t “feel” the aim assist are the exact reason why 343 can’t nerf the aim assist.
If they nerf the aim assist, all these terrible players on controller will be even worse leading to them quitting the game. And 343 doesn’t want these terrible controller players to quit the game, it’s bad for business.
No thanks, controller are diferent compare to a keyboard and mouse, an average pc user is fairly better with the commando than a xbox user,
As someone who plays csgo on pc and has always played halo on a controller you should just shut up fam.
Halo was meant for a controller and as of right now only two guns are usable on controller for halo. The br and ar. And maybe sniper which is inconsistent. Everything else is borderline unusable to the point I’ve started playing halo with a mouse
I’m worried about adjusting things too because I don’t want to make my aiming even more difficult my sensitivity is right where I want it and the aim assist really doesn’t do anything it seems and the Master Chief collection definitely has a much smoother feel to the aiming compared to Halo infinite
I like how you’re saying because people play on controller that automatically makes them terrible at the game but it really doesn’t even with assistance from aim assist you can still be a good player a lot of my shots are with free aim especially now in Halo infinite when the aim assist is almost non-existent for instances my last CTF match I went 18 to 4 and it wasn’t due to aim assist one bit
If you’re using controller, I hate to break it to you, it was absolutely due to aim assist.
However, you’re the exact type of player for why they can’t nerf aim assist.
Yup, cherry pick a tiny data set of pro players with a specific gun on small maps and call aim assist broken for everyone .
Data means nothing on its own and any claims about aim assist based on this data are completely invalid.
BTB heavily favours k&m due to most gunfights being outside of AA range, so I don’t want to hear this —Yoink— anymore because some keyboard user decided to pick some data in their favour.
Go back to Reddit.
I think you’re just really wanting to discredit anyone who’s actually skilled with a controller
If you were engaging in this conversation in good faith, you’d be willing to do your share of the intellectual work. You’re not, by your own admission.
The whole ‘burden of proof’ thing is ridiculous. You’re not being ‘healthily sceptical’, you’re being unhealthily sceptical and engaging in motivated reasoning to protect your worldview. I doubt any evidence would be enough to persuade you otherwise. If you were that curious, you would engage in the process.
Here’s an interesting blog you might find informative and enlightening.
‘’’
ttps://thelogicofscience.com/2020/05/31/the-problem-with-just-asking-questions/
‘’’
That feedback is not a personal attack. Sorry if it’s overly harsh.
I’m not referring to engaging in this conversation, I’m referring to you requiring others to go to much more effort than you are willing to engage in, yourself. You have an issue, you do the work.
The reality is that no one can convince you but you. You know the method you want followed to analyse the data “properly”, so you do it if you genuinely want an answer to that question.
“Controller skill” is an oxymoron.
Yeah and I can say the exact same thing about mouse and keyboard it’s really not too difficult to point and click
Then lets take aim assist away and see where you stand. Here’s a hint, I’ll be just fine on my M&K if they took your machine assisted aim away. What are they gonna take away from me?
Yeah no duh the reason why is because it’s a lot easier to aim on a mouse than it is to aim with an analog stick which has dead zones meanwhile a mouse doesn’t have any dead zones at all
Exactly why “controller skill” is an oxymoron. You REQUIRE something outside of your own two hands to make the input valid.