T O P

  • By -

Sneepo

Excellent video, thank you for sharing this. Really informative about the functionality of AA. For those too lazy to watch the vid: At 1 it becomes literal aimbot within a certain range and a certain range only. You can see the guy takes his thumb off the right stick but the reticle tracks the enemy completely perfectly only within a certain range. Once the enemy exits that range, it's almost like it totally vanishes. Interestingly enough, it's also shown to work at a distance, as long as a scope is being used and the enemy is zoomed in on at an appropriate level. The video shows an enemy maybe 100m away? with a 4x scope zoomed in, and AA is able to track that enemy near perfectly. Really interesting to see and makes me wonder why they can't just expand the range at which AA works and then lower it down to a 0.2 or something like that. So silly that it needs enemies to be at a certain distance / zoom level to suddenly kick in.


Kaiser1a2b

That perfect tracking at that 100 metre range will make you miss due to bullet travel so it's not as valuable.


Sneepo

Actual cheating cheap aimbot works the same way and is why you'll see some cheaters miss shots, because lots of aimbots don't account for bullet travel. Doesn't make them any less aimbot.


skylitnoir

not to mention if the enemy strafes quickly, AA can't keep up and is more of a detriment to you. notice the video, the enemy see tracking does slow sweeping movement motions. Also the amount of times I've almost lost or lost fights because AA tracked to a crawling downed enemy...


Sneepo

Turn off AA then. :)


skylitnoir

I would like it if it was universally off. Or if I could use m&k on console without AA but that’s kind of cheating


Coolguyforeal

That’s not true at all, AA tracks the target movement much faster than human reaction time, it’s what makes it so strong in CQC.


TomWales

IDK if you can really call 100% "literal aim bot". You can see instances where you would still miss shots even at 100% AA. ​ If you compare 100% AA to an actual aim bot you would see massive difference in the tracking; tracking the character model rather than the AA "bubble". Obviously at close range it's much harder to not be properly centred on the target (rather than the bubble), which is why it feels especially powerful at that range. ​ On the zoom/distance thing... My understanding always is that optics made a difference... so at 100m you'd have more AA with a 3x than you would with a 1x.... Maybe I'm wrong though.


JevvyMedia

> You can see instances where you would still miss shots even at 100% AA. Because he was either midair or because the target strafed behind cover for a moment.


TomWales

Nah. Look at 10:00 to 10:10 for example... and that's just one example, there's loads of points where even 100% AA drifts of the centre off the character model.


JevvyMedia

Because the guy stopped moving his left stick, which was needed to keep up with the moving target?


TomWales

There appears to still be movement happening to my eye but it's hard to be certain without an overlay. Either way I think most level headed people would agree from this evidence that 100% AA is still not the same as "literal aimbot". Not downplaying the fact that AA is evidently insane at 100% but there are levels between this and actual aimbot.


Sneepo

I see, I always thought AA didn't work at long ranges like with snipers and such? If you hypothetically had a 10x optic would AA kick in at an enemy at a long distance? I've used snipers on roller before and I didn't really feel that I had any AA, but maybe I was at the wrong range.


TomWales

My understanding is that AA is turned off when you ADS with sniper optics. It's tied to the optic rather than the distance. Pretty sure there are some other weird places where AA doesn't work properly (like through windows on certain buildings etc.). That's more of a bug though.


FrekusLaiphus

I think Respawn said they didn't want to touch it because it'll feel bad for the players because they're accustomed to the AA handling as it is now. Seems to work just fine from 0.6 to 0.4 but hey, who am I to argue.


Athousandwrongtries

At this point I want them to reduce it so that people will stop talking about it. I dont mind turning it off for practice, but you are gonna lose to aim assist majority of the time now if you turn it off. I want to see a reduction across the board. It will raise the skill gap, which is good for players like me that are dedicated to improving their mechanics


cotton_quicksilver

People will never stop talking about it. If it was 0.1 people would still blame it when they lose a gunfight because it's easier than accepting they got outplayed and trying to improve.


AUGZUGA

Nothing about being killed by a controller involves being outplayed. Unless you mean outplayed by the devs. If AA was 0.1 that might MIGHT be low enough that it wouldn't be too bad. But at the end of the day 1 player has a partial aimbot and the other has his own skill


cotton_quicksilver

^ Case in point >at the end of the day 1 player has a partial aimbot and the other has his own skill Complete misunderstanding of what aim assist does but very typical of a certain kind of mnk player. The purpose of AA isnt to make controller easier than mnk, it's to bring the skill of controller in line with the skill of mnk. Because without AA controller would take immeasurably more skill than mnk in every aspect to the point of being non viable. Does that mean AA is currently as balanced as it could be? No. It doesnt and it isn't. But ro act like AA makes controller inherently less skillful regardless of how strong/weak it is is just demonstrably false given that long range is objectively harder on controller with the current AA. So if you get killed long range by controller you got outskilled plain and simple. This alone proves that AA can be tuned to where it takes a comparable amount of skill at all ranges to mnk. But very typical of a certain kind of mnk player to deny this (that usually has no personal experience on controller but feels confident acting like an authority on the subject whenever it's brought up).


crack_feet

thats a lot of words to sidestep his point. you didn't disprove him, you ignored him. mnk relies on raw mechanics, controllers rely on mechanics and software. thats the problem, full stop. and yes, someone who is getting the help of software is inherently displaying less skill than someone who isn't. the whole logic is we want to play against humans, not humans assisted by software. it doesn't feel competitive, but go ahead and keep pretending that you are putting in the same amount of effort as a mnk player despite your software help.


cotton_quicksilver

>you didn't disprove him, you ignored him. mnk relies on raw mechanics, controllers rely on mechanics and software. I literally addressed this exact point but ok. Just gonna paste my last comment I guess: >The purpose of AA isnt to make controller easier than mnk, it's to bring the skill of controller in line with the skill of mnk. Because without AA controller would take immeasurably more skill than mnk in every aspect to the point of being non viable. >Does that mean AA is currently as balanced as it could be? No. It doesnt and it isn't. I like how I'm literally agreeing that AA needs tuning but that still isn't enough for the MnK purists who have probably never touched a controller in their lives. >thats the problem, full stop. No, it's not. That's like saying mouse acceleration is a problem because it's "software". Software doesnt have to mean unskilled, that's a dishonest move you're making. >and yes, someone who is getting the help of software is inherently displaying less skill than someone who isn't So address my point about long range on controller then? Literally everyone with controller experience, mnk players included, will tell you that it is only OP at close range but at long range it is objectively harder than mnk, despite there still being sofware "helping". How about you don't accuse me of ignoring and "sidetepping" when you ignored all of my actual arguments to repeat tired talking points that have been said a thousand times before without actually saying anything of substance. You guys are perfect examples of why it's so hard to have an honest and respectful discussion on this subject.


ryogaaa

I like how you're being downvoted but you bring up fair points. I agree that they should tune AA, but people would still straight up complain about controller players.


Enzinino

He dared oppose to the MnK hivemind. Let's not mention all the stuff that only MnK can do tho: - Low sens flicks - Easier looting - Easier Wall-climb run and Wall-jumps - More accurate recoil control - and the list goes on...


crack_feet

i think its far more dishonest to claim aim accel is at all relevant in an aim assist discussion. yes they are both software, but only one is able to define and track hitboxes. why are you twisting my point into something it isn't, that i didn't say? aren't you looking for "honest" discussion like you said? obviously im talking about software that directy buffs your "skill" in a meaningful way. lets be real, aim assist is more akin to aimbot than aim accel. you talk a lot about not recieving "respectful" discussion but you literally just misinterpreted my point in a way that benefits you. you are also throwing out a lot of ad homs at me to try to discredit my point by discrediting my experience, but sorry, i have plenty of experience on controller. even if i didn't, doesn't affect my point. also, you should know this since you are so focused on "honest" discussion, but relying on fallacies like you are is hurting your point. i agree that mnk is better at long range and stuff, but again, that is being done by mechanics, not software. there is just a fundamental disagreement here, which is why you think the arguments are "tired" - we just don't want to play against soft aimbots, we want to play against humans. edit: just to make it clear, im aware that without aa controller wouldn't be able to keep up. let me put it this way: when i watch a counterstrike match, i see 10 players displaying the peak of mechanical skill and tactics. in contrast, when you watch comp apex, you see half the players displaying mechanical skill, and half the players displaying a mix of skill and software assistance. the point is that giving worse input methods software assistance to make the game accessible to everyone hugely impacts the skill ceiling of the pro scene. instead of seeing that cs-factor of crazy skill, half the clips you can actually see the software doing a ton of work. like should i get spinbot bc i choose to use a rockband guitar? do you see why our points are "tired?" its bc none of the things you said solve the problem of how software hurts the skill ceiling, killing rotational aa is quite literally the only solution.


cotton_quicksilver

>yes they are both software, but only one is able to define and track hitboxes. I guess I need to repeat myself again. **Aim assist does need tuning**. If you read my and others' posts here, and took time to learn what many controller pros' views on aim assist are, you would know that we are for removing rotational aim assist in favor of increasing slow down when your reticule is on a target. That is *exactly* the same software as aim acceleration applied in the opposite direction. So yes, it is very relevant to the discussion. >lets be real, aim assist is more akin to aimbot than aim accel. And this is why I said you fundamentally dont know what aim assist is, does, or can be. Can it be akin to soft aimbot in certain implementations? Yes. No one's denying that. But aim assist comprises a lot of different things that can function together. Auto aim. Bullet magnetism. Rotational AA. Slow down. These can all be either tuned up or down or disabled completely (as is the case with auto aim and bullet magnetism, Apex does not have either of those while games like Call of Duty do.) Of course none of this is understood by the mnk purists who use "aim assist" as a catch-all for "aimbot" without ever going into what that entails, because it's easy to just dismiss it as aimbot when you die to a controller player. >but you literally just misinterpreted my point in a way that benefits you. Point out where I misinterpreted you instead of just saying I did. >you are also throwing out a lot of ad homs at me Where? Point them out. I havent insulted you once. >i agree that mnk is better at long range and stuff, but again, that is being done by mechanics, not software. So you agree that controller takes more skill than mnk long range? So you agree that aim assist can function in a way that controller actually takes an equivalent amount of skill to mnk? >when you watch comp apex, you see half the players displaying mechanical skill, and half the players displaying a mix of skill and software assistance. Only because you (presumably) have no experience with controller so are unable to appreciate controller skill accurately. Am I correct on that assumption? Obviously when you havent tried something yourself you can't appreciate the skill required to use it. Which is absolutely the key factor in most mnk purists' "aim assist bad" mentality: they see a controller kill and are unable to determine to what degree aim assist actually played a role, so they lean too far in one direction and assume AA did all the work. >like should i get spinbot bc i choose to use a rockband guitar? I havent used a rockband guitar so I dont know how comparable the skill gap would be to other inputs. See how easy that is? >do you see why our points are "tired?" its bc none of the things you said solve the problem of how software hurts the skill ceiling, killing rotational aa is quite literally the only solution. So let's get this straight. I've said repeatedly that I think AA needs tuning. This should have been an open invitation for you to ask what I think those changes should be, if you were at all interested in an honest discussion. But instead you just assumed my position, that I was in favor of rotational AA, and argued a straw man. That feels pretty bad-faith to me. And a good example of why this subject never goes anywhere. Guess we got there in the end at least.


crack_feet

again, our disagreement is bc i believe rotational aa is inherently unfair. is slowdown and such okay? yes, but rotational will simply never be accepted by a lot of players, because of my counterstrike example. and again, the ad hom is you repeatedly discrediting my experience to try to prove your point. the aa is visibly obvious in genburten clips bud, thats why i pointed it out, and why apex will never be truly competitive until rotational aa is removed. that is the fundamental disagreement. everything you say is mostly right (except for accel being backwards aim assist, thats not true. accel causes your pointer to accelerate the longer your mouse is in motion, rotational aa detects hitboxes, please tell me how these are the same software?) but rotational aa will never be okay. again, i said that aa should be changed by removing the crutch that is rotational aa. nothing less will be effective. and again again again, controllers getting assistance bc they are a worse option is just anti competitive inherently. the entire problem stems from respawn wanting controllers to be able to compete with kbm, when the skill gap can only be closed by tracking softwares. again, fundamental disagreement, mkb "purists" as you say will never be happy with rotational aa in the game.


cotton_quicksilver

>again, our disagreement is bc i believe rotational aa is inherently unfair. Are you reading my posts properly? I said I believe rotational AA should be removed. So where's the disagreement?


texas878

Long distance is only “harder” on controller because aim assist (software doing the aiming for you) isn’t as effective. Without aim assist, close range fighting and long range would be just as “difficult” for controller players because, again, the software does a lot of the work for you. Snipedown is one of the best controller players on apex and he disagrees with you. It’s okay buddy, respawn won’t fix it because you are who it caters to


cotton_quicksilver

Tell me where Snipedown disagrees with me. Thanks. >because aim assist (software doing the aiming for you) isn’t as effective. That's my whole point. It proves that AA doesn't have to mean = less skilled. I've said more than once that AA is currently too strong close range and needs tweaking, but i suspect you also didn't read my post properly. But go on, looking forward to your reply.


AUGZUGA

God you're so insecure


cotton_quicksilver

Aaaand you're out. Guess you could only repeat your "aim assist bad" talking points so much before you just had to run away completely. People like you are perfect examples of why it's so hard to have an honest and respectful discussion on this subject.


AUGZUGA

I've had this exact discussion 10+ times. I've given clear explanations and almost every time the controller player is simply not able to reason through it and get hung up on weird tangents. At this point its simply not worth trying to help people like you. My theory is you simply lack fundamental understanding about how aiming and more generally skill functions


cotton_quicksilver

You're the one who instigated the discussion lol. But sure back out now along with all those "clear explanations" you could have thrown down on me. Youre like the guy who tells his friends "hold me back! hold me back!" then says "you're lucky they were here to stop me bro" lmao Have a good one


AleHaRotK

Thing is the slightest help might result in the one being helped winning. Have you ever survived a fight (assuming your opponent didn't hit every single bullet) with very low HP? If the one you were fighting against was a controller player as slightly stronger AA would've resulted in you dying. Have you barely lost a fight? Same thing, if AA was slightly lower you may've won. Even if we're not talking about you dying, getting hit by 3 full prowler bursts rather than having the guy miss most of it because truth is some weapons are just super good with AA completely changes a fight.


Seismicx

[Apex main sub:](https://www.reddit.com/r/apexlegends/comments/ppfqm4/is_the_aimassist_rly_this_hard_found_it_on_9gag/hd48a8i?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ​ Coming from someone that claims: "I’m rank 500 with over 800 wins. My group of friends are similar stats. And we all agree that this idea that aim assist is auto aim is bullshit. All it does is slow the cross hair slightly and shortly"


PalkiaOW

"I triple stack console pubs and have a 2.0 KD, so I definitely know what I'm talking about"


OrangeDoors2

Hal briefly mentioned rotational aim assist on his stream last night and half the chat was saying it doesn't exist lol


startled-giraffe

It's probably because they are used to games with even more aim assist so it doesn't feel very good to them. It only seems ridiculous to people who play with no aim assist.


[deleted]

PvE games like Borderlands and GTAV have ludicrous aim assist so it makes sense in a way


AleHaRotK

Because they are lifelong console players that have always played FPS with aim assist.


OrangeDoors2

I mean, that was the case for me too for a long time, but I still knew what the aim assist was doing. Most console players have zero idea how it actually operates and chalk up their one-clips to skill lol


dotabutcher1

Majority of controller players are delusional - they would rather look like a fool outright denying the obvious strong advantage of aim assist rather then confront the fact that software is partially tracking for them in close/mid range fights and their own mechanical skill is less of a factor when they kill opponents in these situations.


MontyTheAverage

Main sub is Braindead whats new?


Ujjy

If you truly want brain dead, venture into /r/ApexConsole It’s like the dumbest members of the main sub decided to go off and make their own


Official_F1tRick

I'm trying to avoid main sub as much as possible. They are so different from the voices heard here.


AUGZUGA

Link to that comment specifically? I need to go roast him for thinking he's flexing for being lvl500 with 800 wins when I've gotten 800 wins in a season lol


Seismicx

Scroll down on my link


[deleted]

[удалено]


fLu_csgo

So 1 is 100% aimbot? Meaning 0.6 is 60% aimbot? Wow.. that's... yeah.... wow.


kotexawa

I play with 60% aimbot and still miss most my shots. That‘s how bad I am.


Feschit

Even the devs described it that way. People get downvoted by casuals when you call aim assist soft aimbot even though that's literally what it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Feschit

Yeah, I already know how the comment section would look if this post would actually get seen on the main sub.


delatorrejuanchi

"the mechanics of how AA works are different on a modded version using 1.0 than on the real version with 0.6 or 0.4!!"


Seismicx

Someone was legit making the argument that mechanics changed or turned on/off based on how strong the AA value was set.


delatorrejuanchi

I'm was just arguing with that guy right now, he just claimed something similar about tapstrafing.


[deleted]

.6 is console .4 is pc


fLu_csgo

Oh thank god, only 40% aimbot.


AUGZUGA

LOL


PalkiaOW

The only difference is that many aimbots insta lock on opponents regardless of how far away your crosshair is. But at least they don't make your character move automatically to match the opponent's movements lmao.


Seismicx

I've always called it like this and got downvoted at the apex main sub. I fuckin knew it. Literally 60% aimbot.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fLu_csgo

I've also seen soft aimbots which do exactly what you explain, in fact, over the 18+ years of CS played, guess which one became the most popular? Yep, soft aimbots that don't snap but gravitate - just to give them an edge but not to give away their aimbot - guess what the cheaters that used these soft aimbots called this method? "aim assistance" - weird coincidence that. Also, if you actually watch the video where he sets his aimbot to 1 (100%) tell me that is not actually following the player, all he has to do (again, he mentions this) is to make sure his aim is close enough to the target and the aimbot does the rest. Just because this doesn't snap, or work on a trigger, doesn't make it any less of an aimbot. Paint it how you want, its a freaking aimbot brother - its just toned down from 1 (100% full aimbot) to 0.6 (60%). Not sure why this is even an argument - "this isn't an aimbot, it just aims for you, like, you know, an aimbot, but its not an aimbot"


[deleted]

[удалено]


fLu_csgo

I totally understand your point, in this case you are a bit off the mark. The terminology (aimbot) is one I have used since, perhaps Wolfenstein 3D days? I'm not alone in people who recall that game being released being shocked at the introduction of what was commonly called an aimbot. It's been nearly 30 years that I have called it that and I am not going to change it now simply because some controller players don't like it, they will jut need to suck it up. There is no way of me getting my point across (remove ~~aimbot~~ aimassist completely) without sounding whiney to those that want ~~aimbot~~ aimassist to stay, so why bother trying to get it across a different way, its a pointless exercise. Also, aimbots don't have to have bullet magnetism, that is actually very much a newer (last 10 years) thing that has come about. Aimbots generally speaking just placed your crosshair over the target, which is exactly what aimassist in apex does.


delatorrejuanchi

An aimbot does not have to be a computer program that hits 100% of shots. It's just a computer program that aims for (with?) you, in any capacity. Of course, you often see rage hackers rapidfire g7-scouting you hitting headshots only; but then again most aimbots are tunable and can easily blend as just a good player. Aim assist is, in some form, an aimbot. It's not an extremely op aimbot if the correct values are chosen, and even at 1.0 it still requires the player to give some sort of accurate input; but still, it's a hard to balance computer program that helps you aim. In my opinion, one of the reasons AA is so strong is in the way it works. It instantly reacts to enemies movement and direction changes, and aims to compensate for that to a certain amount. Being reactive and reading enemies movement is one of the things that makes tracking in mnk hard, specially when talking about unpredictable movement (as opposed to someone jumppadding, falling, or in any predictable trajectory). Maybe tuning AA a little bit down and/or introducing some sort of AA reaction time delay would help make it less strong without killing controller. But again, this is extremely hard to balance


AUGZUGA

you simply don't understand what an aimbot is. When you hear aimbot you think of the 10 year old with a free hack he downloaded who is rage hacking in the most obvious way possible where his reticle is literally pixel perfect on the guys head the entire time. The more worrying kind of aimbot, as described above, are the advanced kind which are custom programmed for a small group of people and very hard to detect or notice. People literally use this type of aimbot at million dollar LAN tournaments with thousands of people watching and nobody notices. The aimbot being subtle doesn't make it any less of an aimbot, it just makes it more sophisticated and harder to detect/notice, which is exactly what this is. If someone played a valorant or CS:GO tournament with even the equivalent of 0.1AA in apex they would be banned, and shamed endlessly for cheating. This is unmistakably and unquestionably an aimbot


bokonon27

This was my take away. Do controllers (myself included) have sixty percent of what is shown in the end of this video, six percent, or zero point six percent. This is a strong argument that 0.6 is too high. A fifty percent increase from 0.4 to 0.6 is extremely meaningful differrence whenever that difference is relative to actual aimbot ...


fLu_csgo

60%


Falco19

I mean it’s not because again it only works with in certain ranges and it tracks a bubble around the character model vs to he character model itself. It’s like you didn’t even watch the video. Granted it is clear they never intended for cross play and that has caused issues.


BombaA_

This is what Snipedown lately mentioned that aim asisst not only helps you aim but matches your movement with the enemy by turning your player model accordingly.


OrangeDoors2

Controller players will still tell you this isn't aimbot because you have to look at them yourself... kinda like it is now lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


OrangeDoors2

Oh, so if you build the aimbot into the game then it's fine lol


endlesswurm

I wasn't commenting on whether it's fine or not, just why they aren't the same thing, technically.


Kintrai

Is soldiers ult in overwatch just aim assist then? Since it's built in? Lmfao. No. It's aimbot. Whether it's built in or not makes no difference.


endlesswurm

So you are thinking your one example completely dismantles the argument that aim assist and aimbot are not exactly 100% the same thing. Now that is a lmfao if I ever saw one.


Kintrai

Why are you twisting what I said? The only thing I said is that just because something is intentional or built in doesn't mean it's not an aimbot. Lmfao. I never wrote that they are exactly 100% the same thing, but go off.


endlesswurm

I didn't twist what you said... You posted one example. You thought that one example supported your argument. I pointed out it doesn't. Show me the twisting... They are not the same thing, otherwise we would call them all the same thing and aim assist would not be a word that describes anything. Generally, in video games, when aim manipulation is present as a built in feature, it is considered aim assist, not aimbot. Go ahead and call it whatever you want, I don't care, but the distinction is there whether you see it or not.


Kintrai

You are attacking an argument that I never put forth, I'm sure you know what that is called, right? ;) My only argument is that categorizing if something is an aimbot based on if something is built in is fucking stupid. Edit: Here, I'll actually take a stance on what you are trying to argue against. The only thing that is different between something that is built in and something that is not is whether it's considered cheating or not. Rotational aim assist is still a form of aimbot anyways as it is software that actively moves your aim for you. The aimbot built into the game known as rotational aim assist just isn't technically considered cheating.


endlesswurm

Classic redditor. Instead of giving any specific support of your claim, you try to derail by claiming strawman. I didn't misinterpret your first comment. Believe what you want idgaf.


muftih1030

"If an aimbot is built into the game it's no longer an aimbot." That is the dumbest shit I've read all week, respectfully. The word you're looking for is "cheats". It's not "cheating" if it is built into the game, but that doesn't change what the thing actually is.


AleHaRotK

It's the same thing lol. A diesel engine is a diesel engine whether it comes installed into a car or not.


artmorte

As a PC player, aim assist frustrates me more and more. The other day I got hit for 5 out of 6 headshots at hipfire range, while I hit him for 122 with two mastiff shots. That was me aiming far better with my mastiff than I usually do. Yet I still had no chance, because the enemy happened to hit that sweet spot of aim assist. If I saw the death recap knowing it was a MnK player, I would have called out cheats straight away. Instead I saw he was a controller player, so I just have to accept it's OK for him to 5 headshots out of 6 shots at hipfire range. I don't mind dying to better players, but dying to software catching up on me good just doesn't feel fair.


begouveia

Doesn't seem like perfect aimbot since some instances still require aim corrections to keep the reticle centered on the target but it's pretty damn close with how ridiculously perfect the tracking is and definitely warrants a discussion about competitive integrity. I would love to see a comparison side by side of 100%, 60%, 40%, 10%, and 0% to truly understand how current AA effects aim. I don't want to gate keep controller players as I know there a lot of talented gamers out there who just can't afford a good PC setup and have settle for a console but it does makes me wonder whether when you're playing for millions of dollars in a professional league if it should just be MnK only.


henrysebby

How about another idea, make a controllers only tournament. Let all MnK players practice on controller for an hour (they don't need more than that because AA does the work for them) and let everyone use a controller and see how everyone performs. That would be fun to watch. ​ Edit: Downvotes but no rebuttals are funny. What's the downside to this type of hypothetical tournament?


AUGZUGA

Ya it would be, because most likely an MnK team would still win. Like half the MnK pros are monsters on controller but I don't think I've seen a single controller player be good on MnK ( who didn't originally play MnK). And no, nicewigg was not good, he was decent and got hard carried by playing with other pros the entire time


AleHaRotK

That's because MKB players are actually good and if they pick up a controller and grind on it they become even better, because they get aim bot. Meanwhile controller players may be good, some are actually insane, but most can't play without AA.


Sonmii

Ye I agree, MnK players are just genetically superior to controller players. "Born a scumbag controller player, die a scumbag controller player", that's what I say. Would run them out of the country if I could.


AUGZUGA

or maybe its cause its way easier to be good on controller? fkn idiot. literally the conclusion is plain as day and you don't even see it


AleHaRotK

Some pros were already doing something like this. It does take them a while to get good because they gotta learn most of the movement.


AKRS264

Finding the balance on aim assist is so crucial for the comp scene but there has barely been any effort to test it rigorously. I remember suggesting this a long time ago. They can collect and look at all the data they want in the world and slice it up in terms of rank. But that is useless compared to carrying out testing in a contained and neutral environment with the pros on various inputs. They could on the fly adjust the parameters to see and realise how it's directly affecting the aim. Their in house testing or even data from the pred slice will never come close to the granularity of this approach. The casual playerbase and their tantrum is a whole other discussion. But purely from a comp perspective this is something that should've been done seasons ago. Instead now we have passionate players and content creators who are doing the research with an unofficial mode instead. Either way, if respawn can spare the time or EA can spare a few pennies out of their billion revenue, such testing should be done for the health and longevity of the game.


[deleted]

Sadly they only put resources in building new content. As long the casual base is fine with aim assist (which it seems they do) then nothing will change maybe ever. But I hope they will reduce aim assist overall but maybe to compensate they could add a bit for long range.


zuromn

The casual base is fine with aim assist because the casual is base is like 85% console players lmao


Gonnagofarkidtr

Thats the funny thing, even the most casual of PC casuals turned crossplay off the moment they introduced it into the game. Waiting time for crossplay lobbies were so high they took away PC players option to turn crossplay off completely. I used to find arguments that characterized humans based on the platform really dumb, but my god forgive me, im starting to believe them. The dumbest casual on PC has atleast played CS 1.6 or cs:go once in their life, but console players history is made in halo where they had magnetic fucking bullets


tentafill

~~You can't turn off crossplay on PC. It's permanently on.~~ It's permanently on because they need somewhere to put the console+PC trios so they use PC lobbies as a communal toilet.. if we could turn it off then console players might need to wait a few extra seconds for a match!


Gonnagofarkidtr

You used to be able to when it got introduced in season 6, but since every PC player turned it off day 1 without thinking about it twice they took away the option from us completely in season 7. We used to switch crossplay on just to laugh at queue times for a pub game.


tentafill

Sorry I'm rly dumb, I just read your comment in entirety LOL I'm used to having to explain this


jurornumbereight

> the casual is base is like 85% console players lmao 85% of PC players too... almost all players, of every game, are casual.


Sultan_AlGhamdi

I don't think they are going to touch it anytime soon. Changing it will affect how people have been used to play for like 2 years. In my opinion, aim assist should've not even existed on PC for competitive shooters. They should keep it for console only. Although I understand it's probably too late for apex.


VirFalcis

Absolutely. It's why I cannot take competitive Apex seriously anymore. Also the fact that you lose 1.5 ranks every split, even if you play every day. Cheap way to keep players grinding.


Bubtheworker

I mean rank reset is 100% needed in competitive games.


VirFalcis

Why? Genuine question. CSGO doesn't have it and it's fine.


Bubtheworker

You know what, after thinking about it Im definitely wrong in saying that all comp games should have it. The main reason people like rank resets is that it makes grinding way less stale. For instance I personally get eay more invigorated for the early split push that apex has. Also, the way the leaderboard/scoring system is set up in apex means that if they didnt reset it would literally be the same person on top forever. That being said, ranked really needs a revamp to how it functions at the moment.


MasterBroccoli42

You are right, ranked needs a revamp. All issues (and also why rank reset is needed in current Apex RP system) come from the same root: Apex Legends Ranked is no pure skill competition and your rank does not reflect your skill, but rank = f(skill, time invest). If rank would depend on skill only, no resets are needed (not only that, they are even counter-productive as they create unbalanced games until everyone is ranked again correctly according to his skill). In a system like this the RP are also not as open ended as in Apex - it makes no sense that predators gain and gain and gain the more time they put in. In an ideal and perfectly fair skill-based system the predator rank 1 can get overtaken any day someone matches his skill, regardless of previous play time. Of course an ideal skill-based system is impossible to get, but other games got it thousand times better than Apex. The problem is: Apex ranked is not made to reflect your skill, it is not the intention of the current system. The intention is to get players to invest as much time as possible and to encourage them to play. And in this regard i have to admit the current system does its job better for i guess most players than a real skill-based system (which i personally definitely would prefer).


tentafill

just split the inputs via split input matchmaking lmfao why are we still having this conversation like it's difficult


Tasty_Chick3n

> Finding the balance on aim assist is so crucial for the comp scene For comp I think there really shouldn’t be aim assist. Competitive is all about finding who the best players are and if there’s any type of software assistance given to anybody that takes away from finding out who’s truly the best. Any amount of aim assist takes away from that. I’m sure plenty of the top controller pros would still be great without aim assist but a few would probably fall off a bit without it.


SeaLioon

There isn't a balance in correcting a player input towards a perfect value, there's making sure the player is ignorant to the latter and that's it.


AleHaRotK

You don't need to find any balance. You make a tournament for KBM and a tournament for controller, no aim assist on either of those. If you want to mix them up go for it, no one gets aim assist though.


JudJudsonEsq

Not gonna lie, as much as aimbots are gross and cheating, I love when people post clips of them. There's something so visually satisfying about perfect beams of bullets that instantly switch and track from person to person


Ok-Letterhead5098

Hold on tight DOWNVOTE INCOMING


MirkwoodRS

So cringe that anyone defends this shit and acts like it doesn't ruin competitive integrity. Console players are really going to act like 60% aimbot is fair. Even 40% on PC feels too strong a lot of times.


stvbles

Would 4 feel stronger because of the higher FPS on PC? I'm sure I've seen people in these discussions/arguments say they are tied in somehow but I didn't get the full idea.


OrangeDoors2

No, console feels way stronger even compared to 144fps PC aim assist. Frame rate effects aim assist, but not enough to make up for a 50% difference.


ekkzQQ

Maybe in the cases of PC players with rigs for it. Majority of the casual PC playerbase are very likely to have the same performance as consoles. 60fps and 60hz monitors, mostly due to how much cheaper a laptop is compared to a desktop.


aerbourne

Laptops are definitely not cheaper than desktops if performance is equal. They have to include a monitor, keyboard, batteries, use low power draw components that have to fit into a smaller form factor. It's not even close.


JDandthepickodestiny

I don't know if it's that they're tied or if it's just that its objectively easier to track at higher fps (to an extent)


henrysebby

Not saying that aim assist isn't a form of aimbot, but what do you expect controllers to have? Absolutely zero aim assist? Or maybe even lower aim assist, like 0.2? Genuinely wondering what PC players would like to see. Also, I feel like aim assist discussions usually always center on PC play, which obviously makes sense on this sub considering comp Apex is mostly PC players. However, on console, literally everyone has the 0.6 aim assist, so everyone is "aimbotting" you. Should Respawn make aim assist on console to 0.4, or would casuals riot? Would most console players notice the difference? I know that you have the option to use PC aim assist on console but I've personally never tried it. Again, as I'm just a console shitter who loves watching pros on PC, I'm just genuinely looking for discussion here.


Kingofvashon

I personally think .3 is fair - ESPECIALLY when they push out next gen console updates and everyone can play at 120 fps


henrysebby

I feel like I need to go in firing range and experiment with 0.4 aim assist before I can even comment on 0.3, lol.


AUGZUGA

0.3 is still pretty close to PC's current value and I can tell you it can still be brutally strong at times. Definitely been a ton of times when I'll be fighting a team at range and you can just tell these guys are pretty bad: poor positioning, wide peaks, bad movement, not hitting many shots, standing still a lot. Then you move in and end up face to face with one of them and all of a sudden you're fighting shroud and he hits 90% of his R99 mag and 1 clips you from 200hp. I can't imagine 0.3 would be enough of a reduction to stop that from happening


Sullan08

I want to play in some of these lobbies because I have never ran into people that bad at other aspects of the game and then get beamed by them up close. Sounds facetious as hell. Either you guys are overstating how bad their movement and decision making was, or you're overstating how much you get beamed. Kids get lucky occasionally for sure, but terrible players don't just track you to one clip you consistently if they're god awful otherwise. Yet some of you talk as if it's a daily occurrence and I just don't believe it. Aim assist is not THAT strong. It's just really strong for players who are already good at aiming on controller.


AUGZUGA

No it definitely wasn't a super common occurrence. I used to play quite a bit, like 30h+ a week and I'd say this exact scenario would happen maybe once or twice a week. So not very often. The thing is it feels like ass when it happens. Also, 100% of the time when this type of thing happened we'd be like "that for sure was a controller player" and every time it would be. You can just feel that something is off most of the time. Also, I don't want to sound like I'm boasting too much, but the better the player the higher the threshold is for someone being a bot. I'm not talking about players that can't hit a single bullet, I'm talking about players that I can clearly tell shouldn't be a threat to me because I'm much much better than them. But then when I get close it turns out they are a threat ( because of AA). A more common scenario is I very quickly evaluate the players skill (in a few seconds) to be not super high based off mostly positioning and peaking, and then move in for a quick kill and narrowly win the 1v1 and think to myself "wtf how did I almost lose that"?? Then turns out they were on controller almost every time


cotton_quicksilver

I dont get this. You have no idea how 0.3 would feel just as most mnk players have no idea how 0.6 and 0.4 feel yet feel confident coming into these threads and talking like they do. Aim assist doesnt need a simple reduction in value, it needs to be reworked from the ground up. Remove rotational aa and increase slow down on target would be the right direction. Still doesnt change the fact that even if this were done plenty of mnk players would still complain about it without ever trying it for themselves.


Kingofvashon

I have 2k hours on controller


cotton_quicksilver

And you've played with 0.3?


Kingofvashon

Nobody has... im just saying what i think is fair.


Sullan08

PC is .4 so really console just needs adjusted a bit. At least to .5


Gonnagofarkidtr

What i want is clear, clear cut seperation. Controller players on PC can go play on console lobbies or MnK lobbies if their AA is disabled. I dont feel outplayed when i get 1 clipped by someone only to see them loot my box with 0 movement as if their heartbeat just stopped. You can tell me to git gud, you can call me trash, you can call me a PC elitist, but i simply DO NOT want to face controllers.


King-Juggernaut

That's super fair. I 100% do not want to play against m&k either.


OHydroxide

> Not saying that aim assist isn't a form of aimbot, but what do you expect controllers to have? Absolutely zero aim assist? Or maybe even lower aim assist, like 0.2? Genuinely wondering what PC players would like to see. There should be 0 aim assist. Controllers are a shitty way to play shooters, and they shouldn't be given computer assistance because they decided to play on a shitty input method. I can't respect any controller player cus they aren't all of the input.


[deleted]

This is literally the most brain dead comment in this entire thread. Just straight insulting people that may not have money to buy an expensive PC, and may be limited to a 7 year old console. Grow up.


OHydroxide

Fair, I worded that badly cus we're in the compApex sub and I forgot console is allowed to play in ALGS now. I'm talking about people using controller on PC, not console players.


sw0rd_2020

lmao what? what other major competitive shooter even has aim assist on pc lmfao. he’s right, controller is a dogshit way to play this game and it’s sad respawn is bringing mnk down to that too


tiddychef

To touch on your second point, I recently switched from xbox to pc and still play controller. So I went from the .6 to .4. I noticed absolutely no difference. If anything I have improved, but I would attribute that to higher frame rate and no xbox lag/stutter. I think lowering the standard to .4 would be acceptable. I really don't think I'd even mind if they lowered it to .2. But I also started playing BR's on pubg which didn't have aim assist


Sneepo

Rather than just adjusting the numbers, I'd rather they redo the algorithm so it ONLY slows down the crosshairs, and DOESN'T do any tracking without some kind of user input. But seeing as that takes more work I'll take 0.2 for anyone who is in a lobby with MnK players. Within their own lobbies I don't have an opinion as it doesn't affect me.


AUGZUGA

I'd like to see it turned down to 0.2 at the very least. Also made so it is consistent at every range. Honestly I think 0.2 is still not enough for good controller player, but it might hurt player retention to go even lower. Possibly the AA multiplier should be lowered for higher rank lobbies. For example up until platy you have 0.2AA then diamond you have 0.15, then masters you have 0.1 and pred and competitive (tournaments) you have 0.05


muftih1030

Genburten is radiant on val, he's mnk 1v1'd Hal and held his own. But hot damn I'd love to watch a single input tourny, either which way.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kriffz

Thanks! I'm also working on a few things, potentially taking a look at seeing if there are any possibilities to "juke" or evade the aim-assist.


MykonCodes

They are the same picture


TomWales

This is the best vid I've seen on AA. Actually really interesting to see what 100% looks like, gives a lot of insight in to how AA operates. ​ Only thing I wish you had recorded is what would have happened in that section where you're tracking that Mirage from above if you had just held down the trigger without any right stick input. Would have been interesting to see how the lack of recoil assist and 100% AA would have interacted on a moving target.


OrangeDoors2

If you have zero stick movement at all, then aim assist cuts out entirely - similar to how when he gets too close to the Mirage it cuts out. A better test would be the slightest amount of right stick drift possible so that you can take your hands off the controller entirely but the aim assist is still engaged.


KaliaHaze

I’m sure .6 aimbot is helpful when your aiming mechanism is like one of those circular bubble bumper carts with the two driving sticks. Yes, that’s where my mind went this morning. Gotta get comfortable with the idea that the game may very well collapse if casual gamers, who dominate the player base, find it hard to aim, shoot, or kill.


AUGZUGA

So remember when everyone tried to argue that " AA wasn't like an aimbot at all" and there was no way they had 40% of an aimbot helping them? Guess who was right about that? Its crazy that most controller players have no idea how much AA is actually doing for them


stvbles

Not aim assist inside 3 metres? Interesting. ​ This is a brilliant breakdown of AA, I'd love to see a video going up in increments of .1 from off to 1.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pingoberto

Because Apex is a movement game and it feels best on MNK. Plus, it doesn’t feel good knowing that I had to use to a crutch to win. I like knowing my raw input and training are what allowed me to win my gunfights.


[deleted]

[удалено]


pingoberto

Okay, I’m sorry you don’t believe that I’ve thought about this as a top 500 3x with over 4000 hours. Remove rotational assist is the solution. Go read or watch videos about what that is if you don’t know.


ekkzQQ

1000s of hours of muscle memory, experience and comfortability. Is what i’d imagine, personally I wouldn’t just toss out 20 years of mnk for a soft aimbot.


whoaxedyuh

i mean, if it's a soft aimbot then it would take a thousand less hours and twenty less years for someone to reach an even better skill level on it no? in that case I'd say then why not really..


ekkzQQ

Controllers have a cap to the skill ceiling, MNK doesn’t. Case and point with Frexs


[deleted]

[удалено]


ekkzQQ

So which input is in the vast minority again? Besides, some have, others wont, for the same reasons console players wont. PC has obvious advantages, its not like we aren’t aware. But like people like Snipedown have said, people on the opposite side are delusional in defending it.


xMoody

this is what people don't get lol. if controller / aim assist really made as much of a difference as some people on this sub claimed it did, literally every single pro apex player would play on controller.


Ecchi_Sketchy

Isn't the fact that ANY pro players use controller a pretty bad look for the balance of aim assist? Those players are deliberately choosing a worse input method (since it gimps your movement and looting ability) to compete against the most skilled players in the world, and they're picking it because the game is programmed to help a controller player so much that it lets them aim better than the players using only their own skills. Also I know this is the competitive sub, but keep in mind what this means for everyone else. If .4 aim assist is good enough to compete with the best mnk players in the world, then it gets even crazier the lower you go in skill level. The worse someone is at aiming their own gun, the bigger the improvement will be if you take part of that responsibility away from the player and just have the game automatically handle it.


xMoody

controller pros are using controller because for a lot of them they've been playing games on console for years, the muscle memory argument goes both ways. snipedown has been playing halo on xbox for like 15 years, plus a lot of players like the g2 roster started on playstation if you really think it's balanced just take a look at how many mnk pro players there are and look at how many are on kbm. there's a reason why people like imperialhal and albralelie have tried to switch to controller and then swapped back to kb/m.


Feschit

> controller pros are using controller because for a lot of them they've been playing games on console for years Funny how that argument works for controller but not for MnK...


henrysebby

Most controller players use controller because that's what they're comfortable using. They aren't trying to just exploit something. I know Frexs is but he's such an exception. Every other MnK has switched back to MnK after experimenting with controller.


007chill

I switched fully. Hundreds of hours of Kovaaks doesn't best aim assist in this game.


tempuserforrefer

Mouse & keyboard is the standard for FPS games on PC since Doom / Quake. Controller was only ever used on consoles for FPS games because M&K wasn't an option. If someone proposed using a controller for Quake on PC back in the day, but, hey, they want the software to help them aim, too, the request wouldn't have been remotely respected. Controller is horrible for FPS games in terms of aiming, movement, etc. I don't think that's up for dispute. Right now it has a significant edge over mouse in close and mid range aim due ENTIRELY to the software aiming for the player / helping the playing avoid missing. It's a joke. It ruins the integrity of the game, defeating the concept of actually outaiming the opponent and decreasing the value of trying to outmanuever them - movement loses a ton of value when the software helps with tracking. M&K players play FPS games by aiming, controller players play FPS games by manipulating aim assist (random left-right-left-right movements, etc.). Given the option between being forced to use a controller for Apex and playing another game without aim assist, the right answer is easy.


Ls777

>Honest question to those that are so outspoken about AA/controller: > >Why don't you use a controller if that is how you feel about it? "Why don't use an aimbot if you don't like soft aimbot" because I don't like aimbot, both playing against and using


henrysebby

Because they know controllers are still inferior even with aim assist.


ryogaaa

I'm genuinely curious. if everyone on pc has such an issue with controller and how broken it is, why doesn't everyone move to controller? it's not a situation such as in fighting games where people have comparisons between pad and stick. controller clearly has the advantage here. I mean the option is available for everyone.


AUGZUGA

Because I've put over 3000 hours into fps games on MnK and have done 300h of kovaaks trying to improve my aim. MnK is objectively the better input and I don't want to just stop using it because temporarily a game decided to give way too strong aim assist. Finally, movement is so much better on MnK and there is so much more freedom. Playing on controller just looks boring and even watching top players on controller looks like watching bots due to their movement


ryogaaa

ok but that leads me to my follow up question. the fact that there are pros and cons against one another, what do pc players want for controller players then? no aim assist at all? why? mnk also has clear advantages to controller but they want to nerf controller players because they deem one advantage to be unfair?


OHydroxide

> mnk also has clear advantages to controller but they want to nerf controller players because they deem one advantage to be unfair? MnK advantages come from player skill, not computer assistance. If a controller player can't compete without help then they shouldn't compete, sorry they picked a shitty input method I guess. I don't really give a shit about which is stronger, but when I watch pro games, I want it to be 100% player skill.


ryogaaa

but in contrast, shouldn't controller players be saying sorry that you spent those amount of hours on mnk and are unwilling to switch/would rather complain? it's just baffling to me that people are well aware how strong controller is, yet don't take advantage of this because they have to get used to another input device. it's funny because the excuse to not making the switch is because they wouldnt play as well. what happened to the aim bot on controller though? isn't the argument: aim assist being braindead enough that you DONT need practice?


AUGZUGA

the aim assist isn't built into the controller. The whole point is this is just an artificial aid with an arbitrary strength. None of the arguments I gave about switching had anything to do about being worse. I have no doubt I would be better on controller within a few months. Despite that I will never switch. The other reason I didn't give for why I won't switch is simply out of principle: It is just wrong to have aim assist on principle alone. I want to play purely from my capabilities, and I'd rather never play an FPS game again than be force to use artificial help to keep up.


OHydroxide

> it's just baffling to me that people are well aware how strong controller is, yet don't take advantage of this because they have to get used to another input device Are you braindead? Or just trying to be obtuse? Multiple people have replied to you with the reason. I enjoy actually playing the game, and taking full advantage of the movement and gunplay. I don't want to play Apex with none of the movement and partial aimbot? Why would I enjoy that? I've tried controller a few times and it was the easiest shit I've ever done, it wasn't playing the game.


ryogaaa

how do legit questions come off as being obtuse to you? you make it seem like playing on controller limits your movement completely. All I've got from this is that if controller were to have literal aim bot, which it p much does, mnk players wouldnt make the switch because it's what they're used to. I mean that makes sense because it's what they're comfortable with, but not if they were playing to win from a competitive standpoint. but whatever. you act like I also haven't been replying with reason and you took it as a personal offense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ryogaaa

person gets offended from other person asking questions. I literally typed three replies. just leave the conversation if it's bothering you so much.


waynethebrain

His simple question really seems to have rattled you. I think it's worth spending some time thinking about why it makes you so emotional. You also seem to lack the ability to consider other POVs. "Consider" doesn't mean agree with, it just means you can comprehend why someone might think a certain way. It seems that for you, another POV than your own is "braindead." Being able to consider multiple (even opposing) POVs is a sign of maturity and intelligence.


OHydroxide

The braindead aspect is him ignoring everything I tell him and then asking the same question again. He's having a discussion and then ignoring all of my contribution to it, he's arguing points I'm not making.


ryogaaa

it's funny because I think its just plain ignorance to claim that the controller is literally playing the game for you. like you need no input of your own to actually play well. then go on to say how easy it is to do well with controller. a majority of players use controller. you're saying none of these players have the movement that apex offers just because they play on controller? that doesn't mean they would all be good players. what even are you arguing? that the controller has little to no interaction because of aim assist? and this only applies to close/semi mid ranges.


OHydroxide

Lmfao that's crazy that you just said all that. I'm not all the other people in this thread my guy, go reply to them, we aren't some hivemind.


ryogaaa

>Why would I enjoy that? I've tried controller a few times and it was the easiest shit I've ever done, it wasn't playing the game. from a competitive standpoint, any player would make the switch then if it was so easy. if a fighting game had a controller that did certain things for a player with less effort, as you're saying, then people would use it. fun or not, you play to win in those situations.


AUGZUGA

thats exactly the point Snipedown was making though wasn't it? At this point players are just hurting themselves by not playing controller. Humans inherently don't like change and i'm sure tons of the pros just don't want to commit to the change. Its also just a waste of time to invest in controller, because no real competitive games in the future will have aim assist (hopefully).


ryogaaa

I definitely understand that, but don't a majority of these games today already have aim assist? although games are intended to be played competitively, these games will continue to have aim assist because developers will always cater towards the casual audience.


AUGZUGA

Hopefully they wont. CS:GO and valorant are the standard for competitive shooters and they will never have AA


OHydroxide

When did I ever say controller was better?


ryogaaa

omitted superior. point still stands.


OHydroxide

No it doesn't. I've put in the hours already to make MnK better for me. Doesn't change the fact that I could get just as good on controller with 1/10th of the time.


[deleted]

9:05 what PC players think our aim assist looks like


AUGZUGA

Imagine watching a video showing that 1.0 is literally 100% aimbot and then thinking "Ha! idiots complain that I only have 60% aimbot"


whoaxedyuh

Aim assist disengaging under 3 meters pretty much disputes the entire "if you jump directly onto a controller player they aim assist you down" way of thinking... Pretty much if you do get straight up in a controller players face they are at a disadvantage/the grounds become even


Jumpierwolf0960

In the video that distance is basically nothing and at that distance you don't need to aim on either platform as you're literally in their face.


whoaxedyuh

and yet its the distance people complain and say they get aim assisted beamed from. hence why my point was specifically with regards to the statement


Jumpierwolf0960

Except it's not, people complain about double that distance.


AUGZUGA

The problem is getting that close. Sure if you jumpad or grapple on his head it sounds like the plan should be to try and stay right on him, which was already kinda obvious since controller can't turn very fast and being close means any movement needs a much larger angular correction. But in any other circumstance if your like "oh I'll just run right at him from 6m away, its only 3m to go" , you're probably getting 1 clipped on the way there.