would like to propose a different approach to balancing controller aim assist (AA) and mouse & keyboard (MnK) in Apex Legends.

This is not a proposal to remove aim assist or make controller players weaker. I believe aim assist has a legitimate purpose: compensating for the physical disadvantages of using an analog stick for precise aiming.

However, I think the current implementation goes beyond simply compensating for that disadvantage.

The Problem

My understanding of traditional aim assist is that it should primarily help compensate for the difficulty of precisely controlling an analog stick.

For example, when the player's crosshair gets close to an enemy, the sensitivity could be reduced, making it easier to stay on target.

However, Apex Legends' aim assist also provides significant target-tracking assistance.

When an enemy moves horizontally, the player's aim can be assisted in following that movement. This means that part of the tracking skill that a MnK player has to perform manually can be partially handled by the game for a controller player.

This creates a situation where aim assist is not merely compensating for the limitations of the input device; it can also provide an advantage in one of the most important mechanical skills in an FPS: tracking a moving target.

I don't think the answer is simply to remove aim assist.

Instead, I would like to propose giving controller players an explicit trade-off for the additional consistency that aim assist provides.

The Proposal

When aim assist is actively assisting the player's aim, reduce the damage dealt by controller players.

For example:

• MnK: 100% damage
• Controller without significant AA assistance: 100% damage
• Controller while AA is strongly assisting the player's aim: approximately 75% damage

In other words:

Controller players receive easier aiming, while MnK players retain a higher damage ceiling when they successfully land their shots manually.

This would allow aim assist to continue serving its intended purpose without allowing the additional aiming assistance and full weapon damage to be obtained simultaneously.

Why 25%?

The 25% figure is not arbitrary.

The idea is to use the difference in hit rate between controller and MnK as the basis for determining the appropriate damage reduction.

For example, one large R5Reloaded dataset reported approximately:

• Controller: 33.57% average accuracy
• MnK: 25.72% average accuracy

This means controller players landed approximately 30.5% more shots relative to MnK.

If we take 1,000 shots as an example:

• MnK: ~257 hits
• Controller: ~336 hits

If controller damage is reduced to 75%:

336 × 0.75 = 252 effective damage units

That is remarkably close to the approximately 257 damage units produced by MnK.

Therefore, a 25% damage reduction is interesting because it approximately compensates for the observed difference in hit rate in this simplified example.

This does NOT mean that 25% should necessarily be the final number.

It is simply a starting hypothesis that can be tested against better and more representative data.

I Would Prefer Data-Driven Scaling

The most important part of this proposal is not necessarily the exact 25% number.

The final value should be determined using official game data.

Ideally, Respawn could compare controller and MnK performance across:

• 0–10m
• 10–20m
• 20–30m
• 30–50m
• 50m+

and measure:

• Accuracy
• Damage per shot
• Damage per magazine
• Time to kill
• 1v1 win rate
• Weapon-specific performance
• Average damage
• Target-tracking performance
• The amount of time during which aim assist is actively influencing the player's aim

This could reveal that a flat 25% reduction is unnecessary.

For example, if controller and MnK performance are nearly identical at long range but controller has a much larger advantage at close range, the damage reduction could scale with the strength of aim assist or the distance from the target.

An Important Distinction

I don't think controller players should simply receive a permanent "controller damage penalty."

That would be unfair to players who are genuinely aiming without relying heavily on aim assist.

Instead, I think the penalty should be connected to the amount of assistance actually being provided.

For example:

These numbers are only examples.

The actual values should be determined through testing.

This creates a much more interesting relationship:

More assistance → easier aiming → lower damage efficiency

Less assistance → harder aiming → higher damage efficiency

Why I Think This Could Be Better

This approach would preserve the positive purpose of aim assist.

A controller player who struggles with precise analog-stick aiming would still receive assistance.

At the same time, a highly skilled MnK player would retain an advantage for mastering precise manual tracking.

It would also create a skill progression for controller players:

"I can rely on aim assist to help me hit targets."

could gradually become:

"I have learned to control my aim well enough that I don't need as much assistance, so I can maximize my damage."

In that sense, aim assist becomes a tool for accessibility and consistency rather than something that directly competes with the mechanical skill ceiling of MnK.

The Goal Is Not "Make MnK OP"

I don't think MnK should simply be made stronger than controller in every situation.

The goal should be:

Controller

• Easier to achieve consistent accuracy
• Aim assist compensates for analog-stick limitations
• Lower maximum damage efficiency when heavily assisted

MnK

• More difficult to achieve consistent tracking
• No aim assistance
• Higher damage efficiency when the player successfully performs the required aiming skill

This creates a meaningful trade-off instead of simply deciding which input device is "better."

In my opinion, the ideal situation is:

Aim assist raises the floor for controller players, while MnK retains the higher mechanical ceiling.

That would make the existence of aim assist much easier to justify from a competitive standpoint.

I would encourage Respawn to test this concept internally using actual gameplay data rather than assuming that equal overall win rates necessarily mean the two input methods are equally balanced.

The important question isn't simply:

"Which input has a higher overall win rate?"

It is:

"How much of the player's aiming performance is being provided by the player, and how much is being provided by the game?"

That is the balance I would like to see investigated.