Aim Assist
Haven't played the game for a while but with sadness I can see that the Aim Assist is still there, ruining the game to all M&K players. Not saying that you should remove it but in the way it is, it's...
Forum Discussion
1. Raw data of multiple players were taken, so all these percentages already include all other variables like game sense, good and bad days etc. etc. That's why it is not a statistic where data is extrapolated e.g. take 10 people and if controller players win 6 out of 10 conclude that 60% of all player base will win 60% of the fights if using a controller. No here it clearly says that from the data sample including all its variables controllers dominated mentioned percentage of close-range fights.
2. Hard to comment, no results in google or Reddit (official) - probably another guarded secret of EA we can only guess. My guess, the assumption is based on what I have seen in-game and on youtube - AA kicking in ~ sub-30-meter range.
3. and 4. skipped - as mentioned before subjective points we will never agree on given we have different experiences and countless "proofs" of our point.
No one is saying that AA does the aiming for you like full-on aimbot does, yet it is as clear that it does help and borderline between it and softer settings on aimbot in hands of a good player (with tracking skills) are quite blurred.
In one of the topics in the forums (can't find it now, too many discussions about this) I actually went to rewatch and measured the distance I was missing my shots when tracking - results showed that on average on my 31.5" screen on 2k resolution I was missing my shots by <50 mm on-screen (didn't bother to convert that to pixels), the distance that is well inside AA territory. Thus my point was and still is that if I get my aim to the same level on the controller that it is now on MNK (and it is not godlike by far) majority of these shots would be on target and I would clearly back up the stats from the research = win more close-range fights because I mean all of us have heard and even seen when you are the last man to die that enemy after close fight literally is 1 shot => I need the AA to put 1-3 shots on target vs current result which is not much e.g. R99 takes ~20 shots to kill fully equipped enemy meaning missing 1-3 shots is a margin of 15% or less which makes the difference between winning 1v1 or losing it.
Same as in sports 15% might sound not much, yet when you are at the top level in whatever even 1.5% is an advantage be it 1.5% of a 2 min lap time in F1 or MotoGP, 1.5% of 10 seconds 100-meter run, 1.5% of lifted 400 kg deadlift or 200 kg Olympic lift... it makes a difference between winner and loser, 15% makes probably a difference closer to amateur vs elite pro.
This is why people like me would like a choice to disable cross-play to avoid a need to overcome 1.5, 15, 40 or 60% difference in aiming on daily basis. See it as a weight division in appropriate sports or gender separation e.g. even if a woman wants to fight a man in a boxing ring or participate in the same even of weight lifting she will not be accepted (easily) no matter what because rules are rules be it X kg weight limit of a participant or gender, same goes in Apex and cross-play.
Finally about implementation - well from what I have seen before in FPS games similar to Apex that had/had not code built in the game to exploit it as a hack I can say that the easiest way to force the hack is by changing already existing command's variable e.g. aimbot effect from 40/60% to 100 or if possible crank it up even higher (which might result in those videos of Apex tracking bullets), same goes with wallhack.
If such commands are not present in the game then it is clear that hack developers have to come up with a way to A) infiltrate the command B) make the engine understand the logic, which is harder, yet Apex as far as I know is based on Quake engine which unfortunately is a well know for decades now to developers and hackers so really AA existence just makes life much easier same as bloods or lobas abilities to implement on the one hand cool gameplay, on the other hand, cool working undetectable hacks.
Sure EA could have done something similar to what Blizzard did with Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 - if not mistaken still uncracked games, not sure about hackers in them though but still they did already great leap by making them uncrackable. Yet this is debatable - coulda should woulda - disabling or making cross-play optional clearly is an easier task and possible already in the next split just by altering matchmaking logic.
@Eshshshss
1. No, just because the data was taken from multiple players it does not rule out variability in the data. You cannot use large case studies like this with limited control to analyze something. You need to pit apples to apples. This data does not take into affect (or at least I don't think it does) player starting health, player mag count, player movement (ie if the player(s) in the gun fight are moving), how many shots came from one another (ie a 1v1 or a 1v1+). The type of data used in this study is purely for insight (meaning, general explanation without knowing the root cause) which studies like this usually lead to more controllable studies which target specific hypothesis. "Is a controller dominating at close ranges" would be a very difficult hypothesis to answer. You need to refine the hypothesis, but use the data from this study to do so.
2. Agreed, its really hard to say. Not sure we can discuss that here unless we go into firing range and do our own tests.
3. Fair enough. 🙂
You wrote: "No one is saying that AA does the aiming for you like full-on aimbot does, yet it is as clear that it does help and borderline between it and softer settings on aimbot in hands of a good player (with tracking skills) are quite blurred."
This is where I disagree. It does not take a "good" player and make them pro. Nor would it make a "pro" player and turn them bad. Later I provide specific details into this statement I make.
You wrote: "...Thus my point was and still is that if I get my aim to the same level on the controller that it is now on MNK (and it is not godlike by far) majority of these shots would be on target and I would clearly back up the stats from the research = win more close-range fights..." -
This is not how AA works tho. If you are missing those shots, AA will not bring the reticle to the enemy and thus allow you to make your hits. I have proof later on this. In addition, resolution and monitor size to matter in terms of AA. This is what is known as DPI (dots per inch) how many pixels occupy an inch of the monitor. Now I am not saying one person on specific settings will get better AA than another, but what I am saying is your measurements need to be in pixels not mm of your monitor.
You wrote: "Finally about implementation..."
I do not think they use AA as an exploit for actual hacks. There are games like valorent and others that don't exist for console that still have aimbot. Hacks I find need to be another conversation, but they do not relate to aim assist. Also, its not coulda shoulda woulda, they can still implement ways to detect aim bots/hacking. However, on console, one could use a strike pack controller, this will be VERY difficult to circumvent. But this ruins it for all players not just PC players on crossplay lobbies.
Now, here I discuss a more appropriate study to help identify the aim assist ability. Instead of looking at win/loss of input types (MNK, Controller), we need to look at ACCURACY. This will tell us which one is hitting their shots more instead of who is winning the fight. One can win fights because the other is of lower health, being shot from multiple people, etc. This will also eliminate the affect of "one clip kills", cause one clip with a spitfire is nowhere near the same as an R99.
Here I made a video of me playing on PC where AA is supposedly 0.4. It does very little in helping me land my shots. This video is what I am talking about when I ask for evidence and unbiased details.
https://youtu.be/uyZw-3l4tus
Also, my arguments have never been against giving players the option to turn off cross play. My argument has and always will be about the performance of AA and players on controller.
1. No, just because the data was taken from multiple players it does not rule out variability in the data. You cannot use large case studies like this with limited control to analyze something. You need to pit apples to apples. This data does not take into affect (or at least I don't think it does) player starting health, player mag count, player movement (ie if the player(s) in the gun fight are moving), how many shots came from one another (ie a 1v1 or a 1v1+). The type of data used in this study is purely for insight (meaning, general explanation without knowing the root cause) which studies like this usually lead to more controllable studies which target specific hypothesis. "Is a controller dominating at close ranges" would be a very difficult hypothesis to answer. You need to refine the hypothesis, but use the data from this study to do so.
2. Agreed, its really hard to say. Not sure we can discuss that here unless we go into firing range and do our own tests.
3. Fair enough. 🙂
You wrote: "No one is saying that AA does the aiming for you like full-on aimbot does, yet it is as clear that it does help and borderline between it and softer settings on aimbot in hands of a good player (with tracking skills) are quite blurred."
This is where I disagree. It does not take a "good" player and make them pro. Nor would it make a "pro" player and turn them bad. Later I provide specific details into this statement I make.
You wrote: "...Thus my point was and still is that if I get my aim to the same level on the controller that it is now on MNK (and it is not godlike by far) majority of these shots would be on target and I would clearly back up the stats from the research = win more close-range fights..." -
This is not how AA works tho. If you are missing those shots, AA will not bring the reticle to the enemy and thus allow you to make your hits. I have proof later on this. In addition, resolution and monitor size to matter in terms of AA. This is what is known as DPI (dots per inch) how many pixels occupy an inch of the monitor. Now I am not saying one person on specific settings will get better AA than another, but what I am saying is your measurements need to be in pixels not mm of your monitor.
You wrote: "Finally about implementation..."
I do not think they use AA as an exploit for actual hacks. There are games like valorent and others that don't exist for console that still have aimbot. Hacks I find need to be another conversation, but they do not relate to aim assist. Also, its not coulda shoulda woulda, they can still implement ways to detect aim bots/hacking. However, on console, one could use a strike pack controller, this will be VERY difficult to circumvent. But this ruins it for all players not just PC players on crossplay lobbies.
Now, here I discuss a more appropriate study to help identify the aim assist ability. Instead of looking at win/loss of input types (MNK, Controller), we need to look at ACCURACY. This will tell us which one is hitting their shots more instead of who is winning the fight. One can win fights because the other is of lower health, being shot from multiple people, etc. This will also eliminate the affect of "one clip kills", cause one clip with a spitfire is nowhere near the same as an R99.
Here I made a video of me playing on PC where AA is supposedly 0.4. It does very little in helping me land my shots. This video is what I am talking about when I ask for evidence and unbiased details.
https://youtu.be/uyZw-3l4tus
Also, my arguments have never been against giving players the option to turn off cross play. My argument has and always will be about the performance of AA and players on controller.
1. sure we can nitpick every detail like that, in this case, no study actually shows anything except ones that can be replicated to a 100% accuracy, same variables over and over again... geez.
Plus your arguments posted here can work for and against each input, that's why it is a study, which on the one hand tries to get as much data as possible at the same time not surveying for 100 years to cover all possible scenarios which in turn is done via data extrapolation.
I brought this up either in this thread or similar before - you can't just clone two players and make them 100% equally skilled, then give one MNK other controller and get final results regarding what is better, not in this world.
2. regarding the all points made about AA... dude clearly you are preaching your idea and missing a lot of points that I make during my posts. Please re-read my posts, don't want to rewrite them with highlights, etc.
Thanks for the video, comments on that one from my side:
- you are playing arenas - in my opinion, less competitive environment than BR plus most of the fights take place in close range no matter the map or team composition - can't compare how good/bad players are in mid/long range
- you are playing regular arenas = skill level of yours as well as enemies are questionable here, as said in my previous posts I would tend to think that controller = AA makes an average player reach a good player level almost instantly, yet in the hands of a bad play it is still bad
- regarding what AA does, here is my explanation using a screenshot from your video: https://prnt.sc/25opgjl <- green line is the path of your cursor, red lines are what usually happens with me on MNK. AA does implement a slight delay, let's call it breaks when you approach a target and while MNK just overshoots it most of the time, the controller player has constant feedback that "hey you need to slow down now" which is the essential part in close range fights. Here is me with Eva on D4 level: https://youtu.be/io5UXU1J2o0 <- slow it down if needed and see how I overshot all 4 times, potentially getting 1 complete no-reg, potentially 1 more partial which would not make much of a difference to be honest.
Official reply https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/Shots-not-registering/m-p/10701930#M69733 game has predictive logics, crosshair can't be trusted, if you hipfire bullet spread is not indicative to the crosshair. Basically what I get out of this info and more I read on the topic is that in Apex due to how servers work when you shoot an enemy game still predicts a lot of stuff like was enemy actually there, how random was bullet spread if you did hipfire, accordingly it can reg full hit, partial or no-reg.
In my opinion (guess and potential discussion for the next topic) - AA also helps, forces the game to predict hits more accurately more often than not. E.g. you have 1v1 with Eva - you keep hitting 7s and 9s while other player hits 60+ constantly thanks to AA/game prediction.
@Eshshshss I appreciate that you show a little of what a typical PC player can do in close combat. It's nowhere near enough but it's helpful to compare what PC is capable of at both ranges for these discussions.
Featured Places
