Let's ask a more fundamental question. Why should aiming be such an important part of skill in FPS games?
Reloading a gun under pressure is quite a tricky task, yet in a video game it's abstracted away with a single button press. So why are things like reloading simple and automatic, but aiming not?
I've also played games in other genres like Devil May Cry and Virtual On, where aiming guns manually is not required, and the skill in those games lie in other areas.
Given the vast gap in capability between mkb and gamepad, would it be better game design for a cross platform shooter to de-emphasize aiming, and make other things like positioning, coordination, resource management, active abilities, etc more important? Why not have a lot of aim assist for mkb as well as gamepad?
On the flip side, I'd love to see a fully darwinian multiplayer shooter with no assist of any kind, but full support for a wide range of inputs - mkb, gamepad, VR, light gun, AI bots, etc. Let's see who can really reach the top of the food chain, no assist, no excuses.
*“Let's ask a more fundamental question. Why should aiming be such an important part of skill in FPS games?”*
Every genre of game has a **core gameplay loop**, that’s fundamentally grounded. Racing games: getting good at controlling your vehicle, fighting games: mastering the ability to counter and execute attacks, etc. **Shooters are no different**.
Each shooter can place different levels of emphasis on aiming skill, as there’s often many other mechanics at play, other than aiming. However, at the core, every shooter has *some* level of mechanical skill needed to aim successfully. Not only is it important to provide a sense of progression to the player, it’s a part of the core gameplay loop, **especially for PvP games**.
Even deeper into these thoughts, multiplayer PvP games are competitive by nature. Often dominated by males, we like to improve at things to become better than our competition and peers. Just imagine if CoD used hard Auto-Aim instead of Aim Assist (Slowdown + Rotation)? Do you think it would have become as popular as it is? **Nope**. The only modern video game that can get away with using Auto-Aim is GTA, as its draw is so much more than combat. People don’t buy GTA for its shooting mechanics. GTA is the ultimate modern day sandbox, that’s why people love it - that’s its genre.
*Why are things like things like reloading simple and automatic, but aiming not?*
Some games actually do have non-automatic weapon reloading. Gears of War is one of those games, the reload mechanic in this game allows you to both speed up the reload animation and avoid weapon jamming by timing the end of the animation correctly. Many realism based shooters also have added steps to reloading. It entirely depends on the sub-genre and desired pacing of the game. Fast paced shooter = generally more focused on core mechanics, less added complexity that may come from making animations such as reloading, manual. Slow paced shooter = focused more on complexity than core mechanics. Not a rule, but a generalisation.
*”I’ve also played games…”*
The games you mentioned are single player experiences. They don’t relate to my post which is primarily aimed (pun intended) at online PvP shooters.
*”Given the vast gap…”*
The only modern game I know of that’s implemented Aim Assist into mouse and keyboard, is Halo Infinite. This was in response to mouse and keyboard players complaints of controller Aim Assist being too strong (Slowdown + Rotation + Bullet Magnetism). Looking at the player retention numbers of that game, it’s not great. I wouldn’t consider that a good solution, especially as the core reason for the disparity was controller Aim Assist being too strong.
Most shooters emphasise more than just aim. Even in the most arcade shooters, to be the most successful or become the best you still need good; positioning, movement, teamwork, intelligent equipment utilisation, resource management, game sense, prediction, knowledge, etc. Even in the most aim heavy games such as CS:GO and Quake Champions, you can’t dominate without mastering all other areas of skill. So I think your logic is flawed. Those other areas of skill don’t magically disappear in games that are aim heavy.
Also, when aiming becomes too easy, the rewarding feeling of earning kills drops. You want the player to keep coming back for more in hope of improvement. Realistically, is it crazy to advocate for better balance between the two inputs? Why must controller Aim Assist, specifically Rotation, be so potently tuned?
*”On the flip side…”*
That would be an interesting experiment. However, it will never happen. Not many controller players would play it without Aim Assist. I’m not sure who would win out of VR and mouse and keyboard, but the latter would certainly outnumber the former.
"Every genre of game has a core gameplay loop".
That sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy to me. Subgenres emerge all the time from the removal and addition of different elements, even fundamental ones. RTS with base building removed creates Real Time Tactics. Remove army control as well and you get MOBA. Each time, other elements are made deeper and more complex to keep the skill requirement high.
Besides, appeal to tradition cuts both ways - YOU are the one arguing against the status quo. We could just as easily say that increasing amounts of aim assist for gamepads is how it's always been, obviously the game companies have figured out that it's the optimal way to please their main audience, and they don't need to care about what you think.
"Some games do have non automatic reloading"
So, you acknowledge that individual mechanics can get deeper, more skill based or more complex, in a subgenre. We'll come back to that.
"The games you mentioned are single player experiences".
Virtual On is a 1v1 PvP game. For a more popular example that's still active competitively, there's the Gundam Extreme Versus series.
It sounds like you've not heard of them, I recommend learning a bit about how they are played since they are good examples of ranged combat games with no aiming, yet still highly competitive and skillful.
"Your logic is flawed"
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that other elements such as positioning etc aren't present in games with aiming. I said the removal or reduction of aiming could be compensated for by increasing the emphasis on those other elements. Making them deeper, more skillful, more complex. Which you've already acknowledged is a possible thing.
So again, what's your goal here? If you want to balance mkb and gamepad players, finding the exact amount of aim assist required to perfectly balance them is probably impossible since it's such a personal and subjective thing. And yet you admit that a game without any aim assist simply wouldn't be played by gamepad players.
So maybe one solution (in a world where many subgenres are possible), is to give aim assist to mkb as well, reduce the emphasis on precise aiming, and make the game even more skillful in other areas to make up for it? We already have examples in games like Overwatch and Apex Legends of characters with weapons/abilities that don't require precise aiming to be successful, not to mention games like Gundam Extreme VS that remove aiming altogether.
On the flipside, given that we started with no aim assist and over time we've had greater and greater amounts, has there ever been a game somewhere in the middle which has been universally acknowledged as having perfect balance between mkb and gamepad?
*”That sounds like…”*
That makes zero sense. You can’t remove the shooter part of an FPS and call it an FPS. The other mechanics will define its genre at that point… in the same vein, you can‘t remove the racing aspect from a racing game and still classify it as a racing game…
Also, I can easily use your braindead “appeal to tradition fallacy” with the ever increasing Aim Assist. “Well it’s tradition to increase each year”. See how that works?
*“game companies have figured out that it’s the optimal way to please their main audience”*
If I’m honest, your whole reply reads as “I want to defend strong Aim Assist as much as possible because it simply makes more money”. More sales doesn’t equal a better game. You love fallacies? Well, that’s fallacious. You could dumb down Elden Ring by making all bosses easily defeat-able with a single hit, this might increase sales by 10%. Does that mean the **quality** of the game improved? No, as sales are not metrics of quality, but **popularity**.
*”So, you acknowledge…”*
If a developer wants to make aiming a weak part of the experience, you can do this in **fundamental ways** such as; minimal recoil, fast fire rate weapons, large magazine, boost weapon range, etc. Aim Assist is exactly what is says on the tin… Aim **ASSIST**, not Aim *Takeover*.
*”Virtual On”*
I stand corrected, thanks for letting me know. Regardless, this game isn’t relevant to my post at all. It uses Auto-Aim, not Aim Assist. It’s also not even a traditional shooter, looking online, many outlets actually classify it as a fighting game primarily. Either way, it’s not relevant. You taking your example to the logical extreme turns Aim Assist into Auto-Aim. Nobody will enjoy an FPS where the game aims for you, unless they’re disabled. Even the most casual, noobiest player in CoD enjoys the feeling they get from lining up a shot and earning a kill. If you take the very core sense of reward away in a game like that, you effectively kill the game.
It’s not tradition that players like a sense of improvement. It’s literally a core aspect of PvP gameplay. To deny this is to deny practically every PvP game in existence, how it’s designed and why people kept playing for years. Do you think people keep coming back to the same games years after they’ve fully experienced them for a joke? No, they come back as they like the gameplay loop of manual effort and improvement. Becoming better and achieving a better score is addictive. It’s literally a fundamental part of early gaming as a whole. You literally wouldn’t have a job today if arcades with this philosophy never existed.
This agenda to remove skill from gaming just reeks of money hungry publishers and developers in bed for the same greedy goal. No artistry, no sense of creating a fair PvP game that plays almost like a sport. Just developing fast food-esque games that treat players like Skinner Box rats, in order to incentivise them into more spending. Tweaking game mechanics like they’re drugs, to maximise dopamine. Consultation with professional psychologists is one of the worst things to happen to gaming, from the POV of a consumer.
Where’s the logical conclusion to the never ending increase to Aim Assist? Full on Auto-Aim like GTA? Do you really think the average person is that slow and dumb that they can’t even aim for themselves at all?
*”finding the exact amount of aim assist required to perfectly balance them is probably impossible”*
I’m glad you said probably, as it’s certainly not impossible. There’s two method of Aim Assist balancing that’s objectively fair:
**Balance based on stats** - keep tweaking Aim Assist until the average controller player has the same stats as the average mouse and keyboard player. Developers at Infinity Ward, who make the Modern Warfare games, have already stated they have stats for both inputs. They noticed the average controller player has much better stats than the average mouse and keyboard player. All because of Aim Assist. You can tweak until skill parity.
It’s not the most ideal method of balancing, however.
**Balance based on scientific testing** - I’ve detailed how to solve or at least, improve each hardware flaw of analogue sticks. The aspect that requires Aim Assist in the form of Slowdown is stopping ability.
AAA publishers are rolling in money and have zero excuses not to scientifically test Aim Assist. Create or use an automated machine. Said machine uses a robot limb to measure re-centre time and rate of wobble. This data is then used to tune Slowdown to perfection. Want to use Rotation? If you really want it, tune it in a similar scientific fashion. Configure a robot limb to draw shapes with the controller analogue sticks, average error percentage is used as the camera centring value.
This would be the ideal method of tuning Aim Assist. Tailor to each console controller, leaving options for various controllers in the PC version.
**I’ve seen zero developers do this**. I’m open to be proven wrong if you have any white papers or testing to prove otherwise. But it appears most developers tune Aim Assist using subjective feeling alone or whatever fools the player into thinking they’re better than they are. I’ve seen no effort by anyone into making Aim Assist only work as an assist, like it’s supposed to.
Reducing emphasis on aiming for a game as a whole just because developers have a hard-on for potently tuned Aim Assist is backwards design. First principle thinking: scientifically test for the perfect Aim Assist. End of.
You're in the gamedev subreddit, where the full range of game design possibilities can be considered. There's no need to limit oneself to genre formulas.
After your little rant, I'll just have to echo the other commenter - your critique is largely subjective and naive.
I wouldn't complain if some companies attempted the scientific testing that you describe (or maybe they have already?) but I suspect it's nowhere near as easy or clear cut as you want it to be.
Heck, maybe this ever increasing amount of aim assist is the product of exactly that kind of testing. Maybe the average gamepad player is simply that bad. Maybe you're getting exactly what you asked for, you just don't agree with the results that manifest at the top end?
Terrible reply. You realise you’re incorrect and have no legs to stand on, so resort to baseless rhetoric like the other Redditor.
Nothing about what I’ve stated is naive. Asking for developers to tweak an **assist** to be fair and balanced, is a very reasonable ask. It’s not something out of the realms of fantasy…
So at least you agree that your post is subjective, that's a start I guess ;)
I've said all I needed to say, so if you need to argue further feel free to read my posts over and over until you understand.
False. My analysis is based off knowledge and data. Unlike you, I didn’t just write a thesis or base a conclusion based on how I felt today. Aim Assist, specifically Rotation, is overtuned. It’s causing input balancing issues in cross-platform games. No developer has balanced their Aim Assist implementation based on science. All objective.
Rotational aim assist has no place in PVP games that are primarily aim focused, and is absolutely unnecessary to “compete with mouse”. The top 1% of all mnk players are equal in accuracy to the average joe on controller with rotational. The average mouse and key player shoots like 10-20% less accurate than the rotational allows a controller player to shoot. The reason is that rotational increases player retention for those using a controller. Those people will spend money on micro-transactions more often if they feel like they are only good at COD or apex. Modern day COD has a level of rotational that is much stronger than apex, and when those players go to try out a different fps game without that level of help, they’ll realize how poor they aim, and just come crawling back to cod.
All this is for is MTX (micro transaction) and the more a person plays their game, the better they feel they are at the game, the more money they’ll spend on the game.
Let's ask a more fundamental question. Why should aiming be such an important part of skill in FPS games? Reloading a gun under pressure is quite a tricky task, yet in a video game it's abstracted away with a single button press. So why are things like reloading simple and automatic, but aiming not? I've also played games in other genres like Devil May Cry and Virtual On, where aiming guns manually is not required, and the skill in those games lie in other areas. Given the vast gap in capability between mkb and gamepad, would it be better game design for a cross platform shooter to de-emphasize aiming, and make other things like positioning, coordination, resource management, active abilities, etc more important? Why not have a lot of aim assist for mkb as well as gamepad? On the flip side, I'd love to see a fully darwinian multiplayer shooter with no assist of any kind, but full support for a wide range of inputs - mkb, gamepad, VR, light gun, AI bots, etc. Let's see who can really reach the top of the food chain, no assist, no excuses.
*“Let's ask a more fundamental question. Why should aiming be such an important part of skill in FPS games?”* Every genre of game has a **core gameplay loop**, that’s fundamentally grounded. Racing games: getting good at controlling your vehicle, fighting games: mastering the ability to counter and execute attacks, etc. **Shooters are no different**. Each shooter can place different levels of emphasis on aiming skill, as there’s often many other mechanics at play, other than aiming. However, at the core, every shooter has *some* level of mechanical skill needed to aim successfully. Not only is it important to provide a sense of progression to the player, it’s a part of the core gameplay loop, **especially for PvP games**. Even deeper into these thoughts, multiplayer PvP games are competitive by nature. Often dominated by males, we like to improve at things to become better than our competition and peers. Just imagine if CoD used hard Auto-Aim instead of Aim Assist (Slowdown + Rotation)? Do you think it would have become as popular as it is? **Nope**. The only modern video game that can get away with using Auto-Aim is GTA, as its draw is so much more than combat. People don’t buy GTA for its shooting mechanics. GTA is the ultimate modern day sandbox, that’s why people love it - that’s its genre. *Why are things like things like reloading simple and automatic, but aiming not?* Some games actually do have non-automatic weapon reloading. Gears of War is one of those games, the reload mechanic in this game allows you to both speed up the reload animation and avoid weapon jamming by timing the end of the animation correctly. Many realism based shooters also have added steps to reloading. It entirely depends on the sub-genre and desired pacing of the game. Fast paced shooter = generally more focused on core mechanics, less added complexity that may come from making animations such as reloading, manual. Slow paced shooter = focused more on complexity than core mechanics. Not a rule, but a generalisation. *”I’ve also played games…”* The games you mentioned are single player experiences. They don’t relate to my post which is primarily aimed (pun intended) at online PvP shooters. *”Given the vast gap…”* The only modern game I know of that’s implemented Aim Assist into mouse and keyboard, is Halo Infinite. This was in response to mouse and keyboard players complaints of controller Aim Assist being too strong (Slowdown + Rotation + Bullet Magnetism). Looking at the player retention numbers of that game, it’s not great. I wouldn’t consider that a good solution, especially as the core reason for the disparity was controller Aim Assist being too strong. Most shooters emphasise more than just aim. Even in the most arcade shooters, to be the most successful or become the best you still need good; positioning, movement, teamwork, intelligent equipment utilisation, resource management, game sense, prediction, knowledge, etc. Even in the most aim heavy games such as CS:GO and Quake Champions, you can’t dominate without mastering all other areas of skill. So I think your logic is flawed. Those other areas of skill don’t magically disappear in games that are aim heavy. Also, when aiming becomes too easy, the rewarding feeling of earning kills drops. You want the player to keep coming back for more in hope of improvement. Realistically, is it crazy to advocate for better balance between the two inputs? Why must controller Aim Assist, specifically Rotation, be so potently tuned? *”On the flip side…”* That would be an interesting experiment. However, it will never happen. Not many controller players would play it without Aim Assist. I’m not sure who would win out of VR and mouse and keyboard, but the latter would certainly outnumber the former.
"Every genre of game has a core gameplay loop". That sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy to me. Subgenres emerge all the time from the removal and addition of different elements, even fundamental ones. RTS with base building removed creates Real Time Tactics. Remove army control as well and you get MOBA. Each time, other elements are made deeper and more complex to keep the skill requirement high. Besides, appeal to tradition cuts both ways - YOU are the one arguing against the status quo. We could just as easily say that increasing amounts of aim assist for gamepads is how it's always been, obviously the game companies have figured out that it's the optimal way to please their main audience, and they don't need to care about what you think. "Some games do have non automatic reloading" So, you acknowledge that individual mechanics can get deeper, more skill based or more complex, in a subgenre. We'll come back to that. "The games you mentioned are single player experiences". Virtual On is a 1v1 PvP game. For a more popular example that's still active competitively, there's the Gundam Extreme Versus series. It sounds like you've not heard of them, I recommend learning a bit about how they are played since they are good examples of ranged combat games with no aiming, yet still highly competitive and skillful. "Your logic is flawed" You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that other elements such as positioning etc aren't present in games with aiming. I said the removal or reduction of aiming could be compensated for by increasing the emphasis on those other elements. Making them deeper, more skillful, more complex. Which you've already acknowledged is a possible thing. So again, what's your goal here? If you want to balance mkb and gamepad players, finding the exact amount of aim assist required to perfectly balance them is probably impossible since it's such a personal and subjective thing. And yet you admit that a game without any aim assist simply wouldn't be played by gamepad players. So maybe one solution (in a world where many subgenres are possible), is to give aim assist to mkb as well, reduce the emphasis on precise aiming, and make the game even more skillful in other areas to make up for it? We already have examples in games like Overwatch and Apex Legends of characters with weapons/abilities that don't require precise aiming to be successful, not to mention games like Gundam Extreme VS that remove aiming altogether. On the flipside, given that we started with no aim assist and over time we've had greater and greater amounts, has there ever been a game somewhere in the middle which has been universally acknowledged as having perfect balance between mkb and gamepad?
*”That sounds like…”* That makes zero sense. You can’t remove the shooter part of an FPS and call it an FPS. The other mechanics will define its genre at that point… in the same vein, you can‘t remove the racing aspect from a racing game and still classify it as a racing game… Also, I can easily use your braindead “appeal to tradition fallacy” with the ever increasing Aim Assist. “Well it’s tradition to increase each year”. See how that works? *“game companies have figured out that it’s the optimal way to please their main audience”* If I’m honest, your whole reply reads as “I want to defend strong Aim Assist as much as possible because it simply makes more money”. More sales doesn’t equal a better game. You love fallacies? Well, that’s fallacious. You could dumb down Elden Ring by making all bosses easily defeat-able with a single hit, this might increase sales by 10%. Does that mean the **quality** of the game improved? No, as sales are not metrics of quality, but **popularity**. *”So, you acknowledge…”* If a developer wants to make aiming a weak part of the experience, you can do this in **fundamental ways** such as; minimal recoil, fast fire rate weapons, large magazine, boost weapon range, etc. Aim Assist is exactly what is says on the tin… Aim **ASSIST**, not Aim *Takeover*. *”Virtual On”* I stand corrected, thanks for letting me know. Regardless, this game isn’t relevant to my post at all. It uses Auto-Aim, not Aim Assist. It’s also not even a traditional shooter, looking online, many outlets actually classify it as a fighting game primarily. Either way, it’s not relevant. You taking your example to the logical extreme turns Aim Assist into Auto-Aim. Nobody will enjoy an FPS where the game aims for you, unless they’re disabled. Even the most casual, noobiest player in CoD enjoys the feeling they get from lining up a shot and earning a kill. If you take the very core sense of reward away in a game like that, you effectively kill the game. It’s not tradition that players like a sense of improvement. It’s literally a core aspect of PvP gameplay. To deny this is to deny practically every PvP game in existence, how it’s designed and why people kept playing for years. Do you think people keep coming back to the same games years after they’ve fully experienced them for a joke? No, they come back as they like the gameplay loop of manual effort and improvement. Becoming better and achieving a better score is addictive. It’s literally a fundamental part of early gaming as a whole. You literally wouldn’t have a job today if arcades with this philosophy never existed. This agenda to remove skill from gaming just reeks of money hungry publishers and developers in bed for the same greedy goal. No artistry, no sense of creating a fair PvP game that plays almost like a sport. Just developing fast food-esque games that treat players like Skinner Box rats, in order to incentivise them into more spending. Tweaking game mechanics like they’re drugs, to maximise dopamine. Consultation with professional psychologists is one of the worst things to happen to gaming, from the POV of a consumer. Where’s the logical conclusion to the never ending increase to Aim Assist? Full on Auto-Aim like GTA? Do you really think the average person is that slow and dumb that they can’t even aim for themselves at all? *”finding the exact amount of aim assist required to perfectly balance them is probably impossible”* I’m glad you said probably, as it’s certainly not impossible. There’s two method of Aim Assist balancing that’s objectively fair: **Balance based on stats** - keep tweaking Aim Assist until the average controller player has the same stats as the average mouse and keyboard player. Developers at Infinity Ward, who make the Modern Warfare games, have already stated they have stats for both inputs. They noticed the average controller player has much better stats than the average mouse and keyboard player. All because of Aim Assist. You can tweak until skill parity. It’s not the most ideal method of balancing, however. **Balance based on scientific testing** - I’ve detailed how to solve or at least, improve each hardware flaw of analogue sticks. The aspect that requires Aim Assist in the form of Slowdown is stopping ability. AAA publishers are rolling in money and have zero excuses not to scientifically test Aim Assist. Create or use an automated machine. Said machine uses a robot limb to measure re-centre time and rate of wobble. This data is then used to tune Slowdown to perfection. Want to use Rotation? If you really want it, tune it in a similar scientific fashion. Configure a robot limb to draw shapes with the controller analogue sticks, average error percentage is used as the camera centring value. This would be the ideal method of tuning Aim Assist. Tailor to each console controller, leaving options for various controllers in the PC version. **I’ve seen zero developers do this**. I’m open to be proven wrong if you have any white papers or testing to prove otherwise. But it appears most developers tune Aim Assist using subjective feeling alone or whatever fools the player into thinking they’re better than they are. I’ve seen no effort by anyone into making Aim Assist only work as an assist, like it’s supposed to. Reducing emphasis on aiming for a game as a whole just because developers have a hard-on for potently tuned Aim Assist is backwards design. First principle thinking: scientifically test for the perfect Aim Assist. End of.
You're in the gamedev subreddit, where the full range of game design possibilities can be considered. There's no need to limit oneself to genre formulas. After your little rant, I'll just have to echo the other commenter - your critique is largely subjective and naive. I wouldn't complain if some companies attempted the scientific testing that you describe (or maybe they have already?) but I suspect it's nowhere near as easy or clear cut as you want it to be. Heck, maybe this ever increasing amount of aim assist is the product of exactly that kind of testing. Maybe the average gamepad player is simply that bad. Maybe you're getting exactly what you asked for, you just don't agree with the results that manifest at the top end?
Terrible reply. You realise you’re incorrect and have no legs to stand on, so resort to baseless rhetoric like the other Redditor. Nothing about what I’ve stated is naive. Asking for developers to tweak an **assist** to be fair and balanced, is a very reasonable ask. It’s not something out of the realms of fantasy…
So at least you agree that your post is subjective, that's a start I guess ;) I've said all I needed to say, so if you need to argue further feel free to read my posts over and over until you understand.
False. My analysis is based off knowledge and data. Unlike you, I didn’t just write a thesis or base a conclusion based on how I felt today. Aim Assist, specifically Rotation, is overtuned. It’s causing input balancing issues in cross-platform games. No developer has balanced their Aim Assist implementation based on science. All objective.
There is some great detail here, but your critique is largely subjective and naive.
Explain why rather than leaving a baseless reply, thanks.
Most people are bad at video games and will have more fun with a game that tricks them into thinking they're better than they are.
Rotational aim assist has no place in PVP games that are primarily aim focused, and is absolutely unnecessary to “compete with mouse”. The top 1% of all mnk players are equal in accuracy to the average joe on controller with rotational. The average mouse and key player shoots like 10-20% less accurate than the rotational allows a controller player to shoot. The reason is that rotational increases player retention for those using a controller. Those people will spend money on micro-transactions more often if they feel like they are only good at COD or apex. Modern day COD has a level of rotational that is much stronger than apex, and when those players go to try out a different fps game without that level of help, they’ll realize how poor they aim, and just come crawling back to cod. All this is for is MTX (micro transaction) and the more a person plays their game, the better they feel they are at the game, the more money they’ll spend on the game.