Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Gradual decreasing aim assist.
  • Subject: Gradual decreasing aim assist.
Subject: Gradual decreasing aim assist.

Now many of you want to get rid of aim assist but why not change it. I think if instead of just suddenly make the aim assist dissapear at a certain distance why not make it gradually dissapear? Like if someon is 5 meters away from you there will be more aim assist than there would be at 10. Now I know that someone will say that the targets get smaller making it harder to hit them. But I think this would help for players that can aim well but can still get killed by someone that sucks at aiming because of the aim assist. If you have any comments please post them.

  • 11.11.2009 1:28 PM PDT

Do you really care? you can't automatically see my signature anyway.

I would have to agree with you and as a side note anyone who thinks they should completely get rid of aim assist is a freaking moron. you can't shot anyone (to an extent) without aim assist. h1 did have aim assist. every shooter with a controller peripheral has aim assist.

[Edited on 11.11.2009 1:34 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2009 1:33 PM PDT

Posted by: Spearmint
I would have to agree with you and as a side note anyone who thinks they should completely get rid of aim assist is a freaking moron. you can't shot anyone (to an extent) without aim assist. h1 did have aim assist. every shooter with a controller peripheral has aim assist.

the only way you can play a game without aim assist is with a mouse on the computer (not the furry thing.)

  • 11.11.2009 1:37 PM PDT

That sounds like a good idea.

  • 11.11.2009 2:27 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

If anything your idea should be reversed. Rewarding people with a bunch of AA for being close is a bit much I think. It would remove balance on weapons like the Sniper and Shotgun. Rather, decreasing AA at closer ranges smooths out the curve for aim. A closer person is a bigger target, hence less need for AA as apposed to long range. Of course even with such a mechanic at extreme ranges AA shouldn't even be a factor.

  • 11.11.2009 2:29 PM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
If anything your idea should be reversed. Rewarding people with a bunch of AA for being close is a bit much I think. It would remove balance on weapons like the Sniper and Shotgun. Rather, decreasing AA at closer ranges smooths out the curve for aim. A closer person is a bigger target, hence less need for AA as apposed to long range. Of course even with such a mechanic at extreme ranges AA shouldn't even be a factor.

Maybe but I wanted it to be harder to hit at around medium range like maybe 30 meters instead of it just being a tad harder like it is in halo 3.

  • 11.11.2009 2:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I agree with what was said, that aim assist needs to be in the game. Aim assist was in H1, but it was a lot less prevalent compared to what we have now, but it was enough. Not too much so that it gave you kills, but just enough.

I like your idea, but perhaps instead of making a blanket statement about aim assist decreasing with distance, you should think of it more on a weapon to weapon basis. You could do it one of two ways. I'll explain using the sniper:

1. Sniper gets moderate aim assist at close range, but gets close to none at longer ranges. I know this sounds backwards, but even in H2 where you had a lot of aim assist AND magnetism, it was relatively difficult to no-scope. At long distances where the gun already has a huge advantage because that's it's dominant range, less assist would keep it from being dominate in unskilled hands, but a beast in the proper hands of skill.

Import the SMG where I talked about the sniper. At longer ranges it would have more aim assist, allowing it to at least do some damage, but at closer distances it would get minimal aim assist. This means at closer ranges, it would take skill to use what would otherwise be a spray and pray weapon, and at longer ranges it helps it to have some affect where there would otherwise be none. Weapons like the BR, on the other hand, would get minimal assist at medium range, but a little assist at longer ranges and shorter ranges (since it starts off in the middile, this weapon would actually get the least auto assist overall since it doesn't have the extremes). I think it's a good way to make worthless guns at least do something, and help weapons in their range to take some more skill. Weapons are already intended to dominate in their range (nothing touches shotgun in it's range, sniper in its range, etc), so why not make them take some skill to use in their range?

2. You could do this the other way, making the sniper have a lot of aim assist at long ranges, making it utterly dominate, and then giving it absolutely none at close range. I actually dislike this more because it causes guns to be too good.



Mix the reticule size with a fluctuating aim assist (different weapons have strong aim assists and weak aim assist at different ranges, however you so decide), and you can balance out guns pretty well. I'm not opposed to a blanket aim assist across the board (which I propose to be as little as needed), I'm just trying to toy around with your idea.

[Edited on 11.11.2009 3:52 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2009 3:46 PM PDT

Reachhhhhhhh

I also want something like this for the BR, or just some way to make the BR a less common choice. Like, right now, picking up a BR in exchange for the AR start is just instinct to us, and I don't like that. Maybe we could also make the BR less accurate. I mean it seriously is an ALL-RANGE sniper. It beats everything.

  • 11.11.2009 3:52 PM PDT

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I agree with what was said, that aim assist needs to be in the game. Aim assist was in H1, but it was a lot less prevalent compared to what we have now, but it was enough. Not too much so that it gave you kills, but just enough.

I like your idea, but perhaps instead of making a blanket statement about aim assist decreasing with distance, you should think of it more on a weapon to weapon basis. You could do it one of two ways. I'll explain using the sniper:

1. Sniper gets moderate aim assist at close range, but gets close to none at longer ranges. I know this sounds backwards, but even in H2 where you had a lot of aim assist AND magnetism, it was relatively difficult to no-scope. At long distances where the gun already has a huge advantage because that's it's dominant range, less assist would keep it from being dominate in unskilled hands, but a beast in the proper hands of skill.

Import the SMG where I talked about the sniper. At longer ranges it would have more aim assist, allowing it to at least do some damage, but at closer distances it would get minimal aim assist. This means at closer ranges, it would take skill to use what would otherwise be a spray and pray weapon, and at longer ranges it helps it to have some affect where there would otherwise be none. Weapons like the BR, on the other hand, would get minimal assist at medium range, but a little assist at longer ranges and shorter ranges (since it starts off in the middile, this weapon would actually get the least auto assist overall since it doesn't have the extremes). I think it's a good way to make worthless guns at least do something, and help weapons in their range to take some more skill. Weapons are already intended to dominate in their range (nothing touches shotgun in it's range, sniper in its range, etc), so why not make them take some skill to use in their range?

2. You could do this the other way, making the sniper have a lot of aim assist at long ranges, making it utterly dominate, and then giving it absolutely none at close range. I actually dislike this more because it causes guns to be too good.



Mix the reticule size with a fluctuating aim assist (different weapons have strong aim assists and weak aim assist at different ranges, however you so decide), and you can balance out guns pretty well. I'm not opposed to a blanket aim assist across the board (which I propose to be as little as needed), I'm just trying to toy around with your idea.

I see what you're getting at. However, I sort of like the blanket idea a little better. It's just less complex. But with power weapons this would be a good idea. Like you said the sniper would be one of those guns. I think there should be almost no way to no scope though. It is kind of unfair that the sniper can operate like a mauler in good hands, and a shotgun in an expert's, but I agree about the aim assist should be low when zooming in. I would think that if they are closer there would be a little aim assist but when they are far away there would close to none.

  • 11.13.2009 5:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Eagleznest
You wouldn't have to worry about the complexity at all. Bungie would just program in an increasing grade. So let's say for every ten meters from X farther, the aim assist increases by Y. For every 10 meters closer it decreases by Z. This is a blanket tool. The only thing they'd have to change would be 1) the reference point. So for a shotgun the starting reference point may be 5 m, while for a sniper it may be 200m. AND 2) they'd have to reverse this for long ranged weapon, as the aforementioned formula (decrease with distance) would be for CQ weapons. It's really quite simple.

I don't mind if you think a blanket autoaim (or lack thereof) would be good. I was just trying to put out some food for thought. I don't know what I think, though I do think my suggestion has the potential to balance out weapons, or at least be a factor they could use to balance weapons.

It does suck that the sniper could be used for CQ, but it takes a lot of skill to do so, for the most part. Generally, I don't really care too much whose idea they use, they just need to take down the autoaim in general. I think the strongest autoaim in my system they should use would be the current strength. They've decreased it from H2, but it's still there quite noticeably. We can't take it completely out, or it would be horrible, but it should be changed.

  • 11.13.2009 5:37 PM PDT