4 ms·

It's not the bullet that "homes", it's your crosshair that has a bit of stickyness. If someone walks by you slowly it'll grab on to them and follow it. You ne

It's not the bullet that "homes", it's your crosshair that has a bit of stickyness. If someone walks by you slowly it'll grab on to them and follow it. You need a little bit of auto aim because aiming with your thumbs (joystick) isn't as accurate as a your wrist (mouse). It's the reason why sweep shooting works so well. Sweep your crosshairs across the screen, pull the trigger when it crosses something, it'll hold onto them slightly as it goes by. You can still be more accurate on a PC without autoaim vs a console with. > Besides, no one plays FPS games to practice joystick control or aim Not really true. They do to be better among their peers, doesn't matter if there are PC players out there, irrelevant. Auto aim is simply necessary to fix a limitation in the hardware, sometimes it gets in the way, most of the time it helps with frustration of the dead area of the joystick.

p1necone 5y ago
This is true with a lot of console FPS games, but Halos auto aim is more complicated/intentionally designed than average. Halo does a bunch of things to make aiming easier on a controller, sticky crosshairs and homing bullets are both involved.
Buttons840 5y ago
Its probably both, but even without the auto tracking you describe, it's still quite possible for the space within a single pixel to be mostly misses. If someone positions their cursor in this single pixel, the game gives them the benefit of the doubt and counts it as a hit.
idonotknowwhy 5y ago
It's both actually. I play mcc on PC. Controller players get that very obvious cross hair aim you mention, and keyboard/mouse players don't. That's why all the pro players use controller, a 150ms latency human can't compete with the aimbot. But there's also subtle bullet magnetism, for both controller and kb/mouse players. There are YouTube videos demonstrating this if you're interested. I prefer keyboard/mouse which puts me at a disadvantage but I'm not a pro player so I don't mind.
- anthk 5y ago
  Quake players say otherwise. PC players destroyed the console ones.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Quake autoaim is far weaker than Halo's autoaim. Console games generally have much more autoaim, to the point where people kinda call them "defacto aimbots".
dragontamer 5y ago
> Not really true. They do to be better among their peers, doesn't matter if there are PC players out there, irrelevant. If you really wanted to be a player without autoaim / bullet magnetism / all the stuff Halo "aimbots" into your controller, you'd be playing Counterstrike. But no, people play Halo. Because people like (subtle) aimbots making their headshots more consistent. Games like Halo (and other FPS games that came after Halo, such as Battlefront or Call of Duty) all take this auto-aim concept to varying degrees. Its now a staple of modern FPS games. ------ But yes, I recall the "mouse practice" people would do to get better aim on Counterstrike. Those headshots don't happen by themselves: there's a lot of "move the mouse" practice in Microsoft-paint (practice moving one pixel at a time or whatever), and learning the positions of your wrist. Most people don't care about that level of dedication or practice. I think it suffices to say that typical FPS gamers today prefer the subtle aimbot to handle that level of muscle memory. I'm being a bit hyperbolic. Obviously the "Counterstrike" players and community cares about this stuff. That's why they still play Counterstrike. But I also am ready to admit that their community is a small minority of players in the greater FPS genre. ------- "360 No Scope" happens to take advantage of this bullet magnetism / autoaim as well. Moving the reticle quickly IIRC engages the auto-aim bot a bit more. > It's the reason why sweep shooting works so well. Sweep your crosshairs across the screen, pull the trigger when it crosses something, it'll hold onto them slightly as it goes by. The game's "auto-aim" system effectively fires two bullets for each frame. If your target is "between" the two bullets, then it counts as a hit. Sweep-shooting is moving the crosshairs really fast, so that these two "bullets" are spaced as far apart as possible. So you've grown the auto-aim area.
- chrischen 5y ago
  > But no, people play Halo. Because people like (subtle) aimbots making their headshots more consistent. Valorant, a counter-strike like game, is actually more popular than the current Halo game. And let's not forget PUBG, originally a PC-only game, that was wildly popular. No aimbot in there either and not only was there no auto-aim, bullets don't even go where you click because they obeyed physics!
  - dragontamer 5y ago

p1necone 5y ago

This is true with a lot of console FPS games, but Halos auto aim is more complicated/intentionally designed than average. Halo does a bunch of things to make aiming easier on a controller, sticky crosshairs and homing bullets are both involved.

Buttons840 5y ago

Its probably both, but even without the auto tracking you describe, it's still quite possible for the space within a single pixel to be mostly misses. If someone positions their cursor in this single pixel, the game gives them the benefit of the doubt and counts it as a hit.

idonotknowwhy 5y ago

It's both actually. I play mcc on PC. Controller players get that very obvious cross hair aim you mention, and keyboard/mouse players don't. That's why all the pro players use controller, a 150ms latency human can't compete with the aimbot. But there's also subtle bullet magnetism, for both controller and kb/mouse players. There are YouTube videos demonstrating this if you're interested. I prefer keyboard/mouse which puts me at a disadvantage but I'm not a pro player so I don't mind.

anthk 5y ago
Quake players say otherwise. PC players destroyed the console ones.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Quake autoaim is far weaker than Halo's autoaim. Console games generally have much more autoaim, to the point where people kinda call them "defacto aimbots".

dragontamer 5y ago

> Not really true. They do to be better among their peers, doesn't matter if there are PC players out there, irrelevant. If you really wanted to be a player without autoaim / bullet magnetism / all the stuff Halo "aimbots" into your controller, you'd be playing Counterstrike. But no, people play Halo. Because people like (subtle) aimbots making their headshots more consistent. Games like Halo (and other FPS games that came after Halo, such as Battlefront or Call of Duty) all take this auto-aim concept to varying degrees. Its now a staple of modern FPS games. ------ But yes, I recall the "mouse practice" people would do to get better aim on Counterstrike. Those headshots don't happen by themselves: there's a lot of "move the mouse" practice in Microsoft-paint (practice moving one pixel at a time or whatever), and learning the positions of your wrist. Most people don't care about that level of dedication or practice. I think it suffices to say that typical FPS gamers today prefer the subtle aimbot to handle that level of muscle memory. I'm being a bit hyperbolic. Obviously the "Counterstrike" players and community cares about this stuff. That's why they still play Counterstrike. But I also am ready to admit that their community is a small minority of players in the greater FPS genre. ------- "360 No Scope" happens to take advantage of this bullet magnetism / autoaim as well. Moving the reticle quickly IIRC engages the auto-aim bot a bit more. > It's the reason why sweep shooting works so well. Sweep your crosshairs across the screen, pull the trigger when it crosses something, it'll hold onto them slightly as it goes by. The game's "auto-aim" system effectively fires two bullets for each frame. If your target is "between" the two bullets, then it counts as a hit. Sweep-shooting is moving the crosshairs really fast, so that these two "bullets" are spaced as far apart as possible. So you've grown the auto-aim area.

chrischen 5y ago
> But no, people play Halo. Because people like (subtle) aimbots making their headshots more consistent. Valorant, a counter-strike like game, is actually more popular than the current Halo game. And let's not forget PUBG, originally a PC-only game, that was wildly popular. No aimbot in there either and not only was there no auto-aim, bullets don't even go where you click because they obeyed physics!
- dragontamer 5y ago