Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Heavy Aim Fix Incoming

OP IWI IUI

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 24
  4. 25
  5. 26
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. ...
  9. 41
MIb2347 wrote:
MIb2347 wrote:
So I've just been watching the HCS Sunday broadcast (No spoilers) and they had to have a break in the middle of the Losers Bracket Final for something like a half hour or more for an undisclosed reason. The casters where saying things like "With this much money on the line the game has to be consistent and fair". So I don't know if heavy aim was the issue. I keep seeing a lot of players during the stream pressing start and doing the crosshair twiddle thing people to do when their aiming feels off.

As a few people have posted in here before at a previous HCS Lan event Optic complained about heavy aim and 343 went around switching off consoles to fix the issue. So heavy aim can occur on Lan and could easily have been affecting some of the pros.
Yeah a friend of mine went to that tournament, which was inside a tent weirdly enough ,and apparently the casters or staff had to bring dev kits because the game dosen't support lan and the other stations were having aiming issues while some people were fine, but other people had it pretty bad. Interestingly enough those same people were also complaing about input problems and spartans not moving as quickly on input.
Thanks for posting that. I was guessing it was heavy aim because they wouldn't say specifically what the issue was, just that it compromised the integrity of the game.

I haven't heard any pros complain about it though which is odd to me.
The pros from out of state on station B were complaining about it and supposedly Jimbo (Out-of state pro) tweeted that it was only dealt with when a Top team complained about it. I think they had like a 40 minute intermission on stream because of it, sad really cuz this problem is also silently killing the competitive scene.
Makes me wonder if the team that lost was dealt a bad hand. Was the losing team treated fairly or did they lose to the heavy aim effect?? When you have this interfering with competitive play for money this is very serious. And do we really know that all the pros know about the heavy aim issue or effect?? Either way this opens up a lot of speculation in my book. Because of this issue alone this should default H5 from competitive play or tournaments until the issue is fixed permanently. How can teams truly play this with confidence knowing this issue could pop up at any time and even worse only start effecting one team before its already to late. Halo 5 should no longer be able to compete in tournaments in this nature until this problem is resolved..

Zippy.
Oh believe me, the Pros definitely know that this is a problem. A couple of them want the devs to implement some sort of lan feature, but that's even harder than actually fixing the heavy aim issue itself. Heavy aim, sluggish movement and things of those nature were affecting station B which is why one of the casters said that "With this much money on the line, the games have to be consistent and fair." Halo 5 shouldn't even be considered an E-sport because of FP-"S" part isn't properly functioning. In the beginning of this game, we used to have 500 + teams enter, now it's less than 100 teams entering and I know a lot of them are inactive from the scene itself for setting reasons, but also because of heavy aim affecting players randomly which really messes with a lot of people's 1 on 1 scenarios and causes players to drop gunfights because the game itself won't allow people to aim properly. Like I said earlier, this problem is silently killing the competitive scene.
Well said. And im glad all the pros know about this issue. I just find having a tournament on a broken game should almost be illegal. I just thought that there were some sort of guide lines that were in place that would monitor over a game before it would be allowed to have tournaments for cash of this nature. H5 in my mind doesn't meet that criteria to have tournaments for cash when the game has this type of issue.

Zippy.
MIb2347 wrote:
MIb2347 wrote:
So I've just been watching the HCS Sunday broadcast (No spoilers) and they had to have a break in the middle of the Losers Bracket Final for something like a half hour or more for an undisclosed reason. The casters where saying things like "With this much money on the line the game has to be consistent and fair". So I don't know if heavy aim was the issue. I keep seeing a lot of players during the stream pressing start and doing the crosshair twiddle thing people to do when their aiming feels off.

As a few people have posted in here before at a previous HCS Lan event Optic complained about heavy aim and 343 went around switching off consoles to fix the issue. So heavy aim can occur on Lan and could easily have been affecting some of the pros.
Yeah a friend of mine went to that tournament, which was inside a tent weirdly enough ,and apparently the casters or staff had to bring dev kits because the game dosen't support lan and the other stations were having aiming issues while some people were fine, but other people had it pretty bad. Interestingly enough those same people were also complaing about input problems and spartans not moving as quickly on input.
Thanks for posting that. I was guessing it was heavy aim because they wouldn't say specifically what the issue was, just that it compromised the integrity of the game.

I haven't heard any pros complain about it though which is odd to me.
The pros from out of state on station B were complaining about it and supposedly Jimbo (Out-of state pro) tweeted that it was only dealt with when a Top team complained about it. I think they had like a 40 minute intermission on stream because of it, sad really cuz this problem is also silently killing the competitive scene.
Makes me wonder if the team that lost was dealt a bad hand. Was the losing team treated fairly or did they lose to the heavy aim effect?? When you have this interfering with competitive play for money this is very serious. And do we really know that all the pros know about the heavy aim issue or effect?? Either way this opens up a lot of speculation in my book. Because of this issue alone this should default H5 from competitive play or tournaments until the issue is fixed permanently. How can teams truly play this with confidence knowing this issue could pop up at any time and even worse only start effecting one team before its already to late. Halo 5 should no longer be able to compete in tournaments in this nature until this problem is resolved..

Zippy.
I agree with you, but the issue with what you said and with this whole problem is lack of viewable evidence which showsbeyond any doubtthat the aim, on identical settings, behaves radically different from game to game, and is connected to specific, identifiable issues like RAM, server connection, memory dump, etc. If that was available and made public, 343 would have serious liability running tourneys with million dollar prize pools played on a broken game, unless they took action or instituted different rules/parameters for tournament play. But absent that we only have a rather vocal group of complainers. Not taking anything at all away from Optic as IMO they are godly in their dominance. BUT if the blue side of MainStage was having issues enough to stop for 45 mins and try to fix it that's not right. NV would stand a better chance of collecting their $500K by quitting Halo and going to law school.

This is an honest question. Is there any single, dominant, governing board or oversight committee for E-sports? Does it provide a vehicle to challenge tournament results? Or do players just have to accept disconnects in online tourneys and other problems on LAN? Is it just a bunch of promoters and devs making coin off these kids?

Like I've said before if you want to make plastic toys for kids, fine. If you want to make a competitive, balanced platform for serious competition, that's fine too, but it better work as such and be fair. I've learned a lot from this thread and others. I'm using some of Wu Ip Man's info to try to tweak my aim, but it's just a game to me and I'll never be a pro. The young kids hoping otherwise deserve honest answers and fair play.
I do see what your saying. And do also agree with you. I also am not taking anything away from the winner or any pro player for that matter that competes in Halo5. My whole point is basically I thought there was a type of committee that governed over games that wanted to have tournaments for cash prize money. I thought there was a certain criteria in place that a game hand to follow in order to be allowed to have such tournaments. But I guess not..lol. To me Halo5 shouldn't be allowed to have cash prize tournaments. Not when there game has a severe issue with its aim..
Zippy.
We really need to find a way to get some solid objective proof of this otherwise I can't see anything changing.

It's a real issue and it even affects pros at Lan events which is unacceptable imo. But without being able to demonstrate the phenomenon consistently we all just sound crazy.

Does anyone have any ideas? I know OP had one but it requires specialist equipment that's not easy to come by.
MIb2347 wrote:
We really need to find a way to get some solid objective proof of this otherwise I can't see anything changing.

It's a real issue and it even affects pros at Lan events which is unacceptable imo. But without being able to demonstrate the phenomenon consistently we all just sound crazy.

Does anyone have any ideas? I know OP had one but it requires specialist equipment that's not easy to come by.
Would recording my self on horizontal 10 showing various smooth control and flicking all over the place count. Though I don't know how to do a test that makes sense. I tend to test it for my self in customs trying to make movements to see if the control is in all directions good.

But I still think variable aim assist is an issue as well which maybe mixes with heavy aim if seperate.
MIb2347 wrote:
We really need to find a way to get some solid objective proof of this otherwise I can't see anything changing.

It's a real issues and it even affects pros at Lan events which is unacceptable imo but without being able to demonstrate the phenomenon consistently we all just sound crazy.

Does anyone have any ideas? I know OP had one but it requires specialist equipment that's not easy to come by.
Well i work a bit with research and we have to make a solid design of measurement. Id suggest something like always having sens on 3-3 and playing MM then on each map measure frames/time to complete a 360 turn. Collecting data from 50-100 games and see if that shows any variance which it should not. Maybe a pilot study to see if that technique would work, maybe just 10-20 games to start with, and then adjust method if needed.
S Monki wrote:
Well i work a bit with research and we have to make a solid design of measurement. Id suggest something like always having sens on 3-3 and playing MM then on each map measure frames/time to complete a 360 turn. Collecting data from 50-100 games and see if that shows any variance which it should not. Maybe a pilot study to see if that technique would work, maybe just 10-20 games to start with, and then adjust method if needed.
Would recording my self on horizontal 10 showing various smooth control and flicking all over the place count. Though I don't know how to do a test that makes sense. I tend to test it for my self in customs trying to make movements to see if the control is in all directions good.

But I still think variable aim assist is an issue as well which maybe mixes with heavy aim if seperate.
These are the right kind of ideas. It just has to be something that's not based on the subjective experience of aiming. That way anyone can get an Xbox and a copy of Halo and repeat what we come up with to reproduce our results.

We all know that it feels different on occasion but that's because we've spent a lot of time with the game so we notice it. In order to prove that however we need to be able to attach numbers to it and demonstrate it in a way that doesn't rely on an experienced player picking up a controller to feel the difference.

I'm sure we can come up with something so I'm going to explain how I'm viewing it atm. Even if my idea sounds dumb or is hard to actually do maybe someone else will read it and refine it or become pushed in the right direction to figure it all out.

Aiming should be a constant, and if I move the thumbstick a certain amount it should move my reticle in game a certain amount. The output (reticle movement) should be relative to my input (thumbstick movement). That's how it should work. However the issue with heavy aim is that there's a variable that makes the output differ from what I expected based on my input. And just saying that it doesn't feel right isn't enough to prove that the problem isn't my input.

From what I remember OP's idea was to create a map in which you stand in a fixed position with a horizontal object in the distance. This object would have reference markers across the length of it. You would place your reticle at one end of the object and then move your reticle across to the opposite end. The action of you doing this would be recorded which would allow you to analyse at which frame a specific marker on the object was passed over. If the theory is correct then when heavy aim is introduced it should take longer for the reticle to pass a certain marker compared to when heavy aim isn't present.

The issue with this method is that it relies on human input to achieve the horizontal movement across the object. It's then difficult to know that the thumbstick was moved to 100% immediately each time. It could very easily be argued that the difference in turn speed is because different amounts of directional force were applied to the thumbstick each time. Again you're relying on a subjective measurement when I say I promise you I turned it the same amount every time. That's not precise enough to prove anything.

So where I've got to is trying to figure out a way to be sure that the exact same input is being used each time. If we could do this then you could still use OP's idea of a map where you stand in a fixed position and move the reticle across the object. The addition that would prove this objectively would be having a way to demonstrate that the thumbstick input went from 0%-100% for a fixed number of seconds and it moved the reticle by 'x'. If that x value is different when heavy aim is introduced then it proves that heavy aim exists.

This is the part where I get stuck. But I do have a couple of avenues to explore though. The only problem is that they're beyond my skills and knowledge.

One idea is to look at the thumbstick module on the controller and determine a way to use it to input movement to the game using a method that can be measured and manipulated with objective precision.

With that in mind, as far as I can tell a thumbstick works as follows. There is a potentiometer for both the x and y axes. These potentiometers produce a resistance value between 0-10k ohms that the game game uses to determine how much directional force is being applied. So presumably 10k would mean turning it 100% in that direction and 5k would mean the thumbstick is currently at 50% of the range of motion available to it. So my idea would be to see if it's possible to create a device that outputs a 10k signal to the Xbox for a precise amount of time. That would then give us a controlled movement that is objective and constant and can't be argued against. But the issue is I have no idea how to do that or if it's even possible.

The idea above is all hardware based but my next one is software. There are a number of devices such as the CronusMax which allow you to use a wide range of input devices with your Xbox. As far as I can tell you connect the CronusMax to a computer and then connect your input device to that same computer. The CronusMax emulates an Xbox controller by taking the input from your chosen device and turning it into something the Xbox can use. So I've been wondering if it's possible to find a way to manipulate that input so the CronusMax sends that to the Xbox as an action.

I'm really in over my head here so I'm sharing it because others may have better ideas that are less complex.
MIb2347 wrote:
S Monki wrote:
Well i work a bit with research and we have to make a solid design of measurement. Id suggest something like always having sens on 3-3 and playing MM then on each map measure frames/time to complete a 360 turn. Collecting data from 50-100 games and see if that shows any variance which it should not. Maybe a pilot study to see if that technique would work, maybe just 10-20 games to start with, and then adjust method if needed.
Would recording my self on horizontal 10 showing various smooth control and flicking all over the place count. Though I don't know how to do a test that makes sense. I tend to test it for my self in customs trying to make movements to see if the control is in all directions good.

But I still think variable aim assist is an issue as well which maybe mixes with heavy aim if seperate.
These are the right kind of ideas. It just has to be something that's not based on the subjective experience of aiming. That way anyone can get an Xbox and a copy of Halo and repeat what we come up with to reproduce our results.

We all know that it feels different on occasion but that's because we've spent a lot of time with the game so we notice it. In order to prove that however we need to be able to attach numbers to it and demonstrate it in a way that doesn't rely on an experienced player picking up a controller to feel the difference.

I'm sure we can come up with something so I'm going to explain how I'm viewing it atm. Even if my idea sounds dumb or is hard to actually do maybe someone else will read it and refine it or become pushed in the right direction to figure it all out.

Aiming should be a constant, and if I move the thumbstick a certain amount it should move my reticle in game a certain amount. The output (reticle movement) should be relative to my input (thumbstick movement). That's how it should work. However the issue with heavy aim is that there's a variable that makes the output differ from what I expected based on my input. And just saying that it doesn't feel right isn't enough to prove that the problem isn't my input.

From what I remember OP's idea was to create a map in which you stand in a fixed position with a horizontal object in the distance. This object would have reference markers across the length of it. You would place your reticle at one end of the object and then move your reticle across to the opposite end. The action of you doing this would be recorded which would allow you to analyse at which frame a specific marker on the object was passed over. If the theory is correct then when heavy aim is introduced it should take longer for the reticle to pass a certain marker compared to when heavy aim isn't present.

The issue with this method is that it relies on human input to achieve the horizontal movement across the object. It's then difficult to know that the thumbstick was moved to 100% immediately each time. It could very easily be argued that the difference in turn speed is because different amounts of directional force were applied to the thumbstick each time. Again you're relying on a subjective measurement when I say I promise you I turned it the same amount every time. That's not precise enough to prove anything.

So where I've got to is trying to figure out a way to be sure that the exact same input is being used each time. If we could do this then you could still use OP's idea of a map where you stand in a fixed position and move the reticle across the object. The addition that would prove this objectively would be having a way to demonstrate that the thumbstick input went from 0%-100% for a fixed number of seconds and it moved the reticle by 'x'. If that x value is different when heavy aim is introduced then it proves that heavy aim exists.

This is the part where I get stuck. But I do have a couple of avenues to explore though. The only problem is that they're beyond my skills and knowledge.

One idea is to look at the thumbstick module on the controller and determine a way to use it to input movement to the game using a method that can be measured and manipulated with objective precision.

With that in mind, as far as I can tell a thumbstick works as follows. There is a potentiometer for both the x and y axes. These potentiometers produce a resistance value between 0-10k ohms that the game game uses to determine how much directional force is being applied. So presumably 10k would mean turning it 100% in that direction and 5k would mean the thumbstick is currently at 50% of the range of motion available to it. So my idea would be to see if it's possible to create a device that outputs a 10k signal to the Xbox for a precise amount of time. That would then give us a controlled movement that is objective and constant and can't be argued against. But the issue is I have no idea how to do that or if it's even possible.

The idea above is all hardware based but my next one is software. There are a number of devices such as the CronusMax which allow you to use a wide range of input devices with your Xbox. As far as I can tell you connect the CronusMax to a computer and then connect your input device to that same computer. The CronusMax emulates an Xbox controller by taking the input from your chosen device and turning it into something the Xbox can use. So I've been wondering if it's possible to find a way to manipulate that input so the CronusMax sends that to the Xbox as an action.

I'm really in over my head here so I'm sharing it because others may have better ideas that are less complex.
What if some one used a steering wheel and recorded how many degree of input they gave.
What if some one used a steering wheel and recorded how many degree of input they gave.
I think you'd still have the issue of not being able to be precise on the amount of time it takes to turn the steering wheel the whole way. Sometimes you might get the wheel to 100% turn in 1 second and other time it might take 1.1 seconds. That would change how the reticle moves.
While some of these thoughts are admirable the problems you guys mention point to the tests needing to be measurably quantifiable and exactly repeatable. These problems can arise from different equipment and different human input. Instead of demonstrably playing the game we need to look at the the actual hardware and software and how the coding works consistently or inconsistently. This gets beyond me quickly, but there absolutely are tools that negate human variance and measure different elements of speed in computer use. These tools can record differences under different conditions. One measurement allows BenQ to sell monitors that boast 1ms input lag. Someone (not me) with the knowledge, bench tools, and inclination needs to look at how the aiming mechanics are coded and explain how those mechanics are influenced by maxed out RAM or memory dump/capacity that Wu Ip Man has indicated. Then you will either have a variable set of speed numbers under differing conditions, or a solid set of figures that never varies. That would make actual demonstrations needless because it would show that whoever used whatever equipment, the same inputs would yield varying results under different conditions. I'm pretty sure these guys Halo 5 Velocity jump did something approaching this when they indicated a 2.34x velocity jump over ~1 sec at some arbitrary (but measured exactly to between 32336,0 and 32337,0)) point, way less than a pegged state, on the right stick. If that velocity jump drops to 1.23x or time increases measurably beyond 1 sec, or the point on the stick changes from game to game, or with maxed out RAM or whatever, then there is a problem.
While some of these thoughts are admirable the problems you guys mention point to the tests needing to be measurably quantifiable and exactly repeatable. These problems can arise from different equipment and different human input. Instead of demonstrably playing the game we need to look at the the actual hardware and software and how the coding works consistently or inconsistently. This gets beyond me quickly, but there absolutely are tools that negate human variance and measure different elements of speed in computer use. These tools can record differences under different conditions. One measurement allows BenQ to sell monitors that boast 1ms input lag. Someone (not me) with the knowledge, bench tools, and inclination needs to look at how the aiming mechanics are coded and explain how those mechanics are influenced by maxed out RAM or memory dump/capacity that Wu Ip Man has indicated. Then you will either have a variable set of speed numbers under differing conditions, or a solid set of figures that never varies. That would make actual demonstrations needless because it would show that whoever used whatever equipment, the same inputs would yield varying results under different conditions. I'm pretty sure these guys Halo 5 Velocity jump did something approaching this when they indicated a 2.34x velocity jump over ~1 sec at some arbitrary (but measured exactly to between 32336,0 and 32337,0)) point, way less than a pegged state, on the right stick. If that velocity jump drops to 1.23x or time increases measurably beyond 1 sec, or the point on the stick changes from game to game, or with maxed out RAM or whatever, then there is a problem.
You're exactly right about us needing to remove the human element. If there was a way to be sure that the exact same controller movement was being sent to the Xbox every time then the only variable would be heavy aim. This is what we need to figure out in order to demonstrate anything objectively.

I've just thrown a few ideas out there but I'm sure there are more angles to come at this from.
MIb2347 wrote:
S Monki wrote:
Would be nice getting an official reply on this post?
I know right? You'd think after 475 posts the issue might be acknowledged.

I said earlier in the thread I'd donate $100 to a charity of 343's choice if they spoke about heavy aim but they never will.
I'd match that $100. Let's start a thing!
I just thought of some thing. See when I search a video on the YouTube app as it starts loading as I'm typing the stick in puts lags. Could it be purely the Xbones fault?
I've read the posts regarding the experiment and I've thought of a way to do possibly do this without a high speed camera. Before I start, let me address a couple of things.

  1. Incorporating a 360 degree turn: This would work. However, the problem with heavy aim lies in acceleration. That being said after heavy aim and non heavy aim reach full velocity, they will be equivalent for most of the 360 degrees. The variance in turn is going to be harder to measure. It will also be prone to more errors with the increased distance it must travel. There is however the benefits of being able to do it on a non-forge map and being able to join games with different servers quickly. The first benefit will make the calculations more believable since an argument will be made that it is just frame lag from forge.

  2. Consistent human input:
    - Speed: Speed, or getting to 100% consistently as was mentioned before is not a problem. We just have to use an average acceleration with an average sensitivity. The reason is because the aiming isn't instant. The sens still has to slowly accelerate. As long as we are not testing with 10 sens 5 accel and 15 outer consistency wont be a problem.
    - Direction: Can be addressed by looping some fishing line around the joystick with some considerable length. After a foot or two of line, errors on the outside will have basically no effect on the inside. Just like how kontrol freeks require extra movement.

  3. Monitor responsiveness and alternative method: The input lag of the monitor can be taken out of the equation completely by not using a camera at all. Twitch can be streamed in 60 frames per second. Whatever is being stream on twitch is bypassing the monitor since it is being streamed directly from the xbox.

    You can run a python script called youtube-dl that allows you to download twitch videos in whatever format you want at 60 frames. The stream of the tests can be downloaded and then loaded into a video editor. There is many video editors that can work in small enough increments of time.

  4. My involvement: I've transitioned to a new employer and have moved to ATL. Just about all of my things are 7 hours away from me. The computer I'm currently on cannot stay connected to the internet because it hardly works. That being said a download from youtube-dl will never finish on my end let alone run anything meaningful. It is going to be at least a month before I get my stuff. If anyone wants to do this I can provide guidance.
IWI IUI wrote:
I've read the posts regarding the experiment and I've thought of a way to do possibly do this without a high speed camera. Before I start, let me address a couple of things.

  1. Incorporating a 360 degree turn: This would work. However, the problem with heavy aim lies in acceleration. That being said after heavy aim and non heavy aim reach full velocity, they will be equivalent for most of the 360 degrees. The variance in turn is going to be harder to measure. It will also be prone to more errors with the increased distance it must travel. There is however the benefits of being able to do it on a non-forge map and being able to join games with different servers quickly. The first benefit will make the calculations more believable since an argument will be made that it is just frame lag from forge.

  2. Consistent human input:
    - Speed: Speed, or getting to 100% consistently as was mentioned before is not a problem. We just have to use an average acceleration with an average sensitivity. The reason is because the aiming isn't instant. The sens still has to slowly accelerate. As long as we are not testing with 10 sens 5 accel and 15 outer consistency wont be a problem.
    - Direction: Can be addressed by looping some fishing line around the joystick with some considerable length. After a foot or two of line, errors on the outside will have basically no effect on the inside. Just like how kontrol freeks require extra movement.

  3. Monitor responsiveness and alternative method: The input lag of the monitor can be taken out of the equation completely by not using a camera at all. Twitch can be streamed in 60 frames per second. Whatever is being stream on twitch is bypassing the monitor since it is being streamed directly from the xbox.

    You can run a python script called youtube-dl that allows you to download twitch videos in whatever format you want at 60 frames. The stream of the tests can be downloaded and then loaded into a video editor. There is many video editors that can work in small enough increments of time.

  4. My involvement: I've transitioned to a new employer and have moved to ATL. Just about all of my things are 7 hours away from me. The computer I'm currently on cannot stay connected to the internet because it hardly works. That being said a download from youtube-dl will never finish on my end let alone run anything meaningful. It is going to be at least a month before I get my stuff. If anyone wants to do this I can provide guidance.
I've managed to create a pretty simple way of ensuring that a directional input is only on one axis and it's either 100% input or zero.

All I did was solder a wire to the middle pin of the potentiometer on the bottom of the right thumbstick. Then solder a wire to the positive pad of the rumble motor and connect that to the wire from the middle potentiometer pin with a tactile switch in between the two wires. Now when the button is held down the reticle turns true left as though the thumbstick were being turned 100% to the left.

The only issue with this is that I have to press the button myself so the timing element isn't controlled at all. It's all progress though so I'm hopeful that I may be able to figure something else out.

What I'm hoping I'll be able to do is emulate the thumbstick being turned 100% to the left for 3 seconds and it make the reticle move x amount. Then when heavy aim is present the same emulation will move the reticle a different amount.
I've found some other stuff out and it looks quite promising. I'll have to wait until tomorrow and I'll post my findings and explain myself then.
I quit playing Halo 5 in january this year because of the ongoing heavy aim-issues, which, at least for me, was not bearable. Are there any improvements ever since? No matter how minor the changes might be, I need hope...

Off-topic: Can at least one 343-employee join this thread? It appears like a terrible mistake, seeing a 26-pages-long thread with people experiencing issues and yet zero efforts by 343 communicating with us. God how this hurts. I'm plain disappointed by this especially from you Unyshek @Unyshek . You should know how this feels, because you were a regular Halo-Player/Fan just like us before you joined 343. Please, for the sake of Halo 5, join this thread and help us.
Aykibaby wrote:
I quit playing Halo 5 in january this year because of the ongoing heavy aim-issues, which, at least for me, was not bearable. Are there any improvements ever since? No matter how minor the changes might be, I need hope...

Off-topic: Can at least one 343-employee join this thread? It appears like a terrible mistake, seeing a 26-pages-long thread with people experiencing issues and yet zero efforts by 343 communicating with us. God how this hurts. I'm plain disappointed by this especially from you Unyshek @Unyshek . You should know how this feels, because you were a regular Halo-Player/Fan just like us before you joined 343. Please, for the sake of Halo 5, join this thread and help us.
Make a smurf and don't open packs that give you perma unlocks.

Please no calling out individuals in this thread.
In the recent episode of Visions on the OpticNation channel, the pros on video are all complaining about heavy aim. I hope this video gets more views because this video is the raw emotion I know everyone in this thread and the people who don't go to the forums feel put on video. This video is a love letter from the pros to everyone who feels heavy aim and they know our pain and shows how big of an issue this really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA9P6DpIFBI

8:10 - 15:33
17:24 -17:45
-There were other moments, I think were they talk about it throughout the video, but the these the times listed above were golden and present the situation relatively well.
Wow. They definitely went into a lot of detail. I didn't realise it was basically as bad on lan too.

I'm incredibly motivated to get this demonstrated beyond doubt now.
In the recent episode of Visions on the OpticNation channel, the pros on video are all complaining about heavy aim. I hope this video gets more views because this video is the raw emotion I know everyone in this thread and the people who don't go to the forums feel put on video. This video is a love letter from the pros to everyone who feels heavy aim and they know our pain and shows how big of an issue this really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA9P6DpIFBI

8:10 - 15:33
17:24 -17:45
-There were other moments, I think were they talk about it throughout the video, but the these the times listed above were golden and present the situation relatively well.
At about 12:20 that guy says something about having virtually zero latency which means you get the full 60fps from the server. What does that mean? With high latency you don't get 60fps?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 24
  4. 25
  5. 26
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. ...
  9. 41