Even small ping times can mean that an opponent that appears to be in the middle of your target area is actually safely outside of it, especially where strikers are involved. It's conceivable I'm wrong, but I would guess that if they disabled auto-aiming, we'd get a flood of posts about how "the lag" mysteriously became much worse than it ever used to be.

Actually, far from being a no-brainer, I think the number one way I get myself killed in Lockdown is trying to combo when I shouldn't. When I dash up to a Guardian with a raised shield and perform a GF combo, it doesn't break the shield, it causes the Guardian to block my attacks and then murder me. Admittedly, a Flourish is somewhat safer due to its speed.

You can just turn off auto-lock on in your options menu.

Really, auto-lock is...I really don't know what else to say to you people...

There are ups and downs either way. If you move slowly, in a line towards your opponent, then yes, Auto-lock will become a problem for you. Like someone already mentioned, it doesn't guarantee a hit. It just fires a shot at the closest target you are facing. It can MISS if you run fast enough, or throw up a shield. Otherwise, there is't much else. Alchemers will barely be able to hit anything (ive tried) because their bullets are just too slow. Magnus uses have the capacity to be owned by strikers: they sand still to shoot at some guy who is running circles around him, then dies from a combo attack.

On the other hand, NOT using auto-aim, may make it a little harder to find your target. BUT, it allows you to fire strategically.

Examples: Firing an alchemer ahead of them so they run into it. Firing an explosive box close by to them so it explodes. Singling out the weakened player so he dies instead of attacking the closer guy with full HP.

It doesn't make it any great deal better for other people. There are other factors that influence the effectiveness of auto-aim. Really, auto-aim can easily be mimicked by someone with good enough time judgement skills and a good enough mouse reaction, so you can't really tell who's using it. I managed to hit some Striker who ran past me with at least half the shots from my Antigua. He probably thought I auto-aimed.

Its no big deal. Its ALMOST like saying: swords are dry, you just combo in their direction and they die eventually. If something is sticking up your craw, find another way to deal with it. Find an auto-aimer, team up with a guardian and get up close and personal and see if his auto-aiming can help him.

Auto-aiming just fine-tunes you aim to the target. you have to be at least facing them for it to take effect, and even then, the shot will only end up where the target was when the shot was fired. If you're not there, it won't hit you. Go striker and run around him, or go Guardian and shield. Recon even, although I hear there is a bug where auto-aim can hit cloaked players...

Cheap? Not really. If you want to complain about cheapness, then you may as well mention greavers. Their haze penetrates your shields, doing you damage when technically, you're already defended. What do people do? Adjust. Got an Owlite or other. Killed them before they got hit. Whatever. They did SOMETHING about it.

TLDR; It makes no difference, just adjust to it and find a way to either make it useless, or make you more combat effective against it. Just because there is a slight handicap, doesn't make them over-powered. Anything that can shoot fast enough to make auto-aim even moderately effective in PvP is handicapped (Antigua: Low damage. Magnus: Slow firing speed.)

...great...Now I'm probably going to get pummelled for my extremely long text speech, in which I am almost CERTIAN at least SOMEONE will take offence from...Although I meant none. Just tired of hearing people complain about auto-aimers when it makes no great difference.

Sword like sealed and most others have a hit range. If you're in that range, you're screwed. The only way someone could mess up with that is if they comboed in the direction away from you.

I HAVE played competitive PvP before, and lost, multiple times, especially if there was a Bombhead mask to be won.

But seriously, how can you tell if they're auto-aiming? Do you have some sort of program that puts a tag on auto-aimers? Or does the guy just randomly announce: 'I'm an auto-aiming noob. U mad? ^^' at the end of the match? Like I said, auto-aim doesn't have anything that can't be replicated by other players. Maybe the ones you see ARE predicting where you end up, and matching each hit. Strikers have to stop to attack, so auto-lock doesn't make all that much a difference either. Stop, shift cursor, attack. Simple.

Anyway. Why worry about how little skill some other's play? If they have no skill, whoop-de-doo. Then make them want to get some skill and smash them hard into the ground. Finding it hard because of their sheer power with no direction? Find another way to stick it to em. Partner up with a teammate and cut them down. Personally, I use a 'Guardian and anything else combo'. Cover the attacker-part of your little duo and let him decimate anything that comes close.

If you say it makes the game boring, then remove it to give yourself some challenge. See if your skill makes any apparent difference without the auto-aim. Maybe teach others about the pitfalls of auto-aim.

Really, there isn't much else you can do. If I wanted to complain about things that make things too easy, I may as well complain about Bolt-action sniper rifles in CA. 95% of the time, one shot kill. Doesn't matter where. And people call the ones who use semi-autos noobs...-_- I could also say that that takes no skill. Shoot someone in the foot also kills them. At least when I used a Semi like the SR25, I worked to get headshots every time. Of course, its easier said than done, but I got my fair share of kills with it.

Other games aside, The thing about PvP is that it's open for new strategies. It's up to the players to find better ways to handle things. Once, our team got completely screwed over by ONE recon dude, who camped out on our spawn checkpoint, and because we were too dumb to think of going elsewhere, he shielded, unshielded and cut us down, quick and fast. What our team SHOULD have done was found a better way to either get him, or avoid him. Maybe do the guardian trick and take him down, go somewhere else, or beat him at his own game. This isn't just about having skill. It's getting players to think outside what they have.

Another example of strategic thinking. I have a graviton charge. Place it, and it does less than my Tempered Calibur. Better way to do more damage? Place it so it sucks them in, then hit them with a charge hit. EXTRA damage. Better strategies are just as good as having skill handicaps, or just having skill.

Skill is more for games like Gundam and FPS games, where reaction, timing, and general skill are all essential. This is just supposed to e a cute game where you get to bash stuff while requiring minimal skill. Pokemon takes no skill. click attack is pretty much all you end up doing.

My point is that you can't expect people to change because you find something to easy. If that was the case, I have a long list to dictate. But it isn't.

I know what you mean, and I know where you're coming from with this, but...I dunno. Hard for me to put this into words. This game doesn't need much skill. It's supposed to revolve more around tactics than anything. Think JK. If you have the right gear, all you need to do is hit him with it. Lesser gear, then you have to find the best way to avoid damage while dishing out a lot of it.

Btw, I still mean no offence. (Just checking)

Mokay, I'll leave you to this. I've said all I need to. And this doesn't affect me all that much. Just providing an objective opinion cuz...although I don't use it, I think it's fine :D

Just...No-one...troll me...><

Bump the other million threads like this while you're at it. OOO hasn't taken it out yet, dispite the phone books worth of complaints, and probabaly never will.

I see your point that auto-aim is a [tart] for those who are good at pvp, but what about everyone else? It helps those who are new to pvp. It gives them the gist of at first so they'll come back to the pvp side of things. Also what about the disabled crowd? I doubt im the only handicapped guy playing this game, so what would you do? I personally only playing with one hand, how do you think I aim? I'm fine if theres a auto-aim side and a nonauto side or something like that, but removing auto-aim might be as bad of an idea as tf2's crates...

I hate it when I'm a recon I'm being realy sneeky, pass by someone who has a gun out they see their indicator that shows I'm around they shoot around give up and then suddenly pull out a florish and swing around and all of a sudden jump from one direction and hit me... its sooooooooooooo [freaking] anoying..

The only reasonable auto aim that should be on is possibly gunners.. possibly.. because usualy I'm pretty good at gunning people down but it is a real pain when going up against a guy with shield on because he'll just continue to run around me... me not be able to realy hit him.. and him pull out his sword and kill me.. I think its kinda sad how little guns do and I wear gunner armor and I'm stupified...

But realy auto aim should be changed or removed all together

I haven't read the all the thread yet, but...

The issue is: Auto-aim will also target cloaked people.

Sneaks by someone holding a DA....WAM! He suddenly turns around and smacks me with it, I die. There should be no way he knew I was there.

agreed.

this is the only game i can think of where there is an auto aim option for players playing against each other. sure it's not an fps, but why lower the skill ceiling for everyone else?

I wholly agree with this and removing UVs from all weapons in lockdown.

Recon death marks are practically worthless due to the recon being unable to get anywhere near a swordsman without getting revealed. When I play recon, I've gotten to only using it to get close enough for a Callahan shot or two before recloaking and getting the hell out of dodge before the auto-aimers on the other team spam me out. Moving unpredictably only goes so far when a flourish user can do a 180 between his first and second swing.

As for UVs, I'd like to see them go so there is less pay-to-win mentality in LD. That's all.

Insulting OOO, threataning to quit, and using caps isn't going to make them post... not that they would under any circumstances.

OOO should remain silent and objective... you posted your views, they either reviewed auto aim and are working on a solution (not necessarily removing it) or they reviewed it and deemed it fine as it is and will not remove it

Byrnius makes sense. Though I play T2 for fun sometimes, I'd accept that. Compromise is victory, after all.

@ Five-Hundred:

Maybe they can have more match making criteria? Like you can join either Competitive (Higher crown buy in, no autolock, losing team recieves no crowns, winning team gets what they paid + 50% of the losing team's crowns? maybe no UV's on weapons or armour?), or casual (lower crown buy in, auto aim can be toggled on or off, losers still get crowns maybe like 50% less than what they invested, and winners get like 20% of the enemies' crowns.)

I feel a system like this could still have lower tiered people/noobs still have fun and satisfy the hardcore players' appetites for competition.

No more Auto-Aim in PvP!

Can't see how it's any worse than gear.

As a data point, I was playing some T2 matches this evening, and one of the guys who was using a snarby sword with auto aim switched it off for comparison, and his damage went from about ~4k down to ~2.5k, or about a 1/3 decrease. He was still doing quite well, but there was definitely a noticeable difference when fighting him.

Just in case anyone is somehow under the impression that it doesn't make a fairly sizeable difference.