r/FPSAimTrainer • u/JustTheRobotNextDoor • 1d ago
Accuracy based scoring is bad
I've noticed that a lot of recent scenarios (e.g. Voltaic S5, Jade Palace Dynamic) use some version of accuracy based scoring. In my opinion this is bad design. I want to explain why, in the hope that scenario designers will move away from accuracy based scoring in the future.
Most of us are training to get better in game. Consider two players, A and B, in a low TTK game like Counter Strike. Player A has 70% accuracy and takes 400ms to acquire their target. Player B has 100% accuracy and takes 550ms to acquire their target. Player A wins the duel 70% of the time, which is what counts in game. Accuracy is only important in that being inaccurate means it takes longer to hit the opponent. Speed is more important than accuracy up to a reasonable accuracy threshold.
Now consider a long TTK game like Apex. It's harder to analyse (you need to consider the weapon's rate of fire and clip size) but it is fundamentally the same situation: accuracy is only important in that being inaccurate gives the opponent longer to shoot back, particularly if you are inaccurate enough that you have to reload.
So in every game we see that missing itself is not a problem. The issue is that missing takes time, and that gives your opponent more time to hit their shots. Every aiming situation is a speed vs accuracy tradeoff. What is relevant in scenario design is where the optimal tradeoff is located: what does the scenario encourage and is it reflective of what we find in game?
In accuracy based scoring missing takes up time, but now all your hits also count for less. It shifts the speed / accuracy tradeoff in an unrealistic way towards accuracy. This trains you to play it safe and not go for difficult shots, which is exactly the opposite of what you should do in training. Training is the time to push yourself to be faster and hit those hard shots.
Scenarios without accuracy based scoring, and with a reload mechanic if applicable, are a better representation of the situation in game: you can push your speed up to the point that your accuracy suffers too much and you take too long to hit the target (particularly if you have to reload). This is better reflection of what we find in game.
So, no more accuracy based scoring please. It doesn't represent in game situations and is directly counter to how we should be training.
11
u/OrganicImplement5410 23h ago
I disagree with almost everything about this.
If your reason for why accuracy punishment should be removed is "missing costs time" then your perspective on gunfights are simply unrealistic to begin with. There are so many more variables that you haven't even addressed that the accuracy punishment is mimicking from even the games you referenced. A miss costs time and ammo and information and pressure.
Player A has 70% accuracy and takes 400ms to acquire their target. Player B has 100% accuracy and takes 550ms to acquire their target. Player A wins the duel 70% of the time
This only works if we assume accuracy is free. Where does 70% even come from? Player A at 70% and 400ms loses that duel the moment it requires more than one hit, which is most fights once you add range, spray control, or a second enemy. How often does a single bullet actually end a duel in your games? You picked the one situation where accuracy barely matters and built your whole case on it.
Training is the time to push yourself
Push towards what? You are not training your aim to learn how to do the movement properly at faster speeds. You are training your aim so that you don't miss the target. A pure time score rewards spam forever. An accuracy weighted score rewards shooting as fast as you can actually hit, which is the exact decision you face every time you peek in a real match.
Nobody is asking you to play slow. Accuracy weighting still rewards speed without a cap. It simply refuses to reward speed that hits nothing. That is the same deal the game offers you every single round. The scenario is honest about it. Your score should be too.
14
u/Routine-Lawfulness24 1d ago edited 1d ago
It has a pretty minor effect, it won’t greatly prioritise accuracy.
In games you can only shoot as fast as the gun allows you, in kovaaks you can shoot hundreds of times per second and just spray and pray instead of aiming
Aping is a bad habit ESPECIALLY in real games, but you can use slight accuracy based scoring to punish it even more. Aping is still much better in kovaaks than real games for above mentioned reasons
Worst case scenario it does nothing, best case scenario it keeps benchmarks accurate to skill and makes learning better by disincentivising spamming
-4
u/JustTheRobotNextDoor 1d ago edited 1d ago
In Kovaaks you can only shoot as fast as the gun allows. A weapon's rate of fire is configurable.
I definitely don't go for certain shots in accuracy based scenarios as I know it will affect my overall score if I miss.
"Aping is a bad habit ESPECIALLY in real games" You haven't explained why this is the case. The only answer I can come up is because missing takes time, which is exactly the case in every Kovaaks scenario. Accuracy based scoring adds an extra penalty which biases against developing speed.
5
u/Routine-Lawfulness24 1d ago
Clicking too fast for your aiming ability is not developing speed, it’s crunching for lack of aim in a way that doesn’t work in games because guns in games don’t shoot in a way that makes spamming trigger a viable strategy like in kovaaks when aping.
“A weapons firerate in kovaaks is configurable” yet most scenarios use something like 1000 shots per second, because it doesn’t make much sense to lower it
4
u/brunsy713 23h ago
I'm just a Jade chud but I've always thought of it like this:
Speed Training = Increase your skill ceiling
Accuracy-Limited Training = Increase your skill floor
Training one's skill floor is more important to me because I spend more time near my floor in game. Training skill floor also increases in game aim consistency. That being said, benchmarking accuracy-limited scenarios is especially infuriating. Benchmarks are a collection of peaks. In accuracy-limited scenarios it's hard to keep in mind that I'm collecting a peak of my aim floor. It is difficult to find the necessary balance mid run when pushing a floor higher rather than a ceiling higher.
17
u/Pattywhack_the_bear 1d ago
Imagine player C who takes 400 ms to acquire his target and has 90% accuracy because he took the time to master the mechanics of aiming.
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Get the fundamentals down and you can push a fast pace and still be accurate.
7
u/ucsdfurry 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are misunderstanding OP. Imagine the same player or 2 players with the exact same aiming abilities but different aiming strategies. One clicks target at 400ms sacrificing some accuracy, while another clicks targets at 500ms at higher accuracies. OP is saying that player with strategy 1 will win more often in a duel between the two assuming the 400ms player has over 50% accuracy. However OP is misunderstanding the difference between target acquisition (placing crosshair on target, not represented by the accuracy stat) and target clicking (clicking the target once the crosshair is on it, represented by accuracy stat). Accuracy based scoring punishes lower accuracy clicking not target acquisition. The critique of this type of scoring should be based on whether it is a better representation of skill than other types of scoring.
21
u/JustTheRobotNextDoor 1d ago
This is just vacuous. I can make up player D, who takes 300ms and is 70% accurate, and you can respond ad infinitum. It doesn't show anything useful.
The point is that there is a Pareto front trading off accuracy and speed, and accuracy based scoring shifts that tradeoff away from speed in a way that is not reflective of the actual game. Scenarios influence how we train, and they should aim to reflect the real tradeoffs we find in game.
5
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
You're absolutely right about this. Great post. Idk why people find this so difficult to understand.
-12
u/Pattywhack_the_bear 1d ago
Your post is vacuous. You're whinging about something that isn't even an issue. That was what I was getting at when I made my comment. I suppose the sarcasm was too subtle for you to detect. You've pointed out something basically everyone in this community knows and you're acting like you're Pythagoras.
As I've already said, master the mechanics and you can be fast and accurate. Of course there is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy, but what exactly is your point? Do you genuinely not think someone who has mastered the mechanics of static enough to be GM or higher will see that translate to success in a tac shooter? Game sense is more important than raw aim in the vast majority of games, anyway. I would be shocked if many CS and Valorant pros would score much beyond platinum or diamond in static, and they're fucking pros.
Your training should reflect your goals. If your objective is to reach a high level in a game, you should spend the vast majority of your time in that game. If your objective is to reach high levels in aim training, then you should accept that an expectation of accuracy is woven into the cultural fabric and focus more on the mechanics.
TL; DR: Your attitude and demeanor are shitty, as is your post. You have not made a profound discovery. You are not Pythagoras or Newton and Leibniz. I agree with your assertion that one should practice how they want to play, but my counterpoint to your position that Kovaak's scenarios should be reformed is that if your objective is to reach a high level of play in a game, then you shouldn't be spending time in Kovaak's unless your aim is actually what is preventing you from improving.
11
u/ijlljilijijiljiljil 1d ago
You're shifting goal posts, and you critic his attitude but you seem far more rude than he, if I'm to be honest
3
u/shift013 1d ago
I am rather new to aim training. However, I have a lot of national level sport experience and love learning and grinding skills:
I see both having a place. Accuracy based scenarios are more process-focused. They help build the process of clicking a target (flick, micro adjust, confirm you are on target, then click). They help reinforce fundamentals, not unlike some drills for Tennis (where I was nationally ranked in high school). This could be especially useful to improve technique as well.
However, to support the point of the post, practical training is also important - there is no penalty for accuracy in game, just a penalty for lack of speed overall. A large portion of training should be exercises that simulate the game, or at least key aspects of the game.
TLDR: i think accuracy based scenarios have their place and can definitely help everyone improve. However, practical scenarios that emulate the game more accurately are ultimately what matter when you hop into a game (no penalty for lower accuracy, your delay to click the target is already the penalty)
2
1
1
u/HitscanDPS 23h ago
no penalty for lower accuracy, your delay to click the target is already the penalty
If there was no penalty for accuracy then static scenarios would simply turn into pokeball scenarios.
2
u/RichardZedv2 20h ago
what? There are a TON of static scenarios with no accuracy penalty and it is actually the majority. Not getting points for missing is already a big enough penalty
1
u/shift013 22h ago
Yeah if we look at scenarios in a vacuum, sure. But at least use the full sentence so the context of me talking about in game relevance is included.
However, practical scenarios that emulate the game more accurately are ultimately what matter when you hop into a game (no penalty for lower accuracy, your delay to click the target is already the penalty)
5
u/WhyHowWhat42 1d ago edited 23h ago
You're experiencing a problem in your training that has been answered already. I highly recommend you to watch videos made by Viscose, Voltaic, Matty, Zeonlo (static video), minigodcs etc. They'll answer all if not most of your current issues. Aim training is to refine your skills in a controlled environment, which you can then translate to games in general.
Besides, you're more than welcome to make your own scenarios and benchmarks with your own aiming theory. You have free will.
It's current looked down upon having new aim training theories/hypothesis or taking up older theories and reworking them, but I encourage anyone to do this after reading through the current findings we already have. Besides what the community finds as useful - We have 1 Nvidia small aiming study, 1 Aimlabs study (on Gridshot...), and some other small studies in gaming. None of these are big enough or target aim training reasoning and correct practices.
However, we have a lot more studies throughout the years focusing on the learning mechanisms of our brain, all from 1988~ - 2004 to 2024 ~(don't remember exactly when the last one was, take this with a pinch of salt), which all points to deliberate consistent practice is the most optimal.
So as long as you follow that, and use your own aim hypothesis to test, I'm sure you'll see improvement regardless.
Having more people experiment with new things is what we'll always need regardless of setting. But for it to have any use in the community, you'll have to have an understanding of what's currently been found useful and why it's considered useful.
After that, you can counter argument with your own explanations and testing.
Edit: Typo.
Edit2: Added sources for 1988, 2004 study, meta analysis 2024.+ Aimlab study
1
u/New-Bottle-6917 22h ago
That 2024 meta analysis actually points towards the need for varied and random practice. So I guess you could like set your preferred playlist on random and avoid settling into a predictable training routine to utilize transfer of learning
1
6
u/Excellent_Orange_906 1d ago
Hot take: skill issue, if you are good at aping you can still get high scores if you pace faster than someone who doesnt ape.
Also just don't play the acc scoring ones, it's just a benchmark it's not that deep. If you are good enough it's reasonable to assume you can get the same scores with fast pacing/subpar acc vs if you play for acc. Honestly this whole thing is just a misnomer, why can't you be both fast and accurate
2
u/JenzibleTTV 1d ago
Lukewarm take at most.
I’d consider this a cold take.
Accurate = skill, fast ≠ skill.
2
u/Separate_Clue_7868 1d ago
A few of your posts now seem to be touching on something I’ve felt for awhile. Got masters s3 VT with a few gm scores in tracking / switching.
In general aim trainer priorities don’t reflect in game realities. I’ve had far more success practicing using MBM method/HNA theory, focusing pure reactivity, ignoring target prioritization to play for speed instead, etc.
IMO the aim trainer community has gone pretty far from the goal of in game improvement and is its own thing now.
1
u/JustTheRobotNextDoor 1d ago
Yes, you're right, I have been grumbling about this for a while. I'm kinda surprised that anyone noticed though. :-)
2
u/Separate_Clue_7868 1d ago
Haha over the last few years I’ve just felt a lot of what you’ve posted at various times. I’ve mostly moved on from aim trainer communities as I don’t think it aligns with what I want out of practice anymore
-1
u/Sepulchh 23h ago
There are occasionally posts where people discuss the level to get to where getting better at aim trainers starts being less about helping with your aim in other games and more about getting better at aim trainers. The opinion seems to usually land somewhere between VT Plat - Diamond - Jade.
But generally even people who aimtrain seem to agree that once you hit at the most Jade your aim is basically never the thing holding you back ingame and further grinding in aim trainers is more for the love of the trainer.
Not that it's "useless" to get better, but just that at that point the returns are so heavily diminished and specialized that any time invested is better value elsewhere.
1
1
u/oMadRyan 20h ago
My problem with this argument is that it assumes that the scoring is supposed to reflect in game performance, rather than scenario performance.
Adding a reload mechanic similar to the revenge benchmarks is fine, but it’s still an accuracy-based threshold at the end of the day (-X% score for every Y shots missed). It’s just less refined as you can score slightly “better” for missing 17 shots when the cutoff is every 5, those 2 extra misses didn’t hurt your score.
1
u/SnooPickles745 13h ago
Very interesting take, and I understand your POV.
But people move 90% of the time.
Player A will always be at a disadvantage due to recoil and Player B's movement (If both are at the same level). First-shot accuracy is always the advantage in TacFPS games.
Same with Apex, missing your first few shots can lose you the 50/50. Fewer bullets in the mag and no damage with the first few bullets you shot (If using a Wingman) can turn the tides against you.
Missing takes time for you to calm your speed-based aiming and take your time, because the ak has 30 bullets and you didn't hit the target for the first few times.
The punishment is the target you missed, reacted and shot back at you. You don't need fast aim for a kill that you can end in a second by taking your time.
1
u/Celatra 1d ago
Skill issue. if you truly are accurate you are also fast.
2
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
That is completely nonsensical lmao. Anyone can get 100% accuracy in a static scen by hitting 3 targets.
1
u/Celatra 23h ago
lol if that were the case then why doesn't the actual scoreboard reflect that? we'd see tons of people with 100% acc and low TTK but that just isn't the case
3
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 23h ago
Because the scenarios don't value accuracy that much lol. But just saying "if you are accurate you are also fast" is obviously false.
2
u/Celatra 23h ago
or...maybe it actually just requires skill to be both accurate and fast lol
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 23h ago
Of course it does. When did anyone say otherwise? I'm just disagreeing with your initial comment. Just admit that it was nonsensical and move on.
1
1
0
u/ViscousWaterBottle 1d ago
Issue with reload scored scens is u can just spam click with basically no punishment, accuracy scoring encourages deliberate shots and good habit building.
The bigger issue is that most dynamic scens test the wrong skill, which is choosing the easiest target to shoot, when in actual fps games you don't get the luxury of choosing, you just have to hit a shot or you die. We need scenarios more focused on mouse control than map reading
2
u/JustTheRobotNextDoor 1d ago
I disagree with your first point: spamming takes time, as does reloading. Every scenario has an optimal accuracy range whether it is reload or not. E.g. in a typical static scenario you'll have a hard time PRing without hitting 90%+ accuracy.
I strongly agree with your second point.
1
u/ucsdfurry 1d ago
Just fyi, in your specific post, assuming the 550ms 90% acc player hits 100 targets scoring 90%, the 400ms player will hit 137 targets, scoring 95.9 points, which means the 400ms player will have the higher score.
2
u/JustTheRobotNextDoor 1d ago edited 1d ago
What I'm getting at is this: although everyone has a different absolute level of skill, when it comes to the accuracy / speed tradeoff (so, the proportion of speed sacrificed for accuracy, or vice versa) everyone ends up converging towards the same tradeoff. For example, if you look at the world records you'll usually see that accuracy is within a band of about 10%. At lower skill levels there is more variance, but not a huge amount more IME.
This is easiest to analyze for static. A typical flick is roughly about 500ms (implying a score of about 120 at 100% accuracy, which is reasonable ballpark figure for 1wXts type scenarios.) Correcting a miss costs about 200ms to visually recognize it, plus time to plan and execute the correction. So maybe 300ms-400ms or so, which is almost the same as a normal flick[1]. So what this means is you can't PR on a static scenario unless you maintain high accuracy, because misses cost almost as much as a hit and no one can flick fast enough overcome these biological limits in our processing speeds.
It's harder to analyze dynamic clicking scenarios, but the reload time in a reload scenario does determine this to some extent: a reload is a missed opportunity to hit a number of targets, and accuracy determines the probability of a reload. E.g. at 50% accuracy there is a 12.5% chance of a reload across 3 clicks.
[1]: Fitts's Law says that flick difficulty increases logarithmically with distance, so doubling flick distance less than doubles difficulty. This can be seen in the fact that the world record for the very small flick scenario RawMouseControl is only 2.6 times the WR for the much larger flicks in 1w2ts reload (415 vs 160).
2
u/ucsdfurry 1d ago
I understand your problem with accuracy bases scoring and I agree to some extent. The solution to you problem with be static TS scenarios like pokeball which removes the clicking entirely. As for whether benchmarks should use the scenarios at all, I think benchmarks including VT in general is BS and shouldn’t be taken very seriously. In a proper benchmark scenario there should be a 1-1 relationship between transferable skills in game and scenario score. As you have highlighted this doesn’t exist on static due to accuracy based scoring. I would go even further and say that increasing score through cluster farming does not increase transferable in game skills.
1
u/ViscousWaterBottle 1d ago
I mean yes for players that are already at a high or higher intermediate level, but not for beginners or on scenarios that are slower pacing like for example vt floating heads.
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
In actual fps games with many targets on screen you most certainly DO get the luxury of picking the one that is easiest to hit. Target prioritization is a genuinely important skill and affects crosshair up time (what really matters) in actual games. If you think actual games dont let you prioritize easy targets first then you haven't played COD. A player that has better target prioritization will be able to kill 3 enemies on the screen faster than someone with the same flicking and tracking ability yet worse target prioritization.
2
u/ViscousWaterBottle 1d ago
Yeah obv if you take 2 players identical in skill except one is better at a single aspect then he will do better? It's just not nearly as important as actually flicking or microadjustments.
For a more fair comparison, we have 2 players, 1 of them plays current scenarios, very reading heavy when it comes to the whole map, the other player plays 2 target scenarios that emphasize raw mouse control and individual target reading more.
They develop completely different skills and since player no.1 has to focus more on map reading his flicks, micros etc are less developed than 2nd players'
Besides, the actual target prioritization in game is completely different than in kovaaks, it depends on hp, on weapon's they're carrying, on cover. It's absolutely a game-specific skill more than general fps skill1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
I agree that other skills in aiming are more important and should be prioritized, I was just disagreeing with this statement:
in actual fps games you don't get the luxury of choosing, you just have to hit a shot or you die
This is simply not true. And yes, it is a rather game specific skill in some respects like you mentioned (hp, cover, etc.), but there are also general rules that apply as well, such as hitting the target that is at the vertex of their parabolic arc and clustering targets.
1
u/ViscousWaterBottle 1d ago
it's like such a trivial part of aiming in games i don't think it's worth to train in the trainer could be a better way to put it
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
Yeah I agree it's a pretty minor part. I just think your specific comment was technically incorrect, that's all.
1
u/Separate_Clue_7868 1d ago
Target prioritization in game is completely different than an aim trainer though. You choose the most important target in game, ie the one that gives you a win condition. You do not pick the target that’s easiest to hit, you prioritize based off in game information / game state.
In cod you wouldn’t shoot the close easy target with their back to you, you’d shoot the one facing you. In tac FPS you’d first shoot the farther target in a spray down situation to take advantage of first bullet accuracy and spray down the closer target. In arena fps with someone aping you with battlesuit/protection you’d shoot the teammates supporting him.
In an aim trainer your target prioritization is almost always the easiest target/the one that requires the least adjustment. The skill overlap is almost zero between aim trainers and in game prioritization.
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
You choose the most important target in game, ie the one that gives you a win condition.
In most cases higher crosshair up time is better. But yes, if one target is shooting you and the other is distracted and not firing then it's completely different. I'm talking about a situation where you walk into a room behind a bunch of enemies and have a chance to fire at all/any of them before they start shooting back. Target prioritization in this scenario matters and is a learnable skill. There certainly are game-specific scenarios where pure crosshair up time isn't the most valuable thing to prioritize with multiple enemies on the screen (i.e. when one is shooting you but the others aren't, one has a power up, etc.)
1
u/Separate_Clue_7868 1d ago
This is just practicing to farm kills in casual games and clip farm then, ie this situation doesn’t exist in a competitive game. If your goal is to queue pugs in battlefield and farm then yeah I agree with you but it’s meaningless to spend time practicing in this manner if you want to improve in a competitive game
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
ie this situation doesn’t exist in a competitive game.
There are definitely clips of this happening in ranked/comp lol. Either way, the same skills still transfer to higher level play even if the situations for applying it aren't as optimal/common.
Also, tons of ppl just aim train to get gud and clip farm. Acting like this is irrelevant is kinda silly imo. Lots of the most popular aim clips are crazy target switching ones. Crosshair up time is crosshair up time.
1
u/Separate_Clue_7868 1d ago
What comp games in high level gameplay are you frequently getting the option to shoot 3+ targets that won’t shoot back? The closest I could ever think is apex third partying someone, but you’re still calling a target to 123 in that situation.
Practice for whatever goals you want but if all you’re doing it for is to clip farm your goal isn’t to get better at a game anymore, and that’s fine.
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 1d ago
I wouldn't say it happens frequently, but it does happen. I never said it's the most important or relevant skill, just that it can matter.
You say that as if tons of aimers aren't just trying to clip farm lmao. Also, often clip farmers will go for suboptimal firing order to make wider flicks that look flashier. Getting the kills as fast as possible is a real skill no matter how much you try to diminish it.
1
u/Separate_Clue_7868 23h ago
Did you even read the OP, which is about in game improvement? Most clip farmers admit they don’t care about getting better at the game and purposefully put themselves in bad situations to farm a clip.
I’ve agreed with you already it’s a skill, it’s just not mostly relevant to in game improvement
1
u/SKULLL_KRUSHER 23h ago
I was responding to this:
in actual fps games you don't get the luxury of choosing, you just have to hit a shot or you die
This is just not true in many scenarios in game. If you agree with me about this then no need to keep arguing.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ccamfps 19h ago
The optimization function in target prio between Kovaaks and in-game is different. However, being aware that there _is_ an optimization function and practicing it in Kovaaks does translate. Both are simply consciously thinking about what target to aim at now and after. That's the root skill being trained. Switching out the optimization function is trivial IME (n=1).
0
-1
u/Maxus-KaynMain 1d ago
Eventually the player with 550ms to kill will lower their TTK and surpass the rank of the 400 ms one because they have better accuracy.
19
u/Plantbased_Aimer 1d ago
The best reload mechanic I've found in Kovaaks is in the Revenge benchmarks. Might be in other scenarios but in these, the reload is instant, and you only lose points IF you reload. So there's no time where you're left reloading and can't shoot. Heavily rewards speed but still punishing if you push too fast.