|
Post by Aphoristic on May 18, 2014 16:54:35 GMT -5
So drift0r made a video on the results of his poll on quick scoping, and this is the perfect excuse for me to make a new thread on it. 50% of players feel that their gameplay experience is negatively impacted by quickscoping. You cannot say it isn't an issue when half of the community isn't having as much fun because of it. (Yes, I know that 15,000 people isn't the entire community, but this still provides a snapshot of the community regardless.) What is the problem with quick scoping? Well first of all, dying in one hit sucks. People traditionally have complained about explosives, snipers, shotguns, and melee. All of these things kill in one hit. Dying in one hit needs to feel justified. If you don't feel like you did something wrong to die to a one hit kill, then you get angry. Quick scoping attracts more attention right now because it doesn't feel justified. The person using the sniper is using a long range weapon up close where it should not be effective. Even if it does take more skill to use, it will always feel wrong to die to a sniper up close. The only way to fix it is to change it. There are multiple possible approaches that I can think of, so I'll go one by one. Adjust Snipers- One hit kill areas reduced significantly. Headshots/maybe upper chest only.
- Hipfire spread increased with no drawn crosshairs.
- Decreased ADS time.
My current favorite idea. Make the snipers not impossible to quick scope, but instead it's unlikely people will be able to do it consistently enough for it to matter. The ADS buff is there to help traditional snipers get enough time to aim for vital areas. Adjust things further if needed. Body Armor- Add body armor as an perk or something.
- Snipers cannot kill a body armor target without a headshot.
- Make it one time use, absorbs x damage.
[li]Buff snipers back to their former glory.[/li][/ul]I hadn't thought much into this one, but it doesn't seem terrible. It adds an unreliability to one hit kills as a deterrent to players choosing to use them. Shotguns would probably need to be buffed as well. Ramping Damage Snipers- One hit kills are literally impossible up close.
- Damage increases to normal over a distance.
This was my original idea in past threads. It's still perfectly good, but it does have the problem of being stupidly unrealistic. Black Ops Snipers- Make them inaccurate briefly after ADS.
Treyarch tried it. They just didn't have it adjusted right at launch. Black Ops is in a decent spot with it though. FAQ"This again? Snipers are not overpowered." The power level isn't the problem. It is the games inability to translate why you dying to a long ranged weapon at short ranges is fair to the player. If you can think of a good way to do that tell me. I can't so changing snipers is the only other option. "If you want to nerf snipers, you should just remove them. They already suck enough as it is." Removal is certainly another option that I didn't bring up. But I think the reaction to removing them would be worse than nerfing them.[/ul]
|
|
42
True Bro
Bingo Bango Bongo
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by 42 on May 18, 2014 17:12:38 GMT -5
Ugh, really?
If anything, nerf whiners.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 18, 2014 17:14:19 GMT -5
Come on now, theres enough new people here that it's time for a new one.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on May 18, 2014 17:54:00 GMT -5
50% of players feel that their gameplay experience is negatively impacted by quick scoping. ... The contrapose of which is that 50% of players feel that quickscoping is either a good thing for the game or have no strong feelings about it either way. You should realize that changes that make quickscoping less effective could just as easily piss off that other 50%, resulting in no net change in how satisfied the community is with quickscoping. Using this statistic as evidence that a change needs to be made is odd, given the exact 50% split and the reciprocal nature of the question. Headshot-only would be a death sentence for bolt-action rifles (unless maybe their rate-fo-fire was significantly buffed, to the tune of ~80-90 RPM). An upper chest-only killzone has been tried before (Ballista) and really wasn't all that effective at deterring quickscoping. (Mind you, railgunners had the DSR 50 as an alternative in BOII.) With functional ADS delay now out of the game, this isn't at all relevant to quickscoping. This is the only fair suggestion I think that's been made in your post. (I know you meant to say "increase".) In other words, re-introduce a scaled-down Juggernaut. It's tough to judge the wisdom of this ex-situ but it is clear that this would (again) harm snipers more than other classes. (Yes, that was true in CoD4 as well, but CoD4 has Stopping Power.) Besides that, there's the issue of telegraphing who has this perk and which of those players still have "active" body armor (i.e., haven't yet taken a hit during their current life). Granted this isn't the subject of your post, but on the greater topic of reducing player frustrations with one-shot weapons: don't you think you'll just be creating a different problem by buffing shotguns? Shotguns are already a divisive class in their own right, for related but different reasons. Buffing shotguns just to balance a perk that would indirectly nerf snipers sounds like you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul (replacing one unrealistic mechanic with another. Yes, I grant that quickscoping is unrealistic.) Which again is unfair to the sniper. Every other class is designed so that, when the ADS animation is finished, you have ADS accuracy. Your idea (and that idea in Black Ops) relies on the disingenuous idea of baiting the sniper into firing an inaccurate shot when they would otherwise assume - and rightly so - that they have ADS accuracy. No other class has to put up with anything like this. If you feel the need to reduce the killing power of snipers by making them wait longer for ADS accuracy, just increase the ADS time. At least then the sniper is aware that they must wait longer for full accuracy. (That, or introduce this mechanic for all classes.) All in all, I think that, if you really feel the need to nerf quickscoping, the only fair ways to do it are to incorporate a temporary idle sway penalty that applies immediately after ADS and/or increase ADS time. My first suggestion, although class-specifiic, doesn't lie to the player: they can see for themselves that they are suffering an accuracy penalty and can adjust accordingly or wait for the penalty to subside.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 18, 2014 18:26:27 GMT -5
The link to the survey thing was just to give me a reason to post this and show that it is a problem for half the community. Even if you assume then that the 36% who said they don't want anything to change would be angered that is still less than half the community who is upset (36% coming from the next question in that video). The actual suggestions weren't meant to be exact. I could say increase RoF, lower recoil, etc. Make changes to make the guns play better at range and worse up close. That's all that idea meant. Shotguns fall into the same category, yes. But they at least aren't being used outside of their range. They are already inconsistent enough against normal players and would need a slight adjustment probably to be balanced in a world with juggernaut. Making them always require two shots against a target with armor is just punishing them for being used in their correct role, unless there was clear indication of when an enemy had the armor. If there could be a good way to tell then things would probably be fine. As far as increasing ADS time, I'm not a big fan of it. I would greatly prefer nimble weak snipers to slow strong ones. I could go on to how I would never use an LMG because of how sluggish they are too. Using mobility as a major point of balance is just bad. There are plenty of other points to balance things with that keep the weapons from being unfun to use. And I'm not saying everything needs .2 ADS time and 100% movespeed. The differences between the fastest and slowest should be much smaller. Something as simple as: ARs: .25 ADS, 95% mobility SMGs/Pistols/Shotguns: .2 ADS, 100% mobility LMGs/Snipers/Launchers: .3 ADS, 90% mobility No stupid faster ADS or faster movespeed options either. Mobility is such a huge balance factor in the game that the differences should not be so drastic.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 18, 2014 19:08:27 GMT -5
Can we at least wait until MP info comes out for AW before kicking the hornet's nest? The fact it's 50-50 means no matter what Sledgehammer does they lose.
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on May 18, 2014 19:19:22 GMT -5
Anytime a quickscoper kills you, you would have died to an AR/SMG anyway
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 18, 2014 19:29:16 GMT -5
Anytime a quick scoper kills you, you would have died to an AR/SMG anyway That isn't the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2014 20:05:15 GMT -5
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on May 18, 2014 20:20:47 GMT -5
Are we really having this discussion again? Nothing is going to change in the CoD formula without serious feedback from the community, and as much as I like Drift0r, his poll isn't it. It's a poll done by a guy on youtube who, while popular, does not have a subscriber base that accurately represents the entire community.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 18, 2014 20:23:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2014 20:57:01 GMT -5
Somewhere around there. What am I, a wizard?
|
|
|
Post by thomasthetrain on May 18, 2014 22:26:10 GMT -5
What is the problem with quick scoping? Well first of all, dying in one hit sucks. People traditionally have complained about explosives, snipers, shotguns, and melee. All of these things kill in one hit. Dying in one hit needs to feel justified. If you don't feel like you did something wrong to die to a one hit kill, then you get angry. Quick scoping attracts more attention right now because it doesn't feel justified. The person using the sniper is using a long range weapon up close where it should not be effective. Even if it does take more skill to use, it will always feel wrong to die to a sniper up close. The only way to fix it is to change it. There are multiple possible approaches that I can think of, so I'll go one by one. FAQ"This again? Snipers are not overpowered." The power level isn't the problem. It is the games inability to translate why you dying to a long ranged weapon at short ranges is fair to the player. If you can think of a good way to do that tell me. I can't so changing snipers is the only other option. "If you want to nerf snipers, you should just remove them. They already suck enough as it is." Removal is certainly another option that I didn't bring up. But I think the reaction to removing them would be worse than nerfing them. You open up your argument with a incredibly logical and well educated statement. I think it can be take further though, dying Foxtroting sucks, and it's exceptionally easy to think of a dozen hypotheticals that show time to kill is what matters not how many shots it takes. For a quick example if there was a gun that did 50,000 ticks of damage every second but required 300 ticks to kill, said gun could kill in like .006 of a second, and said kill in .006 of a second (according to the model of shots to kill are what matters) isn't as infuriating/sucks dying to as much as a OHK that kills in .8 of a second. That's clearly absurd, the amount of shots needed isn't a huge problem but rather TTK is. to the bolded: People have also traditionally complained about stopping power, too mobile while firing, low recoil on weapons, absurdly good accuracy on AR's well beyond their realistic ranges, in some games AR's dominance over SMG's, aim assist, skill curves in the game, and the real kicker that gets me is the competitive community year after year has voiced how weak snipers are in every game mode aside from SnD. People complain about shit in every single game no matter what, it just is what it is that doesn't mean they're necessarily right. And I have to ask, what is a justified death because that's very ambiguous? Apparently that which requires the most skill to do and is inherently inefficient is not justification enough. If something with those specifications aren't justified enough apparently it is safe to say NO deaths are justified... Plus there's the simple numerical fact that smg's and AR's kill faster than a snipah wiffle.. But that apparently isn't the point even though i would say that's extremely critical to building up an argument of how to justify a death... You seem to generally put focus on counterplay being critical, and in your competitive thread you seem to back that skill instead of randomness are important. But here is the very instance of counter play and yet you're against it. What counterplay does a sniper have to the sheer dominance of the AR's superiority at close range? Does one simply lay down and die because joe smoh picked gun x instead of gun y? That doesn't seem like valid counterplay. And the advantage is still in the CQC guns favor (albeit only by like a quarter of a second or so) so quick scoping as a form of counterplay does not allow you to simply beat your traditional counter. Instead quick scoping gives you the chance to capitalize on your opponents mistake (his mistake in not utilizing his advantage at CQC) and have some chance to overcome him after he had made a mistake (since if he didn't make said mistake there's absolutely 0 chance that a rail gun beats the top tier AR's and SMG's). The approach you take here seems to be quite the opposite of the game which your avatar comes from, in that you essentially want a super hard counter with almost no ability to counter play, or for the option of counter play you propose is way way way harder for the person at a disadvantage to the degree that unless the man with the CQC gun is a bumbling wacky guy the sniper has absolutely no chance of winning the engagement. As stated a million times the sniper clearly isn't effective at close range in comparison with other weapons, if it was the snipers should be used resoundingly at all forms of competitive instead of being used sparingly only in SnD (and even than most the time the pro is rocking a second primary weapon) And the "fact" that it feels wrong to die to a sniper up close is subjective; to me I feel embarrassed if i die to a sniper up close (unless he got the drop in which case i would of been dead in any situation) in CoD, CS, or even Tf2. Logically it shouldn't feel any worse, a sniper rifle is still a freaking gun, it isn't magically heavier and slower to use just because it's a sniper rifle. And if you wish for realism i can semi-accurately (as in maintain a good spread, i can easily hit a target the size of a human chest) fire a F class rifle (what i used for competition firing) while on the move not using the scope up to about 15m i've never done a movement based course with shots farther than 20m, but i can probably semi-reliably hit targets without "taking aim" (in the sense that i can gauge it just off of where the barrel is pointing and account for the parallax between my own eyes and the firing position of the rifle) probably as far 25m and maybe as high as 35m? which is way way farther than most CoD engagements take place, and way past the distance of the usual complaint of "omg quick scoping shouldn't win at close range". If we wish to discuss realism, "no scoping" as it's called shouldn't be all that inaccurate within 10m and if it's being done by navy seals and shit, i wouldn't be all that surprised if the range could be extended considerably.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 19, 2014 0:57:30 GMT -5
You seem to generally put focus on counterplay being critical, and in your competitive thread you seem to back that skill instead of randomness are important. But here is the very instance of counter play and yet you're against it. What counterplay does a sniper have to the sheer dominance of the AR's superiority at close range? Does one simply lay down and die because joe smoh picked gun x instead of gun y? That doesn't seem like valid counterplay. And the advantage is still in the CQC guns favor (albeit only by like a quarter of a second or so) so quick scoping as a form of counterplay does not allow you to simply beat your traditional counter. Instead quick scoping gives you the chance to capitalize on your opponents mistake (his mistake in not utilizing his advantage at CQC) and have some chance to overcome him after he had made a mistake (since if he didn't make said mistake there's absolutely 0 chance that a rail gun beats the top tier AR's and SMG's). The approach you take here seems to be quite the opposite of the game which your avatar comes from, in that you essentially want a super hard counter with almost no ability to counter play, or for the option of counter play you propose is way way way harder for the person at a disadvantage to the degree that unless the man with the CQC gun is a bumbling wacky guy the sniper has absolutely no chance of winning the engagement. As stated a million times the sniper clearly isn't effective at close range in comparison with other weapons, if it was the snipers should be used resoundingly at all forms of competitive instead of being used sparingly only in SnD (and even than most the time the pro is rocking a second primary weapon) And the "fact" that it feels wrong to die to a sniper up close is subjective; to me I feel embarrassed if i die to a sniper up close (unless he got the drop in which case i would of been dead in any situation) in CoD, CS, or even Tf2. Logically it shouldn't feel any worse, a sniper rifle is still a freaking gun, it isn't magically heavier and slower to use just because it's a sniper rifle. You seem to have missed the part where snipers stood out as a problem because they aren't supposed to be effective up close by design. The game is not supposed to be balanced purely for the competitive scene either. Things need to be balanced to work for all skill levels. Each weapon has a role. A snipers role is long range dominance. Fighting up close with a sniper should be as punishing as trying to fight at long range with a shotgun. Does this mean there is no counterplay? You have more than a sniper. Fast swap to a magnum up close. Protect your perimeter with traps. Knife them. Snipers currently are not ineffective enough up close to justify the trade off for all but the highest skilled players. Reworking them to give them different strengths while making up close usage less effective would make them useful for both competitive and casual.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 19, 2014 10:13:42 GMT -5
tl;dr: It seems that the actual roles and capabilities of sniper weapons aren't being communicated very well to some players. I guess the point is people form simple minded assumptions about snipers, (especially if they don't use them), but that perception trumps reality in opinions. It's pretty hard to balance the class of weapon against this all or nothing perception without some pretty heavy gameplay repercussions, (though some tweaks have been tried). It seems to me like the developers have resigned themselves to keeping sniper weapons as niche weapons and ignoring further complaints against them. Anytime a quick scoper kills you, you would have died to an AR/SMG anyway That isn't the point. From a purely balance perspective it's a pretty good point, actually. I'd say the issue here is one of communication and expectation. After all, none of these are actually weapons, they're just simple hitscan generators with a few stats and a weapon model. We talk about these weapons like they're real, but they are less than nothing. The weapon model and the classification of a "weapon" as a sniper rifle is nothing more than a bit of information communicated between the developer and the players to give some expectation as to how the weapon functions. I'd say over all that does give you a decent idea how the weapons work in general, but also sets up a few unrealistic expectations like sniper rifles being as ineffective outside their range as shotguns are. People just don't like to see them do anything outside their niche I guess. That doesn't really make much sense to me. Shotguns are ineffective at range due to the pellets spreading. Sniper rifles are just clunky for CQB, stand in front of me and hold still and I'll still put a hole in your chest with no problem with a sniper rifle. It seems like people's expectations of role coherence go overboard right off into completely unrealistic and even unintuitive. I'm not sure why people's expectations of snipers got so extreme, I think it maybe stems from the perception that snipers are incredibly powerful within their niche and people hate being killed by them already due to the ambush without possibility of reprisal nature of that. They believe that they are at the mercy of snipers at that range and thus snipers should be at their mercy within their own range. Unfortunately in any poll or public opinion research perception > reality, every single time. You could let players take the scopes off, similar to W@W except without the magic damage changes. Iron sights sniper still has damage profile, but has less accuracy, yet faster ADS than scope. Basically just balance the iron sights version for quickscoping, that way railgunners will gravitate to those and players killed by them will have a bit better understanding of what's going on since they're killers are using iron sights instead of a scope. In other words they'll just see themselves killed by a powerful rifle rather than a snap scoped in sniper rifle, which I think is a big part of what people think is rediculous. Would still need gameplay tweaks to make quickscoping challenging. Personally I still feel that ridiculously unusable hipfire spread actually encourages quickscoping rather than discourages it. I think players would rage a bit less at a sniper killing them with hipfire than quickscoping. If the hipfire spread is going to be completely useless I'd rather trade it for holding the gun to your chest and using it as a melee weapon instead when not scoped.
|
|
|
Post by thomasthetrain on May 19, 2014 15:09:04 GMT -5
You seem to have missed the part where snipers stood out as a problem because they aren't supposed to be effective up close by design. The game is not supposed to be balanced purely for the competitive scene either. Things need to be balanced to work for all skill levels. Each weapon has a role. A snipers role is long range dominance. Fighting up close with a sniper should be as punishing as trying to fight at long range with a shotgun. Does this mean there is no counterplay? You have more than a sniper. Fast swap to a magnum up close. Protect your perimeter with traps. Knife them. Snipers currently are not ineffective enough up close to justify the trade off for all but the highest skilled players. Reworking them to give them different strengths while making up close usage less effective would make them useful for both competitive and casual. Once again we're operating in ambiguous interpretations of words i think.. effective : "Successful in producing a desired or intended result:" the function of a sniper is to kill, it is unique to others in that it generates more velocity packing a larger punch. And sometimes it has a scope on top of the rifle, and generally has lower RoF'ing. the function of a quick scope is to quickly fire an accurate shot, i don't know how any of this is against how it is supposed to function. You can make the argument they shouldn't be efficient : "(Especially of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense:" And by that definition quick scoping is definitely not efficient compared to any other guns, as stated about a dozen other times.. And i don't quite understand what you mean by role, i guess you mean like niche they fill? I don't quite understand what you mean though by the shotgun example a shotgun has range limitations because that's just how a standard shell works, if they were to put slugs into the game, i'd be fine with them having considerable range. Fighting at long range with a shotgun simply isn't an option because of the weapon options they give you. Where as the rifles they give you are just guns.. if a shotgun fired a standard bullet and they still insisted on it not shooting at long range i'd say that's complete bullshit. But the game isn't set up that way (as of now) so i'd say it would be absurd to make a shotgun function as regular bullet. Also you have to account for the fact that quick scoping is the hardest hit scan shot to make, and at extreme distances is still just as hard, if nor harder than any other guns firing method. Where as a shotgun is the easiest shot in the game at close range, and doesn't exist at long range. They aren't efficient in competitive because sniping on the move is terrible (the ADS is way to long to be useful) and in objective game modes, the only time you won't be on the move a lot is generally just SnD. making them stronger from afar (which i don't even know how one could do that..) doesn't change the fact that their niche is rare and can be done by a normal AR 80% of the time. Also yes a sniper does have a secondary, as does a shotgun and everyone else, and in most the games a secondary is actually super effective at all ranges on PC (in CoD 4 one deagle headshot would drop a person at all but extreme distances) but everyone has those answers, everyone can have traps, fast swaps etc etc. The only thing a sniper itself has is a quick scope, and the quick scope is not efficient it's not "good". Really the only valid complaint people have is "I have terrible aim and die because i miss my shots" Go and look for any video complaint about quickscoping slow the video down to .25 speed, and watch as they miss at least 1 bullet and somtimes as many as like 3-4 and still complain lol.
|
|
Ricebowl
True Bro
/u/frozenlinx
Posts: 117
|
Post by Ricebowl on May 19, 2014 15:30:45 GMT -5
I don't think calling quickscoping OP is the right term. I think it's an exploit. The game is meant to have some reality attached to it. Hence why sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, and pistols all work like their real life counterpart to a degree. However, the ability to tap the left trigger and your aiming spread be shrunk down to zero doesn't really make sense and isn't how the weapon was intended to be used. It's why Treyarch tried to combat it in BO, the developers of the very game themselves didn't want it. It's not how the weapon is supposed to be used. in my opinion
|
|
Ricebowl
True Bro
/u/frozenlinx
Posts: 117
|
Post by Ricebowl on May 19, 2014 16:12:04 GMT -5
Lol this is what urban dictionary defines OP as
|
|
Ricebowl
True Bro
/u/frozenlinx
Posts: 117
|
Post by Ricebowl on May 19, 2014 16:21:34 GMT -5
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 19, 2014 16:22:14 GMT -5
I think exploit is far too strong a term. You may not like it and can even site logical reasons why you're against it, but it doesn't break any of the systems, rules, or mechanics of the game in any way. You might as well label tactical loitering, panic knifing, dropshotting, and spawn trapping as exploits as well.
As is snipers have to be extremely mobile in CoD to have any hope of actually performing. The maps, gameplay, spawning, and other weapons all make "proper" sniping pretty much impossible. But making the weapons usable for highly mobile sniping also makes quickscoping work so it's a natural progression.
Personally I don't even see it as all that unrealistic in a sense. At least not much more than the rest of CoD. After all, have you seen Saving Private Ryan? The allied soldier in the tower was basically quickscoping nazi's until the tank took him out. Now is that realistic? I don't know, or care. It's the same level of realism as CoD, if not higher. That's kinda what sniping has to be in CoD to work. It's a fast paced game.
If you hamstring snipers into only being useful as sluggish, hardscoping, tactical loitering, hide in the bushes at the edge of the map and hope nobody spots you kind of thing then you better redesign the maps and spawning systems as well.
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on May 19, 2014 16:52:37 GMT -5
Well first of all, dying in one hit sucks. (...) just checked and now 40% of community plays HC on PC .... where every gun is 1-2HK. > the person using the sniper is using a long range weapon up close where it should not be effective. because what? generally, tons of statements without proofs. you behave like a priest: we have to believe and follow, no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 19, 2014 17:48:30 GMT -5
> the person using the sniper is using a long range weapon up close where it should not be effective. because what? Because that's what a fu cking sniper is. snipe verb 1. shoot at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range.
|
|
Ricebowl
True Bro
/u/frozenlinx
Posts: 117
|
Post by Ricebowl on May 19, 2014 18:00:56 GMT -5
Well first of all, dying in one hit sucks. (...) just checked and now 40% of community plays HC on PC .... where every gun is 1-2HK. > the person using the sniper is using a long range weapon up close where it should not be effective. because what? generally, tons of statements without proofs. you behave like a priest: we have to believe and follow, no thanks. well because.. thats what a sniper is supposed to do thats what it was designed for otherwise they wouldnt have patched it soooooo many times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2014 18:57:24 GMT -5
Exactly. In this game of close quarters we need long range-rifles to pick off people in close quarters. If people die at long range it means we've made the maps too big. That's where the long-range rifles come in; if people do half-decently with them we've made a severe error on our part. "But what if we re-purposed the long-range weapons; made them easier to handle when going toe-to-toe with the foe?" But that's where you're wrong, Timmy. Having decent precision with a sniper rifle BEFORE you even look down your sights is a sin. Don't believe me? Look in the first book of the Bible, where the Serpent tempts Eve to quick-scope Adam, thus having to consummate with the Serpent to repopulate mankind. There really aren't that many obvious answers; let alone good ones that make long-range weapons half-decent in close quarters without making them decent in close quarters because they excel at long-range in that close-quarters-oriented game everyone enjoys hating enjoyment. The obvious answer is to choose either or and just let some angry kids scream their lungs out. Another good answer is to just turn Call of Duty into an RTS franchise. That way nobody ever gets killed by a sniper again because having a snake as a partner is not a bad way to go if bestiality is somehow your only option.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 19, 2014 19:18:43 GMT -5
shotguns...work like...real life Even a MW2 Spas maximum range is miniscule compared to how shotguns work in real life.
|
|
Ricebowl
True Bro
/u/frozenlinx
Posts: 117
|
Post by Ricebowl on May 19, 2014 22:12:03 GMT -5
shotguns...work like...real life Even a MW2 Spas maximum range is miniscule compared to how shotguns work in real life. Well they work to a degree
|
|
|
Post by thomasthetrain on May 20, 2014 0:47:00 GMT -5
I don't think calling quickscoping OP is the right term. I think it's an exploit. The game is meant to have some reality attached to it. Hence why sniper rifles, assault rifles, shotguns, and pistols all work like their real life counterpart to a degree. However, the ability to tap the left trigger and your aiming spread be shrunk down to zero doesn't really make sense and isn't how the weapon was intended to be used. It's why Treyarch tried to combat it in BO, the developers of the very game themselves didn't want it. It's not how the weapon is supposed to be used. in my opinion I think you're imagining a sniper rifle to be something else... a standard sinper rifle is still a gun it usually just uses a centerfire bullet, at close range accounting for parallax without the employment of a standard firing position or aiming position (whether it be scope or standard alignment sights, or another form of optics) isn't hard. It's not like "oh boy this gun is single shot, and it has a scope on it, therefore i magically lose all basic ability to use it unless i aim through the scope!" Also Aphoristic your definition of sniper, that was the verb form of snipe "Shoot at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range: the soldiers in the trench sniped at us " that's a verb action of snipe, i don't think people claim quick scoping is the verb form. Rather all it is, is the use of a sniper rifle at close range, (sniper rifle DOES NOT need to be used at only long ranges or only for sniping, it's merely a subsect of rifles and depending on international or u.s. classification it's just a subset of marksman rifles) A person who uses the sniper rifles in CoD need not be a sniper (and realistically the game doesn't let us play like snipers at any rate, but more so like any normal squads designated marksman) but only someone who is using a sniper rifle.. lol at the end of the day it's still a rifle it still function like a normal fire arm.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on May 20, 2014 2:18:35 GMT -5
Okay, fine.
Sniper noun Someone who shoots at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range:
the sniper in the trench sniped at us
Happy?
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on May 20, 2014 2:50:29 GMT -5
> the person using the sniper is using a long range weapon up close where it should not be effective. because what? Because that's what a fu cking sniper is. snipe verb 1. shoot at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range. Wrong definition. There are no snipers in video games. SR in cod:mp is a giant pistol with huge zoom and dmg. Every smg/ar/lmg in cod:mp is highly effective in long range even with irons. .... So called "long range" in your definition is 1-3 kilometers, or so. .... In other words - sniper spotted by enemies in his "long range" has 1/2 hour time to escape, or so, when enemies have smgs. In COD it is ~2 secs respectively. Still not clear enough?
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 20, 2014 9:47:15 GMT -5
Yeah... I still say this really comes down to perception and expectations. "Snipers" have been built up in our society to be godlike marksmen at long ranges and I guess the natural assumption is that such a thing would have to be balanced by being completely useless at closer ranges even if that doesn't make any real world sense. Yes, real life sniper rifles are engineered for hitting targets at long ranges, but the only things that would make a closer target harder to kill would be movement and return fire. In CoD you can't really get far enough to make return fire ineffective unless your target has a shotgun.
With the game being what it is they probably shouldn't even have sniper rifles, but sniper classes are a favorite niche so they stay in the game. It is interesting that people insist on sniper rifles being useless at closer ranges, though. Simply being sub-optimal and usually easy to kill in a head to head fight in closer quarters is apparently not enough.
The fact that it is a "sniper" rifle is supposed to signify that they are the weapons specialized for the longest ranges in the game, not that they are completely useless outside of that specialized niche. This is a topic with much ado about nothing. That the weapon is usable outside it's niche range is not even unique. AR's can be used at all ranges being jack of all trade type weapons but are supposed to excel in mid, yet they can still beat an SMG in close or lose to one in MID. Is that really more acceptible than AR's sometimes(often) beating snipers at long range and sometimes(not that often) losing to them in mid? Some pistols are even good at long range. Hell I've even used some SMG's in some games at long range.
If you want weapons to only ever be effective in their niche then this is not really the right game. Weapons in CoD are usually not that highly specialized, and with good reason. CoD is a casual, fast paced, slow movement shooter and you only get limited weapon choices per loadout. It is not Rock, Paper, Scissors with guns. I'm not saying you couldn't make a game like that, just that CoD is not it and never really will be. Tweaks aside I don't think devs will ever intentionally make sniper rifles completely useless in mid and close ranges because the maps and spawn mechanics don't really support a long range only play style very well. At least unless they make some changes. We'll see.
|
|