|
Post by individual on Dec 1, 2009 16:44:26 GMT -5
It's for quick-scoping.
I noticed that the Intervention had a lower ROF, but same damage as the Barrett. It has less recoil, but the Barrett will recover from its recoil quicker than it takes to pull back the bolt on the Intervention..
So, I wondered: Why would they make a gun that's totally worthless??
Found out it's ideal for quick scoping. The intervention's ADS seems very short, it's always dead center, and even seems to have a bonus with auto-aim, since I had one quick scope that seemed way off but still got a kill.
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Dec 1, 2009 17:34:08 GMT -5
I agree that it seems to have more aim assist.
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Dec 1, 2009 18:27:41 GMT -5
That's probably why I feel more accurate with the Intervention. I thought it was psychological, being that the slow ROF would make me take that extra little bit of time to take the shot.
|
|
|
Post by individual on Dec 1, 2009 18:30:30 GMT -5
If it has more aim assist, that would also explain why it says it has greater "accuracy" in the in-game stats.
About quick scoping... If you're using an ACOG, actually I think the Barrett is better. The Intervention just aims down sight faster without an ACOG. With an ACOG, it's about the same, or maybe the Barrett is actually slightly faster.
Using the ACOG on the Intervention, it does feel a lot like the M40A3. I just wish they had the same hit multipliers -- guaranteed 1-hit kill.
|
|
|
Post by dumdumpop on Dec 1, 2009 19:01:58 GMT -5
according to a gun chart, all snipers have the same ads of .44 but the intervention just feels more natural for quickscoping. just like in cod4. but the intervention, in my opinion, has significantly better hit detection than the barrett.
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Dec 1, 2009 21:17:40 GMT -5
The Intervention ACOG sways too much to be remotely good. Barrett is way better with ACOG.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Dec 1, 2009 22:07:24 GMT -5
The intervention is for people who like reloading after every shot.
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Dec 1, 2009 23:29:36 GMT -5
TBH, I think the Intervention is obsolete in the face of the Barrett.
It's still fun to use, but pointless because it hasn't been confirmed that it is better at anything compared to the Barrett.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Dec 2, 2009 4:03:06 GMT -5
TBH, I think the Intervention is obsolete in the face of the Barrett. It's still fun to use, but pointless because it hasn't been confirmed that it is better at anything compared to the Barrett. It's better at reloading quickly, and it has the ability to reload individual shots at a dramatically faster rate than reloading an entire clip, which is why I said the Intervention is for those who like reloading after every shot.
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 2, 2009 15:17:04 GMT -5
I prefer the intervention (only sniper I use)
Bolt actions jsut fit the way I snipe. I scope out right after every shot so I don't care about recoil.
The scope might come up a little quicker on it, but the animation of the gun centering and scoping in also looks better to me. The barrett kind of comes "up" from the bottom of the screen and it throws my timing and aim off a little.
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 2, 2009 15:20:05 GMT -5
If it has more aim assist, that would also explain why it says it has greater "accuracy" in the in-game stats. I think the accuracy stat for snipers only applies to hip firing (no scopes)
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 2, 2009 19:56:05 GMT -5
On the PC, there is really no reason to use the Intervention over the Barrett. It has worse RoF, MUCH worse recoil (after the scope makes that retarded little motion, it goes away ever so slightly right after which makes it almost unusable) and it even seems to idle a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by individual on Dec 2, 2009 20:02:25 GMT -5
If it has more aim assist, that would also explain why it says it has greater "accuracy" in the in-game stats. I think the accuracy stat for snipers only applies to hip firing (no scopes) Here's a demonstration of the Intervention's ability to no-scope:
|
|
|
Post by dumdumpop on Dec 3, 2009 0:52:31 GMT -5
Intervention bas better hit detection. Just like why everyone used the M40 over Barrett. And I'm not talking about sniper lobby montage kids with epic Michael Bay blue room triples or showdown KEWADDDDS (that's quads for those who don't want to say it to hear what it says), I'm talking about the majority of snipers in CoD4, period.
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 3, 2009 10:26:11 GMT -5
I think the accuracy stat for snipers only applies to hip firing (no scopes) Here's a demonstration of the Intervention's ability to no-scope: yea pretty funny video from hutch. i think no scoping is stupid and i don't really worry about the accuracy of the snipers. I just know in past games the accuracy was for the size of the crosshairs when hip firing. I don't use steady aim so no scoping point blank is still a terrible play
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 4, 2009 6:17:48 GMT -5
When I compared the Intervention and the Barret it seemed that the Barret would kick more when I fired, though it was a more predictable kick, always up and to the right about the same angle as the Deagle. I found it actually easier to put in a shot after, though, because it returned practically on target after the kick where the Intervention would sorta transition into the sway.
I actually do prefer reloading after every shot, though... sort of obsessive about that, so I might consider giving the Intervention another look. I did seem to be able to fire a little faster on the Barret, but even though it is semi auto the kick pretty much nullifies that. Maybe with slight of hand it would be okay for noscoping if you crouch, which could be useful for those OH SHIT moments (wonders what that filters to... hehe). Still though, you can swap to a pistol probably about as fast as you can fire a second shot.
I initially found the Intervention completely inferior but I think the two are actually about the same for sniping since you can't even come close to touching the Barret's ROF with any accuracy. Prolly still faster than Intervention, though. At least it seemed so to me.
Still, though. I suck as a sniper, at least on console. I was pretty good at it ages ago in TFC, before they even fixed the netcode. heh But I've never really gotten use to aiming with the stick instead of a mouse.
I'm surprised how different MW2 is from W@W, btw. My weapons for that were usually the MP40 and the PPSH or sometimes the STG, though I used it less once I had the PPSH, that thing was a waterhose of bullets. I'm completely unable to make SMG's work in MW2, though. The mobility just doesn't help me, I can't get close enough to kill with the UMP. O,O
I wanted to unlock some of the UMP's stuff to use it for a flagrunner class for speed, but it just ain't working. I may have to poke a sniper on there for primary just as a backup and for speed and use a shotgun or something instead.
I'm similarly arse with pistols, but meh... Semi auto doesn't like me for some reason. heh As for why the SMG's don't like me mebbe I've just been spoiled on the AR's. I kinda prefer the longer range fights anyway.
Then again if I ever unlock a sight on the UMP mebbe that would improve things.
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 4, 2009 12:55:29 GMT -5
I think I like the intervention because for 7 prestiges all I did on W@W was snipe (other than dome) with the springfield/kar98/arisaka. I just got use to the bolt actions, scoping in and out quick and swapping to pistol to finish a hit marker(damn juggs!)
In terms of smgs. Try burst firing (or even single shots) with the UMP at long range targets. It is 3 hit kills with or without SP at range.
I find UMP with silencer and cold blooded will get you a lot of kills by surprising people up close as well as long range bursts
|
|
|
Post by Orske on Dec 4, 2009 14:28:16 GMT -5
I think the accuracy stat for snipers only applies to hip firing (no scopes) Here's a demonstration of the Intervention's ability to no-scope: LM AO!
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 4, 2009 22:08:36 GMT -5
Yeah I'll have to unlock the silencer and go CB I think. If I ever manage that it might be good for my flag runner... IF. lol What is it 10 kills to unlock silencer? I think I still need 9. >,>
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 14:40:51 GMT -5
intervention sucks, the auto-aim size and range on it hip-firing is no different than anything else.
snipers are unlocked in reverse order of their awesomeness
M21>WA2k>.50>intervention M21 owns because it has little more recoil than the amazing WA2k, yet has more than 50% more ammo. .50 cal sucks, only reason its not worse off is that it has a higher practical ROF than the intervention. intervention would only be made to be worth anything if it had the acog damage boost back (which only worked well because of its MASSIVE acog auto-aim), or a damage boost when silenced.
It has neither = intervention = worst sniper in the game with nothing going for it.
M40 was only good in COD4 because of the +5 acog damage. M21 and .50 cal were better. only reason most used the M40 is because they didn't have the .50 unlocked ROTFLMAO
|
|
|
Post by m0rs on Dec 9, 2009 7:24:15 GMT -5
intervention sucks, the auto-aim size and range on it hip-firing is no different than anything else. snipers are unlocked in reverse order of their awesomeness M21>WA2k>.50>intervention M21 owns because it has little more recoil than the amazing WA2k, yet has more than 50% more ammo. .50 cal sucks, only reason its not worse off is that it has a higher practical ROF than the intervention. intervention would only be made to be worth anything if it had the acog damage boost back (which only worked well because of its MASSIVE acog auto-aim), or a damage boost when silenced. It has neither = intervention = worst sniper in the game with nothing going for it. M40 was only good in COD4 because of the +5 acog damage. M21 and .50 cal were better. only reason most used the M40 is because they didn't have the .50 unlocked ROTFLMAO /sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 9, 2009 16:56:58 GMT -5
Intervention M-200 is the only one I will ever use again in MW2 and bolt actions are the only true snipers in COD series.
|
|
|
Post by dma on Dec 9, 2009 17:36:29 GMT -5
I don't quite get people who prefer the Intervention. It has absolutly no advantage oder the Barett. You gotta be either a real bolt action fanatic, or a plain masochist to take the Intervention ofer the Barett.
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 9, 2009 23:45:45 GMT -5
I think it'd be cool if we got a kar98k at level 70 (like stg44 in cod4), that would be more useful (fun) than the m200! Could even make the scope optional like in WaW.
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 10, 2009 14:11:18 GMT -5
I don't quite get people who prefer the Intervention. It has absolutly no advantage oder the Barett. You gotta be either a real bolt action fanatic, or a plain masochist to take the Intervention ofer the Barett. To me, the advantage to using the intervention (other than I just love the bolt actions) is in the animation. Scoping in and out with the intervention looks nicer and more natural to me. So since I am more comfortable with the animation I can scope quicker and more accurately. Instead of having this big ugly gun (barrett) pop up from the bottom of the screen which just throws off my timing.
|
|