Sniping is officially WORTHLESS in Black Ops
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs_v1legacy
- Start date
While this is good as it gets rid of Quick Scoping, it also affects normal snipers as well.
Now if they aren't in there scope and they see someone they will just miss, and staying in your scope so you can shoot people means you won't see people sneaking up on you or see your radar or surroundings.
Now if they aren't in there scope and they see someone they will just miss, and staying in your scope so you can shoot people means you won't see people sneaking up on you or see your radar or surroundings.
but...but how dare they require precision and patience from an instrument of precision and patience? They totally broke the game!Flauros said:
On a side note, good. Maybe this will break the fetish for sniping so many have.
There are times when people have differing opinions, and then there are times when you are just plain wrong. When, after 5 pages, your incessant whining has convinced no one, it just might time to reassess where you stand in the matter.
Well, if you are using a sniper rifle for sniping, or, by definition, firing from a concealed position, it means either you move from hidey hole to hidey hole, or find a good enough spot that you can't get found, or, if found, quite hard to hit, at all.Phoenixmgs said:
Sniper rifles are for people who get into a good postion and provide fire support from long ranges against enemies that the whole purpose of sniper rifles in real life and most games.They are designed to run around in shooting people at short range learn to use the weapon how it is supposed to be used or use something designed for the purpose.
It sounds like people are complaining that they cant butter there bread with a fork as well as if they used a knife.
It sounds like people are complaining that they cant butter there bread with a fork as well as if they used a knife.
Also, if you insist upon using Wikipedia as a source, at least do a decent job of it. This took exactly one Google search to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance#Gimp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance#Gimp
I don't think that's a bad move. Snipers are deadly at long range. Unless you're also a sniper, there's basically nothing you can do about someone who's properly hidden across the map. If you could finally get into close range and they could just "Quick-scope! Noob!" then that's unbalanced.
Also,
1) Don't be such pedantic nerd you dipshit. Gimp makes sense there too.
2) Perhaps, but the fact that anyone gets kills from it is unfair. A one hit kill weapon that's good at every range?
3) Same thing as two.
4)You just got through saying the poor aim assist prevented quick-scoping from being overpowered; wouldn't fixing that, you know, make it overpowered?
Lastly, you've friggin late to the party. Someone already started a thread about this. Search bar.
Also,
1) Don't be such pedantic nerd you dipshit. Gimp makes sense there too.
2) Perhaps, but the fact that anyone gets kills from it is unfair. A one hit kill weapon that's good at every range?
3) Same thing as two.
4)You just got through saying the poor aim assist prevented quick-scoping from being overpowered; wouldn't fixing that, you know, make it overpowered?
Lastly, you've friggin late to the party. Someone already started a thread about this. Search bar.
Excellent. Quick scoping completely broke the game. If it was up to me I'd remove sniper rifles all together. They just don't fit the pace of the game.
Yeah that's what I was thinking too- This just promotes hunkering down and camping like a cheap no skill player just like the original counter strike first taught tweens how to do all those years agoTankichi said:
Oh man, you actually have to use the gun the way it was built, design and intended to be used. You can argue that the game doesn't aim to be realistic but this is on par with throwing a match on water and having it burst into flames, and then doing it again with oil and having nothing happen. It's not just unrealistic- it's going against the nature of the weapon. Marksman's weapons have always been an emphasis of accuracy at range, while having typically low rates of fire.
If they wanted to keep quick scoping and actually keep it a "skill shot" they should have just kept a handful of bolt action rifles that have the option to go without a scope.
If they wanted to keep quick scoping and actually keep it a "skill shot" they should have just kept a handful of bolt action rifles that have the option to go without a scope.
honestly the OP and the dude in the video are crybabies, dev is a noob for changing something that unbalances a game pfft thats head in ass logic
Wow. I honestly haven't heard this much "Waaaaaahhhh" in years. Seriously. The ENTIRE POINT OF A SCOPE IS TO ZOOM IN TO BE MORE PRECISE IN YOUR AIMING. If you're not actually zooming in, but rather just flashing the scope up in front of you before you shoot, then you're not using a scope, you're exploiting a bug within the game. The fact that it has become so prevalent within this particular game is not a plus in its favor. If you have to cheat to be competitive and everyone is cheating, joining them so you can be competitive too does not make it right. This is like if you could backstab people while standing in front of them in Team Fortress 2. Half of every team would be spies and they'd run around stabbing each other all day, and I'm absolutely certain that if this went on for a year or more, then when valve patched over it to stop the exploit, people just like the "quick-scopers" of this game would cry endless tears about how valve "ruined" spies.
Why would anyone quick scope? What possible advantage does it hold over just using the weapon without zooming in? Because it somehow does more damage. Ask yourself about that for a second. If I shoot you in the arm without aiming, is that supposed to do less damage than if I had shot you in the arm with the exact same bullet but aimed to hit you there first? No. The added damage is meant to emulate a sniper who aims his shots for vital areas of their opponents body. The way you're using the scope would, if a sniper used it that way, not provide that bonus at all. You're not aiming to take someone down, you're exploiting a bug that gives you that bonus even if a sniper could not have done what that bonus is meant to emulate. There is a reason why S.W.A.T. teams aren't just a pack of ten snipers thrown into close combat situations.
If you're upset that they are forcing people to stop using sniper rifles as if they were assault rifles, it's because you have gotten so used to cheating that you can't imagine life without it. Grow up.
Why would anyone quick scope? What possible advantage does it hold over just using the weapon without zooming in? Because it somehow does more damage. Ask yourself about that for a second. If I shoot you in the arm without aiming, is that supposed to do less damage than if I had shot you in the arm with the exact same bullet but aimed to hit you there first? No. The added damage is meant to emulate a sniper who aims his shots for vital areas of their opponents body. The way you're using the scope would, if a sniper used it that way, not provide that bonus at all. You're not aiming to take someone down, you're exploiting a bug that gives you that bonus even if a sniper could not have done what that bonus is meant to emulate. There is a reason why S.W.A.T. teams aren't just a pack of ten snipers thrown into close combat situations.
If you're upset that they are forcing people to stop using sniper rifles as if they were assault rifles, it's because you have gotten so used to cheating that you can't imagine life without it. Grow up.