e MW2 (What I think is the true start of Quickscoping), we have been introduced to a new area of the Sniper community known as (you guessed it), Quickscopers. This group has probably had more of an influence on the making of CoDs after MW2 (easily shown in BO2) than any other group in the Call of Duty community. Why?:
- Most of the Modern CoD Community is less than or equal to 16 years of age.
- Most of the Children on this game think quickscoping is cool, and will buy a game if it's easier to do.
- There are a few talented quickscopers who are actually "good" (In my opinion).
- Hardscoping, although actual sniping, has been deemed "nooby" by a majority of quickscopers (mostly children).
Now let's look at how Quickscoping played a role in Pre-Ghost.
- CoD4 / MWR - If you were good, you were good. If you were bad, then you had to stick to regular sniping.
- WaW - Basically the same as CoD4 / MWR.
- MW2 - Huge leap forward in the quickscoping community. In my opinion the heartland of it. Some added aim assist made it easier than the past.
- BO1 - In my opinion, the best sniping CoD Game. Quickscoping was "harder" to do because of the weird aim style of BO1, but added aim assist made it somehwta easier.
- MW3 - The most average game in my opinion. Didn't seem like Quickscoping was UP or OP.
- BO2 - A game seemingly built for snipers. This is NOT a game Ghosts should look to for it's sniping logic.
What would I like to see in Ghosts for Quickscopers?
Quickscoping community, I don't hate you, it's just slightly irritating when my AR or SMG doesn't even make you flinch. Your montages are (for the most part) very well done and I'm sure the clips took alot of patience. However, this is what I feel:
- CoD Ghosts sniping needs to be a Mix of BO1 and MW2. More flinch when using a scoped sniper, and the least amount of aim assist on snipers.
A reason I deemed Blck Ops 2 the worse CoD ever, was probably because of the quickscoping; it was way too easy. I know alot of BO2 quickscopers will argue that the Sniper patch "ruined" the game, but it didn't. Sure, I agree the DSR should be a little faster, but I could argue that Pre-patch it was the most overpowered sniper ever created.
Finally, I'll go directly to the topic of aim assist. What do I feel needs to be done about it. Heres my comprimise:
Snipers or quickscopers will both have aim assist on their weapon when ADSing however, when they fire from the hip or try to lock onto an enemy within 15 feet, there will be no aim assist.
This compromise pretty much states that we'll let you have some help aiming, but not like BO2 where I felt snipers locked onto you at a close range.
I know that my comprimise might tick off some of the Quickscoping community, and maybe even some of the rest, but I feel that a long distance weapon should NOT win upclose, especially one that is mostly a one-shot kill. I hope that the quickscopers are willing to help the rest of the community make the game more versatile. Again, I'm not calling trickshotters out, I'm just saying that some game mechanics are making children seem good with a sniper because of an unfair advantage. For those who trickshot, quickscope, actual snipers, etc.. who are actually decent at using a rifle, you'll see a well defined skill gap if my comprimise takes place.
I think that Ghosts quickscoping will be like BO2. I personally thought quickscoping in BO2 was quite hard compare to MW2 and MW3. As for BO, quickscoping was completely broken. BO's snipers were vertually useless for the first 1-2 seconds after ADSing. I am completely against BO sniping because it completely ruin the snipers and the developers even admitted it.
Quickscoping is nothing but the abuse of a faulty game mechanic. When they tried to correct this in a previous CoD, someone somewhere decided it was a legitmate playstyle and decided to leave it in.
What I don't understand is when the same type of faulty game mechanic turned the 1887 Shotgun in to the ultimate long range 1 shot kill, there was an outpouring from the community. It was heard and the mechanic was repaired. Why isn't this same stance taken with sniper rifles.
Snipers are meant to be long range, one shot kills. If you need to move you draw your sidearm or secondary weapon, sling your rifle and move. They were never intended to be a run and gun weapon. Snipers are recon, scout/report and make critical shots that count. If this play style is not for you then why not use a smg, assault rifle or shotgun.
The reason why is people want the easy timing shot with current game mechanics. It's not about aquiring a target and making a good shot. For them it's about get the trigger timing down and letting the broken aim assist aquire the target for them. Take aim assist of of sniper rifles and fix the problem.
I'm not looking for reality in this game, however a little more realism would be refreshing.
I completely agree. I would even go so far as to say that they don't even have to touch the aiming mechanics of the game one bit, but rather, change the damage profile for sniper rifles so that up close, they do 50 damage, and at longer ranges, they do 80 Damage. The purpose of this is, up close, no matter how twitchy their reflexes, they can only kill in one shot with a lucky Headshot. Short of that, it will always take two hits. At longer ranges, it will always take 1 shot (except if you hit a limb I guess).
Doing this, they do not handicap sniping at all. The biggest complaint about the Black Ops aim mechanic was that people said it hurt legitimate sniping because of the sway. This takes away that argument because long range sniping can have fast ADS and minimal sway and be the sniper that everyone wants it to be, while up close, it suffers. It really is the perfect method for balancing sniper rifle out. I don't mind if it's realistic or not. I just want it to be balanced.
As you stated, the 1887 was ridiculous in its range. It was basically the polar opposite of the Sniper Rifles. Meant for one range, but very useful in another. Yet it got patched, namely because there was not a large Youtube community out there making 1887 Montages the same as they were Intervention Montages.
I think that's one of the biggest problems with these games too. Too many big-name youtubers and "MLG" players have influence and say in what happens it seems like, and so the fast-paced, always rushing, quick-scope montage style things get thrown into the games to appease them, to the detriment of everyone else.
Sniping in BO2 was the easiest bullshit.
sniping wasn't an instant kill up close and actually took some skill. Gasp. BLOPS 1 sniping was perfect. You could still quick scope if you knew what you were doing(basically let go of the movement stick, then ads and you were good) and it actually added some level of skill to COD sniping.
Black ops 1 in general was easily the best CoD
QS is about to get a whole lot worse when that new dlc sniper comes out
To make a very long story very short, quickscoping exists because most combat in COD multiplayer is very sudden, unexpected, and at close range. Snipers don't have many opportunities to behave like snipers, they have to improvise somehow. Lo and behold, it just so happened that quickscoping was convenient. Not only do they have a chance to pop out a potentially lethal hit with practically no delay, they also get to completely avoid scope sway in the process.
That in mind, the real question is whether it makes sense for the game to be this way. Could just be my crazy opinion, but I think it would solve so many problems if all weapon types weren't quite so idiot-proof. Think its coincidence that the maps have to be so cluttered? Of course not. Once the devs decided that the weapons would be so lethal and so easy to handle, they found out the hard way that open spaces just don't work in their game design. Everyone just drops dead whenever someone just holds down that trigger on a recoilless ACR. They had little choice but to block line of sight to a such a degree that you would only see anyone with your bare eyes if they've already come into close combat with you.
Unfortunately, those of us who enjoy ranged combat got the shaft. Maybe once in a while you find the right spot on the right map that allows a shootout that isn't at hand-to-hand distance, but its obvious that this is the exception to the rule at best. I would really hope that they make all the weapons, sniper rifles included, challenging enough that they can afford to change the maps a little. Put in some open space, some sightlines, even some defensible positions in the map. And we can't be suckered by promises of just having one of these things at a time, that means nothing. Plenty of previous maps have been big, but cluttered and full of visual obstructions. When that happens, you get the same close combat as always and hardly anything else. Some maps have had long sightlines, but ones that have a dozen flanking routes leading to them. If you ever tried to watch what happens on this sightline, an enemy has already spawned behind you. Some maps have had defensible positions, but ones that don't give you any useful vantage over anything. You can sit in there all day and never see a target. That's a problem.
Honestly, I think quickscoping is a dying fad. Look at the forums here. Most quickscoping discussions end with the same 3-4 people defending quickscoping against half of the community who wants it gone. I have backed off to the point that I think it should be a playlist for those who want it, but the standard should be no quickscoping.
I have heard all of the excuses:
1) It isn't an exploit.
- Quickscoping is an exploit of the aiming mechanics. Auto-aim causes the crosshairs of the rifle to snap onto a target's chest. Since most sniper rifles kill in one shot to the chest, this results in a one shot kill.
2) It takes skill.
- While this is true to an extent, as everything in life takes some level of skill, the reward for the effort is much to high. Firstly, the auto aim does half of the work for you. Secondly, even if quickscoping required a huge amount of skill, it still results in one weapon class out shining all of the others. The only other primary weapon class that can reliably one shot people is the shotgun, and it's range is such that it is COMPLETELY ineffective at mid to long range. The sniper rifle is supposed to be the polar opposite.
3) It is fun/I should be able to play how I want.
- While this is true for most things you pay for, the problem here is that you are playing with a community of people who also paid their $60 and want to play a certain way as well. You do not own a copy of the COD multiplayer, you just paid for access to it. By quickscoping you are literally ruining the game for everyone else in the name of "I want to have fun", which is very selfish and immature.
-Also, fun is not a valid argument as there are people who think hacking is fun. We all probably agree that that should not be allowed.
4) It's been here forever/it exists in other games, why remove it?
-This argument is similar to "there has always been world hunger, why do anything about it?" Obviously the fact that a problem has existed for a long time doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. There are many things that exist in videogames that shouldn't. Lag has been in every online game ever. Even so, people strive to remove it still.
5) It IS balanced.
- This would be true if the game made you use a sniper rifle, the the fact o the matter is that you have a choice as to what gun you select. If you want to do well at al ranges, pick a gun that is supposed to be good at all ranges. You wouldn't pick a shotgun and expect to do well at 100m.
Now that you know the common excuses, hear are the common reasons why people want it gone:
1) It isn't realistic.
-This reason catches a lot of flak because games aren't always necessarily realistic. The reason why it works in COD is that COD's universe is based on the real world. They have real guns and go to real places and have plausible missions. Now I know hat you are thinking: "Health, health regen and respawns are unrealistic, yet they still exist." I will address this next.
2) It doesn't add anything to the game.
- There are some mechanics that make the game playable or add some level of strategy or fun to the game. Health regen exists in COD, because it isn't fun to get shot once and have to watch out for stubbing your toe or be afraid of a random stray bullet. Respawing is also there because it wouldn't be fun to just sit there and watch the rest of your team play the game without you. Being able to survive a .45 slug to the head isn't realistic, but if guns did realistic damage, then there would be little diversity in weapons. Most anything from a 5.56 up will kill you or make you incapable of fighting. There would be little point in having larger caliber weapons if the weakest gun could kill you in one hit. This enables diversity and balance in weapons, which brings me to my last point.
3) Quickscoping isn't balanced.
- A sniper rifle in COD is generally a one shot kill to the head or chest and sometimes the torso. Even if you hit a limb, as second shot will almost always finish the enemy off. This is really high damage when the rest of the guns kill in 3-4 shots to the torso. Sniper rifles need a meaningful disadvantage to not be over powered. Quickscoping effectively makes all other weapons obsolete. A quickscoper can kill you faster that any other gun at any range with the exception of shotguns at close range (in which case they are tied.)
We are not the ones dictating how others are supposed to play. There are certain things that don't contribute to the game like trolling or camping, not playing the objective, which are worse than quickscopers. I see it as if you cannot kill them then you don't deserve to dictate how they are playing because they are obviously better than you.
Quickscoping like EVERYTHING in COD takes some skill to do, but to be good at something it takes much more skill.
A good quickscoper is no different than a good SMG or AR user.
It all comes down to stop dictating how people are supposed to play. I may not like how someone plays, but I don't need to publicly complain about it on the COD forums.
As for a "dying fad", I don't see it as a fad. People just doing because they enjoy doing it. Considering this "fad" has been around for 6+ years now I don't expect it to die any time soon.