Black Ops rage... welcome to the next year of your life.

[thereverend7]

Oh man, they ruined sniping by making you actually have to.... SNIPE?!?!?! TREASON! BLASPHEMY!

Seriously, man. quick scoping is the worst thing to happen to FPS. if you want to run around the map, use a gun that isn't a sniper. if you want to snipe, find a good sniping spot and lay down and wait like the good sniping lord intended you to.

Seriously, this couldn't make me happier. I'm going to (probably) enjoy black ops a lot more then MW2 because of the sniper change and I hope they don't back out of it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People don't spawn close enough together to get a 6 man kill with the RC car. Those people were retarded. The sort of retarded that makes you smile when they lose spectacularly because they do moronic things in game. Things such as standing next to each other on a small map.

Here it is:

True they were stupid to be so close together. but imagine how annoying the RC Car is going to be in Ground War or Headquarters! Trying to cap a flag with 3 team-mates and BOOM all dead.

Is it really too much for Treyarch to expect players to think? All of sudden Treyarch has to think for people?

Soldiers in real life deal with this danger (i.e. IEDs); is it too much to expect ordinary people to maybe deal with this in a fucking video game?

A tiny object that travels at a height that, if "covered", leaves you vulnerable to all those people with guns on the other team which also has fairly absurd explosive power and near instant (near because of network latency obviously) detonation might be a reasonable thing on the battlefield. But here in this video game, I suspect people are playing to enjoy themselves, not deal with frustrating mcguffins like this. Hell, a well placed grenade could have done the same thing except it would have placed the thrower in peril.

The solution? Give the car a delay where it is immobile after triggering the detonation. Perhaps include a reasonable sound cue and give people a second or a second and a half to react. It wouldn't be enough time for everyone to get out of the way, but it at least gives you a similar chance to what you get with a grenade.

 

[captaincabbage]

Well, I'll definitely admit that the chopper is fucked if anyone else gets that killstreak, the other's aren't as bad.

Admittedly, it'll be a pain in the arse when someone who you shot doesn't die, kills you and then gets revived, but that's fair enough, tho it was always a bit satisfying to know that that person would die eventually.

As for all the other things, I don't think they're that bad, tho I won't be online to find out.

Yes, that's right, I'll probably be the one gamer in the world who buys CoD and doesn't play online.
It's far too rage inducing for me, I'd probably end up throwing my PS3 through the TV after an hour online.
So yeah, I'll be playing the splitscreen modes with my friends whom I know and trust and who don't have squeaky teen voices.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

To anyone who thinks that snapping a rifle up to your shoulder and firing off a perfectly accurate shot is in anyway realistic, I challenge you to try it, and see how many times you can even figure out where your shot ended up.

A scope would make it difficult. With iron sights? Hell yes I can do that. It's one of those things you do when clearing buildings since you can't generally keep your weapon pointed directly in front of you at all times for reasons that ought to be obvious (for example, entering a building from along the wall means you'll need to lower you weapon to cross the threshold or else you'll just bang it on the door frame).

And, at the sort of ranges that are common in COD (10m or less much of the time), you don't even need to rely on the sights to put rounds on a target reliably.

Now, if you wanted me to place accurate fire on a target dozens or hundreds of meters away, it would take a moment to get a proper sight picture and whatnot. It is a tiny bit trickier to get a proper sight picture with a scope which means that, yes, it would take longer to do with a scope. I would also point out that this is the precise reason why single point reticules (like the famous "red dot") exist as it makes acquiring a proper sight picture far easier allowing a soldier to deliver well aimed fire at a moderately ranged target quicker.

That isn't to say it is a defense of the game mechanic of course. But don't think something is impossible just because it seems hard. Hell, most people think it is hard to hit a man at 150m with a rifle when, the reality is, even a poorly trained marksman can do that sort of thing regularly. Thus why close combat actually begins at 150m. Not stabbing range as people are wont to believe.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Seriously, man. quick scoping is the worst thing to happen to FPS. if you want to run around the map, use a gun that isn't a sniper. if you want to snipe, find a good sniping spot and lay down and wait like the good sniping lord intended you to.

This seems to be a very common feeling around here, and I'd like to ask (for the hundredth time) WHY do people feel this way? There seems to be this ridiculous belief that quick scoping is somehow "cheap" or "easy", when in reality, it's anything but. Who are you to tell people how to play the game? If I want to run and gun with a sniper rifle, that should be my decision. It's not imbalanced, and it adds a ton of fun to CoD for me and many others like me.

I could understand if quick scopes were 100% accurate or used some glitch to hit you no matter what, but they don't. They use the fast reflexes of the player and aim prediction (aiming while the scope is coming up, basically) to fire a semi-accurate shot very quickly. Please explain to me why this causes nerd rage on near-noob tube levels, because I just don't get it.

CoD is a twitch shooter. Having to camp and stare down your scope while sniping doesn't fit with the playstyle of Call of Duty. Period. If this was Bad Company 2 or ARMA, I'd say quick scoping was dumb and broken. But this is a game where SMGs can kill you across the map in 3 bullets. If you want realism, go play ARMA.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

And I'm saying at the ranges demonstrated, sway isn't even an issue.

Look I'm not declaring myself a sniper of any sort, but I've tested on actual military ranges as part of infantry training. For example, with a m-16 you can practically sight with just the barrel on the two closest pop-up silhouette(I believe the ranges are 25m and 50m, but it's been a while). I'm not kidding that it's almost point and shoot.

Now this is ideal range conditions, no one is shooting back, etc. But if you are talking realism, unless an actual trained sniper wants to come in and correct me, I'm fairly certain in my assessment that you can fire from the hip, quick-scope, site down the barrel or whatever other fast method at extremely close ranges with a long rifle with quite an assurance of accuracy.

That's not to say that I think CoD should strive for realism, but I was simply stating that those claiming that this is a design choice that reflects realism are probably not that familiar with firearms or at least they have had a vastly different experience than I have.

The ability to fire from the hip or quickscope or what have you would also rely on the weapon because something that fires a .50cal round seems like firing it on the move at all would be a bad idea. But I have no idea what kind of recoil one of those would have. I've never fired a real gun in my life so I don't even have a baseline to try and imagine what the recoil would be like.

Granted for the rifles that fire lighter caliber rounds it makes sense and I even mentioned that in one of my earlier posts.

Edit: After re-reading your post and thinking back in the context of the game my post seems silly.

To be fair, there are two very common things you'll see in "realistic shooters" with respect to large caliber rifles (the M82 is, incidentally, not a sniper rifle but rather an anti-material rifle as it's purpose is to destroy equipment. A .308/7.62mm round does the job of killing a man just fine - a .50 caliber (12.7mm) BMG round is a laughable amount of overkill. The sheer size of the weapon (well over 4 feet from stock to muzzle brake, and a 30 lb weight) means that, for the purposes of moving around quietly, you're already in a bad spot). The first is the notion that, after being hit directly by such a weapon anywhere on the body, you're days of fighting in a war are over. That sort of firearm tends to detach limbs and empty body cavities as it passes though. The second is the idea that firing such a weapon while standing is a good idea. The recoil on rifles of that sort are brutal enough that such an act is likely to result in the soldier flat on their back. Not to mention the difficulty of simply pointing a 30 lb weapon at a target down range without any way to brace it.

 

[thereverend7]

Seriously, man. quick scoping is the worst thing to happen to FPS. if you want to run around the map, use a gun that isn't a sniper. if you want to snipe, find a good sniping spot and lay down and wait like the good sniping lord intended you to.

This seems to be a very common feeling around here, and I'd like to ask (for the hundredth time) WHY do people feel this way? There seems to be this ridiculous belief that quick scoping is somehow "cheap" or "easy", when in reality, it's anything but. Who are you to tell people how to play the game? If I want to run and gun with a sniper rifle, that should be my decision. It's not imbalanced, and it adds a ton of fun to CoD for me and many others like me.

I could understand if quick scopes were 100% accurate or used some glitch to hit you no matter what, but they don't. They use the fast reflexes of the player and aim prediction (aiming while the scope is coming up, basically) to fire a semi-accurate shot very quickly. Please explain to me why this causes nerd rage on near-noob tube levels, because I just don't get it.

CoD is a twitch shooter. Having to camp and stare down your scope while sniping doesn't fit with the playstyle of Call of Duty. Period. If this was Bad Company 2 or ARMA, I'd say quick scoping was dumb and broken. But this is a game where SMGs can kill you across the map in 3 bullets. If you want realism, go play ARMA.

Well for me I always "Camp and stare down the scope" so its as impossible for me to see your point of view as it is for you to see mine. I just think its a war game, and in war, im not going to run out in the middle of the area and see an enemy who shoots me with a sniper at shotgun range. in war he would shoot me and i wouldn't even know where it came from.

Im not saying MW2 is even close to realistic, i've just never liked dealing with snipers trying to be riflemen. I think they are making this update to say hey, come on, if your going to use a sniper rifle, use it how its meant to be used. just like you would use a flashbang as a situational weapon, the sniper should be one as well.

But hey, if you like quickscoping and are good at it (because it does take a good amount of skill) MW2 will still be around.

 

[C95J]

I can't believe it!

It only been released 7 hours and people are already complaining!


If you don't like it then don't play it, but I have no problems with it so far.

 

[Hader]

What's Black Ops?

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

snip

Well, look what you've done, Miracle. Already 10-20 people or so have come over here to say "Hurr, durr, Black Ops sucks, I knew it.", based on this single piece of slight concern.

Well, how can it not suck when the multiplayer is unbalanced and the single is short and stup... oh, wait, we never saw any of this, did we?

It has been 9 hours the game's release. I think it's just a little too early to judge. Especially based on, like, two minor aspects of the game.

 

[theSovietConnection]

That seemed to me like a bad network connection causing rounds not to hit, not gameplay, but not being the one playing, I don't know. The other thing, that looks a lot more like he's being hit when he aims then the rifle just randomly swaying, and that's far from all over the screen, I personally don't think it will take much to compensate. Then again, I avoid FPS online play like the plague. You bring up some fair points, but I really think you're jumping the gun on this, given the game is only just being released.

 

[thefunk686]

To anyone who thinks that snapping a rifle up to your shoulder and firing off a perfectly accurate shot is in anyway realistic, I challenge you to try it, and see how many times you can even figure out where your shot ended up.

A scope would make it difficult. With iron sights? Hell yes I can do that. It's one of those things you do when clearing buildings since you can't generally keep your weapon pointed directly in front of you at all times for reasons that ought to be obvious (for example, entering a building from along the wall means you'll need to lower you weapon to cross the threshold or else you'll just bang it on the door frame).

And, at the sort of ranges that are common in COD (10m or less much of the time), you don't even need to rely on the sights to put rounds on a target reliably.

Now, if you wanted me to place accurate fire on a target dozens or hundreds of meters away, it would take a moment to get a proper sight picture and whatnot. It is a tiny bit trickier to get a proper sight picture with a scope which means that, yes, it would take longer to do with a scope. I would also point out that this is the precise reason why single point reticules (like the famous "red dot") exist as it makes acquiring a proper sight picture far easier allowing a soldier to deliver well aimed fire at a moderately ranged target quicker.

That isn't to say it is a defense of the game mechanic of course. But don't think something is impossible just because it seems hard. Hell, most people think it is hard to hit a man at 150m with a rifle when, the reality is, even a poorly trained marksman can do that sort of thing regularly. Thus why close combat actually begins at 150m. Not stabbing range as people are wont to believe.

I feel like you and I are just about on the same page on this. While an unscoped rifle might be relatively easy to pull up quickly and fire (ex. M16, Ak-47), a rifle with a scope is going to be much harder to produce the same results with. I'm not saying by any means that it is impossible to become proficient at doing this, but for the average marksman, being able to pull that off at the same speed or FASTER than someone of the same skill level operating an unscoped rifle at the kind of ranges this game is played at is simply unrealistic.

Agreed?

 

[ultrachicken]

Am I the only one who thinks that the graphics look horrendous in this particular video?

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Oh dear... That chopper gunner.
I'm glad I haven't decided whether to get Black Ops yet or not...

 

[James13v]

PC MP version is still broken as hell...

 

[jaketheripper]

Damn right.
That Chopper Gunner looked awesome in theory, but now it's even worse!
All the stuff you mentioned.... Fucking hell Treyarch, it's not hard to balance your game. MW1 did it quite well, and it's bloody obvious what your flaws are and how you can fix them.
There's nerfing quick-scoping, and then forcing you to wait TWO TO THREE SECONDS.
In that time a guy can have killed you thrice over.
[small]Yes, I meant thrice, not twice.[/small]

Plus, what's up with that map? Graphics looked really... off.
And what's up with the wierd model people that stood there motionless?

1.Chopper gunner can get shot out of the seat. BALANCE! if you dont suck.
2.SNIPING is staying in a similar location and providing support, NOT 1 man army(ing) and trying to shoot people from 5 feet away.
3.and the map is called NUKE TOWN! have you never seen or heard of nuclear testing facilities testing on replicas of towns? EVER?!?!?!there in the 50's! Thats the government replicating a real life situation that gets nuked, so they can see the effects.

Im sorry, im not trying to be a dick, but you cant rant about things that you dont realize... so im sorry if i offended you, but facts need to be straightened out

Ot:Look above^ its not that big of a deal, just petty things that shouldnt ruin a sane(non fan-boy(fan-boys are irrational)) persons game, it was the same with mw2, it was epic, but people threw constant fits of the smallest things. i personally loved at.

Btw:I was never too exited for it, its on my gamefly list so ill get it when the send it, no big deal but jeeze i wish other people would treat things like i do...you can wait, lol

 

[Kermi]

I just played about ten games of Black Ops and I'm going back to Halo. Going to beat the Black Ops campaign and return it. Maybe pick up Fable 3 or something.

It just... it doesn't feel good to play and I can't see myself making the time investment.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

My GOD!

What the hell is this?

I have a suggestion. How about everyone STFUs and stops acting like a bunch of whiny kids? Everyone has something to complain about! IT. IS. A. GAME! I cannot stress this enough! Stop acting like a few powerful items are going to snap the game in half and end the world as you know it! I'm sure that those of you who take this game far more seriously than you should will more than likely find a way to counter act the "unbalanced" portions of the game.

As for the rest of us, we're going to have fun, one way or the other.

 

[Vrach]

Heh, that map looks like it's pulled right out of CS... complete with catatonic hostages standing around (seriously, wtf?). And yeah, that way of 'fixing' sniping... wow, that's some properly bad game design.

Happy I'm not too into the CoD franchise, am happy sticking with my BFBC2 and as far as Vietnam goes - it's Vietnam update.