Phoenixmgs said:
1) The correct term is NERF not gimp
Gimp works just fine actually as is even more to the point than Nerf as a gimp is (from google dictionary: lameness: disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet).
Nerf on the other hand likely refers to the toys of the same name. If one turned an honest to god fighting weapon (say an M-4) into a nerf equivalent, it would suddenly become quite useless at the task for which it was initially designed. Nerf takes longer to get to the same spot which is that you do something that makes something else less functional than before.
Phoenixmgs said:
2) Quickscoping is only cheap AT TIMES because of the poorly coded aim assist
The aim assist was hardly poorly coded as it worked as intended - that is, it works by compensating for the relatively poor aiming interface at the player's disposal (you can be quick or you can be precise with a joystick.)
Phoenixmgs said:
3) Even with the poorly coded aim assist, quickscoping wasn't even overpowered, ARing and SMGing would beat quickscoping most of the time.
I would never make the argument that quick scoping was overpowered. Rather, my argument would be that it allowed for a particular class of weapon to overcome a critical weakness (that is a lack of utility at close range). This has been a problem for high damage single shot weapons since I've been playing shooters (which is to say, as long as there have been shooters to play). Eventually, most games resort to having some system that arbitrarily limits the player's ability to shoot and move in rapid succession. Examples: Team Fortress requires a sniper to aim for a period of time before the shot does full damage. Simply rattling off a round does very little damage. Quake 3's railgun has an atrocious rate of fire. The Shotgun, easily as powerful at the right distance, fires much, much faster. As does the Rocket Launcher, BFG and lightning gun.
Phoenixmgs said:
4) Don't be lazy (and break a play style); properly code aim assist but I guess that's too hard
The style of play being "broken" is hardly one that was intended. The last time I checked, people don't expect snipers to be assaulting with the line troops. Quick scoping allows precisely that.
I would, however, point out that one particular game actually has a far worse example of this. Battlefield Bad Company 2 allows a player using a sniper kit to attach a red dot sight to his weapon. They can also select a semi-automatic sniper rifle. The result is one of the most shockingly lethal mod to close ranged weapons in the game because the sniper rifle arbitrarily does more damage than any other rifle (save the M-14) and has the benefit of an easy to use sighting system.
Phoenixmgs said:
The most important thing for competitive online gaming is balance among classes and play styles. Why buy and play a game where the developer purposefully makes the game unbalanced?
Because, some people might see this correction as an attempt to restore balance I suspect.
Phoenixmgs said:
EDIT: Stop using the "in real life" argument for being in favor of what Treyarch has done. In real life, you can't aim and shoot at a moving target at medium range and be successful.
Given that your perception for medium range likely came from a game like MW2, I'd assert that you, in fact, can hit a target that is moving while you, yourself, are moving at a distance of several dozen meters. Is it less effective than taking careful aim? Sure is. But people are relatively large things that don't move particularly fast. Bullets on the other hand are very fast and your average military weapon has a long magazine so that you have plenty of opportunities to connect.
Now, if you were using actual real life medium range (which would start somewhere in excess of 150m), I'd agree. At that distance the inherent instability of your firing position will result in you missing more often than not.
Phoenixmgs said:
In real life, you have to stop, and take a few seconds to properly line up a shot with an assault rifle as well.
Depends entirely upon the range. At say 10 meters or so (a reasonable distance you'd find in your average gunfight in MW2), I can easily hit a target without ever actually using the sights on a rifle while moving and transitioning from a weapon held low to a firing position. It isn't an unexpected skill here. If I, a REMF in the US Army had to learn how do do such things, you can bet the infantry are quite proficient at it.
Phoenixmgs said:
Why should sniping adhere to real life while using an assault rifle and other guns don't adhere to real life?
For the very same reason a shotgun is a liability in a long ranged gun fight in real life and in video games. In exchange for the ultimate expression of power in one circumstance you are saddled with a terrible weakness in others.
