Sniping is officially WORTHLESS in Black Ops

[Madkipz]

Uhh...don't quickscope then? DURR
Snipe like a SNIPER. Quickscoping is cheap and cowardly. There was never any skill involved, anyway. It's a player exploiting the aim assist.

FIX THE EXPLOIT!!! You just said aim assist is the culprit, not quickscoping. Treyarch just covered up the exploit and broke sniping.

im sorry, but broke sniping? Dude, they fixed it.

Fixing it would mean to add an animation in the time it takes to get your scope up, rather than making your aim unstable for 2 seconds ;P Though both methods work i guess.

 

[Gizmo007666]

There are lots of people saying sniping is useless:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/960188-call-of-duty-black-ops/57091069
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/960189-call-of-duty-black-ops/57091753

Quickscoping itself wasn't broken, the aim assist was being exploited not quickscoping. It's sad that a developer can't tell what is actually being exploited in a game that they make. Then, the developer creates a "fix" that makes a whole class of guns obsolete, it's just completely unprofessional just like that Konami E3 conference.

The thing is the reason that snipers are now virtually useless is pretty much the the key point made in the first link you posted (or at least the point that it keeps coming back to). It's not that quickscoping has been removed, it's the fact that yet again the maps have been designed for cqc and there are very few areas which have a vantage point overlooking a large area. The maps generally feature sets of corridors or having the environment in the way of anything close to a long range sniper spot.

Maps like crossfire, block and overgrown in cod4 were examples of good map design imo where it was possible to snipe at relatively long range (where ar users wouldn't be aiming due to the range, giving the actual point of the sniper rifle) but still had ways to get around without being in constant threat of been sniped, allowing people to enjoy the close range combat. Also the maps tended to have sniper spots on either side so you could get some time sniping snipers or those attempting to run across the centre of the map to get to the other side.

Now the map design has seemed to forget about snipers with maps like wasteland (MW2) and station (WaW) where you're either left standing in the middle of the field sniping (real subtle) or with a big piece of environment blocking off half the centre of the map whilst still providing the corridors for flanking on either side. This results in a limited viewpoint for the snipers and they're left exposed and vulnerable.

Basically the short of it is: maps used to have sniper spots where you would be safe from the general rush of traffic but spending too long there would obviously draw attention and the enemy would sneak around and try to kill you. Now the maps are just for the small to medium range users to move around with limited areas for the sniper to look over and are less areas specifically for snipers to sit out of the main action and pick people off.

 

[Seydaman]

Been playing awhile now
Is it me or are there very few sniper spots?
All the maps are broken into very small hallways...
Maybe it's just because the maps are new |:

Ya gotta get creative when picking a spot, you can't just always go to the big tower in the middle of the map with arrows pointing to it saying: "Sniping Nest!"

Heh yea I guess I can't do that anymore, but there's a lack of big open areas like that one snow map in MW2, and overgrown from COD4

 

[havass]

There's really no pleasing people these days is there?

^This.
Though I have to agree, the real-life arguments here are fucking retarded. In real life you wouldn't heal up from my shot after a few seconds, you'd continue to bleed and then probably die. Also, in real life, I wouldn't switch to my pistol. I'd shoot you with my fucking sniper at close range. It'd be more of a guarantee that you'll die, and I wouldn't have to waste precious seconds grabbing my pistol.

Seconds in which you'd probably kill me in, seeing as you have the bloody advantage of a rifle.

 

[Ramare]

It's called Changing a game mechanic.

If you enjoy MW2, you can go ahead and play it, I'm sure they'll still be plenty of servers about. If Black Op's removed quick-scoping, it's trying to get customers from a slightly different market, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Why change a game mechanic to make it luck-based instead of skill-based? I'll take skill-based over luck-based any day. If I get killed by someone, I would at least like them to be aiming at me. I hate MW2 and barely played it, I like balance in my online multiplayer games. If a game fails on accomplishing that, then I don't play it. I want it to be my skill vs someone else's skill; I don't want to get killed because the enemy was lucky or get killed because the enemy was using something overpowered.

Luck based? Dude, you try running up to a guy, aiming through the scope, and shooting him in the head while he's moving in real life. I say 9 times out of 10 you'll be pointing anywhere but the head and have to adjust your aim because it's a large, heavy, cumbersome weapon. And it'll take more than 2-3 seconds to aim. And after he's shot you with his pistol, you'll be wishing you'd been using an assault rifle, like you are supposed to in close combat.

I've never held a rifle, or tried this; but to the first part: A lighter, scout sniper weapon. Like an R700, or M24; not something ridiculously large, like an L86. And to the second part: Try NOT aiming down the scope, but center it close to your aim, or use emergency iron sights, if you have them; you should hit them.

Just sayin'. Because, sure, you still wouldn't be near people, if you were a sniper, and if you were, you wouldn't be holding your rifle, but, still, it's possible. Very possible. You just need some practice, a light sniper rifle, and NOT to try to aim with the actual scope.

And, to the third part: In close range combat, you wouldn't want an AR, it'd be MUCH better to use an SMG, or shotgun, or, to a lesser extent, a pistol, or to a much better extent, a machine pistol.

 

[CLEVERSLEAZOID]

In this thread:
Snipers cry, while people who don't play the game/couldn't care less mock them.

OT: Good, I hated quickscoping one shotting arseholes. Spend ages circumnavigating a sniper, just for him to turn around and go lolololol instapwn.

 

[PsycicSpyFromChina]

Good riddance. Do you know how many times I've been one-shotted by an M40+ACOG at point blank range today before I could get a second shot off with my MP5? Today alone, it's been somewhere between ten and fifteen. Oh, and let me preempt the "lrn2play": I average around 30-10 per game, regardless of play mode. Quick-scoping is bullshit, it breaks the balance of the game by giving a player the ability to score a one-hit-kill at any range without having to aim for the head.

Quickscopers don't go 30-10 so what are you complaining about? Nothing wrong with quickscoping since it takes aim and skill, the aim assist is poorly coded. Isn't giving snipers the ability to kill at close range in one hit part of making it balanced? Because if you it took more than one shot or a head shot (that would just take too much skill) to kill, then a sniper has no chance up close against an automatic gun.

Two words, and listen carefully:
-Sidearm
-Overkill

Those were put in the game to give snipers a chance at close range, and I think even that's a bit too much of a concession. See, there's such a thing as a tradeoff: a guy with a shotgun can nail you in one shot at close range, but it only shoots so far, and he's at the mercy of everyone carrying a weapon with a rifled barrel; he has a maximum range of usefulness, and he willingly accepts that in exchange for the hell he can raise in a building. A guy with an assault rifle is going to be okay at any range, but will only dominate at intermediate ranges; he's still vulnerable to SMGs and shotguns up close, and vulnerable to snipers at a distance. A guy with an LMG is going to be slow and ponderous, and will make an easy target when doing anything other than squeezing the crap out of the trigger. A guy with a sub-machine gun will be fast, agile, and very good in close quarters, like the shotgunner, and while able to kill enemies at a distance, he'll generally be shit at it and will probably need his enemy to be so interested in whatever's in his scope that he won't notice the 9mm bullets plunking into him one by one; he'll also still get owned by the shotgunner up close.

A sniper, on the other hand, can nail you from across the map, but instead of being the polar opposite of the shotgunner, he can kill you in one shot at any range while jumping around like a lunatic. Tell me, where's the tradeoff? Where's the penalty for being able to reach out and touch someone at ranges where the damage dropoff on assault rifles causes kills to require a third of a magazines? There isn't one, and that's why it's bollocks.

This man speaks the truth.
I must say, I never was a big fan of quick-scoping.
Although 2-3 seconds does seem a bit extreme. Maybe 1-2 seconds would suffice?

 

[havass]

This is me scorning everyone who's bringing realism into the argument:
Quoting a certain internet celebrity, " In a truly realistic shooter you'd get shot once, then laid up for six months before the hospital you're in gets blown up by an IED and you're forced to crawl to safety with half a leg missing before getting shot by twitchy border patrolmen. All of which is preceded by about six months of doing push-ups with sweaty people you're not allowed to make love to."
Games are called games for a reason. If I wanted realism i'd go outside and fight a bloody war.

 

[Eponet]

1) The correct term is NERF not gimp

If this is a valid point, I'm going to point out that Quick-Scoping isn't sniping. If you're not shooting from concealment, you're not sniping.

 

[BENZOOKA]

I tried to read OP's post and a few responds.

Yet all I see is rage.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

I don't see why you and the guy in the video are acting as if quick-scoping was the paragon of sniping tactics and that the removal of it as a tactic substantially wrecks your gaming experience. Aggressive sniping can be a lot of fun, but overall I prefer long-ranged sniping.

 

[carpathic]

Well, time to learn patience then. Like a sniper.

Too true.

Too true.

Ever watched snipers in the field? Yipes. They have sit, and wait.

I don't hate snipers, but one class should not be THAT much better than the rest.

 

[Dectomax]

Why change a game mechanic to make it luck-based instead of skill-based? I'll take skill-based over luck-based any day. If I get killed by someone, I would at least like them to be aiming at me. I hate MW2 and barely played it, I like balance in my online multiplayer games. If a game fails on accomplishing that, then I don't play it. I want it to be my skill vs someone else's skill; I don't want to get killed because the enemy was lucky or get killed because the enemy was using something overpowered.

Luck based? Dude, you try running up to a guy, aiming through the scope, and shooting him in the head while he's moving in real life. I say 9 times out of 10 you'll be pointing anywhere but the head and have to adjust your aim because it's a large, heavy, cumbersome weapon. And it'll take more than 2-3 seconds to aim. And after he's shot you with his pistol, you'll be wishing you'd been using an assault rifle, like you are supposed to in close combat.[/quote]I've never held a rifle, or tried this; but to the first part: A lighter, scout sniper weapon. Like an R700, or M24; not something ridiculously large, like an L86. And to the second part: Try NOT aiming down the scope, but center it close to your aim, or use emergency iron sights, if you have them; you should hit them.

Just sayin'. Because, sure, you still wouldn't be near people, if you were a sniper, and if you were, you wouldn't be holding your rifle, but, still, it's possible. Very possible. You just need some practice, a light sniper rifle, and NOT to try to aim with the actual scope.

And, to the third part: In close range combat, you wouldn't want an AR, it'd be MUCH better to use an SMG, or shotgun, or, to a lesser extent, a pistol, or to a much better extent, a machine pistol.[/quote]

^^^^^^
That should be quoted...

Would just like to pick through this...The M21, is a HEAVY piece of equipment. try running, aiming and hitting a target in 2-3 seconds. Your wearing at least a 21Lb day sack, with a 9Lb weapon. That's at the lightest. YOU WOULDN'T DO IT.

Also, You may use an AR in CQB. The M4 and M416 are both ARs, the US army use them because they are more suited to "Urban, CQB battle". The British Army has the SA80, a bullpup rifle, that's short. And well suited to close quarters. An SMG would be used, or selected when penetration power is not needed. A 9mm round isn't going to go through a wall like a 5.56mm round is.

Quick scoping is the fantasy of some pre-pubescent teens. The amount of people I've seen leave the recruitment office that clearly play too much call of duty is shameful.

From a personal opinion, all i can say on the topic is "BURN THE QUICKSCOPERS AND SELL THEIR SOULS".

Just my view ( and certain facts...)

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

I'm glad, I don't use snipers on COD anyway. The maps are like arenas. If you snipe on COD you're basically just restricting yourself to a building/small section of the map in which sniping is possible. I prefer running around with an assault rifle, I get a lot more kills that way and it's a lot more enjoyable.

 

[Raptorianxd]

I can still No Scope, so I don't really see the problem. If you can Quick Scope, then you can No Scope.

-Raptor, out.

 

[SpireOfFire]

aww, lets all shed a tear for the poor snipers out there :'(

 

[JujiKabane]

The fundimental problem with removing quick-scoping from the snipers bag of tricks, is that it severely limits the classes ability to play. In games like Battlefield 2, and Bad Company 2, the sniper shines, because the maps are extremely large with lots of foliage to reduce your chances of being detected. However, in the Call of Duty series, with the exception of a few select maps, each map is roughly the size of a few football fields. Within that extremely limited area are clusters of cover, making any stretch of open space less than about 60 yards from the nearest corner. I suppose this was to bring the "Urban" combat feel which is all the rage these days. This would be all fine and well, if a sniper was capable of being concealed in some unknown location. Like the roof of that building off in the distance that you can barely see through the heat mirage. Or the second window to the left on the fourth story of that sky scraper. But the maps are very limited in that there are only a handful of places you can actually go. Once someone memorizes these locations, they can run around picking off defenseless scoped snipers like it's their day job. Couple this with the fact that every area has at least 3 entrances to it, and the sniper begins to feel very much out of his element. People who have the justification of realism in a game like this are speaking hollow words, because any real sniper would be sitting comfortably from a vantage point 800+ meters away from where the confrontation is going down, providing support for his team. Not to mention most sniper units work in TEAMS. Consisting of the sniper, and a spotter, who helps call out his shots and covers his back. I'm all for a realistic game, but this game is not by any stretch of the imagination realistic. When 90% of all firefights in a Call of Duty game occur within a 50 yard range, the sniper is already at a glaring disadvantage. If he camps, he has to fight the constant unnerving fear that at any moment, an enemy can run up behind him from one of the nine alternate entrances to his snipers nest and graze his arm gently with a knife, causing his soul to be violently torn from his body. You can say that sidearms were a fix for snipers close range combat, but unless every other class was incapable of using a sidearm, that theory doesn't hold up. The side arm is just that, a side arm. A back up, just in case weapon. I'm all for balance within the game, but this definitely was not the way to achieve it. It's limiting the snipers capabilities in a fight where he's already at the glaring disadvantage of being out of his element entirely. Now if perhaps, EVERY class took 2-3 seconds to make their shots hit where they aim, it would be fair. This gives you ample oppertunity to do the "Realistic" thing. Which is to say "Holy crap, he's got a high powered rifle" *Runs for cover* And then all the players stand 200 meters from each other, firing back and fourth aimlessly, whilst half of them crap their pants and everyone goes home a jaded, sobbing mess.

 

[deathandtaxes]

Only now with the variable range sniper scope you have an acog like scope with a long range function, clearly snipers are suffering.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Maybe, just maybe, people use knifes in real life to get silent kill. You know the ones that don't cause the sound of gunfire and have people running to where you are to see what happened? I know in real life if I had an AK-47 and a knife in a holster, I can man up and hold the AK in one hand while I stab a guy in the back of the neck. You can even hold a Light Machine Gun in one hand you know. You just hold barrel to the ground while you stab a guy. You also realize that infantry soldiers carry grenades right? They have magical devices that are legitamily called, "grenade carriers". Hell some of these oh so foriegn devices that seem to contain grenades, are attached to this thing that soldiers wear called a "vest".

Your logic is seriously flawed. Of course grenades and knifes don't come out of people's asses. By your logic, if pulling a knife out in CoD is "unrealistic" than I guess people are just pulling the extra clips for their guns "from their asses" too, right?

Just give up the "realism" arguement. It's a war based videogame where ONE THING got nerfed because it was cheap and overpowered. Deal with it.

In real life, you can't be in a stance that allows you to effectively shoot an assault rifle then within a second go to knifing or throwing a nade then back to being able to shoot effectively in the second after knifing or tossing a nade. The point is that, in real life, you have to basically unequip your primary weapon then knife or toss a nade; you don't have to say drop your gun but it takes some time to go from being in a proper shooting stance to grabbing a nade from a "grenade carrier" and throwing it or unsheathing a knife. A game like MAG does it properly where you have to cycle from your gun to your nade to throw it.

In real life, a soldier is a proper shooting stance while running for his life, shooting at anything that threatens him. You are usually in "proper shooting stance" while shooting or preparing to shoot. At other times a soldier is most likely properly trained by holding his gun where he can access it, as well as anything he needs within seconds should the situation occur. And even if it takes a few second to throw a grenade, or pull out a knife you shouldn't be in a position to be shot at while doing either. A knife should be used in either close quarters combat, or for a stealthy kill. Either of which does not require shooting stance. Grenades are usually used from cover, or to flush out those in cover. These situations also do not require you to be in a "shooting stance". The point is, CoD is somewhat realistic. Most videogames are these days. So If you are going to argue that it should take longer to whip out a knife, then why the hell are you bitching about them nerfing quicksniping? By arguing against it's realism, you've essentially made this entire forum topic void.

 

[8-Bit Grin]

''camp at the back of the map being a ***** ass sniper'' he means camp at the back of the map being a normal sniper...

Same thing, to a lot of people.

Players just don't dig that someone can chill at the back of a map and pop of rounds with little chance of being taken out.

It's over their "I'ma Bum-rush Errbody' heads.