AGS Steam Games

Forums → Games → do you like or hate quickscopers

78 14156
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,872 posts
Chamberlain

personally i can't stand quickscoping unless they just happen to have a sniper out when someone comes around or something like that, they have almost ruined the multiplayer on MW2 DOWN WITH QUICKSCOPERS

  • 78 Replies
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

I look at quickscopers as skilful C.O.D snipers.

I wanna learn how they do it.

It's very easy to do it. Watch this. After that, if you have a willing friend or a second controller, go into a private match and practice. Then go into a public match and see how you do against moving targets.
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,872 posts
Chamberlain

And since you can't quickscope, what does that make you? Because it takes way more skill to quickscope than run around with an assault rifle or shotgun.
not n00bish huh well the how well would you do quickscoping if it wasn't for the aim-assist, so the only way you can really get kills is with aim-assist is it just me or does that sound pretty n00bish
jdoggparty
offline
jdoggparty
5,859 posts
Nomad

I don't mind quickscoping, in fact I sometimes do it myself. I just wish it wasn't so easy to quickscope. What I would like is that there is still faster ADS for snipers, but there is no Aim-Assist. That way you could still quickscope, it would just be more difficult, and not anyone who picked up a sniper could do it.

Also, I don't agree with only headshots being one-shot kills. It would make the game too difficult and no fun for snipers, especially since Call of Duty is so fast paced. It is very difficult to get a headshot with a sniper when the enemy is sprinting all the time. But I do think they should make the one-shot restrictions smaller. A Headshot and a Chest shot should be a one shot kill. A shoulder shot should be two shots. A stomach shot should hurt you, and then make you bleed out and die over around 10 seconds. Crotch shots should be two shots. Thighs should be two shots. Below the knees should take three shots. But if you hit someone in the knee, and then the thigh, that should kill them.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

not n00bish huh well the how well would you do quickscoping if it wasn't for the aim-assist, so the only way you can really get kills is with aim-assist is it just me or does that sound pretty n00bish

You're pathetically childish attempting to belittle someone on a forum that I'd imagine is for mature discussion.
That, and you're wrong with your first post on this thread, anyway;

they have almost ruined the multiplayer on MW2

No, it illuminates to people who realize how games ought to work that the multiplayer of MW2 is bad, BECAUSE of how powerful quickscoping is and that it is there. Not bad because of how much it's been used.

DOWN WITH QUICKSCOPERS

Down with people who complain about a perfectly fair aspect of the game.

Lolwut? There's something called the "CoD? Put it here" sticky thread.

Yeah, games like Battlefield 3 have something like Quickscoping, except it's with Shotguns.

so the rest of the population (the ones with more than a few rat tails for a brain) can get some peace and quiet from your consistent, redundant, mind-numbing threads.

If we're going to be that frank and insolent, I guess I mays well mention that there's not much else for brains around the VG section.

In CoD4 and WaW at least you had juggernaut to counter stopping power.

But it created a circle of monotony because it was Stopping Power > people without Juggernaught / Stopping Power and Juggernaught > people without Juggernaught / Stopping Power.

Flat increases like so thus proved ineffective for the metagame.

And that's why they removed perks entirely and had just ProMod.

but I respect good no-scopers.

I hope you mean quick-scopers. There's few things you can do to increase the chances of hitting a no-scope, and it is always quite reliant on CHANCE.

really battlefield 3 i didn't know you could do that in BF3, shame

1) Not shame, because it's awful.
2) It's really awful.

You can rest well tonight knowing that only dumb COD people think its good.

Smart CoD people, whatever there are of it. It's a strong way of playing, those who use it are using what they have to maximum potential. You're dumb, if you think that not quickscoping is any more effective unless:
1) It's the ACR / Scar-H (being as this is primarily MW2)
2) It's a Shotgun (in which case there's only a few rare circumstances you will come out on top anyway)
3) You're playing Hardcore.

Its a glitch and everyone knows that.

LOL.
Too much lolage.
No, you have faster ADS from Sleight of Hand and you can use that with a Sniper. Not a glitch, just how the game works.

In COD its a glitch and it sucks.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
And no, it makes everything else suck. So I'm being a bit more cautious to ensure that you're NOT being parochial this time. How does it suck? Because it does, but in a specific way.

ONly noobs quick scope.

Nice generalization. Sadly, in the realm of CoD, you're pretty much all noob gamers.

1. You're saying this because you can't quickscope

Target his idiocy without using idiocy. All noob gamers? Pretty much the case, being as the metagame is hardly fleshed out as much as it would've been with any other community. You look at the "top people in CoD" and it's pathetic -- no one else 'rises up to the challenge', not that there is any.

The "You hate it because you can't do it" or "You're just mad because of *insert impertinent reason here" just shows your own immaturity, and you'd be a fool to repeat that mistake.

You are only saying they arent because you're a quick scopers.THATS CALLED BIAS GET OVER IT

Hey. I did all forms of play on CoD. I lack bias because I don't even play it any more and I've likely had more experience with games than you, judging by your horrendous grammar and attitude. There's a valid point in defending quickscopers, because they're not the issue.

Or, to speak in your language, *ahem*;

QUIT CRYIGN DNOOB YOURE JS UTS SO AMD ABOUT BEING AS OS BAD BECAUSE YOU GO 1/3 KD ALL DAY LAOLOLOOL.

That's my best impersonation. Sorry if I didn't miss enough keys on the keyboard.

essentially quick scoping is a way for noobs make themselves seem good by not even having to aim and just letting the aim assist do everything.

I can't believe you're even complaining about CONSOLES. There is nothing 'good' in CoD and especially not so in consoles. If you're flanked by someone intelligent enough to see the gap in your defences you are DEAD because you cannot turn. That's not skill, that's COMMON SENSE for anyone willing to use it (sadly, not many people do on CoD from experience which is. . . vast enough).

you also only need steady aim then quick scoping is even easier for the scoper.

For the objectively superior system in terms of running capabilities and of course, features / controls it provides, I'll say the PC has a bigger problem with Quickscoping where all you need is fast ADS and then a little bit of practice to have 95% accuracy. That is what happened to me my first day trying to QS.

Is that my fault that I decided to QS? Yes. Does that make me bad? No, in fact I chose it because it was a more effective method of killing idiots -- and that makes me smarter than anyone who complains about the mechanic when it comes to CoD.

I'd ather hard scope and use a secondary at close range, then face the penalties if the shots miss.

You are so honourable, oh wise one. Do continue.

If a quick shot misses, unless ur using like a semi auto insteadd of bolt action, You are going to get killed.

You die all too often anyways. It's part of the Rage-Cycle on Call of Duty, and it's no surprise that quickscoping is not a bad method as a result.

Because it takes way more skill to quickscope than run around with an assault rifle or shotgun.

No it doesn't. To be equally effective with an inferior weapon you need to better navigate the map and make strong strategic choices because you can't go up against a quickscoper toe-to-toe. Especially using a Shotgun.

Whereas the Sniper Rifle is much more versatile, you just need to know how to use it. And it's not hard using it the same way at different ranges. It's not like you're making Marines versatile by using sick micro. You're just doing the same thing.

Now, you could ALSO navigate the map whilst quickscoping, but you lose manuverability, because you know. . . there's aiming down sights involved. So you substitute mobility with either jumping or strafing by aiming and shooting the guy which quite frankly, is something you can also do with other weapons.

So, to summarize -- quickscoping is EASIER and is MORE effective. You're smart to use this.

if you're 1 foot away from someone you should have 100% accuracy hip-firing not about maybe 25% accuracy

Congratulations on using percentages. A better way of putting it is "If you're 1 foot away from someone you should be able to hit every single time as opposed to one in four, with an 80% chance of killing the target if it hits.
Ergo, you have 80% survival rate in these circumstances. All by looking at the guy and pressing a button to [i]instantaneously fire a shot.

This is how I propose to be DOWN WITH QUICKSCOPERS because I hate them.

. . . What? I don't need any more reason than that."[/i]

if so then give me one good reason to

There isn't one. What I'm saying is you're targetting the wrong aspect.

it is extremely hard to learn how to quickscope,

No it isn't.

and even harder to actually get good at it.

"Learning how to quickscope" and "Being good at quickscoping" are one in the same, otherwise you're doing it wrong.

it's just stupid that you can't hit someone from pointblank with a hip fired sniper

Right.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that if he DOES hit with that noscope accuracy that I can still kill him and rejuvenate shortly after taking a bullet wound, however.

CoD is not there to be realistic, saying "it's stupid" just makes your reason appear all the more invalid to those who don't recognise the point made itself.

Do I think it's cheap to quickscope?

Cheap and effective. Sorry we're not purchasing Nike Trainers to get the Marathon Perk, because we rather Reebok - it has the same effect.

Except this has even greater effect.

Yes, because you shouldn't be able to scope into a sniper rifle in the same time it takes to blink, and you have nothing to counter the one shot kill of most snipers.

Complain to the developers, not the people who have your microphones open to them and are using the part of the game that lets them win. Otherwise, I could complain to you for using weapons altogether that is not your knife.

Or you even using your knife.

yes it is bias, everyone has it but this isnt the place to talk about it.

Oh shut up. First you was logically fallacious about everyone "having biased", it's something you are, and it doesn't apply to CoD all the time.
And secondly, nice attempt to bail out from an argument YOU yourself raised.

I don't think the sniper should be instant kill because it wouldn't kill anyone in real life instantly unless you hit someone in certain areas.

Because CoD is SO REALISTIC. /sarcasm

Get that horrendously stupid idea that CoD is supposed to be realistic, or that it would be better realistic, out of your head.

I'm not going through any more of this, the idiocy is soon to either rub off on me or plunge me into depression.

- H
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

Complain to the developers, not the people who have your microphones open to them and are using the part of the game that lets them win.

You know, this is a forum thread to talk about quickscoping. I'm sharing my opinion on the matter. Unless you're not talking to me directly and just wanted to get the point across that people shouldn't complain about other people quickscoping in a game over their microphone?
I'm not going through any more of this, the idiocy is soon to either rub off on me or plunge me into depression.

Then don't spend half an hour of your time replying to something you think is stupid.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

You know, this is a forum thread to talk about quickscoping.

4f2d27b992a2a_tumblr_lvrp8bU9AV1qibz0jo1_500.png&w=500&h=417&ei=BDyMT5S5Eaqu0QWez7m8CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=914&vpy=284&dur=251&hovh=205&hovw=246&tx=89&ty=122&sig=109363682938967768254&amp<i class=age=1&tbnh=130&tbnw=156&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:92&biw=1333&bih=753" alt="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=CLfNxNwtD2gXNM:&imgrefurl=http://cfgfactory.com/skins/show/4f2d2a08bbe9e&docid=ACx-dcPZ6BRUlM&imgurl=http://cfgfactory.com/images/i/4f2d27b992a2a_tumblr_lvrp8bU9AV1qibz0jo1_500.png&w=500&h=417&ei=BDyMT5S5Eaqu0QWez7m8CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=914&vpy=284&dur=251&hovh=205&hovw=246&tx=89&ty=122&sig=109363682938967768254&ampage=1&tbnh=130&tbnw=156&start=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:92&biw=1333&bih=753" />

I'm sharing my opinion on the matter.

You're entitled to your opinion.
I am entitled to give my opinion on your opinion, and furthermore I provided reasons why.

You want to go into morality?

Unless you're not talking to me directly and just wanted to get the point across that people shouldn't complain about other people quickscoping in a game over their microphone?

And that would make a difference?

I'm talking to you and others, in any case.

Then don't spend half an hour of your time replying to something you think is stupid.

The people and the points they raise. The subject is actually quite nice to go through (if it weren't for the issue of knowing it wouldn't be resolved and all this was for naught).

That, and I've not got much else to do around here on a different computer.

- H
TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,872 posts
Chamberlain

You're pathetically childish attempting to belittle someone on a forum that I'd imagine is for mature discussion.
thank you for calling me childish because i am only 13 years old and i don't want to sound like an adult that would be degrading
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

picture

My point of saying that was I'm going to talk about it here, I'm not going to complain to the developers when they obviously don't care.
And that would make a difference?

You made it seem like all we do while we play is complain about people using snipers. I don't care if people use snipers, I just don't want them to be able to be used so easily.
I am entitled to give my opinion on your opinion, and furthermore I provided reasons why.

What good is complaining to Infinity Ward going to do when you already know they don't care. It's not like I didn't try contacting Robert Bowling when he was still with them.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

thank you for calling me childish because i am only 13 years old and i don't want to sound like an adult that would be degrading

Hey, I'm recently fifteen and 'childish' is a term to describe immature. How you figured it would appear degrading I will never know.

I'm not going to complain to the developers when they obviously don't care.

So what? You'll just complain to people on threads that can't do anything about it, who are subject to a different form of reasoning, which appears more valid.

As for suggestions,
but Quick scoping should be harder to do if possible.

Again, there's not much to say about this.

You made it seem like all we do while we play is complain about people using snipers.

No, because I wouldn't have a reply that spans half the page for just that.

I just don't want them to be able to be used so easily.

So congratulations at seeing the issue. Even though that would not fix the problem as anyone who could grasp quickscoping when it's more difficult would still be more capable than anyone else if they manage it with that single weapon -- and let us be more realistic. How could you change how quickscoping works to make it that much more difficult without removing it?

What good is complaining to Infinity Ward going to do when you already know they don't care.

So why are we even discussing Call of Duty? Why is it the current rave of European Gaming? My agenda is to show my reason to the few individuals who will listen on this threads, using the bickering about traits of the game AS the reason.
What exactly is your goal, then?

It's not like I didn't try contacting Robert Bowling when he was still with them.

Oh, and why did I not hear about this?

- H
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

You'll just complain to people on threads that can't do anything about it, who are subject to a different form of reasoning, which appears more valid.

It's discussion. I visit these forums because I like talking about things that interest me.

Why do people participate in religious threads in the WEPR? Because they like talking about it obviously. Well, I like talking about Call of Duty so I participate in threads about it.
No, because I wouldn't have a reply that spans half the page for just that.

Complain to the developers, not the people who have your microphones open to them and are using the part of the game that lets them win.
How could you change how quickscoping works to make it that much more difficult without removing it?

Make snipers only kill with headshots and severely hurt everywhere else. However the damage would be different all over the body. Such as if you shoot them in the torso then it would deal 80 damage and the limbs would deal 60 damage. So it would still be possible to quickscope, it just wouldn't be as easy.

If you care at all, there was supposedly leaked information for Black Ops 2 about snipers. It mentioned that they'll be removing aim assist for snipers however to compensate they'll be reducing weapon sway. I don't know about you, but I think that's a decent way of changing quickscoping. Removing aim assist will make it significantly more difficult to be on target but the less sway will mean your bullets will always go straight.
So why are we even discussing Call of Duty?

Call of Duty is one of the many things that interests me, so I talk about it.
What exactly is your goal, then?

Goal? Well, I'm talking about Call of Duty with people. I don't have a goal. I'm not here to start an argument or try to convince people that my idea is better than theirs. I'm simply talking about quickscoping in Call of Duty and how I'd like for it to be.
Oh, and why did I not hear about this?

I didn't think it was relevant to mention I tried contacting Robert Bowling about snipers. He never responded, so I didn't know what he thought about it.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Because they like talking about it obviously.

I don't think the ongoing debates with various people with the same repetitive and flawed views is fun. I doubt other people do either -- they do it to help others, to protect others and / or hone their skills, I'd say.

Because not always do I like to dedicate my time solely to myself.

Well, I like talking about Call of Duty so I participate in threads about it.

Good for you. So when next time you're going to take part in this habit, are you going to focus on the negative, unchangeable aspect that is a segment of the game you enjoy 'talking about'?

Complain to the developers, not the people who have your microphones open to them and are using the part of the game that lets them win.

Aye. That is half a page.

That and. . . LOL, you forgot the completely former part of complaining to the developers, because that's how you would get things done.

I'll get into that a little bit more later.

Make snipers only kill with headshots and severely hurt everywhere else.

Uh huh. So then the use of the sniper -- especially in any form of professional scene but significantly enough to warrant disregarding in average skill, becomes minimal?

Instead of targetting quickscoping you've slapped the entirety of the weapon. Because you can so easily regenerate health and you're being hit from a large distance you can easily see the fluidity in how you won't even get assists (of which the assists mechanic needs improving as well).

However the damage would be different all over the body.

If this was a game of realism.

So it would still be possible to quickscope, it just wouldn't be as easy.

If you can hit their heads. With a quickscope? Possible, but it wouldn't be effective if you miss that NARROW target because he would have the upper hand with a different weapon.
And you can't really swap in time.

You're swapping quickscoping with a 20% survival rate. The issue being is you're damaging all the snipers' capabilities.

I don't mind quickscoping no longer being viable, but the way you propose is too lethal to the entire class.

Problems of resolving it:
Distance travelled + Minimum Base Damage (- Wall Penetration) = Damage Dealt

Lower the minimum base damage enough so that smaller ranges are less lethal, and thus quickscoping is less reliable. This forces the sniper rifle to be used more so as a sharpshooter and to maintain distance -- as well as making any form of quickscoping that is effective work against more distant targets only, requiring more precision in the least.

This makes the sniper a class based more on what its usual role is and furthermore caters better to the general skill of each player, whilst still allowing variation of play in any 'higher level' to be maintained.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a decent way of changing quickscoping.

1) That's the PC version left unchanged.
2) People can very easily still grasp it. Not even everyone uses aim assist when quickscoping anyway.

but the less sway will mean your bullets will always go straight.

If you're aiming down sights, that is the intention anyway.

It's quite atrocious that aim assist is in the game anyway -- sure, you're using a remote controller but that's not an impairment you remove by removing a significant portion of the game itself -- actually aiming.

It's comparable to having Injects, Warp-Ins or Drops in Starcraft II be automatic.

I don't have a goal.

Then you'd be far better off just playing the game, if you find it entertaining.

I didn't think it was relevant to mention I tried contacting Robert Bowling about snipers. He never responded, so I didn't know what he thought about it.

Wrong way to answer.

The reason I didn't hear about this is because you didn't stretch it out to anyone who purchases the products of Infinity Ward. It's quite clear they only care for the money, and a single mind, no matter how well-reasoning he or she is, won't make them change an element of a working game, in terms of business.

It requires a large amount of the demographic to make a change go their way, and even then they might try and deal with the problem a different way than your proposals.

- H
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,595 posts
Bard

I'm not going to bother quoting as it'll take too much time:

So they want to repeat the same stuff they always say for what? Because they think it might help people? It's obvious the people who don't share their views on religion don't care, so it's a waste of time.

Unchangeable? It's changeable.

How I would get things done? It doesn't work like that. Of all the things many people sent Robert Bowling and most likely posted on their official forums, they haven't done anything major. Same with MW2, many complained about the obvious flaws, nothing was done. I'd rather talk about CoD with people who play CoD. It may not get anything done if I talk about the cons in the game, but that doesn't matter. I use this for conversation.

Regenerating health takes around five-ten seconds. In the pace of CoD that's more than enough time to get another shot off.

Game of realism? Guns in CoD already do different damages on different parts of the body. It's just the snipers do the same high damage on most of the body.

You can swap in time with sleight of hand pro, you can even get a second sniper shot off if your first doesn't kill.

Too lethal for the entire class? Not at all. If you're using a sniper how they were originally intended then you should be able to easily get headshots and even two shots to hit on the same person.

Since it's the same for PC then perhaps you should send your concerns to David Vonderhaar.

ADS in Black Ops and MW3 gives significant weapon sway, so all the bullets don't go the same direction.

Wrong way to answer? Get over yourself. It's not relevant because many people sent things to him, but he never responded.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

So they want to repeat the same stuff they always say for what? Because they think it might help people?

Because it most certainly can.

It's obvious the people who don't share their views on religion don't care, so it's a waste of time.

It's more effective against the third party -- the observers. Those who witness the debate and don't have any real bias because they've not presented their ideas to be debunked.

Those who can at least take it with them that they've had significant conflict about their religion could find the issues at a later date -- &quotlanting the seed", as it were.

Unchangeable? It's changeable.

Not in any realistic circumstance. Their current method is working, they'll keep pressing it. If they cared about the quality of their games on top of the amount of digits their profits list on then they'd do it first probably by introducing the common things you would need to have it be a proper PC shooter.

Balance is something that should be patched through anyway.

How I would get things done? It doesn't work like that.

Oh certainly not, but it carries a long way if you're going to point the flaws of something AND give a possibly-viable option.

they haven't done anything major.

Hello, profits.

and most likely posted on their official forums,

All forums are littered with a vast majority idiocy with a minority genius. Speaking from experience which concerns generally more mature communities (also speaking from experience).

Same with MW2, many complained about the obvious flaws, nothing was done.

If they were obvious, and if there were many, it just shows how little they care.

I'd rather talk about CoD with people who play CoD.

Why's that?

It may not get anything done if I talk about the cons in the game, but that doesn't matter.

That's kind of the issue.

I use this for conversation.

Needless conversation, negative conversation. Unless you're actually trying to influence someone, a discussion concerning one guy ranting about something with other people nodding along is quite bland.

Regenerating health takes around five-ten seconds. In the pace of CoD that's more than enough time to get another shot off.

If they can't take cover, that is. Decently developed strategies (not that strategies are developed) would include the ability to evade the angle of a sniper in order to regenerate or at least avoid death.

It's just the snipers do the same high damage on most of the body.

One shot kill on chest and head, not really much else. Any other place is not necessarily viable because you die anyway in a 1v1 scenario. It can wound in professional play effectively, but there are counter tactics against that (smoke grenades and perks in the case of MW2 can help prevent this).

You can swap in time with sleight of hand pro, you can even get a second sniper shot off if your first doesn't kill.

If the person doesn't take cover. Most maps are too urban, other ones can include strategies that involve NOT being a completely visible silhouette.

If you're using a sniper how they were originally intended then you should be able to easily get headshots and even two shots to hit on the same person.

What have you been playing? Aiming for the head on a moving target -- which is mostly the case is absurdly difficult because you have so little time to recognise the target in the first place, nevermind aim at his head. Then getting a second shot off? Not really, unless he's in a bad position or couldn't get behind cover in time (which is not hard).

Since it's the same for PC then perhaps you should send your concerns to David Vonderhaar.

My concerns are for the players who could waste money buying CoD, not for the fadchise itself (see what I did there?).

That and I would send the combined concerns of enough people before doing that, otherwise my opinion warrants ignorance.

But why rally people this way on a dull game? One that repeats itself anyway? No, you're much better off getting a different game or hobby.

Get over yourself.

Done.

Wrong way to answer?

Yes. Where could I have went if you did send the complaint and didn't tell me?

It's not relevant because many people sent things to him, but he never responded.

Define 'many' and give me your source, please.

Although I must say, it's beginning to be like what it was a few months ago. People thinking I'm just a pompous and even cynical ******bag. I love it.

- H
Epic563
offline
Epic563
166 posts
Nomad

I, as a quickscoper myself, do not think it is too bad. I really only quickscope in MW2 because it is very effective. However, they made it a lot harder in Black Ops, but it kind of returned in MW3. Quickscoping is actually very skillful. It can get annoying at times, but it is a skill.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

You are kidding right?

How ironic that the way I instinctively thought of replying was with sarcasm.

No, I am not kidding, and I will explain in further detail.

Smoke grenades only work if the person can't go ADS before the smoke

You can throw them in advance - it doesn't put you behind in a fighting situation because, hey, it's smoke. Unless you consider flashes and stuns -- but it's a loss that isn't too significant. Then, your mention of another thing has more value:

even then there is still thermals

And you have Cold Blooded. The added value comes from how much you spend - an entire perk - in order to compensate for safety. Even then random shots are made in professional play (This is Call of Duty 4). What happened in CoD4 professional play was that everything but smokes were removed. You had your weapons, including frag grenades, and smoke grenades.

I doubt you can fix the entirety of MW2 with the single change, you will likely need to limit what is available. Even so, that doesn't sound "balanced" as much as making it so it works out. Alas, I believe there is sufficient complexity to be deemed a skilled game by some.

What I would like to know is what perks reduce damage in MW2?

Did you attempt to derive what I meant? Give this -- I've mentioned that oftentimes you can only have one shot at killing the opponent, for he can react too conveniently in any decent tactic. That point I made about recognising and shooting the opponent in a one-shot-kill zone? Lightweight.

Or Marathon, as it could give you the sprint you need to get past a place just fast enough, or get to a certain place expediently.

Therefore, there is no way to stop a quick scoper from killing you.

The change I proposed to Quickscoping I feel is substantial, and would play a huge role in territorial control in professional play as well.

When I mention professional play -- the way it is currently done on CoD4 is a 5 vs 5 man team, with one person on each team being sniper. Search and Destroy.
After I believe 10 rounds (of which various tactics are employed), the teams between defence and offence swap.

Something like that.

Quickscoping is actually very skillful.

Sorry but I cannot vouch for this. On consoles, it's could be quite difficult, but the main fault is the form of control and your inability to react to people who flank you. With that in mind, in any straight up fight you have perfect visibility and being accurate can't be all that difficult. Especially on longer range it's harder for quickscoping I would imagine -- making my change all the better?

For computer it's incredibly easy. The problem with seeing what works and what doesn't is that people don't, what is it? Move like water.

They don't appear to be able to grasp things all that well, to understand how things work -- even in games. To reach the maximum skill is obviously very difficult, but I occasionally wonder just how well people 'get' things.
Example. Evil Geniuses' IdrA who plays Starcraft II. His attitude completely sucks and his skill suffers dramatically for it. He doesn't seem to attempt to understand the game as he should and thus he's literally playing something completely different. If he complains about a game element he could bare some weight but more often than not there is clear flaws in his logic.

- H
Showing 46-60 of 78