How many of you are glad there are Operatives,not Snipers?

(Humate) #21

[QUOTE=tokamak;379562]All those examples demonstrate a substantially lower effectiveness once they venture outside of their niche. The quickscope sniper however, not so. It’s an obvious exploit rather than a tactic or improvisation.

And don’t think Blizzard doesn’t respond to new inventions. They apply (bi)monthly patches to balance the meta game.[/QUOTE]

Two things:

  1. The effectiveness of CQ sniping is lower than its traditional use - if you miss youre screwed.
    From personal experience its basically impossible, to be as lethal in close on a consistent basis vs traditional use. I could give you specific numbers but it would only look like I was bragging. cough :slight_smile:

The only real positive going for CQ sniping is that it forces players to deal with something, that they arent really used to dealing with. Only when it becomes the norm, do players start to prefire rockets around corners as a counter. :slight_smile:

  1. Yes Blizzard do go ahead and patch things out if they see something they dont like. But thats Blizzards call, not yours or mine. Meaning players can only assume its there by design, until the developer completely removes it. CQ sniping still exists in etqw :slight_smile:
(BioSnark) #22

I don’t care about quickscoping and unscoping and I do recall one guy in the vault on Island being vocally unhappy when I [strike]used it against him[/strike] quick scoped, unscoped and killed him with blaster but if we’re arguing that it’s by design if it’s not removed, we can also justify exploiting map holes and icarus glitching.

(I'mInDisguise!) #23

If they were to ADD a sniper class instead of replacing the operative,I would be all over it.The sniper class could have increased sniper rifle accuracy,use certain sniper rifles and use different kinds of bullets (fire,poison,etc.)?

(INF3RN0) #24

In my opinion the sniper class should never be limited to camping, deploying radar, and emping things as their only means of usefulness. CQC sniping being viable for those able should be there, as it was in ETQW, and have an extremely high skill cap to balance it out. What I am wondering is if you think that the quick unscope is what makes QSing exploited? If that’s what your thoughts are, then you don’t get how it works entirely. The kill itself comes from immediately scoping in and shooting. A lot of people don’t unscope and still are using the same method to kill someone in CQC. The unscope is the trick, which in a sense is the only real thing close to an “exploit” as you regain normal speed much faster. But then the person they shot at is still dead yes, so to be honest it’s really not that big of a deal considering the overall difficulty. The fact that the railgun functioned the way it did really makes the full quickscope with the sniper rifle seem much more necessary from a more logical standpoint.

(BioSnark) #25

Just close to an exploit? Exploits aren’t inherently bad or good for gameplay because they are exploits, (look at skiing and trick jumping originally) but unless it’s consciously included, it’s still exploiting a design oversight.

(INF3RN0) #26

Something I view as unintended and exploitable; quick switch pistol swap bug that skips sniper reload effectively increasing fire rate. There’s lots of things that I am sure were never intended in design, but not everything is necessarily bad for the game. Quick scoping is definitely by design even if SD never expected people to use it in CQC, but quick unscoping is most likely not. Does it hurt the game enough to be prioritized in a patch? I guess not considering it was never addressed in the patch history. Sometimes devs put things in a game with a certain idea of their specific use in a game, but player creativity and ability can take a lot of content out of it’s comfort zone. Sometimes this can be a problem, other times it’s just a nifty trick that adds to the overall game play.

The reason why I dislike the fact that SD took responses off this forum regarding sniper rifles from ETQW and made the Brink sniper rifle work the way it does, is because I did not believe it was justified as a true balance issue. I can understand when people don’t like OHK rockets or vehicles, but to limit the highest skilled weapon in a game just because people don’t like dying to more skilled players is quite an awful reason. That’s the cause for the issue, although the “not what it was meant for” reason comes up a lot; the whole thing was an uneducated rage fest. I haven’t heard a real logical argument against it considering all the variables involved, nor have I heard it from players who are actually good at CQC sniping. Even most experienced CQC snipers will tell you that a basic rifle is much more dependable. If anyone cares to enlighten me in a mathematically balancing manner, I’d be interested.

(Humate) #27

For me thats an apples and oranges thing.
What I do consider a blatant glitch (that hits closer to what you want to point out BioSnark), is the bullet in the chamber macro - which allows players to avoid the reload animation for a quicker second shot. The reason this is considered a cheat, is because it mitigates one of the major differences b/w Sniper and Rail. Rail doesnt need to go into a reload animation after a shot- so its safe to say its not there by design.

edit: inferno beat me to it

(tokamak) #28

Turning the entire confrontation into a coin flip. It just doesn’t benefit the overall gameplay in any way. It’s only funny for the guy attempting it.

(INF3RN0) #29

It’s not at all a coinflip in the least… if you aim at their head and shoot they are dead; if your aim is off you miss. There is absolutely nothing random about it, so not sure about your implication there. The sniper bullet has 0 spread, meaning the player must reflexively line up the shot and immediately scope and shoot. It won’t matter if they unscope, they shoot while scoped. Humate was referring to the part where aim is crucial in CQ considering your not camping up on a mountain, your in close proximity to someone with advantageous weaponry, and where you are in a much more challenging situation. I still would like someone to give me a good argument on the topic that understands how this all works…

(tokamak) #30

It’s not random, it’s binary. The outcome of the confrontation depends on YOUR hit, there’s nothing the opponent can do about that.

(INF3RN0) #31

I still don’t understand what your saying here. You aim it like any other weapon… so I could use some elaboration on that.

(tokamak) #32

In any other face-to-face firefight in equal conditions the outcome is determined by both the player’s aiming skill. With the quickscope it’s only decided by one player’s aiming skill either he hits or he misses, if he hits then he wins and if he misses then the other guy wins. Either way the opponent has no input in the fight.

That is, unless you can provide us with the counter to being quickscoped.

(INF3RN0) #33

[QUOTE=tokamak;379669]In any other face-to-face firefight in equal conditions the outcome is determined by both the player’s aiming skill. With the quickscope it’s only decided by one player’s aiming skill either he hits or he misses, if he hits then he wins and if he misses then the other guy wins. Either way the opponent has no input in the fight.

That is, unless you can provide us with the counter to being quickscoped.[/QUOTE]

I feel like you don’t really understand how quick scoping works… just have an idea in your head on how it does. When you snipe, you have to hit the head in order to get a one-hit-kill in any situation; this applies exactly the same in quick scoping. Now in order to quickscope, you must be lining up your crosshair on the head before attempting to QS. Now QSing is simply a faster form of pre-scope shooting. If a sniper scoped, waited 1 second, lined up their shot, and then killed you, would that sound reasonable to you? A quickscope is exactly that, except a player lines up their shot prior to scoping and then shoots immediately when fully scoped. All it requires is faster reflexes combined with precise aim. What another player can do is make the shot harder for them to hit via movement. I recommend you go into a server with a friend and have them strafe in front of you. Then attempt QSing at them and see if you can hit anything. The fact that the sniper rifle has a period between shots is what balances the weapons out, considering if the first shot of a sniper is missed, the rifle will win. That is the science of weapon balance, ie greater damage/accuracy=extremely low RoF. With movement involved, the rifle has a much higher percentage of favoritism to win every encounter regardless of aim (unless the sniper has an aimbot).

(tokamak) #34

At the same I feel you still don’t get my issue with this type of play. I’m NOT denying it’s not an incredibly difficult thing to do. I believe that in frontal confrontations, both players ought to determine the outcome and it shouldn’t all be in the hands of one side.

What another player can do is make the shot harder for them to hit via movement.

That counts for all frontal shootouts. It doesn’t take away the fact that the fight is decided by one single shot.

That is the science of weapon balance, ie greater damage/accuracy=extremely low RoF

And like Brink shows (low damage/accuracy - high RoF), both opposing extremes completely suck as it takes the player’s input out of the game.

The extreme accuracy and low rate of fire was intended for long ranged shooting, denying corridors to the enemy, not to hang the entire outcome of melee fights on one single shot.

(H0RSE) #35

When you snipe, you have to hit the head in order to get a one-hit-kill in any situation;

This isn’t 100% true. I have played games where a close range body shot with a sniper rifle results in a 1 hit kill (BC2 had this, unless it was patched) Now you may argue that since you are close range, it technically isn’t “sniping,” but you are also talking about quickscoping needing to be a headshot to kill, and quickscoping is a CQC technique, so in certain games, a headshot would not be needed to kill with QS either.

(INF3RN0) #36

[QUOTE=tokamak;379674]At the same I feel you still don’t get my issue with this type of play. I’m NOT denying it’s not an incredibly difficult thing to do. I believe that in frontal confrontations, both players ought to determine the outcome and it shouldn’t all be in the hands of one side.

That counts for all frontal shootouts. It doesn’t take away the fact that the fight is decided by one single shot.

And like Brink shows (low damage/accuracy - high RoF), both opposing extremes completely suck as it takes the player’s input out of the game.

The extreme accuracy and low rate of fire was intended for long ranged shooting, denying corridors to the enemy, not to hang the entire outcome of melee fights on one single shot.[/QUOTE]

Important distinction here. GPMG vs Rifle. The GPMG should win every fight with superior aim yes? Same situation as a sniper. What factors in is that both the sniper and gpmg have a higher skill cap in difficulty of use. Distance is not at all the issue for the sniper function, in fact it is more of a disadvantage to use a sniper in close quarters than in the hills. Your argument arouses issues with the entire weapon balance mechanics in the game. What your really seem to be saying is that you don’t think a sniper rifle should be able to OHK someone with a headshot, which again I’d have to bring up the part of how difficult it actually is to consistently headshot people with a sniper rifle without an aimbot.

Um… we are talking about the ETQW sniper rifle. I’ve played other games and find the OHK HS only system to be best.

(tokamak) #37

What your really seem to be saying is that you don’t think a sniper rifle should be able to OHK someone with a headshot,

I’m giving you the benefit of doubt here, but this is the last time you’re putting words in my mouth. I’ve made my point clear and yet you twist it. So one more chance to deal with my argument as it stands.

(INF3RN0) #38

You don’t have a logical argument going, and backing out isn’t going to help prove your point. My assumption was that people against CQC sniping in ETQW did not really understand what was actually happening, which so far has been the case. I’m only asking you to be more clear in your case.

(tokamak) #39

There you go.

With the quickscope it’s only decided by one player’s aiming skill either he hits or he misses, if he hits then he wins and if he misses then the other guy wins. Either way the opponent has no input in the fight.

(INF3RN0) #40

I have trouble understanding how that’s even a reason? Your addressing the issue of what a sniper rifle is, which in no way is an argument. That makes me think you would say the same thing about any other two weapons in combat, which I stated in my previous post. When your in a fire-fight isn’t the outcome determined by who is most accurate? If you have a weapon that has a potential OHK, then the whole outcome is going to be determined by how good the person is at using that weapon. If you take the difficulty of use of that weapon and triple it’s value, then that really seems to balance out the issue does it not? The whole point of adding more rewarding weapons is to drastically increase the skill curve in being able to successfully compete with other weapons. A sniper rifle is most effective and easiest to use at long range, but is least effective and hardest to use in CQC. I’m still not able to find any logical explanation as to how this is an actual problem vs a preference in what you’ve stated.