You’re taking the time dimension out of the equation here. That’s the problem. In the time it takes to kill you you’ll always be able to get a shot off. That makes you the sole deciding factor in the confrontation and the other player’s effort, no matter how skilful, is completely irrelevant. It turns the game effectively into Duck Hunt where they’re the ducks and you’re the hunter (nice trivia, the original Duck Hunter had a multiplayer where the second player gets to control the duck).
The sniper rifle works the same in any situation,
Nobody is quickscoping from mountains. Now you’re just acting like a lawyer, a completely dishonest defense of an exploit you’re emotionally attached to.
[QUOTE=Crytiqal;379717]But that same 1% is when the sniper rifle is used on a hill, the opponent also doesn’t have a chance then…
Is that unfair aswell?[/QUOTE]
That’s nonsense. On the long range multiple other factors come into play like cover and the scope sway. The quickscope bypasses both.
The difference is, when using the sniper rifle in close distance, it is much harder for the sniper to be used effectivly.
But more effectively than it is supposed to be. Without quickscope the sniper would either have a huge scopeless spread or a swaying scope. The quickscope gets best of both worlds.
Sniper rifle = OHK headshot weapon, which you think is ok, as long as the sniper is used at long range?