Can You Quickscope In Black Ops 2?

When the original Call of Duty: Black Ops was released back in 2010, Treyarch made quickscoping virtually impossible by adding tons of sway to sniper rifles for the first second or two after scoping in. Eventually the developer gave in to the community and lessened this effect drastically, making quickscoping possible. This begs the question: Will you be able to quickscope in Black Ops 2?

Among the first Black Ops 2 multiplayer gameplay videos to make it to the Internet (other than the Gamescom livestream videos), the 10-minute video embedded below shows a member of the FaZe trickshoting / quickscoping clan (FaZe WaRTeK) doing his thing. Obviously, people are going to have to get used to the new weapons and their mechanics before they start pulling off quickscoping streaks and trickshots, but this guy has moderate success.

The video features a game of ‘Hardpoint’, a new King-of-the-Hill-type game mode for Black Ops 2, on a map called Yemen. The player is using the Ballista sniper rifle with the FMJ attachment. His Perks are Lightweight, Fast Hands, Extreme Conditioning and Dexterity.

At the time of press the game is still in its alpha build, so anything could still change between now and the November release date. If we find any more Black Ops 2 quickscoping gameplay videos we’ll update this post.

Share this post:
TAGS: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Media, Multiplayer

82 Comments

  1. SMx says:

    So many hitmarkers D:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 11

  2. matty smith says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 71

  3. Francis says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17

  4. Bigbadcivic says:

    For a game like cod that is trying to make games as true as life as they do, i can’t understand why they in god sake would enable quick-scoping.. It has nothing to do with real life and is often the reason i don’t even quit game but turn of the ps3. My personal opinion is that quick-scoping ruins a game. Why not give the real army only one shot sniperrifles if that is how it works? I hate quickscopers?For a game like cod that is trying to make games as true as life as they do, i can’t understand why they in god sake would enable quick-scoping.. It has nothing to do with real life and is often the reason i don’t even quit game but turn of the ps3. My personal opinion is that quick-scoping ruins a game. Why not give the real army only one shot sniperrifles if that is how it works? I hate quickscopers?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 113 Thumb down 117

    • BO7H B4RRELS says:

      I’m not a quickscoping fan either, but I don’t think that the whole “realism” argument is valid. Call of Duty has always been an arcade shooter, not a military simulator. It’s more about fun than realism. Don’t get me wrong, I think quickscoping is lame as hell, but it has nothing to do with realism.

      Highly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 15

      • meyeahthisguy says:

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 26

        • Edward says:

          ya I think BF and COD are both fun in different ways but I think battlefield wins in realism. I like both games COD is the most addictive game ive ever played.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

        • TheAssertiveCow says:

          you should probably look up Battlefield 3, and also check out the Arma Series if you think CoD is the most realistic shooter

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

        • kingomega25 says:

          Wth are you talking about? Realistic??? LOL…go look up realistic in the dictionary. First off 9/10 of the weapons in the game are future weapons that ppl are still trying to perfect that you won’t see in battle til you’re 80. You want realism? Play bf3. Now THAT’S realism. No way shape or form is call of duty EVER going to make a game as good as it or as realistic. Call of duty is an arcade game…no question. It lacks in strategy and thought. Even as a sniperman. Now if COD came out with maps as big as bf3′s and using a sniper rifle to kill using windage, bullet range…etc bf would get shut down. After owning the game since it came out…had to get my money back. This is by far the WORST fps shooter by far and that is just based off of realism.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 18

          • UrMom says:

            Battlefield 3 is one of the s**ttiest FPS games out there, if you take pride in playing that game, then you seriously need to look toward other games, Battlefields series of game are just an incredibly large, pile of nasty, stinky cow crap.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      • ii 1FURNIE1 ii says:

        no game is realistic enough or every time you saw a enemy you would have to warn him off and buy then he would have shot you so you would hate it

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

    • Egotisti_Cal says:

      BF3 = Realism
      MW3 = Arcady fun

      You’re welcome to leave our game anytime.

      Highly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 36

    • Bumfluff McGee says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14

    • Matt says:

      It is a video game for a reason.. If you want real join the military.. or play battlefield.. Dont hate because youre no good at quickscoping. Its a strategy that many people enjoy doing.. If you dont like it then dont play the game. It’s that simple..

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 31

      • leothelion says:

        Quickscoping is not strategy…pressing one button right after the other when someone is in front of you so that the auto aim enables and centers yoir crosshairs ??? Lame…might as well have the option to let the game play for you and dont bother trying to play….i usually use heavy machine guns because they are the hardest to aim while on full auto.
        Quickscoping is for bad players who perfect the art of laziness.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 43 Thumb down 41

        • Marty says:

          the auto aim is so damn overrated lol. From my experience when you really QS the autoaim isnt adjusting your aim that much lol.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 19

        • IzDestroyzxx22 says:

          You probably just suck at quick scoping because there is way more to it.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 14

        • 97hwenlkdsbg says:

          yet usimng lmg’s in Black ops 2 is so over powered… there is nothing wrong with quickscoping its just been adopted as a form of sniping in the game, no its not realism, but who cares, if you want realism go to the military… and just saying quickscoping int as simple as aim in and it auto aims, try quickscoping and you will learn different

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

        • aj says:

          first of all quickscoping rakes skill its way harder to do than spray with your faggy machine guns, secondly if you think we get assistance while sniping you an idiot it takes good accuracy, and thirdly their are no heavy machine guns their light machine guns so their you are again being an idiot. so learn ur stuff before u complain, and oh yea if u don’t like quickscoping y are u on a page that talks about it, so get out of hear broskie!!!!.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

    • Snipers - Elite says:

      The only reason you dont like quick scopers is because it takes a certain amount of skill even in bo1 i was able to quickscope no problem but your one of the moaners out there that complain if he cant do something like im not able to use a reaper but im not complaining if i get that in a care package I just let someone else on my team take it

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 23

      • kingomega25 says:

        Nothing more to it…unlock some stuff put it on press L1 then R1 real fast…sooooooooo hard to do…you must be one of those that lack the skill to point aim and keep shooting…

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13

    • Biz says:

      Okay if we’re all about in game realism, then you can sit in a fighting hole for days on end waiting for the enemy to come into your line of fire, then when they finally do you can radio your CoC requesting permission to engage (which they will probably deny).

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2

    • rukidding says:

      How does CoD attempt to make games true to life? In the military do you get dogs *after* killing 7 people, or a helicopter? I think not. You gotta be trolling.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

    • Dylan says:

      “Why not give the real army only one shot sniperrifles if that is how it works?”

      Answer: because we only like to give it too the fake army, the real army would take over the world if their sniper rifles were one shot (one shot what?)
      Their are real bolt action snipers and they even get used by real armies. Also I would like to see you take a single round from a 50 cal etc and get a hitmarker (not die).

      Argument is lol wtf… 85 likes?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  5. Ughh says:

    Such bulls**t. Imagine. Shooting at a guy getting so many hitmarkers, and having him shoot you with one damn bullet. Quick-scoping is so ridiculous and was a good thing when it wasn’t in black ops. I can’t believe they fell into the peer pressure.

    Highly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 31

    • Dylan says:

      Imagine shooting someone with a 50 caliber sniper rifle at 5m range and getting a hitmarker. All the whilst you watch his terrible spray arc from the right of you to onto your chest and you die whilst waiting for your gun to fire again. If you actually get first shot with your weapon on a quick scoper you will more than often get the kill. It’s not like only snipers get hit markers against them, if I was receiving hit markers I would much prefer have an smg than a sniper rifle, your odds of surviving are a lot higher.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  6. M4stRt1g3R says:

    I’m not a fan of quick scoping, they should make a game type for quickscopers instead of ruining games

    Highly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 25

    • rahul says:

      I dont think quickscoping ruins the game because while it can be annoying when people are bad at it, it gives you an easy kill, and for the realism part cod isnt that realistic because in the army when you die you dont respawn the game is for fun not realism

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12

  7. FMR says:

    I don’t like quick scoping either and think it ruins the game. My vote is for two MP playlists. One with quick scoping disabled and the other with quick scoping enabled.

    Highly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 16

  8. Stevo says:

    Alright I don’t know much about FaZe, but if the clan were to be represented by this individual, I would not take them seriously by any means. Aside from the fact that I don’t respect quickscoping in general anyway.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 19

  9. MrRulezHD says:

    Very good blog. Lol i saw so many hitmarkers i think they should add two playlist like the person above said. One for qs and one thats not for qs. Then in those play lists its drop zone. Ground war and all of them.

    Either way. Nice blog

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

    • BO7H B4RRELS says:

      The only problem with diving everyone into two lobbies is that your splitting an already divided community up even further.

      Think about how we as a community are already split up. People who downloaded map pack 1, people who downloaded map pack 2, people who only downloaded map pack 1 & 3, people who no map packs, people with all the map packs. Those people will never play with each other. The community is divided enough already.

      If you split everyone in half on top of all the other divides it will become even harder to find a decent lobby. We have enough complaining about lag/etc. the way it is. We don’t need our lobbies further divided.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

  10. Alecks says:

    So what if qs is not realistic? How much of cod actually is? Would you like it if tks had a chance of hitting the enemy with the back of the knife and not killing him? Or what if you could only throw a frag a maximum of a few feet away? For anyone who has actually tried qs, it does require a certain amount of skill to do it well. So stop hating guys, it’s just a game.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 32 Thumb down 18

    • agent00pug says:

      No skill at all required. the perks you use to quickscope, use an auto aim. and this is the problem, people who are rubbish do this and convince themselves that they are good. ( they are not).

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 27

      • Chris says:

        I’ve always thought Quick Scoping evened out the playing field, by slightly handicapping the better players. If I decide to QS, I might average a 1.5 KDR at best. Most of my games will probably be like 20-13. But take away quick scoping, and that means I’m going to back to my favorite guns. P90′s etc. Then I’m going to average over a 3.0 KDR and my average scores are going to look like 30-6. What’s more annoying. A good player railroading your lobby 30-5 consistently, or that same player going for a challenge, running and gunning with a Sniper rifle, and average somewhere just over 1.0 KDR. You think it’s annoying, but think about what you’re wishing for. Putting awesome guns like P90′s etc back in the hands of great players, and getting killed 8/8 times by them in firefights because they are simply too good.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 11

      • A PERSON says:

        Well in that case, i challenge you to try to do it. see how many kills you get compared to normal, i personally quick scope, when i’m doing well i can get loads of kills but you ALWAYS get loads of deaths, mainly because up close machine guns F*** you up and you get sooo many hit markers regardless which cod game it is so it makes it very hard to gain kill streaks, especially in team games where alot of people come out at once. when i use a machine gun by the way i do ALOT better, i f*** that S**t up! i just enjoy quickscoping coz it looks cool:P it is hard tho!

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8

      • JeffreyDahmer says:

        Your just mad because you probably got raped by somone qs becuase your garbage at COD. period.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13

    • Edward says:

      all true but in black ops 2 they dramaticly decreased the range in which you can throw frags. The knifing is still insta-kill but they also made it so you have to be much closer to get a knife kill. With the knife you cant reach as far now.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  11. Jermaul says:

    Using the realism argument is, and will always be the most invalid argument. Quickscoping is not “cheap” in any way. It takes skill to do. You can only shoot around 70-100 bullets a minute. Meanwhile, you have people using the MP7, a death laser, that pumps out around 1000 bullets a minute. How many times do you see people quickscoping get games where they get a score as high as one who uses an assault rifle? Almost never. Someone who is quickscoping will never fair well against a team of assault rifles. I don’t care what anyone says. Quickscoping is not unfair.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 16

  12. Mark says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 18

  13. matt says:

    people who qs have no skill, it takes a lot more skill to switch to your pistol and get a kill that way

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 23

  14. Paul says:

    I’m all for QS, I don’t personally do it, but it’s a game and if people want to they should be able to, it’s a game for people to enjoy. It takes a really good QSer to dominate a lobby

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 11

  15. jep says:

    I like to see this as he was not able to quickscope that well. It appears he got lucky a few times but the QS was not really possible like in the crap game MW3!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  16. Bzab says:

    Well without quick scoping snipers sit isthe back with their scopes on a doorway waiting for you. When you quickscopes you have to have at least some skill with the thumb sticks. I hope quickscoping is not as difficult as black ops, but not as easy as mw3.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  17. Reaper says:

    I think one of the biggest issues the community has now with quick scoping and MW3 is how hackers use quick scoping to cover up their hacks. Its easy to hide a bot with a sniper class given that it’s a one shot kill. If you take that away, you make it harder for hackers to hide. Not to mention the fact that the policing of hacks in MW3 was deplorable to begin with.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

  18. NeXt says:

    i dont understand why everyone cries about quickscoping! it takes skill to consistently get kills. So all the kids who complain about me quickscoping would rather me take out a reg gun n sh#t on them? last time i looked my reg gun accounts always end up above a 3.5 or 4.0! But as soon as i smack them with a real gun im called a tryhard! n i always find it funny how all the kids who hate qs r the same kids that cant do it! N r also the same kids that rock sitrep pro n recon with portables around the map! But sitrep, recon an portables aren’t cheap lmfao! n for the people who want a realistic experience go sign up for the marines so u can stop crying that a video game is not realistic cause u can quickscope! last time i checked we dont have a perk in real life that lets u see someones name from nine miles away aiming down sight (marksman) thats realistic!!!!! But hey keep crying about those barely going positive quickscopers n not the guy head glitching his way to another killstreak! So thank you Treyarch for making the game fun for more then 2 weeks! i guess they didnt like the fact that half the people ended up playing MW2 after a month of black ops! So later cry babies!!! hope im the one who quickscopes u first!!!!!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 14

    • mike says:

      The day the cheesers started leaving Black Ops to go back to MW2 was a glorious one to all of the legit players.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  19. Qs king says:

    I personally qs and i think it wouldn’t be fair to the guys who qs all the time if you take it off. And the reg gunning faggots getting mad cuz we qs if we don’t hit the first shot 90% of the time we get killed.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 16

  20. ur moms vajj says:

    If some one wants to quickscope then let them. If the person quickscoping doesn’t hit his first shot then like 75%of the time he or she will be killed by someone who is REG GUNNING.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

  21. Jimjams says:

    QS should either be removed or only possible in specific lobby’s its a cheap way of getting kills, took me about 4 hours untill I had the timing down then it was like I had an instant kill rail gun, boring as sh*t and its a really annoying way to die, no “l33t skilz” required just a little practice and you too can be an annoying asshat

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15

  22. iAPH says:

    I dont know why the people that are defending quickscoping are getting like 10 thumbs down, But they are right. Ive been playing call of duty online since call of duty 2. And hav been quickscoping since call of duty 4. Ive personally played with WaRTeK and you people that are bashing quickscoping are idiots. Why? Because the people that are quickscoping will SLAP YOU SILLY if they pulled out an assualt rifle. We quickscope because it gets boring slapping randoms and getting a 5 K/D and dropping MOABS. Im serious, I have 2 accounts. I have a 5.6 K/D on my tryhard account and a 1.9 on my sniping account. Its rediculous how much you guys complain because WE (Quickscopers) are putting ourselves at a disadvantage and STILL SLAPPING YOU. I can go on and on about how quickscoping is harder then running around with a fully auto assault rifle, but its pointless. you people are idiots if you think quickscoping is overpowered, your stupid. You try running around doing it and youll just complain about how you cant do it. Quickscoping gives us hitmrkers 1/2 the time and the other half the bullet doesnt even register even though we are aiming right at you. So dont EVER try and say quickscoping is easy and its overpowered because you dont have a brain. END RANT.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 13

  23. Drew says:

    Quick scoping is a skill and is hard as f**k to do. If u look at a quick scopers stats compared to anyone’s else it’s s**tty. U get one shot to kill them and if u you miss you die that seems way harder then just having a machine gun. That’s why you never see quick scopers in FFA or TDM.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11

    • Dylan says:

      I always found QS easy in FFA though I can see how it could be challenging. If you can kill your opponents with fast reactions and accuracy you get well spread out opponents instead of bunched up spray targets which is obviously difficult for a bolt action rifle to handle at once.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  24. Q says:

    We all know QS is a lot of BS. Its also a lot of other BS in cod as well like the acr and pp90m1. It really doesn’t take much to win a match with said weapons.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

  25. toiletman123 says:

    QS is not in real life but for a video game it should ITS A GOD DAM VIDEOGAME!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  26. Scopezallround says:

    Why are you all crying over quickscopes, if someone wants to quickscope, let them? You can’t be that good if you get killed from someone who roughly has 1-2 to kill you where as all you need is to hold the trigger for about 2 seconds to kill them haha

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

  27. Hazard says:

    Some people need to get a grip. Its a game, its meant to be fun. Fun in which every way you play it, wether that be running head first into the opposition with a sub machine gun and spraying, staying back in a bush with a sniper and taking people out from a distance, staying in tight areas with a shotgun etc, ITS A GAME! stop complaining about quickscoping. The game isnt real in the slightest, since when can you respawn after being killed. And people saying its unfair that they get a number of hitmarkers whilst the quickscoper kills you with one hit, thats what would happen anyway if the sniper was a mile off in a bush, so if you cant take out the quickscoper in your own territory, then thats your problem. I quickscope occasionally, im not great, but i have my good games. But before i could do it at all, i used to complain about it too, saying ti was cheating etc. Its really not, if your getting quickscoped in close quarters, pull out your bloody shotgun and spray the hell outa him. It SHOULD be in the game, because a lot of people who play the game enjoy playing THAT way, just like others enjoy using a sub machine gun. People saying it doesnt take skill to pull one trigger after the other, its the SAME with any weapon. 9 times out of 10, if a quickscoper doesnt hit the first shot (or gets a hitmarker), they are dead, if you cant kill someone upclose and allow them to shoot multiple times with a sniper then your garbage and should stop complaining about quickscopers. Id much rather play a game agaisnt a variety of players, assault rifles, snipers, shotgun etc etc, rather than everyone running aroung with an over-powered sub machine. YES its annoying with a quickscoper gets you, but if he had any other weapon, who said he wouldnt have got you anyway? and its annoying just dying in general, wether it be when someone keeps blasting me with a shotgun but its part of the GAME. GAME people! if you don’t like it, DONT play it! For the people who really hate quickscoping and cry so much about it, would you honestly rather play againsnt more people with over-powered sub machine guns, portable radars, heartbeat sensors and any other crap, whilst they sit in a corner with their claymore! Quickscoping SHOULD be in the game, stop crying about stupid things.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5

  28. Dylan says:

    I’d just like to point out a few things and you can rebut if you like I am more than happy to show you how you are wrong.

    * quick scoping has less room for error than standard play (smg’s assault, sniping whatever, standing behind a clay more whatever…)
    – if you miss your SINGLE pre-aimed (if your doing it correctly) shot you will often die

    *quick scoping generally requires FASTER REACTIONS than your opponent
    – your sniper aims in slower than general standard weapons and is not reliable hip fire unlike other weapons due to large room for error

    *quick scoping requires BETTER ACCURACY than standard weapon play
    – with little room for error you need to hit almost every time or your not going to be successful

    *quick scoping requires ALOT OF AWARENESS compared with standard play
    – the fastest time you can possibly quick scope multiple opponents is significantly slow (aim in > shoot > aim out > shoot > repeat) and thus with perfect aim and reactions you still require the use of mind games and cover tactics to kill multiple opponents before they shoot you
    ^^^^^ this cause you to have to be aware and be able to make multiple decisions in real time that are more effective than your opponents e.g shoot this target, take cover here, throw grenade to right to cut of a rush and take left opponent and re-take cover as opposed to a smg of which I would generally just react faster > kill opponent 1 and 2 > cover > out of cover kill 3 possibly kill all 3 in one spray anyway…

    Quikscoping has less room for error, requires faster reactions and awareness (general term) than standard play. I think it’s pretty obvious this talent based…not cheap and s**t

    And for the argument of aim assist, don’t the top console players play without aim assist anyway; not necessarily because they are against it as such but because it is more effective that way.
    The aim assist argument really only applies to a selective group of players than cannot aim at all and require aim assist because they cold never stay on target long enough to get a kill with a non-single shot kill weapon.

    Also note that aim assist does not exist on PC and quick scoping is extremely popular on pc along all ranges of talent

    As a previous now retired member of not arguably but not official the top quick scoping clan in the world on PC often and generally recognized as more competitive, talent and skilled based than console variants I have a lot of real world experience and know how on the subject. From personal experience myself and my understanding of the experiences of other top players I can say quick scoping is more difficult than standard play, your kdr drops generally, your ability to kill opponents is reduced and also your ability to rush AND to camp is reduced; even when I am playing flawless quick scoping AND slow quick scoping the previous matter applies. It is very selective when quick scoping will actually provide better efficiency and effectiveness for me and that is because of differing requirements for the two styles of play and my mental attitude.

    If you want this put really simply, for all you haters out there. If a talented quick scoper was to turn to standard play (don’t be a cock and produce a stupid example e.g. dessert eagle long range) he will statistically and generally f**k you up even harder. If your not happy with a 10 inch ram rod up ass and you want something a little more your size than asking a quick scoper to stop quick scoping…is right on f**king track.

    On a more polite note it f**king sucks to die randomly single shot and not for the most part have a clue what the f**k happened, but this doesn’t mean quick scoping is cheap in any way…

    I saw a post in here, it went something along the lines of ‘this quick scoper outclassed an smg user at close range rage rage quick scoping is cheap. You aniper shouldn’t be effective at close range, this is not realistic’. This is a common but stupid argument, put the overly stupid argument of realism behind us because that is laughable but to imply or claim quick scoping is more effective as a close range weapon than smg play is stupid, it’s more difficult as previously pointed out and if someone kills you doing something more difficult, than yes you got “outclassed”, you were outperformed in every class / scenario / requirement. AND props to the person that did it.

    That argument is like saying SMG’s shouldn’t be able to kill long range. A weapon should be able to do whatever the player wielding it can do with it, period. Yes it should be MORE DIFFICULT and IT IS; and it SHOULD BE POSSIBLE IF THE PLAYER HAS THE SKILL TO DO IT.

    QUICKSCOPING SHOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT THAN STANDARD PLAY, AND IT IS, BUT IT SHOULD ALSO BE POSSIBLE IF THE PLAYER HAS THE SKILL TO DO IT, AND IT IS, AND WE LOVE IT, IT IS A CHALLENGE, IT IS FUN, IT REVEALS THE SKILL GAP BETWEEN PLAYERS MORE AND THAT IS WHY LESS SKILLED PLAYERS OFTEN DISLIKE IT. BUT THEY SHOULD GO PLAY BINGO OR GO FISH.

    Cod is not a game of strategics hence strategical argument of quick scoping is not valid.

    gg

    LWspike

    Rebuttal requested…wanted

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7

    • Jimjams says:

      Again it takes very little skill to master QS if you fluff the timing then you’ll generally get dropped by a regular gunner but this only happened to me maybe one in ten shots and then possibly half of those I was taken out.

      The biggest performance factor in this series of games is how far you live from your local transfer station, how good your connection is to it and where the match host is relative to you.

      If you find yourself being a successful QS user (or any other weapon) then you probably have a decent connection, are close to the transfer (true in my case) and geographically close to the host so your opponents latency if longer than yours will result in your perspective of the match being processed faster overriding any difference your opponents might have.

      This explains why after pumping half a clip of AR fire into someones chest and not killing them they spin round and drop you with 2 shots from a pistol that’s from your perspective, from their perspective you fired maybe 2 shots yourself probably where they were half a second ago and they got a legitimate kill using 3-4 shots, had the first player been using a better connection they would have scored the kill.

      With such a large variation in each players latency past a point the game has very little to do with how skilled you are and mostly to do with your address.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    • Jimjams says:

      Rebuttal provided, waiting for you to show me how I am wrong.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      • Dylan says:

        To actually provide a rebuttal you would need to rebut something. The only contradiction you provided was a mere statement that “it takes very little skill to master QS”. If that is truly your argument than I am truly wasting my time here.

        And you claim to “fluff” the timing 1 in 10 shots. If you are to mean that you fail to aim in and shoot with correct timing 1 in 10 times than that is laughable and your personal experience should be rejected as any source of credible information.

        The only reason you have thumbs up is because you appeal with your rant about latency and host issues to the people that also dislike these issues. Lets not mind that you highly overplay the severity of it and make stupid statements that ‘thus the game has very little to do with how skilled you are’, you complain about latency and it is an issue…so you get a thumbs up gratz

        Take in mind that I have much experience playing with the best and at other times the worst connection in lobbies as well as hosting and not hosting. In black ops I am banned from every playable sniper lobby bar 1 merely for topping lobbies with with the worst connection in the lobby. I’m not talking lag glitches or any rubbish that evident-ally decrease your kdr whilst quick scoping anyway but simply a terrible connection due to not enough bandwidth and still beating extremely skilled players consistently. This is also the case for alter IW net a hacked mw2 varient with dedicated servers. It’s also evident from many 1v1′s where you switch host and from merely playing online with bad and good connections that the most important aspect of cod is not “your address” it is in-fact your skill level and natural talent.

        Your argument was irrelevant and overplayed at best and my previous arguments still stands hence forth no quick scope haters APPEAR to have any logic behind there motifs that quick scoping is not skill and talent based.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        • Jimjams says:

          Okay then hope this will be more to your liking.

          I assume that less room for error than standard play refers to fire rate, rounds in clip, time to ADS and bullet spread from hip fire, I agree that snipers have a lower rate of fire,
          less rounds in a clip, it indeed takes fractionally longer to ADS and bullet spread from hip fire is beyond ridiculous but none of these things matter when its a one shot kill so the only error margin you have is if you can aim, (which is not completely player skill based but I’ll touch on that later).

          So missing your SINGLE (not sure why your shouting but it’s a free country) auto aimed (sorry “pre aimed”) shot you will often die, well can’t fault you there if you miss and you opponent sees you then its quite likely they will shoot you, not sure how this related to QS in particular but I must be missing something.

          QS I would argue makes exactly the same demands on reaction time as any other play method you need to be shooting first to beat your opponent but with a sniper rifle it only takes one shot so you shoot first you win or get your shot in before they land their 2 or 3 then you win.

          Hip fire is not actually a factor because you need to ADS to QS, although not all the way a quick jab is enough to get the auto aim working (sorry again I mean just aim).

          Better accuracy (ouch my ears, so much shouting), interesting argument sure if you miss they don’t die but again one shot is all it takes when you do hit.

          Hit almost every time or you won’t be successful? Would love to hear of the times you’ve missed and been successful.

          ALOT OF AWARNESS (you’ve got me doing it now) again same as any other play style you need to know what’s going on to land kills without getting killed yourself.

          Multiple decisions in real time well any player will need to do this unless they can get by doing one thing at a time,(run, stop running, aim, stop aiming, shoot, stop shooting, re-aim, ect) and the point your decisions need to be more effective than your opponents is obvious and does not relate specifically QS.

          In the situation where a QS is facing multiple opponents that are aware of their location it would take some stupendously bad playing on the groups part not to gun down the QS user so this reflects poorly on their skill not favourably on the QS user.

          I like that you summarise your first three points next but you missed out an is.

          Right the aim assist issue, even with the aim assist turned off ADS still pulls your aim onto a close target it is more subtle but still there so when you QS your aim has been adjusted for you, on PC the ADS aim assist is still there, it won’t show on screen but your shot will be adjusted to hit the target if done at the right time.

          You’ve said it yourself QS is popular along all ranges of talent, but that’s because it takes little talent to master as most of the work is done for you.

          A retired member of a quick scoping clan (give me a second to dry my eyes) and you were banned from their lobbies for being too good sure you were.

          You don’t need to qualify “personal experience” with “myself”.

          Your KDR will drop when using QS but only from many on one encounters if your using QS properly you have a much higher chance of prevailing a one on one encounter which you should be using the map environment to encourage.

          A talented QS switching to regular play will lose their edge and only dominate a match if they are playing against low skill players, going against someone who regularly uses a AR or SMG or even a shotgun and does well the QS will more often than not lose.

          The cute statement about the 10 inch ram rod makes no sense unless your implying that a ram rod greater than 10 inches is more “your” size since if I’m not mistaken you were saying a QS switching to regular play styles would be better than people who use regular play all the time.

          The point about a QS outclassing a SMG in close quarters is again down to the latency issue, on a level playing field the SMG if being used by even an average player would beat a QS its the fraction of a second the QS gets on a good line to get their one shot off that determines the outcome of such encounters.

          I’ve got no problem with long range SMG kills; using small bursts makes it completely possible if a little more difficult tracking a target in between bursts but if you pop in and out of ADS the aim assist will help greatly.

          I agree that QS should be more difficult than standard play but its not, it is indeed possible if the player has the skill (which isn’t saying much), I wouldn’t agree that it’s a challenge using a gun that kills in one shot, you and many others might find it fun it got boring very quickly for me, it does indeed reveal the skill gap between players anyone using QS most likely is only average at regular play so has to use QS to cover that fact.

          Less skilled players disliking QS, I would say players that understand the games mechanics dislike it because they know how easy and cheap it is.

          You say that Cod is not a game of strategies but you mentioned mind games and cover tactics as being central to QS play so are you saying your own earlier statement is invalid.

          All of this aside latency is still the biggest defining factor in match outcomes.

          I think that’s all of your points covered remind me if I missed any.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

          • Dylan says:

            Yes very much so. Whilst i’ll admit vagueness and lack of thought and description on my first post I still find the

            points quiet true, perhaps not explained the best but none the less on track. The post has achieved it’s purpose in

            any case that is to start a discussion based on logic and experience not bias and presumption.

            At more advanced levels of play I seriously doubt the importance of aim assist. I know many players that have

            turned it off stating it ‘interrupts with their aiming’ doing ‘more bad than good’. It is however useful for

            players that struggle aiming in the first place.
            The first times I played on console I must admit I was shocked by the prevalence of auto aim and how sometimes I

            could hit opponents with a quick scope through foliage making long range shots I know I likely wouldn’t have hit on

            PC, not because my aim is worse on PC (most definitely the opposite) but because despite poor vision and control

            the auto aim corrected my shot by a small amount to ensure I didn’t miss my target. In these situations I felt that

            quick scoping was cheap. But note I felt equally cheap when using an smg and having the aim assist literally trace

            my opponents so that I had literally got the kill without even aiming more than a trigger in and firing. Even

            tracing the opponent through a wall as he ran around a corner for a split second long enough to get the kill.
            Aim assist doesn’t just apply to quick scopers.
            Furthermore you state aim assist exist on pc in slight and even in small amounts on console with aim assist off.

            Even if this is true, on pc anyway it’s significance is minute. You can aim on pc pixels away from your opponent

            and have no auto-adjustment of your aim…

            “so the only error margin you have is if you can aim, (which is not completely player skill based but I’ll touch on

            that later)”

            I assume you refer aim assist with your bracketed comment, which as previously explained is insignificant on pc at

            least and likely console.
            And is not having good aim an integral part of being a competitive player. I think you undervalue the importance of

            aim with ‘so the only’.

            If anything that statement is untrue just because there is more room for error. The issue of a low fire rate brings

            more predominately the issue of taking out multiple opponents at once. As soon as you see opponents you will have

            to decide which is the best course of action in engaging them. Do I hit the target 1,2 or 3 first. Do I hit target

            2 then run behind the wall so that target 1 doesn’t kill me whilst I take out target 3. You could simply make the

            error of killing the opponents in the wrong order. And this is important, often you will make this mistake and die

            as a result; and this is more predominant with quick scoping than regular play.

            I mean that’s just one example. With less rounds in your clip and long reload time that means you have to count

            your shots and make sure that after so many you have etc 2 seconds time where you can survive without having any

            offensive threat.

            I don’t see the relevance of hip fire unless you are talking about a decision to hip fire or not of which the error

            would be that you assessed you did not have enough time to engage your opponent before they fired upon you unless

            you engaged faster through hip firing. I mean that is sometimes an important decision as a quick scoper.

            The single shot statement just referrs to having little room for error.

            How can you argue that QS has the same demands as other play methods in terms of reaction time in the same sentence

            as providing an argument for why this is not true. That seems ludacris…
            Yes it is true you have to shoot first with a sniper (and regular methods) to get the kill. That’s almost a must,

            there are obvious exceptions such as your opponents aim is off and simply misses you but for the most part you have

            to shoot first. Now with a lower rate of fire, longer time to ADS and no reliable option to hip fire given equal

            reaction times you will shoot second. Thus you must have a faster reaction time to ensure you shoot first. I think

            the requirement of a faster reaction time is an obvious example of increased difficulty that is quick scoping

            compared to regular play.

            As for the time taken for regular weapons to actually make the kill, that doesn’t QS’s much except for retreating.

            The bullet spray makes your crosshairs jerk bringing a random factor to weather you hit or not and if you conteract

            this with aim it simply takes more time thus the advantage of an instant kill is non-existent.

            “a quick jab is enough to get the auto aim working” wow do you actually mean to imply you don’t have to aim the

            full way in to get an accurate shot. I mean this is the absolute basic of a quick scope. There is different

            terminology for the shot you refer to and it is known that there is a random factor again it’s about making a

            judgement of how much time you have to make your shot. There isn’t much room for error we are talking fractions of

            a second.

            But honestly if you believe you can get an accurate shot at any range with “a quick jab” ADSing “not all the way”

            than I am shocked. It is a must that you ADS 100% of the way to ensure you shot is accurate with the exception of

            extremely close ranged targets that fill up your crosshairs. I mean honestly that is the most in-experienced

            begginer mistake of a quick scoper. I have taught many people that have learnt from watching kill cams where it

            APPEARS that QS’rs don’t aim the full way in but in-fact they actually do that they need to aim completely in.

            Honestly if you don’t understand that…

            You seem to argue that because the skills required of quick scoping are also required of regular play methods that

            quick scoping does not take more skill. Consider that perhaps the skills are more-so, more predominatly required

            and lack of these skills would result in worse results than if regular play method was used and the lack of skills

            was equal.

            “would take some stupendously bad playing on the groups part not to gun down the QS user” I believe you need to

            elaborate on this. Why is this the case? It appears your implying that this would be easy for the group, more so

            than it would be for the group if the opponent was not a quick scoper. If so does this not highlight the increased

            difficulty for a quick scoper to take out a group of opponents over the difficulty for someone utalizing regular

            play methods to achieve the same thing. Does not increased dificulty result in a higher skill level being required

            to achieve the same acomplishments. Is this not evidence that quick scoping is difficult. I think we all know that

            it is more difficult to taking out a group quick scoping then with regular play despite exactly what you mean.

            ….cheers

            I believe I have addressed aim assist.

            The work is already done for you argument is about the only place I have had to actually stop and think. Sure you

            have less work to do. But the work that you do have to do is more difficult and increasing skills and talents such

            as aim, reaction time and awareness (general terms) will have a more predominant effect on your success. And this

            is often what quick scoping has been about. Just because their is more to learn with regular play methods does not

            make it more talent and skill based.

            Here is an argument I use when comparing a game such a starcraft to a game such as cod, and take in mind that there

            are exceptions to starcraft such as once you have finished ‘reading and memorizing the book’ (more later on that)

            the game’s successor is determined by skillfull acts.

            Having to learn and master more is not an act of skill in itself. That kind of playstyle puts focus that to be a

            successfull player you have to learn more. It’s almost like whoever has read the most pages (learn the most) of

            this book (this playstyle) will win. The only skill in this is capacity to learn and store information as well as

            engage and analyse that information in real time. That is an important skill however there are so many more skills

            such as aim, reaction time and awareness that you don’t get from ‘reading the book’. Quickscoping fights against

            the predomiance of ‘reading’ to be succesfull. It relies on fast reaction times, good aim and awareness, not so

            much ‘reading’ to be successful and thus is more skill full and talent based requiring more talent to “master”

            though less work.

            You see some cod players want to learn more, some just want to play it like a sport.

            You misunderstand, I would never be banned from my own lobbies. It was merely the non ranked yet highly competetive

            quick scope lobbies hosted on dedicated servers not part of the match making. Honestly it doesn’t really matter

            wether you believe me or not it just shows lack of personal experience. Many of my friends have suffered, perhaps

            not as bad but the same thing being banned from lobbies. It generally strives from low skill players complaining

            consistently as you are consistently there defeating them and they feel you ruin the game. The host have to

            maintain their server as fun for the majority so I suppose I don’t take too much offense, after all the skill gap

            is obvious when quick scoping and one can not hide from their own lack of skill.

            It is obvious that if you practice regular play more by not practicing quick scope play that you will be better at

            regular play. It is extremely obvious and in no way did I state against that and thus you are mistaken. I simply

            mean that a quick scoper will perform better overall in the match (generally and statistically) if he switches to

            regular play and thus it is ludacris to complain that you are being killed by a quick scoper because the

            alternative is to get dominated even harder.

            Your close quarter combat argument just again agree’s with me that quick scoping is more difficult. Much quick

            scoping is done at close quarters and yes if all is equal latency wise than the advantage is in the SMG players

            hands because his playstyle / weapon is more effective than that of a QS’r. That makes it more difficult for the

            quick scoper but we regularly overcome this disadvantage by being more skill full and utalizing our talent. A very

            simple example is that we react faster than our opponent, fast enough that we shoot our opponent before they begin

            to fire. We have to react faster, it is a requirement and we knowlingly play this style with this requirement. I

            would argue that an average level player often reacts slower than a highly talented player so much so that they

            loose the fire rate advantage over snipers and thus die generally.

            Also take note the difficulty of aiming increases when you have to react faster. You will see many regular play

            styles where the player misses the initial aiming but simply drags onto target whilst continuing the spray. In true

            quick scoping you cannont do this and if you are to implement drag scopeing the speed at which you have to observe

            and correct is quiet difficult as compared to regular play.

            I have no trouble with any playstyle at all, I don’t see the relevance. The point is the difficulty of a playstyle

            decreases and increases in different scenario’s and yet we choose to accept this difficulty, this challenge and

            play our style across the board because we wan’t and enjoy the challenge.

            “because they know how easy and cheap it is” I mean this is the most in-eperienced unaware comment ever. It is just

            simply not easy to perform well in lobbies using the quick scoping playstyle. This is evident from almost every

            single quick scoper that performs worse in generall than when they play with regular styles. Once again I am a top

            quick scoper and even I only situationally play better quick scoping then with regular play.

            As previously mentioned cod is less like ‘reading a book’ and more like ‘playing a sport’. Mind games and covers

            tactics are not so much strategical things you learn they are more so talent and skill based things that you

            utalize. Being able to read you opponent, know what they are thinking and trick them isn’t something you learn so

            much as something you do. That is the difference in my oppinion that seperates my meaning of not being strategical

            yet still employing mind tactics etc that basically means, no I’m not saying my previous is invalid but yet perhaps

            I was a bit too vague and semantically incorrect…meh

            Honstely it just stupid to claim that latency is more important than talent and skill. Here is one simply example, give and untalented and unskillfull 8 year old a remote control, host and an excellent connection and see if he can outperform and extremely talented and skillfull player with a bad connection.

            I outperform players on better connections myself all the time, some of which are almost as skilled as me. I have been banned from multiple lobbies for this reason alone.

            Anyway I am in a rush to go so there will be no conclusion, but I don’t believe your points rebutted anything I have said because they have fallacies and simply are incorrect to a degree. I am highly interested in anyone wanting to continue this argument, thus far it is just more obvious that quick scoping is more talent and skill based.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

          • Dylan says:

            NOTE: previous formatting error same argument this one has correct formatting
            ——————————————————–

            Yes very much so. Whilst I’ll admit vagueness and lack of thought and description on my first post I still find the points quiet true, perhaps not explained the best but none the less on track. The post has achieved its purpose in any case that is to start a discussion based on logic and experience not bias and presumption.

            At more advanced levels of play I seriously doubt the importance of aim assist. I know many players that have turned it off stating it ‘interrupts with their aiming’ doing ‘more bad than good’. It is however useful for players that struggle aiming in the first place.
            The first times I played on console I must admit I was shocked by the prevalence of auto aim and how sometimes I could hit opponents with a quick scope through foliage making long range shots I know I likely wouldn’t have hit on PC, not because my aim is worse on PC (most definitely the opposite) but because despite poor vision and control the auto aim corrected my shot by a small amount to ensure I didn’t miss my target. In these situations I felt that quick scoping was cheap. But note I felt equally cheap when using a smg and having the aim assist literally trace my opponents so that I had literally got the kill without even aiming more than a trigger in and firing. Even tracing the opponent through a wall as he ran around a corner for a split second long enough to get the kill.
            Aim assist doesn’t just apply to quick scopers.
            Furthermore you state aim assist exist on pc in slight and even in small amounts on console with aim assist off. Even if this is true, on pc anyway it’s significance is minute. You can aim on pc pixels away from your opponent and have no auto-adjustment of your aim…
            “so the only error margin you have is if you can aim, (which is not completely player skill based but I’ll touch on that later)” I assume you refer aim assist with your bracketed comment, which as previously explained is insignificant on pc at least and likely console.
            And is not having good aim an integral part of being a competitive player. I think you undervalue the importance of aim with ‘so the only’.
            If anything that statement is untrue just because there is more room for error. The issue of a low fire rate brings more predominately the issue of taking out multiple opponents at once. As soon as you see opponents you will have to decide which is the best course of action in engaging them. Do I hit the target 1,2 or 3 first. Do I hit target 2 then run behind the wall so that target 1 doesn’t kill me whilst I take out target 3. You could simply make the error of killing the opponents in the wrong order. And this is important, often you will make this mistake and die as a result; and this is more predominant with quick scoping than regular play.

            I mean that’s just one example. With less rounds in your clip and long reload time that means you have to count your shots and make sure that after so many you have etc 2 seconds time where you can survive without having any offensive threat.

            I don’t see the relevance of hip fire unless you are talking about a decision to hip fire or not of which the error would be that you assessed you did not have enough time to engage your opponent before they fired upon you unless you engaged faster through hip firing. I mean that is sometimes an important decision as a quick scoper.
            The single shot statement just refers to having little room for error.
            How can you argue that QS has the same demands as other play methods in terms of reaction time in the same sentence as providing an argument for why this is not true. That seems Ludacris…
            Yes it is true you have to shoot first with a sniper (and regular methods) to get the kill. That’s almost a must, there are obvious exceptions such as your opponents aim is off and simply misses you but for the most part you have to shoot first. Now with a lower rate of fire, longer time to ADS and no reliable option to hip fire given equal reaction times you will shoot second. Thus you must have a faster reaction time to ensure you shoot first. I think the requirement of a faster reaction time is an obvious example of increased difficulty that is quick scoping compared to regular play.
            As for the time taken for regular weapons to actually make the kill, that doesn’t QS’s much except for retreating.
            The bullet spray makes your crosshairs jerk bringing a random factor to weather you hit or not and if you counteract this with aim it simply takes more time thus the advantage of an instant kill is non-existent.

            “a quick jab is enough to get the auto aim working” wow do you actually mean to imply you don’t have to aim the full way in to get an accurate shot. I mean this is the absolute basic of a quick scope. There is different terminology for the shot you refer to and it is known that there is a random factor again it’s about making a judgement of how much time you have to make your shot. There isn’t much room for error we are talking fractions of a second.

            But honestly if you believe you can get an accurate shot at any range with “a quick jab” ADSing “not all the way” than I am shocked. It is a must that you ADS 100% of the way to ensure you shot is accurate with the exception of extremely close ranged targets that fill up your crosshairs. I mean honestly that is the most in-experienced beginner mistake of a quick scoper. I have taught many people that have learnt from watching kill cams where it APPEARS that QS’rs don’t aim the full way in but in-fact they actually do that they need to aim completely in. Perhaps have also miss-interpreted quick scoping.

            You seem to argue that because the skills required of quick scoping are also required of regular play methods that quick scoping does not take more skill. Consider that perhaps the skills are more-so, more predominantly required and lack of these skills would result in worse results than if regular play method was used and the lack of skills was equal.

            “would take some stupendously bad playing on the groups part not to gun down the QS user” I believe you need to elaborate on this. Why is this case? It appears your implying that this would be easy for the group, more so than it would be for the group if the opponent was not a quick scoper. If so does this not highlight the increased difficulty for a quick scoper to take out a group of opponents over the difficulty for someone utilising regular play methods to achieve the same thing. Does not increased difficulty result in a higher skill level being required to achieve the same accomplishments. Is this not evidence that quick scoping is difficult. I think we all know that it is more difficult to taking out a group quick scoping then with regular play despite exactly what you mean.
            ….cheers
            I believe I have addressed aim assist.

            The work is already done for you argument is about the only place I have had to actually stop and think. Sure you have less work to do. But the work that you do have to do is more difficult and increasing skills and talents such as aim, reaction time and awareness (general terms) will have a more predominant effect on your success. And this is often what quick scoping has been about. Just because there is more to learn with regular play methods does not make it more talent and skill based.

            Here is an argument I use when comparing a game such a starcraft to a game such as cod, and take in mind that there are exceptions to starcraft such as once you have finished ‘reading and memorizing the book’ (more later on that) the game’s successor is determined by skilful acts.

            Having to learn and master more is not an act of skill in itself. That kind of play style puts focus that to be a successful player you have to learn more. It’s almost like whoever has read the most pages (learn the most) of this book (this play style) will win. The only skill in this is capacity to learn and store information as well as engage and analyse that information in real time. That is an important skill however there are so many more skills such as aim, reaction time and awareness that you don’t get from ‘reading the book’. Quick scoping fights against the predominance of ‘reading’ to be successful. It relies on fast reaction times, good aim and awareness, not so much ‘reading’ to be successful and thus is more skill full and talent based requiring more talent to “master” though less work.

            You see some cod players want to learn more, some just want to play it like a sport.

            You misunderstand; I would never be banned from my own lobbies. It was merely the non-ranked yet highly competitive quick scope lobbies hosted on dedicated servers not part of the match making. Honestly it doesn’t really matter whether you believe me or not it just shows lack of personal experience. Many of my friends have suffered, perhaps not as bad but the same thing being banned from lobbies. It generally strives from low skill players complaining consistently as you are consistently there defeating them and they feel you ruin the game. The host have to maintain their server as fun for the majority so I suppose I don’t take too much offense, after all the skill gap is obvious when quick scoping and one cannot hide from their own lack of skill.

            It is obvious that if you practice regular play more by not practicing quick scope play that you will be better at regular play. It is extremely obvious and in no way did I state against that and thus you are mistaken. I simply mean that a quick scoper will perform better overall in the match (generally and statistically) if he switches to regular play and thus it is Ludacris to complain that you are being killed by a quick scoper because the alternative is to get dominated even harder.

            Your close quarter combat argument just again agrees with me that quick scoping is more difficult. Much quick scoping is done at close quarters and yes if all is equal latency wise than the advantage is in the SMG players hands because his play style / weapon is more effective than that of a QS’r. That makes it more difficult for the quick scoper but we regularly overcome this disadvantage by being more skill full and utilising our talent. A very simple example is that we react faster than our opponent, fast enough that we shoot our opponent before they begin to fire. We have to react faster, it is a requirement and we knowingly play this style with this requirement. I would argue that an average level player often reacts slower than a highly talented player so much so that they loose the fire rate advantage over snipers and thus die generally.

            Also take note the difficulty of aiming increases when you have to react faster. You will see many regular play styles where the player misses the initial aiming but simply drags onto target whilst continuing the spray. In true quick scoping you cannot do this and if you are to implement drag scoping the speed at which you have to observe and correct is quiet difficult as compared to regular play.

            I have no trouble with any play style at all, I don’t see the relevance. The point is the difficulty of a play style decreases and increases in different scenario’s and yet we choose to accept this difficulty, this challenge and play our style across the board because we want and enjoy the challenge.

            “because they know how easy and cheap it is” I mean this is the most in-experienced unaware comment ever. It is just simply not easy to perform well in lobbies using the quick scoping play style. This is evident from almost every single quick scoper that performs worse in general than when they play with regular styles. Once again I am a top quick scoper and even I only situation ally play better quick scoping then with regular play.

            As previously mentioned cod is less like ‘reading a book’ and more like ‘playing a sport’. Mind games and covers tactics are not so much strategic things that you learn they are more so talent and skill based things that you utilise. Being able to read your opponent, know what they are thinking and trick them isn’t something you learn so much as something you do. That is the difference in my opinion that separates my meaning of not being strategical yet still employing mind tactics etc that basically means, no I’m not saying my previous is invalid but yet perhaps I was a bit too vague and semantically incorrect…meh

            Honestly it just stupid to claim that latency is more important than talent and skill. Here is one simply example, give and untalented and unskilful 8 year old a remote control, host and an excellent connection and see if he can outperform and extremely talented and skilful player with a bad connection.
            I outperform players on better connections myself all the time, some of which are almost as skilled as me. I have been banned from multiple lobbies for this reason alone.

            Anyway I am in a rush to go so there will be no conclusion, but I don’t believe your points rebutted anything I have said because they have fallacies and simply are incorrect to a degree. I am highly interested in anyone wanting to continue this argument; thus far it is just more obvious that quick scoping is more talent and skill based.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  29. Ryan says:

    I like quickscoping, but I do want a seperate game type list, cause, it would be so much better if quickscopers could have their own lobby. There should be 3 types of lobbys. First one should be for non quickscopers. Quickscopers cannot join this one. This makes it so that the game doesn’t have any noob hardscopers and makes it so that people who hate quickscoping, can play without the sniper. Next one should be quickscoping lobby. Quickscopers can quickscope and practice and it will be fair. There then should be a general lobby, for everyone. Anyone can play and quickscopers can test there skill.

    Let me explain to people who say quickscoping is for noobs or takes no skill. Quickscoping takes a lot of skill cause you only can shoot one shot every second, while machine guns can shoot more than 10 a second. If you miss, your screwed. If I was given an UMP45, my score might be 22-10. If I quickscope, I might have my score be 10-17. It took me a very long time to get good at it. Quickscoping is not easy. There is no auto aim. If there is, I would take it off. I don’t like how quickscopers are judged.

    Trickshotting is not luck unless you practice a lot. You have to have fast reaction. I have played in trickshot lobbies where it only takes me two tries in order to nail my 360 quickscopes. It takes litterally more than a few years to figure out how to nail the 360s with one shot. Me and my friend are working on it. Yes, it is possible, and it isn’t luck. Now, certain trickshots like blind trickshots are luck. But I am pretty sure FaZe clan has a way of nailing them all the time. FaZe clan hardly ever misses trickshots.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

    • Dylan says:

      Trickshotting for the most part is in-fact luck. It is mostly for the mere fact that your bullet does not fly where you aim it when you scope in. It acts similar to a no scope. Hence forth many successful tricks shots are merely demonstrations of fancing button / keyboard play which is a skill in itself, but to actually hit the trick shot is not because that is luck based (based on the randomness of the bullet). The only skill of getting a hit, is getting the opponent in the center of your crosshairs. Many people hit trickshots where in-fact they would have missed if there bullet flyed where their cross hairs were placed. You see it all the time, someone jumps off a roof and does a 360 no scope and all the kids screem your amazing…

      Actuall trickshotting for me has and always will be consistently hitting rotations 360′s, 720′s, 1080′s ect where you land on the ground and fire instantly like a qs. The reason is because this is not really a trickshot as such it’s a demonstration of you aiming ability in that you can 90% etc of the time spin 1080 degrees give or take a couple degrees. It really is just to show off your aim, when you land on the ground your shot’s are always accurate thus getting the kill without having to re-adjust your aim at the end of your spin is representative of having good aim.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      • Dylan says:

        Also Faze do not have a way to land trickshots consistent ally perhaps for some shots but for their standard trickshot play they don’t. Once again it is just fancy button play and getting the crosshairs on target that is a demonstration of their skill not the actually killing of the opponent.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  30. Ken says:

    Black Ops 2, the quick scoping is just ruining the game, watch the replay and the scope cross hairs aren’t even on you but you still die, just garbage, not to mention the lag in the game, they say plug it in direct and not to use WIFI, more BS, all the other multiplayers dont have this issue, spend some of the money we gave you and fix this crap!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    • Dylan says:

      ‘the scope cross hairs aren’t even on you but you still die, just garbage’

      Note this obviously a simple latency issue and not a flaw of quick scoping. You need to educate yourself before your claims can gain any credit.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  31. Sam says:

    I recently started playing cod (MW3 was my first). I like snipers. I have always liked them. I snipe when I play airsoft. I have wanted to start quickscoping, but that was really late in playing MW3 and I have really started trying in Black Ops 2. I can hit a couple lucky ones from time to time, but the main issue is how screwed up the game is: a lot of the time, I will scope in, have the guy perfectly in my sights out of luck, upper middle of the chest, I fire. Nothing. The bullet doesn’t register and i get killed. What the f**k, Treyarch? Are you seriously going to screw me over because I outplayed a guy so snipers can become useless? Don’t get me wrong, I love the game, but seriously, I wish they would make it so snipers weren’t screwed over when I am using them. Its like an occult hand misdirects the bullet even though I was clearly on target.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    • Dylan says:

      The issue is a-lot more prevalent in recent releases but stick in there. If your fairly new it’s going to be difficult. Account for latency as best you can (aiming an extra metre in-front of your opponent etc) many players don’t recognize latency as such a big issue until they start sniping.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. andrew says:

    I have played all of the COD’s except black op 1 which I hated how bad they scrwed over the sniper gameplay yet the g11 had a sniper scope and was completly cheap and easy to use. I have been a sniper in every FPS shooter I have ever played. counter strike, quake, halo, Day of defeat, battlefield etc. In MW2 a friend showed me how to drag shot. I was terrible at first but eventualy I was better then him and turned into a quick scoper without trying to because I was so quick. I could always drop 30 kills with below 10 deaths with ARs. It got so boring…everytime I would get the new COD I would get so bored with the ARs that quick scoping was literally the only way I could entertain myself and give myself a challenge. Quickscoping takes not only quick descionmaking, but an incredible amount of reaction time. I can agree with one thing the people against it are saying is that above any guns in the game I found that not long range snipes really, but the close range quick scopes seem to have a considerable amount more aim assist. Regadless, it is still extremly challenging because u have to be quick. Dropping, ducking, popping in and out, choosing who to shoot, coming around corner pre-aiming then a guy is up top and you have 1 shot to hit them its so much harder. Black ops 2 I would have to say also requires a lot more skill to get a quickscope kill. I cannot really explain it but I am currently retraining myself because it is so different from the other CODs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  33. THEASIAN73 says:

    You guys need to chill out qs is a not overpowered i try and use all weapons and qs is by far one of the hardest ways to get kills ive used EVERYTHING i can usually get at least a 2 ratio but with snipers its usually barely a neutral if i get into a gunfight with anything other then another sniper i lose 50% of the time i respect quickscopers its just another skill that some people have and others dont

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  34. LIB3RAT3R says:

    For anyone who says using a pistol takes more skill than qs, explain the TAC 45, the Executioner, B23R, and the KAP40. The TAC 45 only takes 2-3 shots to kill, and with a fast enough trigger-finger, it is almost unfair to use. The executioner is a shotgun placed in the pistol category, meaning that you dont even have to aim while using it. The B23R is 3-round-burst and has a high fire rate, so you can easily get kills. And the KAP40 is a high fire rate machine pistol which, if dual-wielded, can kill in a quarter of a second. Quick scoping takes skill in black ops 2 because there are not any perks/attachments for a sniper that help you scope quicker. The aim assist doesnt help much and the scope sways. You are probably one of those people who get annoyed because some people have more skill than you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  35. HANGemHIGH says:

    everyone seems to forget that your auto weapons have auto lock on?? and with the hit marker subject. who is gonna walk away from a sniper shot ten feet away to the chest? think about it! now with that being said simply take out the long scoping the auto lock on has already been taken out for the first second. so anyone quick scoping right now in bo2 is doing it with skill no auto lock on like your msmc. try it. why do u think that the ppl that have never qs suck at it. cuz it does take skill. not just spraying a thousand bullets and hitting me with two lucky ones. if i miss my first shot im dead. and thats why i dont miss. DWAM clan baby! add the top three HANGemHIGH503 yungmillz420 dew88 crew

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  36. Klearlykiller says:

    Quickscoping is fun. I enjoy it personally, Its a game and people want to have fun. If you get annoyed by a quickscoper, leave that specific game, and join another one ^.^. There is nothing wrong with people having fun with a game ment for enjoyment. I usually like to quickscope in a private match, with my friends. If you take away that on a private match too…well, that just would make the game less fun for people that enjoy quickscoping. If you dont like it, dont play with them. Simple. I dont mean to be a bit of a douch but, honestly this is my opinion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  37. KrazyyDude says:

    Activision, could you just make a playlist with banned snipers so this kids would stop complaining?? problem fixed

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. epicness says:

    Here let me tell all of you something. You guys need to get a grip. You quickscope your a fag or you get lucky. Who cares. It is just something to make people say that they are good. Well I say bulls**t. Who gives a f**k you play the game your still a fag the way you play. Why are you guys arguing over something stupid grow a pair of balls.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. Ashley says:

    I just read how you guys say quickscopeing takes skill. I turned on my xbox and i killed their entire team just quickscopeing. It was so easy all i did was aim and pull the trigger. *BOOM* headshot. It takes no skill at all. I get so annoyed by people that quickscope becuase it’s stupid, you’re not even supposed to quickscope. Treyarch even went out of their way to try and prevent it in blackops1.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment