What if they can patch quicksniping?

[spoolb0y]

Originally Posted by Razzor7

LAST POST/SUMMARY FROM ME

1. It exploits a game mechanic
2. It's unrealistic
3. It ruins gameplay

Camping does the same.

1. Exploits a game mechanic. It's a simple fact that on a map like, for example, Crucible Small, if the terrorists choose to camp in their spawn with 2-3 snipers on each door it is literally impossible for the SEALs to win. "Hey! They could just wait it out, right?" Not quite. What if there are 7 SEALs and 8 Terrorists. Now it's easily as much of an exploit as quicksniping.

That is a poor example of camping being a game exploit. First let me explain camping for those who lack common knowledge. Camping is the act of remaining stationary, taking up an defensive position. Camping was dubbed camping by online gamers in an effort to antagonize the people not going head to head in a straight up battle. Now keeping in mind the axiom of camping, and ask yourself this question. Does taking a battle strategy and to the extreme make it and exploit? No it does not. simply put mechanics of the game are things programmed the actuall physical interation between user and software. The mechanics of the game have there flaws indeed, but their original conation is to invoke a realistic feel to a vitural world. Choosing the battle strategy that best exploits the tacticle advantage of a given map is not the same as exlpoiting a error in programing. All maps were made with a certain advantage and using that advantage is not exploiting a fault in game programming and logic.


2. It's unrealistic. I ****ing know that scout snipers ****ing wear ghillie suits and lay in bushes. I've seen plenty of war movies, and my dad was one. He literally got stepped on by a VC one time. ANYWAY! I'm not complain about people laying in bushes and sniping. I'm complaining about entire teams camping. The objective in a demo is to plant the bomb AND protect your base. This doesn't involve securing the bomb and beating off in the windmill. It doesn't involve going into the middle of Crucible and corner camping each door (which is unrealistic, because in real life we don't have third person view. Ever think of that one?). It involves: Your team going to the bomb, shooting the enemy, and then taking the bomb to their base and ****ing planting it. "BUT WHAT IF U WANT TO DEFENDS YOUR BASES?" Ok, lets say that your team goes to attack the bomb but you get reemed. Half your team goes back to camp the base. No complaints here, but if you camp the bomb because you're up a round and you know you'll eventually win, there's a 99% chance you're gay.

This statement above is not a valid agurment based soley off the fact that it is a opnion. You cannot use opnions in agurments because they are not agurable points. Furthermore despite the overwhelming proof that camping is a legitimate tactic applyed by armed forces you still remain steadfast that it is unrealistic?One of the main functions of an infantry solider is to gain, hold, and take ground. Logic behind team camping? it's very simple on a map like tidal fury there is no way the SEALS can out run the terrorist to the satchel, would it be a better strategy to advance anyway or to allow the enemy to bring the bomb to you?


3. It ruins gameplay. Let's not wear in my keyboard anymore. I think you all know this one.

Yet again, another agurment based off an subjective matter. Ruins game play is a perspective I can't agure that with you because its your opnion if you feel that way that is fine. There is a difference between how you feel and whats real, and whats real is that some people enjoy camping and some enjoy running.




My argument is bullet proof. If you try and refute any of my points I will most definitely ignore you, so either accept the little bit I'm giving you *******s and move on or leave it at that.

I didnt respond quickly mainly for the reason that soggy milk stated, but sense you all feel that its important to reiterate the same points over and over i thought i would entertain you. Bullet proof hardley, your agurment along with most of the people in this thread are based solely off opnions, quick sniping is an exploit as stated by zipper themself. Even the fact that we are having this conversation is proof of it not being intentional. People have complained about camping since socom 1, people complained about camping since rouge spear and rainbow six. Yet quick sniping is somthing only relevant to socom. Jump sniping would be as simple as a patch for scoping while jumping. Zipper didnt patch it because its not as big a threat to the online playing environment like the other glitches.

You need to learn to seperate the differences between opnion and fact, we all know that its an exploit its a fact its been said just because they dont fix it doesnt change that.

[Razzor7]

That is a poor example of camping being a game exploit. First let me explain camping for those who lack common knowledge. Camping is the act of remaining stationary, taking up an defensive position. Camping was dubbed camping by online gamers in an effort to antagonize the people not going head to head in a straight up battle. Now keeping in mind the axiom of camping, and ask yourself this question. Does taking a battle strategy and to the extreme make it and exploit? No it does not. simply put mechanics of the game are things programmed the actuall physical interation between user and software. The mechanics of the game have there flaws indeed, but their original conation is to invoke a realistic feel to a vitural world. Choosing the battle strategy that best exploits the tacticle advantage of a given map is not the same as exlpoiting a error in programing. All maps were made with a certain advantage and using that advantage is not exploiting a fault in game programming and logic.

Are you saying that it IS possible to win Crucible SEALs if the terrorists have 1 extra man and are camping? Because I will gladly get together 8 people and you can get 7 and you will be proven wrong, because it is 100% impossible (provided we don't make any major mistakes).

It might not be a programming flaw so much as a map design flaw, but the fact is it's still an error. Unless they intended for us to waste our time playing that sort of map. No, wait. They wanted people to run around and kill other people. When that happens, Crucible can be fun.

This statement above is not a valid agurment based soley off the fact that it is a opnion. You cannot use opnions in agurments because they are not agurable points. Furthermore despite the overwhelming proof that camping is a legitimate tactic applyed by armed forces you still remain steadfast that it is unrealistic?One of the main functions of an infantry solider is to gain, hold, and take ground. Logic behind team camping? it's very simple on a map like tidal fury there is no way the SEALS can out run the terrorist to the satchel, would it be a better strategy to advance anyway or to allow the enemy to bring the bomb to you?

It's not my opinion that if you get an order you're supposed to follow it. I don't know a lot about SEALs, but I do know that they are mostly infiltration. Not head to head combat. Does that make the entire game a glitch? Of course not. This game is nothing but a third person shooter with a title that happens to have the word "SEALs" in it.

You may have a point that you're supposed to take and hold ground, but in real life there are other techniques to taking it back. In this game, weapons are unrealistically accurate. The game is WAY too linear for camping to be fair. You have 3 doors to go through. In real life, if you want to attack an intricate mountain/tunnel system, I think you're going to have more than 2-3 options.

Now consider the prone sniper on a hill in Socom. In real life, a sniper rifle has some serious range. We can all agree that a good sniper rifle can shoot much more than 300 meters. But in socom, that's the max visible distance. Another unrealistic element. Regular rifles (M16, M14, etc.) can only shoot about 100 meters. Come on, that's a load of crap. Those things are accurate with just iron sights up to 3 times that. Let alone with some "high scope". Oh yeah, you don't have to adjust sniper scopes, or lead your target, or compensate for bullet drop or...

The list goes on. The fact is, the game has some realistic elements and some unrealistic elements. Trying to mix the two (camping + unrealistic guns) just ruins the balance.


It's a game. Some things are realistic. Some things aren't. I have one thing you've still left answered. Is it not true that your argument for quicksniping being a glitch is:

1. It exploits a game mechanic
2. It's unrealistic
3. It ruins gameplay

If so, we've already ruled out #2 with all the other unrealistic things. #3 is an opinion, so that's gone. #1 is still debatable. But considering that jumping and sniping doesn't give you an real advantage over someone strafing back and forth and sniping, I'd say it doesn't exploit anything.

If you've ever used a scope, you're exploiting the unrealistic accuracy. If you've ever jumped and shot someone, you're exploiting the ability to aim in mid air. If you've ever run around a bunch after being shot in both legs, you're exploiting a game mechanic. And before you say "well that wasn't unintentional!" consider this: Do you think Zipper intended to make unwinnable maps? Because if you think that all maps are possible, I ask you to get together 8 people and we will do likewise and show you all the different unwinnable maps (there are quite a few).

SOCOM is a third person shooter first and foremost, and it always will be. Take for example battlefield. On the outside it seems like a realistic war simulator. But it's far from that. The developers have said they're going to keep it "as arcade like as possible". I think that Zipper is doing the same for Socom.

[SoggyMilk]

Originally Posted by -Codester1023-

Soggy, every time I see you post in the socom section, or at least most of the time, you always seem aggravated. You always let things get to you. If they honestly irritate you that much, why not just stay away from here? You try to start an argument and have hopes of winning, but you fail miserably. Yet, you just keep coming and trying. I just don't get it.

The hell are you talking about? Go away....

Now.

Originally Posted by Razzor7

Yea, but he hasn't argued any of my specific points. Just the overall concept of "Camping is like quicksniping." Then he made some points, and I laid down the smack.

I guess...

I just don't understand why the hell people keep arguing about this. I mean, it's been about 2 years since S3 came out, and quicksniping was done. But everytime a thread about it pops up, it's the same thing over and over again.

**EDIT**

Actually, I just read a post that he made before your most current one, Razzor, and he said something that I think you can't disagree with. There are times when camping is the best thing to do, because of those unwinnable maps... Or those "one sided" maps.

Tidal Fury Demo, SEALs...

No way in hell you can get the Satchel before the Terr. So it's actually better for you to camp to let them bring it back to you.

Now, by reading the post you made just now, you made a LOT of good points. But I mean that's just your interpretation of SOCOM. I know that when you first started playing SOCOM, you wanted the realism, and after a while, you branched off to find the "arcade"-ey type of gameplay.

I know this, because you wouldn'tve joined ASQ if you didn't want to play w/ a group of like-minded people who tried to play the game realistically. But then you... "expanded your horizons" so to speak. I mean, think of spoolboy as being like you when you were all tactical n stuff, and then maybe you'll understand the state of mind he's in.

I'm not saying you'll agree w/ him... I'm just saying you'll understand.

[oxfordfreestyl]

My views on camping, one last time.

Originally Posted by oxfordfreestyl

I have ALWAYS said there is a time and a place for camping. Like people have said, going to the same spot for 11 rounds for 3-4 minutes each round and NOT MOVING is NOT the time to camp. Thats 33-44 minutes of your LIFE wasted sitting instead of actually having fun. I guess some people that are drunk or high can have fun in one spot, but some of us would rather kill people (after all, it is a SHOOTER...).

So when is the right time to camp? Well, in one of our random war videos that Razzor7 made you can see me pull off a 3v1. I was being sneaky in it, I killed one guy near the trains in Anchorage, and then knowing that the other 2 would come near the area I stayed low in the trench and went behind the boxes. There I proceeded to take them both out. Also, I dont know how many of you had played S2 as much as me or some other [S3] members, but say its a XR game, its tied 5-5 in a clan war and the other team has rushed with the bomb every round. I know for a fact that I would be planting some mines and staying close to the base, whereas two rounds earlier I was rushing the Fish Marker/Red Room.

There are perfect times where a little camping/sneaky tactics are justified, but NOT 98% of the players on S3/CA just camp because they're scared to be shot at and risk being exposed for being absolutely horrible.

[Draykonis]

There's just no end to this, huh?

[Negative Creep]

Originally Posted by -Codester1023-

There's just no end to this, huh?

There could be an end to it... if I, or another mod, decides to lock it... that would be the end of it.

If I cared about Socom like I did, say, 4 or 5 years ago I might have already locked it. But it humors me to see people argue about something that is (in my opinion) a lame subject.

[spoolb0y]

Originally Posted by Razzor7

Are you saying that it IS possible to win Crucible SEALs if the terrorists have 1 extra man and are camping? Because I will gladly get together 8 people and you can get 7 and you will be proven wrong, because it is 100% impossible (provided we don't make any major mistakes).
Ive seen it done, not saying i could but ive seen it done.

It might not be a programming flaw so much as a map design flaw, but the fact is it's still an error. Unless they intended for us to waste our time playing that sort of map. No, wait. They wanted people to run around and kill other people. When that happens, Crucible can be fun.

Guessing what the designers of the game wanted for the players to do, is an assumption at best one could only speculate what they were thinking. Designing the maps for certain advantages has not changed, its been that way since socom 1. Taking advantage of a situational advantage is not the same as taking advantage of a program flaw. refrain from saying whats fun and whats not because again that is opnion based.


It's not my opinion that if you get an order you're supposed to follow it. I don't know a lot about SEALs, but I do know that they are mostly infiltration. Not head to head combat. Does that make the entire game a glitch? Of course not. This game is nothing but a third person shooter with a title that happens to have the word "SEALs" in it.


You may have a point that you're supposed to take and hold ground, but in real life there are other techniques to taking it back. In this game, weapons are unrealistically accurate. The game is WAY too linear for camping to be fair. You have 3 doors to go through. In real life, if you want to attack an intricate mountain/tunnel system, I think you're going to have more than 2-3 options.

Now consider the prone sniper on a hill in Socom. In real life, a sniper rifle has some serious range. We can all agree that a good sniper rifle can shoot much more than 300 meters. But in socom, that's the max visible distance. Another unrealistic element. Regular rifles (M16, M14, etc.) can only shoot about 100 meters. Come on, that's a load of crap. Those things are accurate with just iron sights up to 3 times that. Let alone with some "high scope". Oh yeah, you don't have to adjust sniper scopes, or lead your target, or compensate for bullet drop or...

The list goes on. The fact is, the game has some realistic elements and some unrealistic elements. Trying to mix the two (camping + unrealistic guns) just ruins the balance.


It's a game. Some things are realistic. Some things aren't. I have one thing you've still left answered. Is it not true that your argument for quicksniping being a glitch is:

1. It exploits a game mechanic
2. It's unrealistic
3. It ruins gameplay

If so, we've already ruled out #2 with all the other unrealistic things. #3 is an opinion, so that's gone. #1 is still debatable. But considering that jumping and sniping doesn't give you an real advantage over someone strafing back and forth and sniping, I'd say it doesn't exploit anything.

If you've ever used a scope, you're exploiting the unrealistic accuracy. If you've ever jumped and shot someone, you're exploiting the ability to aim in mid air. If you've ever run around a bunch after being shot in both legs, you're exploiting a game mechanic. And before you say "well that wasn't unintentional!" consider this: Do you think Zipper intended to make unwinnable maps? Because if you think that all maps are possible, I ask you to get together 8 people and we will do likewise and show you all the different unwinnable maps (there are quite a few).

SOCOM is a third person shooter first and foremost, and it always will be. Take for example battlefield. On the outside it seems like a realistic war simulator. But it's far from that. The developers have said they're going to keep it "as arcade like as possible". I think that Zipper is doing the same for Socom.

Socom is a game of scale, its pretty obvious they cant fit the actual ranges and sizes in the game. The game would actually be to large to load in a online format. All the things you are talking about are not exploits they are comprimises. Socom 1 if you were shot in the torso you kneeld down for a minute, in socom 2 they did away with that why? To increase fun factor and to limit the glitch of the slide that people were doing. When you jump and scope in your scope is steady but when you scope in normally it moves? do you think that was done on purpose?


Its a simple question that i want you to answer very simple no more beating around the bush no more non sense agurments. Its obvious the game isnt realistic because its a game, its obvious that the ranges are off because its a game again these are comprimises that the developers made.


Does quick sniping particularly jump sniping take advantage of the ability to jump and zoom while in the air?


my final view on the whole deal

jump sniping = exploit
index sniping = skill

but still answer my question.

[Razzor7]

Can you define "exploit" for me?

Have you ever played Anchorage Control Terrorists? This map is literally impossible. I could win this map 5 v 16 (maybe less than 5, but just to be safe I'll say 5) all of us playing with one hand. It's pathetic.

[oxfordfreestyl]

"Did they intend to make the scope steady when you zoom in?"

When you jump snipe, and scope in midair, you have < 2 seconds to take your shot. When you zoom in crouching, how long does it take before your crosshair starts bouncing up and down? Does it stay bouncing up and down if your crouch-walking while zoomed in? Don't think so.

That doesn't necesarily say if they intended it like that or not, but it explains why there is no bouncy crosshairs when in scope while jumping.

[Draykonis]

Originally Posted by spoolb0y

jump sniping = exploit
index sniping = skill

They can both be considered exploits. And, believe it or not, both of them take some amount of skill to do. Maybe one more than the other, but still.