Horizontal Weapon theory:

[taiiat]

I would rather not teach new players bad aiming habits by giving a capped-usefulness gun an easier aiming style.

you're bringing baggage from infinite stat games here - who said that a New Player is forced or automatically starts with a Generico Supreme Weapon?
you just assumed that they would only be allowed to use those because they are less effective in practice.

there need not (and realistically shouldn't be) some connection from A to B there - because ofcourse it's somewhat insulting to a New Player to be implied to them that they cannot handle this or that, and are relegated to using something that is 'for New Players', as this tells the Player the game assumes because they're new that they're stupid.

If, for example, we take Ray Trace, our generic assault rifle above, and decide we want to do more damage with it, then perhaps we can use higher caliber bullets, which requires (at least) a bigger barrel, which hurts weapon spread and weight and requires more expensive ammunition; it's probably a little louder too. Our "Generico Supreme" is no longer supremely generic; it's more expensive to operate and requires better control at closer range, but it works the way we want it to for our playstyle without being a "free" upgrade like going from a "level 1" weapon to a "level 10" in the traditional MMO framework. We've sacrificed something important for the performance we want--THIS is an expression of what FF beta players liked about the constraints system: consequential equipment choices.

this is certainly the ideal, a system that can autobalance a Players' choices, allowing them to specialize but requiring them to change how they use the Equipment in order to specialize, as it becomes less flexible and improving something means sacrificing something else.

which is the premise of what i noted at the end of the Post - but it's a terribly complex thing to have, and in the short term atleast, is not likely to come to fruition.

well that's how pretty much how loadout did it.

and Blacklight: Retribution - however that wasn't quite to such an extreme degree as Loadout is/was.

The RoF also doesn't influence the accuracy nor does it influence the recoil. It just increases the strength of the recoil since the gun will spit more bullets out than before, just reminding since ppl love to forget such crap.

i also think that tactical attachments not directly be part of a gun, meaning that guns can switch scopes etc. 'cause they are just mounted on tactical rail.

the only way a Gun doesn't get less Accurate as you crank up it's Rate of Fire is if it's welded to a table.
since it isn't, shooting more often, means less rounds hit the same location on target.
if you take a Gun, and a duplicate of it with a higher Rate of Fire, the second version is less Accurate. or if you want to be more specific, it loses Accuracy during fire more quickly, and at a sharper increasing rate, because it fires faster.

if Guns will be something you can modify, that changes the matter, ofcourse.
but we don't know yet.

 

[Beemann]

you're bringing baggage from infinite stat games here

I'm not, but nice try

who said that a New Player is forced or automatically starts with a Generico Supreme Weapon?

Nobody, new players will naturally gravitate towards either "cool" weapons or ones that are clearly introductory. Some of them will move on from there, a subset will grow attached and lament the lack of power their preferred weapon has. Those that do make the transition still have to relearn aim, because hitscan tracking is completely different from projectile tracking, unless your projectile speed is too high for it to really matter anyway

you just assumed that they would only be allowed to use those because they are less effective in practice.

No, you just assumed that I was saying that
As odd as it may sound, my gaming experience extends far outside of RPGs and Arena Shooters. I've watched this phenomenon occur repeatedly
Option B is easier but less effective than option A. The % of the population that likes option B for whatever reason are upset because their capabilities are hardcapped: you can aim better but shit damage is shit damage no matter how fancy you can be when delivering it. Some portion now has to relearn aim because they picked the wrong camp, and the rest will complain about imbalance on the forums and insist that it's just "a different kind of skill"
Meanwhile you could create better parameters for hitscan weapons, or just not use them. Both are superior to making an intentionally gimped "easy" gun

 

[TankHunter678]

But even with old pinpoint accuracy the weapon was balanced. This because of how sniper rifles work and how the recon class as whole worked. Sure they could kill everything in the game in one or two shots, but given their slow fire rate and low ammo count, most of the time they are vulnerable because they are always rechambering rounds after each shot or reloading every few shots so they couldn't fire back if they missed and/or something else came around the corner to attacks them. Add that to the fact that the Recon class as a whole has the lowest armour and health in the game, making it so it doesn't take much to kill them in one or few attacks. The game was already balanced before they unbalanced game the favor one style of playing over all others limiting player skill and choice. By unbalancing the weapon and class artificially in the name of balance for some misguided reasons is why the recon class as a whole, especially the Nighthawk, lost their roles and purpose in the game.

The old pinpoint accuracy was balanced... in scope which slowed the player down and limited their view thus limiting their response time to swift close combat battlefield changes. It was unbalance outside of scope. Why?

Because the weapon did not have some super slow unrealistic fire rate.
Low ammo count was not a major concern, map knowledge was.
It was hitscan, so there was no chance to evade it, especially if one was using an aimbot.
Recon's low armor and health pool meant nothing. No other class could deal enough damage to it to kill it in the same window it could kill them unless it was severely outnumbered.

In fact, it made the Recon class lose their role as a sniper. People stopped playing it as a sniper, some teams became heavier on recons once the out of scope perfect accuracy was known.

Even after they made the weapon have spread outside of scope they still had to keep nerfing it so that people used it as an actual sniper rifle. Not some close combat insta-kill weapon. Leading to what eventually became the Nighthawk weapon.

-stuff-

Gonna tell you now, you are saying common knowledge stuff. None of which covers why sniper rifles are inaccurate when "fired from the hip" depending on the game.

 

[MattHunX]

you're bringing baggage from infinite stat games here - who said that a New Player is forced or automatically starts with a Generico Supreme Weapon?
you just assumed that they would only be allowed to use those because they are less effective in practice.

there need not (and realistically shouldn't be) some connection from A to B there - because ofcourse it's somewhat insulting to a New Player to be implied to them that they cannot handle this or that, and are relegated to using something that is 'for New Players', as this tells the Player the game assumes because they're new that they're stupid.


this is certainly the ideal, a system that can autobalance a Players' choices, allowing them to specialize but requiring them to change how they use the Equipment in order to specialize, as it becomes less flexible and improving something means sacrificing something else.

which is the premise of what i noted at the end of the Post - but it's a terribly complex thing to have, and in the short term atleast, is not likely to come to fruition.


and Blacklight: Retribution - however that wasn't quite to such an extreme degree as Loadout is/was.




the only way a Gun doesn't get less Accurate as you crank up it's Rate of Fire is if it's welded to a table.
since it isn't, shooting more often, means less rounds hit the same location on target.
if you take a Gun, and a duplicate of it with a higher Rate of Fire, the second version is less Accurate. or if you want to be more specific, it loses Accuracy during fire more quickly, and at a sharper increasing rate, because it fires faster.

if Guns will be something you can modify, that changes the matter, ofcourse.
but we don't know yet.

But, we have to remember, here, that our character won't be the one holding the weapons in their own hands. The weapon will be either grabbed by our mech's powerful, steady, servod metal hands, or it will be attached/mounted to the forearms, arms, shoulder...etc. depending on type (I mean, an omni-weapon that has essentially been turned into a rocket launcher should surely be shoulder-mounted). So, as someone (EvilKitten https://forums.emberthegame.com/threads/regarding-recoil.212/page-5#post-8269) pointed out, recoil need not even be an issue, with the mech. Outside of it, sure. But, I don't think our characters will get much gun-action outside the mech, or rather, they shouldn't, because what would be the point of mech's then. I'm all for recoil, though.

 

[Squid Boss]

What I can get into my head around how I'd enjoy seeing things in here unfold is much like this basic and awful MS Paint drawing. It seems like everyone likes the idea of creating their dream weapons. I feel like creating a Chassis and giving it parts is a beautiful way to achieve this. Not pushing hard numbers or anything as obviously there may be need for restrictions as some mods may not work together but things to keep in mind, with Horizontal Progression, are;

Each Mod needs an Up and Down of some kind.
No Mod or setup should provide a true and obvious damage boost to make only it viable.



Now, to clarify a few things, this is just a 15 minute brain storm in MS paint, after a bad night sleep, not even through one cup of coffee, with an image I pulled off goggle search after 30 seconds of looking. There's an endless supply of combinations, number of Modification points to attach to a chassis, not to mention perhaps additional slots to be added to the rest of the frame itself that may add a touch of flavor. Likely on the arm holding the weapon or something.

Additional Thoughts to keep in mind for bigger badder weapons:
Variable weapon Chassis: Allows slotting of different weight mods. Large, Medium, Small. (Stellaris does this with ship customization in different segments of ships. Some weapons can only be Large. Some only Small and Medium.) Perhaps like Firefall there are different weapon manufacturers much like frame manufacturers; much like Borderlands where different weapon manufactures had perks, like better elemental damage, higher ROF and Clip size, or burst fire, etc.

 

[taiiat]

Option B is easier but less effective than option A. The % of the population that likes option B for whatever reason are upset because their capabilities are hardcapped: you can aim better but shit damage is shit damage no matter how fancy you can be when delivering it. Some portion now has to relearn aim because they picked the wrong camp, and the rest will complain about imbalance on the forums and insist that it's just "a different kind of skill"
Meanwhile you could create better parameters for hitscan weapons, or just not use them. Both are superior to making an intentionally gimped "easy" gun

that would make sense if there was a long learning process for option B.... but there isn't. there's literally no learning process for something skewed that far.

if the Player has made the decision to choose something that explains itself as pure ease of use, sacrificing many factors to be incredibly easy to use - complaints about that are Players used to infinite stats that can't handle making actual choices.

But, we have to remember, here, that our character won't be the one holding the weapons in their own hands.

that's still not welded to a solid object.
it's being held by something that has the capability of movement, and therefore will experience some movement.
partially because of the Third Law, and partially because it isn't welded to that object that is holding it.

 

[Omnires]

The old pinpoint accuracy was balanced... in scope which slowed the player down and limited their view thus limiting their response time to swift close combat battlefield changes. It was unbalance outside of scope. Why?

Because the weapon did not have some super slow unrealistic fire rate.
Low ammo count was not a major concern, map knowledge was.
It was hitscan, so there was no chance to evade it, especially if one was using an aimbot.
Recon's low armor and health pool meant nothing. No other class could deal enough damage to it to kill it in the same window it could kill them unless it was severely outnumbered.

In fact, it made the Recon class lose their role as a sniper. People stopped playing it as a sniper, some teams became heavier on recons once the out of scope perfect accuracy was known.

Even after they made the weapon have spread outside of scope they still had to keep nerfing it so that people used it as an actual sniper rifle. Not some close combat insta-kill weapon. Leading to what eventually became the Nighthawk weapon.


Gonna tell you now, you are saying common knowledge stuff. None of which covers why sniper rifles are inaccurate when "fired from the hip" depending on the game.

But that you are describing is problem made by the devs for not getting the power to speed ratio right when down came to the sniper rifle's rechambering and reloading speed (also early in the game some people found it was faster to reload after each shot than it was to rechamber a round. So players cheated the system because no one checked those before hand) because if they stuck with the sliding scale of attack power per being inverse to attack rate they would have just made time between shots slower and reloading slower. Not change the aim of the gun itself, and even if the felt the aim was to spot on you don't make the aim any worse than that of a basic rifle. Adding special rules to a weapon in a game that breaks game's own logic is just wrong. In fact, there were many recon forced players in the shards I was in that told the devs when they were online playing with us that they should slow down the firing rate of snipers to make them more balanced because even we seen it as a little too powerful, and willing to take a much bigger hit to rate of fire to make up for the difference like in every other balanced game. Artificially making the aiming for snipers worse beyond the normal in the name of balance is akind to lowering the blast radius of AOE weapons to make them into line-of-sight direct target weapons in the name of balance because some people think missiles and grenades are too powerful.

Also what you said about frame not mattering because knowing the map counted more in your favor. That is true of all classes. Remember the class guns the recons had are high attack power low attack rate direct line of sight weapons. Other classes had the use of either AOE weapons or high ammo count rapid fire weapons, meaning they could do something the recon snipers couldn't really do and rely on spray-and-pry tactics. In close range combat as one of the options AOE classes have is use the AOE before turning around a corner or jumping into an area that there places to hide and hope you can hurt or kill enemies you can't see with slash damage. And for rapid for weapons giant amounts of ammo in close range fighting, what is the point of ever letting go of the trigger other than to reload the gun. Again it is not the problem of the aiming system of those guns but a matter of some people not using them to their full potential.

As for the idea that the Recon class as a whole being long range fighters only is just wrong. Name one good game where the stealth focus class or character is purely ranged or purely melee. Even in games where the stealth class is a melee fighter they always have a few good long ranged attacks. And in games where stealth class long range fighters they always have some good close range attacks. But what is that only stealth classes can do this while other classes in those same games may only be pure melee or range? It is because of the nature of stealth itself, as stealth can be use to close the distance or widen the distance between you and your target. And because stealth classes tend to be the more tactical focused people they need a large variety of tools that can be used in different situations or allowed for a large number of different situational tools. But even then there is always going to be tactically minded players who'll use some things in ways they was originally not designed for because again that is nature of stealth. For example, most classical ninja weapons were really just farm tools used to tend to crops that were repurposed for combat.

tl:dr
The choice of balancing sniper rifles by making the aim worse was the wrong one because it ignores the sliding scale of self-balance that other good games follow. You don't fix something by breaking something else. Especially when the fix goes againt the basic idea of what something is.

 

[Beemann]

that would make sense if there was a long learning process for option B.... but there isn't. there's literally no learning process for something skewed that far.

Learning process is relative and based on past experience + where you consider the end point to be
Either way, forcing people to relearn a skill to not do trash damage to tougher enemies should be avoided where possible

if the Player has made the decision to choose something that explains itself as pure ease of use, sacrificing many factors to be incredibly easy to use - complaints about that are Players used to infinite stats that can't handle making actual choices.

The implication behind having a choice in a game is that said choice is viable. If your output is hardcapped, then either the level of difficulty the game has (in terms of to-hit difficulty, damage to health ratios and resource usage) need to stay the same or the capped gun becomes non-viable. The only way to avoid having people run into this issue is to either have a giant "Warning" message, or (if we're worried about good design here) make the gun viable st high levels by not making it a training wheels version of the "main" gun of the same type

This isn't an RPG concept, as the RPG concept would be to have one gun be flat out better than another, to provide an artificial sense of growth

 

[TankHunter678]

But that you are describing is problem made by the devs for not getting the power to speed ratio right when down came to the sniper rifle's rechambering and reloading speed (also early in the game some people found it was faster to reload after each shot than it was to rechamber a round. So players cheated the system because no one checked those before hand) because if they stuck with the sliding scale of attack power per being inverse to attack rate they would have just made time between shots slower and reloading slower. Not change the aim of the gun itself, and even if the felt the aim was to spot on you don't make the aim any worse than that of a basic rifle. Adding special rules to a weapon in a game that breaks game's own logic is just wrong. In fact, there were many recon forced players in the shards I was in that told the devs when they were online playing with us that they should slow down the firing rate of snipers to make them more balanced because even we seen it as a little too powerful, and willing to take a much bigger hit to rate of fire to make up for the difference like in every other balanced game. Artificially making the aiming for snipers worse beyond the normal in the name of balance is akind to lowering the blast radius of AOE weapons to make them into line-of-sight direct target weapons in the name of balance because some people think missiles and grenades are too powerful.

Also what you said about frame not mattering because knowing the map counted more in your favor. That is true of all classes. Remember the class guns the recons had are high attack power low attack rate direct line of sight weapons. Other classes had the use of either AOE weapons or high ammo count rapid fire weapons, meaning they could do something the recon snipers couldn't really do and rely on spray-and-pry tactics. In close range combat as one of the options AOE classes have is use the AOE before turning around a corner or jumping into an area that there places to hide and hope you can hurt or kill enemies you can't see with slash damage. And for rapid for weapons giant amounts of ammo in close range fighting, what is the point of ever letting go of the trigger other than to reload the gun. Again it is not the problem of the aiming system of those guns but a matter of some people not using them to their full potential.

As for the idea that the Recon class as a whole being long range fighters only is just wrong. Name one good game where the stealth focus class or character is purely ranged or purely melee. Even in games where the stealth class is a melee fighter they always have a few good long ranged attacks. And in games where stealth class long range fighters they always have some good close range attacks. But what is that only stealth classes can do this while other classes in those same games may only be pure melee or range? It is because of the nature of stealth itself, as stealth can be use to close the distance or widen the distance between you and your target. And because stealth classes tend to be the more tactical focused people they need a large variety of tools that can be used in different situations or allowed for a large number of different situational tools. But even then there is always going to be tactically minded players who'll use some things in ways they was originally not designed for because again that is nature of stealth. For example, most classical ninja weapons were really just farm tools used to tend to crops that were repurposed for combat.

tl:dr
The choice of balancing sniper rifles by making the aim worse was the wrong one because it ignores the sliding scale of self-balance that other good games follow. You don't fix something by breaking something else. Especially when the fix goes againt the basic idea of what something is.

Far as I could tell they had a few of options:

1) Reduce the damage so that a Recon has to put multiple headshots in to kill another recon/engineer/medic which would in turn break the balance of the class entirely and remove its role of being long range assassination support for dealing with Pocket Medics, dreadnoughts, eliminating engineers to make clearing nests easier, and counter sniping.
2) Just eliminate the pinpoint accuracy while running and gunning with a 50 cal sniper rifle, you try going and asking real soldiers why they setup to use a 50 cal sniper rifle and not just run and gun with them
3) Drastically cut down its rate of fire to unrealistic levels (rate of fire was already brought up earlier about how sniper rifles can fire at the same rate as non sniper rifle semi-autos because the main difference is that a sniper rifle has a scope) by removing the magazine and making the reload take excruciatingly long.

They chose option 2 at the time. Better then giving Recons 1 round a mag with a 8-10 sec reload time that would kill the class in PvE entirely (they were already bottom of the totem pole in pve). At least then Recon players could still use quick scoping skills to defend themselves.

Oh and you need to remember: Sniper Rifles, in all games, are, by design, bad in close quarters combat and need scoping to obtain maximum accuracy (hence why quick scoping tactics were invented). Having a sniper rifle go against these shooter rules is a big nono. Halo got away with it because in Halo it can take an entire clip to down someone, making it bad in CQC where regenerating energy shields are a thing.

Further Firefall, at the time and the most important thing to remember, was balanced like TF2 and had its role setup like TF2. TF2 snipers do not go run and gun hip firing with their sniper rifles except out of desperation.

It was broken, so it was fixed. Later when advanced frames were brought in the Recon lost its sniper rifle and got the more flexible R36 for those that wanted to play up close and be "Recon" for their team. With the role of dedicated sniper placed in the hands of Nighthawk and Raptor.

 

[Omnires]

Far as I could tell they had a few of options:

1) Reduce the damage so that a Recon has to put multiple headshots in to kill another recon/engineer/medic which would in turn break the balance of the class entirely and remove its role of being long range assassination support for dealing with Pocket Medics, dreadnoughts, eliminating engineers to make clearing nests easier, and counter sniping.
2) Just eliminate the pinpoint accuracy while running and gunning with a 50 cal sniper rifle, you try going and asking real soldiers why they setup to use a 50 cal sniper rifle and not just run and gun with them
3) Drastically cut down its rate of fire to unrealistic levels (rate of fire was already brought up earlier about how sniper rifles can fire at the same rate as non sniper rifle semi-autos because the main difference is that a sniper rifle has a scope) by removing the magazine and making the reload take excruciatingly long.

They chose option 2 at the time. Better then giving Recons 1 round a mag with a 8-10 sec reload time that would kill the class in PvE entirely (they were already bottom of the totem pole in pve). At least then Recon players could still use quick scoping skills to defend themselves.

Oh and you need to remember: Sniper Rifles, in all games, are, by design, bad in close quarters combat and need scoping to obtain maximum accuracy (hence why quick scoping tactics were invented). Having a sniper rifle go against these shooter rules is a big nono. Halo got away with it because in Halo it can take an entire clip to down someone, making it bad in CQC where regenerating energy shields are a thing.

Further Firefall, at the time and the most important thing to remember, was balanced like TF2 and had its role setup like TF2. TF2 snipers do not go run and gun hip firing with their sniper rifles except out of desperation.

It was broken, so it was fixed. Later when advanced frames were brought in the Recon lost its sniper rifle and got the more flexible R36 for those that wanted to play up close and be "Recon" for their team. With the role of dedicated sniper placed in the hands of Nighthawk and Raptor.

In other games with good balance the cone of fire for sniper rifles while out of scope is no different from a normal rifle. Meaning that in those games if you are good at hip firing with other rifles you can do the same with the sniper rifle. So a person with enough skills in other shooter games can still do things like no-scope kills with snipers. But again the reason they not nope OP and even seem less effective at close range is do to the slow rate of fire leaving you open after every shot. Yea, you killed that guy in one shot but while you were rechambering next round their teammate kills you. Or they somehow dodged your shot and while you are trying to rechamber the gun or switch weapons they kill you. Again the balance of the being able to kill in one hit is a slow attack rate. There is no need to make the cone of fire unrealistically large (in FireFall cases to a size larger than the spread on shotguns, so you'll miss shots even at point blank range) just because some people don't like the idea of someone using a long range weapon at close range. Because things like point-blank range, effective range, and max range do exist. And if you are missing shots at point-blank range while aiming at something then something is really wrong with aiming system or hit registry.

As for why real life soldiers don't normally fire from the hip while using a .50 sniper rifle could be because of the mass of the gun or they wouldn't have to at close range unless an enemy ambushed them and they didn't have to go for their sidearm. But then again when you are talking about the future where everyone is running around in powered armor and there people able to freely run and accurately fire vehicle mounted weapons without breaking a sweat (looking at dreadnoughts and chaingunners). That whole argument of a sniper rifle being too heavy or powerful to be fired accurately from the hip is kind of thrown out of the window. Given that you have superhuman strength while you are wearing the armor. And when talking about mecha where it is not you that is holding the weapon but a machine, that argument loses even more ground.

There were lots of ways they could have fixed the balance of the game without capping player skill or removing player choice in how they want to play. But that did well systematically kill off some playing style options in favor others. Effectively saying to many players your style of fighting and of having fun is not valid.

 

[TankHunter678]

There were lots of ways they could have fixed the balance of the game without capping player skill or removing player choice in how they want to play. But that did well systematically kill off some playing style options in favor others. Effectively saying to many players your style of fighting and of having fun is not valid.

The perfect accuracy out of scope capped player skill near the skill floor. The class stopped needing skill and just needed an aimbot*. The spread forced players to learn quick scoping, which is what people were already doing at the time until they discovered they did not need to. While those who were lazy dropped the aim bots and went back to camping on top of a rock looking down the scope.

Snipers went back to being snipers, those who could quick scope could still take the weapon into medium and if need be close range combat and do well.

It was not a case of "some people do not like it" it was a case of "breaking class balance" and thus it was fixed.

*FYI, when the Engineer Nanospray was removed for a laser that became the precursor to the Tesla this same thing happened to Engineers. They stopped using deployables to rush into the 10-15m range where an aimbot would score them headshots and melt everything faster then they could kill the engineer in return. They stopped being engineers and became ninjas for insta kills.

Ultimately the damage was nerfed, and the Engineer was severely nerfed in PvE due to the design change from a short range cone aoe good at scrubbing small fry off deployables/thumpers to requiring a grenade launcher and gimping themselves against Chosen. In addition to the heavy turret being removed in favor of multi turrets and at the time there was no charge system. 1 min wait per multi-turret which was 1/3rd of a heavy turret.

 

[Omnires]

The perfect accuracy out of scope capped player skill near the skill floor. The class stopped needing skill and just needed an aimbot*. The spread forced players to learn quick scoping, which is what people were already doing at the time until they discovered they did not need to. While those who were lazy dropped the aim bots and went back to camping on top of a rock looking down the scope.

Snipers went back to being snipers, those who could quick scope could still take the weapon into medium and if need be close range combat and do well.

It was not a case of "some people do not like it" it was a case of "breaking class balance" and thus it was fixed.

*FYI, when the Engineer Nanospray was removed for a laser that became the precursor to the Tesla this same thing happened to Engineers. They stopped using deployables to rush into the 10-15m range where an aimbot would score them headshots and melt everything faster then they could kill the engineer in return. They stopped being engineers and became ninjas for insta kills.

Ultimately the damage was nerfed, and the Engineer was severely nerfed in PvE due to the design change from a short range cone aoe good at scrubbing small fry off deployables/thumpers to requiring a grenade launcher and gimping themselves against Chosen. In addition to the heavy turret being removed in favor of multi turrets and at the time there was no charge system. 1 min wait per multi-turret which was 1/3rd of a heavy turret.

Perfect accuracy out of scope is not the argument I'm making. But rather making special rules about weapons that only apply to that weapon because someone doesn't like how some people use it. Why do think I keep says don't make the cone of fire outside of what is normal for other rifles? If you are going to make a rule about how people aim guns that rule should apply to all guns. So if you make sniper rifles have a cone of fire larger than shotguns than all other rifles should have to follow the same rule too. And you can see how messed up that would be. People wouldn't stand for it.

Also to some players forcing people to quick scope is enforcing one playing style over another and capping player skill. Why, because by forces the cone of fire the gun to be unnaturally high just to force people to use the scope you are negating the abilities many people who can do things like make firing solutions in their head. The option to quick scope is ok, but when you make quick scoping a mandatory requirement just to be a viable player then the system is broken. It would like having a car racing game and removing the ability to drift cars around corners just because some people don't like the idea of people drifting. What you end up doing is removing one playing style over another while calling it not viable, and then say you can still play like normal you just have use this other playing style we want you use rather than you natural style.

 

[MattHunX]

Mhm. I like to play as a pure-sniper. I read about quick-scoping, when I started playing multiplayer games for the first-time and the way it was described, it felt like an exploit. Something about using a glitch that briefly snapped the targeting reticle on spot if your target was already very near. Something like that. Sounds like an exploit. I prefer scoping in, panning around and picking targets off. And yeah, in closer-quarters, a sniper should have problems, if they want to use their primary weapon. They would definitely need a secondary that could be an SMG, pistol or shotgun. Or whatever they prefer. Grenade launcher, too, if they have no shame.

Also, if we're going with the omni-frame idea, I image that when a recon-style player starts modding their weapons towards a sniper-build, the will function like the R36, in the first few stages, at least, as the modification will gradually reduce the rate-of-fire, spread, up the damage per round, the range, reduce the mag-size, increase reload speed...etc. So it will eventually become a full-fledged sniper-rifle.

Or, should we be able to mod our weapon to fulfill something close to a sniper-role, from the start? And then specialize it even further.

 

[Beemann]

Mhm. I like to play as a pure-sniper. I read about quick-scoping, when I started playing multiplayer games for the first-time and the way it was described, it felt like an exploit. Something about using a glitch that briefly snapped the targeting reticle on spot if your target was already very near. Something like that.

That's a function of console shooter auto aim and shouldn't happen in any decent PC game
In PC shooters quick scoping is merely taking advantage of good aim (because you're not scoping in) to work around the confines of a forced scope mechanic. A lot of games try to stop this though because it kinda defeats the purpose of forcing scoping in the first place, generally by adding a delay before you can fire or before you gain the accuracy bonus

You'll get a noticeable snap with any gun in, for instance, CoD

@Omnires sniper rifles are often balanced in those games by also forcing people to use them in tight spaces without vast lines of sight, and even then they're sometimes the only weapon truly worth using. I don't agree though that the solution is CoF, I'd much rather do something like what GA did and have a projectile sniper with lower damage but a strong debuff. You're still going to finish off targets that flee from combat, and you'll still be good at ensuring specific targets die, but unless you're leading and landing several difficult shots in a row or moving in very close, you're not going to be necessarily wiping out a large number of players in a short time on your own. Your strength comes from strategically crippling certain players first and foremost, and second from your total damage capability. GA also had forced scoping but I don't think that's necessarily a mandatory part of the equation and could easily be replaced with one of many other gameplay mechanics (GA had no reloads, guns had no charge time (though miniguns had spin up), ammo wasn't a thing etc)