I'm not talking about COD, I'm talking about quuickscoping in general, across all FPS games.
I not debating that it takes skill, I'm saying that regardless that it does, it's still a cheesy tactic. You're using a weapon intended for long range, and removing all it's downfalls.
Host advantage is a console only problem (well, not in MW2, since IW really dikeed over the PC community) and the other weapons only come in to play if they shoot first.
It's not ignorance, it's seeing it for what it is - an exploit. According to you, if it involves skill, it can't be "unfair." It takes skill to be a good conman, to count cards, and to beat out a game show, like I showed earlier. I guess they are all "fair." And quickscoping does kill quickly - why else would they use it? Because it's inefficient?
1) Well, that depends on the game. In Brink it may not be a good idea or fair, but in CoD it is, that is what I'm talking about.
2) What you don't seem to realize is, you ARE NOT REMOVING IT'S DOWNFALLS. In fact, YOU ADD MORE. I'm not gonna lie, quickscoping is an effective tactic, it has it's advantages over using an SMG or Shotgun, but it has enough disadvantages to balance it out. That's exaclty WHY quickscoping takes skill, and is not like counting cards.
3) Again, I'm talking about CoD. Different things are fair for different games. Jetpacks are fine in Halo: Reach, but put them in CoD4 and the game is ruined.
4) Games and real life are two different things. In a game, anything that takes skill is fair, especially when it is intended by the developers, as I pointed out with Black Ops. In real life, morality comes into play. In games, skill and morality are one and the same. In real life, they are seperate.
Hitler took over an entire nation and came closer than anyone else to world domination (not to mention almost crippling a religion.) That takes skill, no one can deny that. But obviously, he was wrong.