QS should be possible but very, very hard compared to sniping and all other forms of combat. aka. most players will be better of noscoping than QSing.
have sniper ADS be the slowest ADS with no form of speedup. have the gun accressy not zero in until after the sniper is fully zoomed. ruffly .2 seconds after the zoom imiage appears on teh screen. no form of aimassist should help the sniper, PEROID, BO2 had QS aimassist. QS should be a skill based playstyle. toughness and other perks should be practicly required to QS effectivly, sniper should walk noticably slower than other players, including LMG's.
none of those should interfear with normal sniping.
in all honosty the only time i was ever impressed with QS was some guy on wii quantom of solice(this was before i had xbox360/that game was wiiremote only), that game had no autoaim for snipers and slow ADS time for them too, MW2 level QS was extremely rare do to it was suicide for most players, but some managed quicker 'dragscopes/hardscopes', so in the end snipers mostly actualy sniped(that games map design also managed to completly blow CODs out of the water, unless youo count MW2 and before.) of course that game had other issues from limitation of the wii.
I have no problem with Quickscopers, but if you really believe in the 'Snipers should be long range only', then the solution is incredibly simple. Make it take two shots from a sniper to kill at close range, and one shot to kill at medium to long/long ranges.
This will vastly reduce quickscoping, and it will encourage snipers to switch to their secondaries when moving positions.
Just throwing in my 2 cents, based on my experiences with MW1, 2, and 3. I know some people will disagree with me, but please note that I am making my argument based on logic and not based on "what I dislike". Also, I am pretty decent at quickscoping, and would probably be great at it if it weren't for the fact I don't use a sniper class unless I plan on sniping, and qs for me is usually an emergency measure when I hit unanticipated mid-range or close quarters combat.
Quickscoping and auto-aim need to be eliminated altogether. First I will tell you why auto-aim needs to go. I have had several times where there was an enemy far away enough that I couldnt see them until I went ADS with irons just to survey an area. The auto aim pulled directly onto a distant enemy (also engaging marksman, which is basically maphack) allowing for an easy kill with an assault rifle or SMG even, sometimes from as far as 250 meters!. Also, this will get you killed sometimes, when you are trying to aim at something closer and a distant enemy pulls your aa. As for sniping, IMO auto-aim makes sniping harder when people practice engaging and using auto-aim to "drag scope" which takes a long time to get good at and leaves you with tunnel vision. There have been many times I ran up on these tunnel vision snipers from the side and knifed them in the temple.
On to the qs practice itself (NOT drag scoping).
This is a FPS. I understand it is just a video game, but as a FPS there has to be some standard of realism. Without even getting into the debate of high ttk vs. low ttk, the fact is that even in hardcore mode, most sniper rifles take 2 shots to kill unless you get a headshot. Most other guns take 3, except for my favorite and most used AK. It is simply not reasonable or fair that someone running around with a sniper rifle (regardless of the skill involved in qs) can get instant 1 shot kills in cqb on someone who is shooting them with an AK47. With any other weapon there are limitations. SMGs are supposed to be for close range assault or flanking; lmg's should excel at offensive or defensive suppression and cover fire; assault rifles are diverse and multipurpose, but have their own limitations in mobility, reload time, ads time, clip size, bullet caliber, frame structure, iron sights, and etc. Sniper rifles are supposed to excel at ranged killings, but they allow for instant LT,RT "headshots" in CQB once you "master" qs (which takes practice, yes, but obviously can be done by thousands of 13 year olds, so to hail it is some grand achievement...no).
Now, here is the unstated issue. You can't simply take qs out of the game. You have to actually design the game with the fact in mind that you have put sniper rifles in the game. MW1 and 2 were ok with this, 3 is just terrible for anyone trying to be a traditional sniper....I own snipers all day with the MK14. Take a look at BF BC2 and BF3. Their maps are off the chain when it comes to sniping- and not just because they are far bigger, but because they have multiple levels and positions atop water towers, hill-sides...you know, terrain? And their sniping takes real skill. Please don't get mad at me and say this is not BF, I am simply pointing out that in a similar game that lots of people play, the mechanics are far more realistic and the gameplay as a result has been far more satisfying (according to my own experience, and also alot of what I have read on Activision/EA forums). And there is no qs...so do you know what people do? They learn to switch to their pistol, and they learn how to shoot people in the head with their pistol.
I really think there are many issues that have existed in the COD games, but QS is definitely the second worse. The only thing they did worse than intentionally putting QS in MW3 was to put in reflective team fire, but that is another issue entirely.
There is some real-world physics to support this. At close range the 7.62 is traveling so fast that all it does is poke a hole in the target. At longer ranges, the round is moving slow enough to deform in its target and make a bigger exit wound. At some point, the bullet just isn't traveling fast enough to make an exit wound.
This would be interesting if larger maps were implemented. Your SR would have an "effective range" between 2 points where it would be a OHK.
Anyway, on topic: I agree with the idea of making a "quickscope" less effective. It doesn't matter how much skill it takes, someone shouldn't be able to run around at any distance and get OHKs reliably. Maybe require a headshot at close range for a OHK as said by Tobzza. Regardless, a shot from a SR should be devastating if not leathal.
I am personally a fan of using a pistol in CQB.
If I use a sniper rifle, I snipe. If I get suprised it is my fault for not watching my back, so I should be disadvantaged. I will turn around and switch to my pistol. If I win after that, I was definitely the better player.
I've always argued for a similar system, at least since MW3 was announced. Basically the damage would be the reverse of what we normally see for weapons. Instead of losing damage at longer ranges, it would gain damage. So it would have a damage profile of say, 50-75. 50 Up close so that it can't get a 1hko except for a headshot (2x Multiplier), and 75 at Range so that it can get a 1hko from a distance easy enough with a 1.5 Multiplier.
This would solve all the arguments I think about how to balance sniper rifles. You won't have to mess with their mobility values, their scope in speeds, their sway, or anything like that. By simply modifying damage calculation, you kill quick-scoping without hindering Sniping.
Aim assists are removed from snipers thus the wide crosshairs or the lack of crosshairs + snipers are meant to be powerful, are they not ? as for quickscoping and noscoping, that isn't a choice of developers, it's nothing but a play style, they slowed down the snipers in Black Ops 2 but people yet again, quickscoped and noscoped. Developers have been through this many times.
ITS NOTHING BUT A PLAY STYLE - No rage intended