No Attachments for Attachments [Torchia Tweet]

[Katana67 2907]

Chris Torchia ‏@ctorchia 4h

@Chaingunfight @SFRGaming @simpsonslavyan in any case - no since it would be an attachment to an attachment. We cant do attachmentception :p

 

This was in response to a tweet (presumably Chaingunfighter's from the forum) regarding the presence of an attachment on top of another an attachment.

 

I found this to be a tad suspect, as the RIS attachment therefore allows the attachment of a flashlight to the M4A1. Which is essentially the same concept (i.e. an attachment allowing for another attachment).

 

Now, I don't see much utility in having the carry handle be able to mount optics (vice just the rail on the receiver). But I'm not sure, again, Torchia's reasoning is sound on this one. It could be unfeasible due to the sight's relationship to the player, but the precedent of attachments on top of attachments has already been set by the KAC RIS available for the M4A1.

 

That, and it's clearly possible to have Docter/RMR-type back-up red-dots on certain optics (which wasn't necessarily the objective of the tweet). Now, granted, these optics are generally one object in ARMA. But I feel they'll be necessary as high-end loot further on down the line (looking at you SpecterDR).

[gibonez 3633]

Good.

[Katana67 2907]

Good.

 

Why?

[gibonez 3633]

Why?

 

Because this would have ended up happening.

 

 

 

 

The attachment system needs to move towards a more simpler more practical system instead of the more complex and goofy system that is in place now.

[Katana67 2907]

Because this would have ended up happening.

 

The attachment system needs to move towards a more simpler more practical system instead of the more complex and goofy system that is in place now.

 

Err... What? So you're saying that because certain attachments allow for the mounting of certain other attachments (i.e. the KAC RIS which is already in-game) that it will inevitably evolve into what you just detailed?

 

Or, it could be this...

 

 

Or this... as was detailed in the Tweet.

 

 

Either way, Torchia's reasoning is unexplained at best and incoherent at worst.

[gibonez 3633]

Err... What? So you're saying that because certain attachments allow for the mounting of certain other attachments (i.e. the KAC RIS which is already in-game) that it will inevitably evolve into what you just detailed?

 

Or, it could be this...

 

 

Or this... as was detailed in the Tweet.

 

 

Either way, Torchia's reasoning is unexplained at best and incoherent at worst.

 

Probably just keeping things simple or just leaving it for later.

 

It seems pretty unimportant atleast for now.

[Katana67 2907]

Probably just keeping things simple or just leaving it for later.

 

It seems pretty unimportant atleast for now.

 

But it's already a concept expressed in the game (i.e. the KAC RIS [a looted attachment] allowing for the mounting of the Weapon Flashlight [another looted attachment] onto itself).

 

And 99% of the stuff we discuss is "unimportant atleast for now."

[gibonez 3633]

But it's already a concept expressed in the game (i.e. the KAC RIS [a looted attachment] allowing for the mounting of the Weapon Flashlight [another looted attachment] onto itself).

 

And 99% of the stuff we discuss is "unimportant atleast for now."

 

I am not saying its unworthy of us to discuss.

 

I am merely saying its probably unimportant to them at this time hence why they decided against it atleast for now.

 

I just saw the msrp on the spectre scope you posted what a ripoff.

Edited May 15, 2014 by gibonez

[Katana67 2907]

I just saw the msrp on the spectre scope you posted what a ripoff.

 

Luckily we don't have to pay for our attachments in DayZ.

[automatic9 22]

Is putting batteries into rd sights not "Attachmentception"?

[Katana67 2907]

Is putting batteries into rd sights not "Attachmentception"?

 

Not that I'm aware, it doesn't modify the exterior of the weapon.

 

But attaching a flashlight [attachment] to the KAC RIS [attachment] is a form of "attachmentception" already in-game.

[Bororm 1156]

I think the flashlight thing is different because as far as I know, it's not actually attaching to the object of the handguard.  The handguard is just allowing it to attach to the gun.

 

What I mean is, you don't drag the light onto the handguard, you drag it onto the gun itself and then it takes up another attachment "slot."  Think of it in those terms, the gun has 5 slots or whatever, the attachments themselves don't have slots.  That's what he's trying to say I believe.

[Katana67 2907]

I think the flashlight thing is different because as far as I know, it's not actually attaching to the object of the handguard.  The handguard is just allowing it to attach to the gun.

 

What I mean is, you don't drag the light onto the handguard, you drag it onto the gun itself and then it takes up another attachment "slot."  Think of it in those terms, the gun has 5 slots or whatever, the attachments themselves don't have slots.  That's what he's trying to say I believe.

 

Right, but why couldn't that same principle be applied to certain sights? You have a certain sight, it allows you to attach X. Likewise, if they've got a hard limit on what attachments slots there are, I suppose we can say goodbye to foregrips.

[Bororm 1156]

Just a design decision I imagine.  They need to draw the line some where.

 

I think foregrips could easily take the handguard slot.  It would just be a handguard with one "built in."

Likewise certain optics could come with the extra sight attachments already on them.  Much like we see in arma 3.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Bororm

[kichilron 8550]

Please do remember, that there's a difference between mounting a red-dot ontop of an ACOG-sight and having "attachmentception".

 

Practically you would just have the ACOG-sight and the red dot and combine those two, which the inventory already allows. Then you mount a new, single attachment on the rifle, which allows you to have two sights, effectively. This means that you wouldn't require to any "attachmentception" and still can have two ights.

 

I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be possible. ARMA 3 has it as well. It would just technically be two (actually three) different items that would be mounted on the gun rather than attaching an attachment to an attachment within the attachmentsystem

[weedmasta 784]

Please do remember, that there's a difference between mounting a red-dot ontop of an ACOG-sight and having "attachmentception".

 

Practically you would just have the ACOG-sight and the red dot and combine those two, which the inventory already allows. Then you mount a new, single attachment on the rifle, which allows you to have two sights, effectively. This means that you wouldn't require to any "attachmentception" and still can have two ights.

 

I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be possible. ARMA 3 has it as well. It would just technically be two (actually three) different items that would be mounted on the gun rather than attaching an attachment to an attachment within the attachmentsystem

 

[Katana67 2907]

Please do remember, that there's a difference between mounting a red-dot ontop of an ACOG-sight and having "attachmentception".

 

Practically you would just have the ACOG-sight and the red dot and combine those two, which the inventory already allows. Then you mount a new, single attachment on the rifle, which allows you to have two sights, effectively. This means that you wouldn't require to any "attachmentception" and still can have two ights.

 

I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be possible. ARMA 3 has it as well. It would just technically be two (actually three) different items that would be mounted on the gun rather than attaching an attachment to an attachment within the attachmentsystem

 

Which is why I don't see how Torchia's reasoning is coherent, as it's represented in-game and can be represented further in-game. If they wanted to add a carry handle with an optic, they could, just via combining the two objects into one.

 

It's the same end result, but [the presence of two attachments] with different methods [one stacking on top of the other vice combining].

 

Like I said in the OP, I don't find much utility in having the ability to mount an optic on the carry handle of the M4 [which the original tweet was about]. But his reasoning for dismissing the concept wasn't based on utility, it was based on the concept of using two attachments in one slot being unfeasible. When it's clearly both feasible and indeed a concept expressed in the game already.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Katana67

[rickyspanish 158]

Lol weedmasta that split my sides. What does all this mean for foregrips damnit?! I thought they might utilise that m4 RIS foregrip a little more make it more than just a torch holder, which I could just tape on anyway.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ricky Spanish

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Under-barrel grenade launcher, scopes/sights, flashlights, silencers, suppressors, bi-pods are attachments.  Fore-grips are not attachments  

[Katana67 2907]

Under-barrel grenade launcher, scopes/sights, flashlights, silencers, suppressors, bi-pods are attachments.  Fore-grips are not attachments  

 

Sure they are, what else would they be?

[rickyspanish 158]

Under-barrel grenade launcher, scopes/sights, flashlights, silencers, suppressors, bi-pods are attachments. Fore-grips are not attachments

Kind of is an attachment though,I mean you do attach it to the rail, unless its built into the handguard.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ricky Spanish

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Sure they are, what else would they be?

 

 

as the RIS attachment

 

 

Fore-grips are not attachments  

Yes, it appears to be an attachment but it is not and yes, you can attach actual fore-grips to the RIS

Edited May 15, 2014 by Caboose187

[Katana67 2907]

Yes, it appears to be an attachment but it is not and yes, you can attach actual fore-grips to the RIS

 

Well there are no foregrips in DayZ.

 

Railed FOREGUARDS/ENDS, sure. But they are an attachment. They follow the same principles as the other attachments. They are able to be attached to your weapon.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Katana67

[rickyspanish 158]

Yes, it appears to be an attachment but it is not and yes, you can attach actual fore-grips to the RIS

Hmm.. I don't know what your getting at, are you talking about handguard or foregrip?

Foregrip attaches to handguard rail.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Ricky Spanish

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Well there are no foregrips in DayZ.

 

Railed FOREGUARDS/ENDS, sure. But they are an attachment. They follow the same principles as the other attachments. They are able to be attached to your weapon.

They replace the current foreguard, not attach to it. :p