No Attachments for Attachments [Torchia Tweet]

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

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

Foregrip attaches to handguard rail.

Ya, sorry, the handguard.  Long day at work plus some of the stupidity I've been reading on the forums to day is causing me not to type clearly and correctly.

[Katana67 2907]

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

 

Much in the same way that optics replace the carry handle... And much in the same way a suppressor could replace the current flash-hider...

 

They're all attachments, both in actuality and in terms of the game mechanic itself.

 

They all ATTACH to the weapon.

[Bororm 1156]

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.

 

He gives multiple reasons for why it wouldn't be done, including:

 

 

@Chaingunfight @SFRGaming @simpsonslavyan Plus it couldn't be used on other guns which makes it inefficient.

Which is a good point, a m4 carry handle with an already attached acog or whatever would only be useful on that gun or the variations of that gun.

 

 

 

@Chaingunfight @SFRGaming @simpsonslavyan yeah its pointless. Handguard is like leveling up but this is purely cosmetic (and ugly at that)

 

This post reads sorta weird, but he's saying it'd be purely cosmetic in this example.

 

I think you are just getting a bit hung up on that one post in response to that one specific example.

 

At the end of the day it's a matter of priorities.  They want to create attachments that can be shared between as many guns as possible to save on time.  It doesn't mean we can't see things like scopes with ironsights on them or whatever.  Again, that's already how it works in arma 3.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Bororm

[-Gews- 7443]

It doesn't matter because

[a] they wouldn't introduce some old carry handle mounted optic anyways

if need or want to do attachment-ception they will go ahead and do attachment-ception

As far as I'm concerned they just need to make the BUIS actually usable as BUIS... But to make that worthwile they need to prevent people from using just the front post, which works fine right now. They could do this by giving rear sights and optics dispersion modifiers, once you remove the rear sight or optic and only use the front post you couldn't fire with any accuracy. And also there's no point using BUIS when you can attach any optic or sight in a second, right now you could just have a carry handle or extra ACOG in your pack, making BUIS pointless...

Edited May 16, 2014 by Gews

[Katana67 2907]

I think you are just getting a bit hung up on that one post in response to that one specific example.

 

At the end of the day it's a matter of priorities.  They want to create attachments that can be shared between as many guns as possible to save on time.  It doesn't mean we can't see things like scopes with ironsights on them or whatever.  Again, that's already how it works in arma 3.

 

Again, it's not about the actual content of the conversation, but Torchia's reasoning for dismissing the concept as a whole. Especially when it already exists in principle in-game.

 

The priorities discussion isn't specifically relevant, either. Nobody's asking them to prioritize anything, or deviate from their current plans.

 

Don't get too hung up on the carry handle/optic content, and try and just look at what reasoning he uses. He's saying that they can't have attachments for attachments. Which isn't the case if one just looks at the RIS and flashlight already in-game.

 

And bear in mind, I'm not saying we won't see these things. I just find Torchia's reasoning for dismissing something (as expressed in the tweet) suspect... again.

[gibonez 3633]

Maybe they just want less Tacticool things in the game who knows ?

 

Maybe the last thing they want is everyone in the game not looking like a survivor and instead everyone looking like tacticool mall ninjas.

 

 

[Katana67 2907]

Maybe they just want less Tacticool things in the game who knows ?

 

Maybe the last thing they want is everyone in the game not looking like a survivor and instead everyone looking like tacticool mall ninjas.

 

Less unnecessary vitriol would do wonders.

[Bororm 1156]

Again, it's not about the actual content of the conversation, but Torchia's reasoning for dismissing the concept as a whole. Especially when it already exists in principle in-game.

 

The priorities discussion isn't specifically relevant, either. Nobody's asking them to prioritize anything, or deviate from their current plans.

 

Don't get too hung up on the carry handle/optic content, and try and just look at what reasoning he uses. He's saying that they can't have attachments for attachments. Which isn't the case if one just looks at the RIS and flashlight already in-game.

 

And bear in mind, I'm not saying we won't see these things. I just find Torchia's reasoning for dismissing something (as expressed in the tweet) suspect... again.

 

What I'm saying is that his initial response makes sense in the context of the current system does not support actual attachments of attachments, in that attachments don't have "sockets" as it were, the same way that a weapon does.  He's technically correct in his response, attachments do not currently support attachments as a game mechanic.

Think of it like Diablo or WoW, where an item has X amount of gem sockets.  You can stick gems in them, and the gems could have multiple functionality, but the gems themselves don't have sockets.

 

You're right that the same result can be obtained in the form of having premade attachments with multiple purpose, but his other comments demonstrate why it's not necessarily practical.

[weedmasta 784]

It doesn't matter because

[a] they wouldn't introduce some old carry handle mounted optic anyways

if need or want to do attachment-ception they will go ahead and do attachment-ception

As far as I'm concerned they just need to make the BUIS actually usable as BUIS... But to make that worthwile they need to prevent people from using just the front post, which works fine right now. They could do this by giving rear sights and optics dispersion modifiers, once you remove the rear sight or optic and only use the front post you couldn't fire with any accuracy. And also there's no point using BUIS when you can attach any optic or sight in a second, right now you could just have a carry handle or extra ACOG in your pack, making BUIS pointless...

 

Why would it make the BUIS pointless? I personally prefer the BUIS over the carrying handle any day as I find it easier to use.

Edited May 16, 2014 by weedmasta

[Bororm 1156]

It doesn't matter because

[a] they wouldn't introduce some old carry handle mounted optic anyways

if need or want to do attachment-ception they will go ahead and do attachment-ception

As far as I'm concerned they just need to make the BUIS actually usable as BUIS... But to make that worthwile they need to prevent people from using just the front post, which works fine right now. They could do this by giving rear sights and optics dispersion modifiers, once you remove the rear sight or optic and only use the front post you couldn't fire with any accuracy. And also there's no point using BUIS when you can attach any optic or sight in a second, right now you could just have a carry handle or extra ACOG in your pack, making BUIS pointless...

 

Wow I'm surprised to see you advocating dispersion modifiers for sights. 

 

Any ways, I think they should make it so you can't zero the gun without a back sight.  It wouldn't be a total fix since people who do that typically are just spraying at close range any ways, but would be a step in the right direction.

[weedmasta 784]

Wow I'm surprised to see you advocating dispersion modifiers for sights. 

 

Any ways, I think they should make it so you can't zero the gun without a back sight.  It wouldn't be a total fix since people who do that typically are just spraying at close range any ways, but would be a step in the right direction.

 

Maybe he meant this: Have dispersion modifiers for sights/iron sights that make the weapon have no dispersion and when you remove the sights/iron sights (i.e. the weapon on its own without any type of sights) it will have dispersion. Well at least I hope that is what he meant (or his account was hacked :P). This however only applies to some weapons where you actually can remove the iron sights sometimes (like the carrying handle on the M4) in order to attach a scope.

Edited May 16, 2014 by weedmasta

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

 

LOL what the hell is that from? I just spit tea.

[weedmasta 784]

LOL what the hell is that from? I just spit tea.

 

:D It maybe from a Turkish movie, I am not sure though.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

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).

To be fair to Chris, I didn't post the prettiest version of a carry-handle based red-dot sight.

 

Black-Hawk down styled ones are probably a better representation of what these types of sights usually look like (and look much better). I just couldn't resist putting up Tears of the Sun because it's one of my favorite movies.

 

May not be the most useful, but is that not badass?

 

 

Oh, nevermind. Apparently no one else wants these either. Whatever

Edited May 16, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[Katana67 2907]

You're right that the same result can be obtained in the form of having premade attachments with multiple purpose, but his other comments demonstrate why it's not necessarily practical.

 

That and the same result can be achieved via the current mechanic in the game [i.e. the KAC RIS allowing the attachment of a flashlight]. Or, as others have suggested, a "combination/crafting" mechanic wherein one finds an ACOG and Docter/RMR sight separately, then combines the two into one item via the crafting system we've got now.

 

Granted, I don't think this is that big of a deal, I could live without Docter/RMR sights for optics, optics on the carry handle, and all of that. But I still find his reasoning for dismissing these concepts incoherent.

 

The following dismissal of the concept was based on the carry handle and optics specifically. However, his initial dismissal was with regard to attachments in general. And it's inaccurate, one can have an attachment on another attachment already [i.e. KAC RIS and flashlight].

[Katana67 2907]

Black-Hawk down styled ones are probably a better representation of what these types of sights usually look like (and look much better). I just couldn't resist putting up Tears of the Sun because it's one of my favorite movies.

 

Well the BHD ones make more sense in my opinion, because they're using 727s and 723s with fixed carry handles and unmagnified optics. Plus, the TOTS optic is actually magnified (IIRC), which makes it even more useless given that it doesn't actually need to clear the front sight post. But it's a movie, and probably either the only optic they had on sight or it fit a particular "sniper" aesthetic. Plus, around when the movie was made, that setup was more prevalent than it is now.

 

Which, as cool as you might think it is (I'm certainly not against it), it's not really practical from both a development point of view [i.e. already having a rail mount on our M4A1s] or a practicality point of view in-game. Although, given that they are rendering the front sight post as visible through an ACOG, it may have a use in being able to clear the front sight post. However, I'd rather they just render the ACOG and front sight post realistically as it wouldn't be visible through a 4x optic.

 

But, it's Chris' reasoning for dismissing the suggestion that I find suspect.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Katana67

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Well the BHD ones make more sense in my opinion, because they're using 727s and 723s with fixed carry handles and unmagnified optics. Plus, the TOTS optic is actually magnified (IIRC), which makes it even more useless given that it doesn't actually need to clear the front sight post. But it's a movie, and probably either the only optic they had on sight or it fit a particular "sniper" aesthetic. Plus, around when the movie was made, that setup was more prevalent than it is now.

 

Which, as cool as you might think it is (I'm certainly not against it), it's not really practical from both a development point of view [i.e. already having a rail mount on our M4A1s] or a practicality point of view in-game. Although, given that they are rendering the front sight post as visible through an ACOG, it may have a use in being able to clear the front sight post. However, I'd rather they just render the ACOG and front sight post realistically as it wouldn't be visible through a 4x optic.

 

But, it's Chris' reasoning for dismissing the suggestion that I find suspect.

Obviously in an actual scenario you'd probably be better off with standard height sight or simply a carry handle/BUIS. But I find having looks can be useful, the sight arrangement makes the gun look much bigger and more intimidating, which could definitely be helpful. Nonetheless, it's not a necessary addition to the game by any means, just something I personally like and would love to see (like the TDI Vector & M14)

 

And the character in Tears of the Sun, Flea, was the team's designated marksman, so it was probably more practical on-set to put a magnified sight that raised above the front sight rather than modify the M4A1's front sight itself or install a long-ranged scope.

[Bororm 1156]

The following dismissal of the concept was based on the carry handle and optics specifically. However, his initial dismissal was with regard to attachments in general. And it's inaccurate, one can have an attachment on another attachment already [i.e. KAC RIS and flashlight].

 

Again though, it's not that the flashlight is attaching to the handguard in terms of the interaction between objects, it's that the handguard is allowing the flashlight to attach to the gun itself.

However, after some thought, the RDS now require a battery which seems to function similarly to an attachment.  There's no visual representation however, so it may just be that what Torchia meant was none of the current attachments are configured to be able to attach other attachments, and they have no intention of designing ones that do.

 

I dunno, I just think he made the comment without the expectations that it would be picked apart as much as it is and I'm willing to remain optimistic that it doesn't mean we won't see some interesting attachment combinations, even if it's not in the form of attachments with slots of their own.

 

BTW a foregrip could also take the bipod slot as another option, instead of a built in combo of handguard+grip.

I also like your suggestion of just "crafting" attachments together as an alternative.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Bororm