Is the attachment system bad for variety ?

[gibonez 3633]

I can't help but feel that the attachment system is hurting the games variety.

 

Without the attachment system in place the m4 for example could have turned into a variety of weapons.

 

Instead of finding one sole m4 that spawns with stock hardware then having to waste spawn locations of m4 attachment pieces they could have just copied the arma 2 method of non upgradable non modifiable weapons and tripled the amount of unique spawns in the game right now.

 

Just from the m4 alone they could have the following combinations.

 

• Mil Spec m4
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with acog
• Mil Spec m4 with acog and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with silencer
• Mk12 spr - M4 with bipod and LRS
• MK12 SPR with silencer
• Civilian Ar 15 - M4 with magpul parts

 

I am sure I am missing some weapons but just from the m4 alone I found 9 different weapons that could have all been unique spawns creating greater perceived variety even if the variety is artificial.

 

Would this method have been better or do you guys like the attachment system and the little depth it adds to loot ?

[TheWizard14 372]

that would just cause way too many bullshit weapons

[audax 207]

If you want variations you know what will fix it?

 

 

More attachments. Everyone with pros and cons.

 

dunno, you can attach a bayonett to your rifle to deal with zombies in silence, but you will have to give up a long barrel for the precision, or a silencer etc.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Edoissimo

[hannibaldaplaya 1095]

The only problem with the attachment system is that the attachments, other then the sights, are either 100% buffs or 100% nerfs.

 

There is no variety to it because people are forced to pick up certain attachments as without them the gun is not as good.

 

Sights are the only attachments that are based on preference, magpul parts are nearly essential to shoot accurately and are a 100% buff from the parts they replace. The CQB stock is a complete nerf of the default stock, so no one uses that.

 

There is little variety in the M4A1's we see because the attachments either help a lot or do the opposite.

[kichilron 8550]

Instead of finding one sole m4 that spawns with stock hardware then having to waste spawn locations of m4 attachment pieces they could have just copied the arma 2 method of non upgradable non modifiable weapons and tripled the amount of unique spawns in the game right now.ith silencer

 

The ARMA 2 system was just in place because of the lack of an attachment system. If there would have been an attachment system there'd be less guns in total as weapons themselves. You just don't have an attachmentsystem, which is why there are so many different weapons in the config. If there'd be an attachmentsystem there needn't be two separate weapons, one the M4A1, and then the M4A1_Aim, as you would just attach the CCO scope to it and you're done with it.

 

 

 

 

• Mil Spec m4
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with acog
• Mil Spec m4 with acog and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with silencer

 

These variants are already in game, just with a much better, much easier attachmentsystem.

 

We have always been bottlenecked by the system in ARMA 2, which is why there's only so many attachments we can use for the mod. But what SA did, is a step forward. Don't try and go backwards now, just because you think there is a bigger variety in weapons, if they all have their own configname. Because that's all it is. The attachmentsystem effectively delivers you a much bigger variety and more weapons anyway.

[-Gews- 7443]

Not really.

But the attachment system makes people want to use it in every circumstance. Sometimes that is a problem. Example:

1. "Why make a sniper-variant Mosin? Just have the scope as an attachment"

2. "Why make an AR-15 and an M4? Just make the AR-15 upper an attachment"

3. "Why make an AKM and an AKMS? Just have the AKMS folding stock as an attachment for the AKM"

1. True "sniper" Mosins had bent bolts and were selected for greater-than-usual accuracy. Now every Mosin has a bent bolt and this means the devs won't make it a super common weapon like the old Lee-Enfield (and like a Mosin probably should be) since it can be turned into a sniper rifle very easily.

2. Not very realistic to be finding disembodied uppers. Same goes for all the handguards and stocks lying around.

3. Seen this suggestion a bunch of times. AKMS folding stock does not simply "attach". You need to cut new holes in the receiver.

In addition the attachment system seems like it has lead to certain design decisions: for example, the 1911 pistol has a light rail, and the CZ-75 has a rail and a threaded barrel. Most CZ-75s and most 1911s have none of those features.

Another problem is the ease and speed of attachment: one can remove, attach, or interchange scopes in seconds. This means there is no downside to putting a high-magnification scope on a rifle, since you can simply remove it or replace it with a red dot in a couple clicks. Or vice versa.

[gibonez 3633]

Yup the attachments seem to play far too much of a role in not only weapon selection but also negatively affects gameplay by making cosmetic accessories have effects on weapons that completely change their characteristics.

Sniper mosins, SKS with pu scopes are also other unrealistic bad effects that the overwhelming focus of the attachments system has brought.

[BadAsh (DayZ) 1513]

Just from the m4 alone they could have the following combinations.

 

• Mil Spec m4
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with acog
• Mil Spec m4 with acog and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with silencer
• Mk12 spr - M4 with bipod and LRS
• MK12 SPR with silencer
• Civilian Ar 15 - M4 with magpul parts

 

I don't really get the logic of that one. Those variations are in the game right now through the attachment system.

Edited May 18, 2014 by BadAsh

[Element47 2481]

no.

 

[FrostDMG 398]

TheWizard14 has nailed it. Currently, there's no tradeoff for particular attachments. 

 

Attachments should be down to preference and not the flat stat buffs they give.

 

Also, it's far easier to have attachments than "versions" of weapons. How many times have you ignored an ACOG M16 because you had a cammo'd M4, but always wanted the acog on your M4... Now this system allows that to happen. Going back to the archaic system of Arma 2 would be silly.

[Katana67 2907]

No thanks. 

 

Attachments make for great variety in my opinion and add depth to looting.

 

The more the merrier. And, as usual, your OP is insanely leading and vitriolic.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Katana67

[Element47 2481]

I agree with Paulie though, that the attachments might need balancing to make full use of the potential.

[OrLoK 16186]

Hello there

 

I love the ability to customize my weapon to my preferences.

 

But, the choice of attachments should be down to the users tastes and requirements not based on artificial nerfs/buffs.

 

If magpul parts for example affected the mouse handling ie firming or loosening up weapon movement or somesuch then one would use the parts that made their feel of the weapon better to that person.

 

Sights would just be a personal preference or for a particular situation.

 

Rgds

 

LoK

[gibonez 3633]

How do you guys feel about attachments being used in unrealistic if not very unlikely ways just so the attachment gets more bang for its buck.

[Katana67 2907]

Unfortunately, I think the initial implementation has poisoned the water supply so-to-speak.

 

Now when everyone hears "attachments" they think of foreguards adding/decreasing accuracy arbitrarily.

 

But, I still maintain that attachments like foregrips should do something vice being purely cosmetic. Granted, they shouldn't dictate down-range accuracy, but they should influence how the weapon handles (i.e. sway, on-target, recoil management, something).

 

Cosmetic stuff like MP foreguards should just be that, cosmetic. Or, it should offer some type of graded upside (like the RIS allowing for the attachment of a flashlight).

 

I actually think attachments could play a more significant role in being included for weapons which are not as modular as the M4A1. So that one requires an attachment just to mount an optic (which is sort of halfway done already with the PU scope).

 

And I do agree with Gews, just as a matter of principle (not "realism" though), that it should take some amount of time to swap out an optic. Vice being able to do so on the fly.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Katana67

[bastins 14]

Personally, I wouldn't like this system.  For example, what if you're ultimately looking for an M4 with an ACOG and silencer.  You come across one with an ACOG, and then later you find one with a silencer.

 

With your proposed system, you'd now have to make a choice between the two static variations, neither of which will get you any closer to your goal; you'll still have a gun with only one of your desired attachments.

 

With the attachment system, however, you can simply take the silencer off the extra M4, and put it on the one you have.  Or better yet, if the extra M4 is in better condition than yours, then put your attachments on that one and take it.

[weedmasta 784]

I can't help but feel that the attachment system is hurting the games variety.

 

Without the attachment system in place the m4 for example could have turned into a variety of weapons.

 

Instead of finding one sole m4 that spawns with stock hardware then having to waste spawn locations of m4 attachment pieces they could have just copied the arma 2 method of non upgradable non modifiable weapons and tripled the amount of unique spawns in the game right now.

 

Just from the m4 alone they could have the following combinations.

 

• Mil Spec m4
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot
• Mil Spec m4 with red dot and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with acog
• Mil Spec m4 with acog and silencer
• Mil Spec m4 with silencer
• Mk12 spr - M4 with bipod and LRS
• MK12 SPR with silencer
• Civilian Ar 15 - M4 with magpul parts

 

I am sure I am missing some weapons but just from the m4 alone I found 9 different weapons that could have all been unique spawns creating greater perceived variety even if the variety is artificial.

 

Would this method have been better or do you guys like the attachment system and the little depth it adds to loot ?

 

I think it wouldn't be better, why simplify it when there is already a great attachment system out there.

[Evil Minion 943]

In general these attachments aren't bad for variety. Especially sights, bipod, silencer or different magazines (though I hate the 60 bullet magazine as in reality there are just two 30 shot magaizines attached to each other - you still need to reload after 30 shots). It would be silly to have different weapons just for those features that are otherwise identical. Buttstocks and handguards are a little bit different because of the attributes they modify.

 

Still different weapons should have much more different properties than weapons with attachments. Different weapons should provide a wider variety while attachments are more for fine-tuning. Ultimately the M4 (as a carbine) will probably end up as the "Jack of all Trades" choice: more difficult to handle than SMGs, less accurate or damaging than full scale rifles but without significant weaknesses, using an ammo type that is quite common (though less common than pistol, shotgun or low caliber) and having lots of attachments to choose from.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Evil Minion

[Dagwood 680]

It's alpha. I'm sure there will be plenty of variety once the game releases.

On another note, I think it would be interesting for M4s to spawn with random attachments instead of always being the stock weapon. That would give some variety in what you pick up. The same could apply to the Mosin, sks, and akm as well.

[FrostDMG 398]

It's alpha. I'm sure there will be plenty of variety once the game releases.

On another note, I think it would be interesting for M4s to spawn with random attachments instead of always being the stock weapon. That would give some variety in what you pick up. The same could apply to the Mosin, sks, and akm as well.

You didn't even read the OP and just posted the same "ITZ ALPHAA LOLL"

[Katana67 2907]

You didn't even read the OP and just posted the same "ITZ ALPHAA LOLL"

 

And you chose to focus on that (which was harmless, and about as tame as it gets, much more tame than your hyperbole). Rather than the issue which he raised.

 

On-topic, @Dagwood, I'm not sure I want weapons spawning with attachments. Actually, yeah, I'm sure I don't. Piecing together your ideal setup actually encourages a number of things, mostly to do with mobility and looting.

[Dagwood 680]

Umm.... I was just mentioning that more guns will hopefully be added to the game so that the M4 isn't the only modular weapon to customize.

You didn't even read my most you just posted the same "you're not allowed to mention that the game is in alpha rawr omfg" comment.

But I do agree that the attachment system, as it is currently implemented, makes switching between attachments far too easy. Requiring a rare, specialized toolkit for changing parts on firearms would be a nice change IMO

[gibonez 3633]

I think it wouldn't be better, why simplify it when there is already a great attachment system out there.

 

Don't get me wrong I also like the idea of an attachment system so long as it sticks to authenticity and realism.

 

Last thing we need is akms with acogs and sigh SKS rifles with pu scopes like we have now.

 

The #1 gripe with the accessory system is how in order to give certain pieces value they destroy the realism by affecting how accurate a gun is.

 

I merely wish that they had a more restrictive aka realistic approach to accessories and that they were more grounded in reality.

 

If a gun has rails then it should take all of the accessories that are easily mounted on rails.

 

If a gun is drilled and tapped it should take modern optics that are mounted with rings.

 

 

If the game were to go for such a realistic approach the gun accessories would be the following.

 

M4

• LRS
• Acog
• RDS
• Magpul stock and handguard - cosmetic
• bipod

Ruger 1022

• LRS
• Bipod

B95

• LRS

Sks

• Bayonet

Mosin

• Bayonet
• pu scope

 

I rather see such a system in place structured around reality instead of artificial balancing and trying to give accessories more value by falsely making them easily compatible with multiple weapons.

[Dagwood 680]

I see what you're saying honzo, but isn't that only one side of the same coin? Weapons could also spawn missing crucial parts as well? Or badly damaged/ruined parts?

Imagine having to choose between a worn, vanilla M4 vs a damaged/badly damaged m4 with all of the goodies on it. I think forcing players to make tough decisions while looting is good gameplay.

[Katana67 2907]

-snip-

 

Just as I suspected, a post with an alternate agenda than what is stated in the OP.

 

EDIT - And why in the world do the Sporter and B95 get to use a LRS, whilst the Mosin doesn't? Neither come standard with, or are rendered with, rails (which is what the "LRS" as rendered in-game would mount to).

Edited May 18, 2014 by Katana67