To clarify, Big Duke, I actually support the idea for more attachments. The point of my previous post was to illustrate why some people would disagree, and how it's not just a black-and-white distinction of what's realistic or unrealistic.
For example, you propose a switch to a rail-mounted P90. Is this a true weapon, or is it just something you saw as an airsoft model which you assumed to also exist in real steal? If it is real, does such a model receive widespread standard military use, or is it just a custom variant sold to law enforcement or civilians? Show people the facts instead of bickering and then maybe people will begin to see where you're coming from.
Meplat said:Someone want to do something really useful, attachment wise? Come up with an ELCAN or ACOG for the 249.
1) I disagree. If all the weapons can get a bunch of attachments, then they will be balanced. You would only get a super weapon if there was one gun that could have any attachment, while the rest had none.G36 said:1) It'd be far too likely for one weapon to become the SuperGun and be head and shoulders above the rest of the armory.
2) You'd lose this individualism with so many different variations upon the stock weapons.
3) I say add more varied and individual weapons (FAL anyone?) rather than add attachments to the ones we've already got.
1. I agree here. Bear in mind that there's only one 'activate attachment' key, so that really limits how many attachments you can have at once.keihaswarrior said:1) I disagree. If all the weapons can get a bunch of attachments, then they will be balanced. You would only get a super weapon if there was one gun that could have any attachment, while the rest had none.
2) No way, more variations = more individualism. Everyone would have a different taste for which sight and attachments they liked. You'd see one player with an m16+acog, another with a reflex, and another with bare irons. It would get to a point where you could identifiy the player by how they modify their weapon.
3) It would be much easier to add attachments to existing guns than to try and create an entirely new weapon that is balanced but still brings something new to the armory.
This gives a stupid peformance hit in the UT engine. With UT2003 it's alright (I believe Red Orchestra do this) but in UT it's just not worth it.Big_Duke_06 said:I'd like to see a 1.5x ACOG implemented like the AA M4 (non-SOPMOD) - as used in the Rangers maps like Radio Tower. I.e., slight magnification through scope, regular view otherwise... For those who don't play AA, I'll try and get a screenie.
Might be just a bit unbalanced, though...
Matthew
Crowze said:...This gives a stupid peformance hit in the UT engine. With UT2003 it's alright (I believe Red Orchestra do this) but in UT it's just not worth it.