Attachments

[gal-z]

I think we should have more attachments available for the weapons, like a bigger variety of scopes and aimpoints for the rifles that allow them. This will be especially important when they add the M4A1, because a part of the point in that weapon is the ability to use many kinds attachments for it.

[=CreepingShadow=]

I like your idea.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/m4gal.htm
http://www.calssportingarmory.com/Optics.htm
http://www.calssportingarmory.com/eotech.htm

[Gnam]

Well, I agree that the attachments don't need to be limited to just the ones SS arbitrarily decided to include for each weapon, but at the same time, I would disagree with the people who want any attachment which was ever made by anyone which might be even remotely physically possible to fit on the weapon. I think the attachment choices should still be limited to those which are commonly used for the weapon in the military that uses it. We also don't need like 10 different attachments for the same weapon, a pick of the top 3 or 4 most commonly used is enough, IMO.

With that said, I don't know exactly what the 3 or 4 'most commonly used attachments' would be for each weapon, and for some, like the M16A2 which probably don't have a lot of atachments available, probably little would change. However, in the case of the M4A1, I think the attachments could use some rethinking. It would seem to me a supressor and a reflex sight would be better choices than a LAM and a flashlight. On the other hand, the SG 551 is more of a law enforcement weapon, and LAM's and flashlights would probably be very apropriate.

Then you have people who probably think there should be less attachments. I'm talking about the Inf-is-infantry-not-special-forces types who probably see attachments as expensive decorations with no place in standard military service. So if the attachments are increased, then there should also be mutators to disable them.

[spm1138]

I'd like more sight choices, definitely. The MP5 shouldn't be the only weapon that gets a reflex sight. I sorta wish the P90 was the TR variant so I could choose a sight for it. I really want a rifle with a torch, too.

I agree about the mutators to make the weapons in Inf more standardised should you so desire.

Hopefully the next version of Inf we'll have sufficiently widely used weapons to allow for a mutator that forces fairly realistic US / OPFOR army squad loadouts.

[pnakotus]

I think it's pretty obvious that INF is specops or merc. Adding attachments is only a good thing: the current situation where I, personally, could outfit my 551 better than the INF guy is pathetic. Any issues with attachments can be resolved with limiting mutators, such as those that already exist.

As an aside, the attitude towards attachments from many people are very strange. Why limit it? The sight on the P90 sucks, so get the varient with the normal rail, throw a reflex on it. Thats what intelligent people do. I never use a LAM on my 551, but I'd love a suppressor, or a torch even. Why aren't they there? Lamer game balance.

And INF is supposed to be realistic.

[salad]

Obvious to whom? Not the general population here as it's been discussed at length many times in many threads. Maybe you're smarter than everyone else? That's cool. Must be nice.

Maybe they aren't there not due to lamer game balance but because it took 2+ years to get out anyway?

Maybe you should use some of your obviously superior intelligence to add every single attachment you can think of to the game. After all, Infiltration 2.9 makes that easy. It should take a genious such as yourself less than a fortnight. I can't wait to see what you do!

[[UMC]Boron]

[pnakotus]

Thats just funny. Its been discussed? Then christ I better not have an opinion of my own, right? Ahuh.

You love the strawman! I never suggested adding attachments to be easy, simple, or quick. I simply pointed out the prevailing attitude around the forums is against adding attachments, regardless of their RL proliferation. Noone is even planning on adding attachments; this is the attitude I was attacking. My point, that more attachments = more realistic, remains.

[salad]

You're a pretty funny guy. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I do appreciate it. You said it was obvious. I asked to whom. That has nothing to do with you, nor your opinion. You implied, quite strongly, that it's obvious (to everyone) what Infiltration is all about. Now you backpedal and claim it was merely your opinion. But it's so obvious!

And despite the fact that you missed those many discussions on Infiltration and what it represents (but it's so obvious!), you claim to know the intentions of everyone working on Infiltration with respect to mods and additions ("Noone is even planning on adding attachments..."). That's asinine.

Again, thanks for the laughs.

[Grim_Reaper ~UFS~]

Originally Posted by salad

Obvious to whom? Not the general population here as it's been discussed at length many times in many threads. Maybe you're smarter than everyone else? That's cool. Must be nice.

Maybe they aren't there not due to lamer game balance but because it took 2+ years to get out anyway?

Maybe you should use some of your obviously superior intelligence to add every single attachment you can think of to the game. After all, Infiltration 2.9 makes that easy. It should take a genious such as yourself less than a fortnight. I can't wait to see what you do!

You're about to get a jaunty style asskicking, served cold.

[salad]

Originally Posted by Grim_Reaper ~UFS~

You're about to get a jaunty style asskicking, served cold.

Then why don't you deliver it instead of deferring to someone else? Are you afraid? Are you incapable? Are you a weakling who defers to others for decisions or action? Enlighten me as to your situation.

I said nothing to you, nor about you. I simply asked someone else for clarification on their points and you come in with this, "My big brother is going to beat you up!" bull****? How weak is that?

[pnakotus]

Originally Posted by salad

You're a pretty funny guy. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I do appreciate it. You said it was obvious. I asked to whom. That has nothing to do with you, nor your opinion. You implied, quite strongly, that it's obvious (to everyone) what Infiltration is all about. Now you backpedal and claim it was merely your opinion. But it's so obvious!

I guess this went by you, so I'll make it simple - to me. Its my opinion, remember? I know that must have been easy for you to miss, but no hard feelings, okay?

And despite the fact that you missed those many discussions on Infiltration and what it represents (but it's so obvious!), you claim to know the intentions of everyone working on Infiltration with respect to mods and additions ("Noone is even planning on adding attachments..."). That's asinine.

Again, thanks for the laughs.

And the board consensus is .... what? Nothing. I've seen alot of threads about issues similar or related to this one, and many exactly the same. You know what came of it? Nothing. Jack. Nada. So... you were saying?

[pnakotus]

Originally Posted by salad

Then why don't you deliver it instead of deferring to someone else? Are you afraid? Are you incapable? Are you a weakling who defers to others for decisions or action? Enlighten me as to your situation.

I said nothing to you, nor about you. I simply asked someone else for clarification on their points and you come in with this, "My big brother is going to beat you up!" bull****? How weak is that?

I had assumed this guy was warning me off.

[salad]

Isn't it obvious what I was saying? I'd think it would be. If you claim something is obvious (easily discovered, seen, or understood - according to Webster) then it must be obvious to the masses by definition. If it's obvious to one person it should, by extension, be obvious, easily discovered, seen, or understood by all, for that is what obvious means. Isn't it obvious?

There was no board consensus, which was my point. You saying it was obvious what the consensus was (or should have been perhaps) most certainly implied that it was a done deal. Everyone knows. Yet in your last post you say nobody ever decided anything. Not too obvious then, I suppose.

Oh, I know you'll fall back on your whole opinion thing, that's certainly obvious, but you know what? It's not obvious at all it was your opinion. Yeah, you prefaced it with, "I think" but the overall tone of the statement and sentiment was that it should be obvious to everyone. Yet it isn't. That's what I was saying.

[pnakotus]

Originally Posted by salad

Isn't it obvious what I was saying? I'd think it would be. If you claim something is obvious (easily discovered, seen, or understood - according to Webster) then it must be obvious to the masses by definition. If it's obvious to one person it should, by extension, be obvious, easily discovered, seen, or understood by all, for that is what obvious means. Isn't it obvious?

I'll refer to my OP here... 'I think it's pretty obvious...'... certainly, I am quite clear that to me, INF is a certain thing. This was my contribution to what I know is an ongoing discussion here; I also know that the community is too diverse for anyone to be happy with any single answer, hence clearly stating this as an opinion, albiet one strongly held. I'm certainly not going to try to change your mind. Arguing semantics however won't get anyone anywhere.

There was no board consensus, which was my point. You saying it was obvious what the consensus was (or should have been perhaps) most certainly implied that it was a done deal. Everyone knows. Yet in your last post you say nobody ever decided anything. Not too obvious then, I suppose.

Again, my OP, '...the prevailing attitude around the forums is against adding attachments, regardless of their RL proliferation. Noone is even planning on adding attachments...' seems pretty clear. I believe there is no support and indeed opposition to the idea of adding attachments, because I've seen alot of threads like this one go the way this one has gone. 'Noone' was certainly overspecific, and I should have simply said that I wasn't aware of any development in this direction. Every now and then I drop in and see where the community is going; and there seems to be little progress towards either more weapons/models or attachments. I'm no modeller and I certainly can't animate anything; does that exclude me from these observations?

Oh, I know you'll fall back on your whole opinion thing, that's certainly obvious, but you know what? It's not obvious at all it was your opinion. Yeah, you prefaced it with, "I think" but the overall tone of the statement and sentiment was that it should be obvious to everyone. Yet it isn't. That's what I was saying.

You certainly have mastered irony, but sarcasm doesn't work well in text-only. If this is how worked up you get over someone not prefacing an opinion with a specific waiver, then maybe you should watch your blood pressure.

[spm1138]

/me bangs pnakotus and salad's heads together

So... I guess in the short term the question is whether or not you can add attachments for existing weapons using a mutie?

Also whether or not the P90 model can be h4xx0red into the TR variant.

[Beppo]

Either you guys come back to the topic or I will let the moderators close this thread.
Take such shiat to PM please, thanks.


Oh and if you think that the "P90 sights suck" as you named it... maybe tell us why, instead of using such a 'simple' language. I don't think that it sucks and there is no need to compare it with another version out there in the RealWorld if you want to use this as an argument for 'it sucks', thanks.

To sum it up... attachments can be made for our existing weapons by the community if they want to, but this needs 'some' development time and is by far more than a five minute job. Well but this thread here is located in the New Version Suggestions forum, so I take it as a suggestion.

Beppo

[Gnam]

Pnakotus, I'm going to bicker with you like everyone else, but I will say this: The question is not whether Inf should be realistic, the question is what is realistic. Some would disagree about how realistic attachments are. Just because you could attach something doesn't mean you would in the situations that Inf portrays. Sure, in RL, you could attach some custom made super-long 200 round box magazine to your gun, but that doesn't mean you would, particularly as a soldier in a standardized military. Contrary to your statement that many around the forums are against attachments regardless of their RL proliferation, I would say most nay-sayers are against attachments specifically because of their RL proliferation (or lack thereof). Your goal in making a case for more attachments should be showing that a significant enough proliferation of said attachments exists to qualify as "realistic". 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.

Anyway, are there aimpoint/reflex sight attachments for the FA MAS? Since the huge carry handle creates problems, it could be nice to have an alternative.

[Vega-don]

Originally Posted by Gnam

Anyway, are there aimpoint/reflex sight attachments for the FA MAS? Since the huge carry handle creates problems, it could be nice to have an alternative.

that would be my ultimate weapon

[Big_Duke_06]

Yeah, any AR with aimpoint and supressor is my dream... I'm thinking we may get that if/when SS releases the M4?

Gnam: Good points regarding attachements. I just don't know where it's written that Infiltration is a "standard infantry" game... To me, it feels more like a "spec-ops/SWAT/mercs" situation - the ability to choose from such a wide range of equipment, loadouts, and attachments. In that context, I don't see that adding more attachments would be bad.

I do agree that when thinking about asking for attachments, some thought has to be given to the difficulty of creating such an attachment and what the net result on gameplay would be. Would another 4x scope add much considering we already have the ACOG? Likely not, and developing one would for the most part be wasted effort.

Matthew