Attachments

[Gnam]

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.

[OICW]

You can put electro optical sights on a FAMAS, but they're a bit high above the bore axis.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/phot..._congo/aap.jpg

http://media.militaryphotos.net/phot..._congo/aax.jpg

[spm1138]

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.

The P90TR is a real variant. The built in sight is fine and dandy but it lacks a certain amount of wang compared to many third party reflex sights (which feature refinements like NVG settings and anti-parallax reticules).

I think the idea is that you'll buy the basic P90 as a PDW and the TR variant for your special operations units.

http://www.fnmfg.com/products/p90/p90triple.htm

My feeling is that in the next version of Inf where weapons like that exist the version with rails should be the default and the iron/built in sights should be one attachment of many.

[Meplat]

I want a "Johnny Seven O.M.A." in Infil . Talk about attachments. I'm sure someone could find ways to justify it's questionable realisim, or usefulness.

meplat-

[G36]

I don't see added attachments as a realism issue (there's always going to be arguments about what is "realistic/milspec" in the INF situation) rather as an issue of game balancing. Making 4-5 attachments per weapon multiplies the number of possible, usable weapons (in game terms) immensely and it would be a massive undertaking to balance out all these crazy permutations of modded weapons. It'd be far too likely for one weapon to become the SuperGun and be head and shoulders above the rest of the armory. Keep in mind you'd have to make the stock weapon somehow advantageous to the modded one too, otherwise no one would use it.

It'd also end up decreasing the variety of weapons. Instead of a bunch of quite different weapons (which I like) you'd end up with weapons configurable along a spectrum of difference. I like the AKMSU's clunky unsophisticated sights, the FAMAS's very enclosed ones and the P90's "point and shoot" n00b friendly circular sight. You'd lose this individualism with so many different variations upon the stock weapons.

I say add more varied and individual weapons (FAL anyone?) rather than add attachments to the ones we've already got.

[Big_Duke_06]

I don't see how more options would be more likely to make one gun the "it" gun... If anything, I think more options (assuming proper balance) makes it less likely for one gun to be the "it" gun.

As far as balance, yes, this can be an issue, but with details to work with like bulk, I think this can all be sorted out properly... Really the only attachments that I could see as altering the balance of a weapon would be scopes. And then it's a matter of bulk values to control. Seeing as how LAMs and flashlights are nearly useless in-game (more a problem with the UT engine than anything SS has or hasn't done), I don't see how adding those to nearly all weapons would hurt anything...

Fact of life is that modern weapons are being designed and built as modular systems - able to be modified to best suit the users' preferences and mission specific needs. I don't see how modeling this reduces realism.

But obviously, balance is important, too.

Matthew

[Meplat]

As long as the addition of said attachments affects bulk.. I still laugh at people who hang lights, lasers, a couple lumps of optics and maybe a 37MM M203 clone off of their M forgery, then wonder why it's so damn heavy.(Especially when they add a Beta Cmag.

Someone want to do something really useful, attachment wise? Come up with an ELCAN or ACOG for the 249.

Meplat-

[geogob]

Originally Posted by Meplat

Someone want to do something really useful, attachment wise? Come up with an ELCAN or ACOG for the 249.

I second that!

[Big_Duke_06]

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

[keihaswarrior]

Originally Posted by G36

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 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.

[Crowze]

Originally Posted by keihaswarrior

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.

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.
2. More attachments would give more variation, and more weapons would give more variation. I'm for having both.
3. In theory. In practice, attachments still take a lot of work to get completely right.

Originally Posted by Big_Duke_06

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

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]

Originally Posted by Crowze

...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.

Ah hah. Too bad. I really enjoy playing the Radio Tower map so I can use my 1.5x ACOG... Sure would be great to have in INF, but if not, I'll live... Just so long as the M4 (when released) at least has an aimpoint attachment.

Matthew

[Gnam]

I don't see a balance issue happening because most attachments are a matter of personal preference, not a matter of clear superiority. There is an aimpoint attachment for the MP5, but a lot of people prefer not to use it because the sides block your peripheal vision and the red dot blocks the front post, making it hard to make distance shots. Plus, some people just don't like em, period. Then you have scopes on all the rifles, and most people prefer irons except in specialized situations.

I think the attachments would improve balance on some weapons. For example, the FAMAS is more akward than it should be, because you can't see around the big carrying handle (in RL you could just open your other eye). Obviously, if you like the FAMAS you can get used to it with a little practice, but it's still an obstacle which is not really an issue in RL and makes an otherwise very good gun a second choice to other assault weapons in Inf. This is something which would easily be solved with an aimpoint or a 1.5x scope. It still wouldn't be the same as irons, but it would be a healthy alternative.

[Big_Duke_06]

So to research the 1.5x ACOG I thought was in AA, I've been playing a bit more AA lately... Anyway, it's not actually a 1.5x ACOG, it's just a 1x Trijicon Reflex amber dot. But you get the net effect of zoom with it because when you go to iron sights mode in AA, it fiddles with the FOV - similar to the effects Beppo and others are discussing in the True Scale thread at the moment. So no real magnification with the reflex, but the FOV shift makes you think so... Pretty cool - especially if we get this for INF eventually.

Oh, and I forgot how nice AA looks - the new 3D iron sights are pretty nice, actually. If my computer were just a little bit better, I'd play it a lot more.

So I guess my new request for the M4 attachment would be the Trijicon reflex amber dot...

Matthew

[sir_edmond]

I thought it was a 2x scope with a red dot.

[OICW]

No, the Trijicon Reflex sight doesn't magnify the image. And it has an amber dot, not a red one (the Reflex 2 can come with a triangle or dot IIRC).

[=CreepingShadow=]

http://www.calssportingarmory.com/Tr...ticsReflex.htm

[sir_edmond]

acualy its in twopeices the acog and the acog reflex sight the scog is mounted on the handle and the reflex sight is mouted on the top rail. And to stick to the topic i say the attachments shouldbe organized by weapon then by rail or something simular.

M4A1
handle:
acog 4x
acog 2x
aimpoint
barrel:
silencer
top rail:
heatsheild
acog reflex sight
left rail:
heatsheild
flashlight
right rail:
heatsheild
(not sure what else is mounted there)
bottom rail:
heat sheild
bipod
grenade launcher (m203)
flare launcher
amunition:
(select amunition here)

M16A2
etc.


and this way it would allow you to mod every gun there is. with the right attachments of coarse
you are alowed to pick one attachment for each rail

[Meplat]

Edmond- Damn, I'd spend less time building a real M4 than I would selecting the attachments for the game, were it set up that way..

Meplat-

[Specter]

That set up sounds suspiciously like America's Army: Special Forces.