Attachments in Weapons - "Unconscious Disapproval"

[Spartan Rider]

This is a great problem for fanboys and a big step for players (ya, I differentiated the fanboys from players). Attachments is already in Halo not spontaneously, like the silenced and scoped SMG in Halo 3 ODST. Nobody could ever imagine about the SMG with attachments, but it was well-accepted... Nobody could ever imagine the Assault Rifle with attachments, but if in Halo ODST that weapon came with attachments, the fan public would accepted as well as in Halo ODST. The question is about prejudice, because isn't Bungie who is developing, but 343i; so the fanboys created an "unconscious disapproval" about anything that can comes in. The ideia is make these attachments spontaneous and free to set e unset.

 

Attachments will expand the game experience, giving more possibilities & ways to play. Attachments will not unbalance the game, since the automatic guns needs fast shooting respond, so it needs a HUD or a close range scope; the BR and DMR needs aim. But, I don't want specific attachments, but free for all. If you want set a long range scope at Assault Rifle, be free, but you know that it will just disturb the gameplay.

[Buns]

No attachments in Halo. Never. Pre-attached guns are fine like if they introduced a silenced BR that can be found around the map, but NOT in starting loadouts . I don't like the ideas of custom loadouts that will allow you apply attachments to your guns(I like the custom loadout system in Halo 4 it's simple and works well no need to fix what is not broken). Attachments will no doubt disrupt Halo gameplay. I mean AA's and ordinance and tactical packages already do, but they do so in a way that you can still have the advantage in gunplay if you play your cards right. With the already variety of guns in Halo 4 and no doubt more on the way. You have a gun for every playstyle. All with their pros and cons. 

[Spartan Rider]

No attachments in Halo. Never. Pre-attached guns are fine like if they introduced a silenced BR that can be found around the map, but NOT in starting loadouts . I don't like the ideas of custom loadouts that will allow you apply attachments to your guns(I like the custom loadout system in Halo 4 it's simple and works well no need to fix what is not broken). Attachments will no doubt disrupt Halo gameplay. I mean AA's and ordinance and tactical packages already do, but they do so in a way that you can still have the advantage in gunplay if you play your cards right. With the already variety of guns in Halo 4 and no doubt more on the way. You have a gun for every playstyle. All with their pros and cons. 

The SMG in Halo 3 ODST is standard attachments; and there is no problem.

 

Attachments around the map is an inconsistent idea; so you spawn and search for attachment, die and it fades out? o.O

 

Attachments is attach, not "buffs".

[DracoAvian]

It is an interesting idea, but one we've covered a few times in the forums. That fact is that attachments do not inherently add to the game. In fact, they more often than not take away from it. Let's look at Battlefield for a moment.

 

In Battlefield 3 there are a ridiculous amount of weapons. Absolutely bonkers. What attachments are predominantly used on every Assault Rifle? Heavy Barrel and Foregrip. How about the PDWs? Extended Mags. How about the most used sights? Red dots or Holos. Small factor magnifaction scopes are nearly never used. How about the most popular weapons? The M16A3 and the AEK. And what do we see on those weapons a majority of the time? Red-dot sights, heavy barrels, and foregrips.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that when you add more variables it becomes harder to balance. Players will always gravitate towards the most powerful weapons and setups. By increasing the amount of things to choose from, many games actually decrease the actual variety seen in the game. Additionally things like the M27 Dart or USAS-12 will fall through the cracks and ruin the game until it is patched. This is the reason why I'm against attachments as a whole. It is the reason why I am averse to seeing loads of new weapons or vehicles at the same time.

[Darkrain491]

It is an interesting idea, but one we've covered a few times in the forums. That fact is that attachments do not inherently add to the game. In fact, they more often than not take away from it. Let's look at Battlefield for a moment.

 

In Battlefield 3 there are a ridiculous amount of weapons. Absolutely bonkers. What attachments are predominantly used on every Assault Rifle? Heavy Barrel and Foregrip. How about the PDWs? Extended Mags. How about the most used sights? Red dots or Holos. Small factor magnifaction scopes are nearly never used. How about the most popular weapons? The M16A3 and the AEK. And what do we see on those weapons a majority of the time? Red-dot sights, heavy barrels, and foregrips.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that when you add more variables it becomes harder to balance. Players will always gravitate towards the most powerful weapons and setups. By increasing the amount of things to choose from, many games actually decrease the actual variety seen in the game. Additionally things like the M27 Dart or USAS-12 will fall through the cracks and ruin the game until it is patched. This is the reason why I'm against attachments as a whole. It is the reason why I am averse to seeing loads of new weapons or vehicles at the same time.

Agree so much. Look at blops 2. The primary stuff i see are big as scopes on LMGs, Target Finders and grips. all the evils

[Bruce Rundberg]

yes but bf3 still has more players than H4. How is it that futuristic weapons are less modified than current weappnry. Shooter preference always trumps standard issue. But, I agree balance is needed. The need for change needs to be recognized as well. Or H5 will be sitting with under 20k playing again within 3 months.

[Jack Of Harts]

I think they should get rid of support upgrades, and instead add attachments. There should be a grip, to reduce reticule bloom, silencer, and others. Me and you will probably like the idea, but you know how picky the Bungie fanboys are, they won't accept ANYTHING that exists in other games. Personal loadouts, sprinting, you name it.

[DracoAvian]

Well I'm a fanboy and I do think that the way the implimented sprinting is great. I think the big fear from the nay-sayers is that sprint will turn into something that doesn't have a downside. As it stands if you get caught sprinting at the start of a firefight you are at a pretty hefty disadvantage. In games like CoD or Battlefield you can pretty much sprint at any time without any significant downside to those "see-eachother-at-the-same-time" engagements.

 

I am a fanboy and I like the idea of Personal Loadouts. I just don't like how they are implemented and how it affected the way maps were made. I think that loadouts should consist of your primary weapon and armor ability. That's it. Power weapons still need to be on the map! Basic weapons still need to be on the map! Vehicles need to be a strategic resource for teams to exploit!

 

The biggest changes need to be in big tem battle scenarios. They have small team maps, but very few compelling maps for BTB veterans. Is it any wonder why the custom community is so active? Because H4 is a fantastic game. They can fine-tune it to suit what they want to see. Look at what the custom community is doing! Take hints from them!

 

EDIT:

Also ranking system. The reason I like ranked is because it pits you against people of a similar skill level. Nearly every battle is fought tooth and nail!

[Ranger Intel]

I think that a few attachments would be okay. Depends what they are and how many of them. If they have maps based in day and maps based in night, they could add a flash light. They could also add a silencer. It would be cool if you could unlock them.

[Buns]

The SMG in Halo 3 ODST is standard attachments; and there is no problem.

 

Attachments around the map is an inconsistent idea; so you spawn and search for attachment, die and it fades out? o.O

 

Attachments is attach, not "buffs".

You don't understand what I mean. The weapon with the attachment would be a entirely different weapon. Like the SMG/ Silenced SMG they're different weapons.

I think that a few attachments would be okay. Depends what they are and how many of them. If they have maps based in day and maps based in night, they could add a flash light. They could also add a silencer. It would be cool if you could unlock them.

I actually wouldn't mind flash lights but silencers should be kept out(At least from starting loadouts maybe as an on map weapon thats ok)

[Darkrain491]

You don't understand what I mean. The weapon with the attachment would be a entirely different weapon. Like the SMG/ Silenced SMG they're different weapons.

I actually wouldn't mind flash lights but silencers should be kept out(At least from starting loadouts maybe as an on map weapon thats ok)

I agree, weapon variations, but not custom attachments, that just leads to all hell breaking loose.

[BaconShelf]

343, they will never be accepted. If they made a pixel-perfect Halo 3 remake, they'd get flak. 

 

 

 

 

I'd rather they do what they want, not what the community wants.

[Ranger Intel]

343, they will never be accepted. If they made a pixel-perfect Halo 3 remake, they'd get flak. 

 

 

 

 

I'd rather they do what they want, not what the community wants.

 

True. They got too much hate from Halo 4. Sure there were a few letdowns, but I think it was still a great game. I want them to do what is right. I want them to do what makes sense. I don't want them to do everything we want. To be honest, they know more than us. I just want them to make Halo 5 a great game and hopefully not do anything to get a lot of hate.

[BaconShelf]

 

 

hopefully not do anything to get a lot of hate

 

 

 

That's like saying "I hope the moon stops changing the tides".

 

 

Won't happen, no matter what you do apart from destroying it.

[Ranger Intel]

That's like saying "I hope the moon stops changing the tides".

 

 

Won't happen, no matter what you do apart from destroying it.

 

If 343 do the right things in Halo 5, I'm sure people will start liking them and show them more respect.

[BaconShelf]

If 343 do the right things in Halo 5, I'm sure people will start liking them and show them more respect.

 

 

You're looking at things from the point of view here. Most of the fans have gone "Well F--- That" and abandoned the franchise as a whole.

[Ranger Intel]

You're looking at things from the point of view here. Most of the fans have gone "Well F--- That" and abandoned the franchise as a whole.

 

Yeah true. Most people think that 343 messed it up. I think they have the potential to make Halo 5 a great game though. Hopefully they'll get some of the fans back and get newer ones. If they know what they are doing they won't let us down.

[The Warlock]

I don't really think I'd want to see weapon attachments. Not sure I'm really ready for "Call of Halo".

[Ranger Intel]

I don't really think I'd want to see weapon attachments. Not sure I'm really ready for "Call of Halo".

 

It wouldn't make it like Call of Duty. Many games have attachments. We already have flashlights and in ODST there were silenced SMG's and Pistols. No one called it Call of Duty then.

[The Warlock]

It wouldn't make it like Call of Duty. Many games have attachments. We already have flashlights and in ODST there were silenced SMG's and Pistols. No one called it Call of Duty then.

Because they were PRE-attached...not leaving it up to players to finagle some monstrous weapon concoction like a wicked sidearm with a silencer, telescopic vision, armor piercing rounds and the added ability to make post game smoothies.

[Ranger Intel]

Because they were PRE-attached...not leaving it up to players to finagle some monstrous weapon concoction like a wicked sidearm with a silencer, telescopic vision, armor piercing rounds and the added ability to make post game smoothies.

Good point. Still, it depends on the attachments they choose to offer.

[Kazadure]

attachments could be good but also could be terrible

[Ranger Intel]

attachments could be good but also could be terrible

 

You are not proving a point here. You say they could be good and could be terrible. No explanation for why? If you are going to post something, give a good point and an explanation. This post can't really be discussed. :/

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

The problem I see with customization of weapons is that it makes engagements much less predictable. You won't know exactly how your opponent's weapon works, even if you recognize that at its core its a BR. Different zoom strength, damage-per-shot, magazine size, etc. don't belong in the game IMO.

 

The Suppressed variants in ODST were fine because they were different weapons in themselves and their "standard" forms weren't present at all in the game. Adding attachments, thus changing stats, also makes weapon balancing a greater challenge and a potential train-wreck. Weapon skins don't affect gameplay, so I don't have a problem with that. However, having attachments be purely visual customization would be somewhat redundant, as it would take more time/ effort/ storage space to offer very little (rather than spending these resources making the weapons themselves better balanced).

 

In short, I say "NO" to gameplay-altering attachments, "YES" to focusing on balancing static weapon stats.

[Ranger Intel]

The problem I see with customization of weapons is that it makes engagements much less predictable. You won't know exactly how your opponent's weapon works, even if you recognize that at its core its a BR. Different zoom strength, damage-per-shot, magazine size, etc. don't belong in the game IMO.

 

The Suppressed variants in ODST were fine because they were different weapons in themselves and their "standard" forms weren't present at all in the game. Adding attachments, thus changing stats, also makes weapon balancing a greater challenge and a potential train-wreck. Weapon skins don't affect gameplay, so I don't have a problem with that. However, having attachments be purely visual customization would be somewhat redundant, as it would take more time/ effort/ storage space to offer very little (rather than spending these resources making the weapons themselves better balanced).

 

In short, I say "NO" to gameplay-altering attachments, "YES" to focusing on balancing static weapon stats.

 

THIS is a good quality post.

 

I think that making encounters unpredictable is a good thing. You won't know what to expect. It makes the game less repetitive.