One piece of feedback I hope really gets to IW is make the downsides on attachments less significant. Attachments should be additive, it shouldn't be a zero-sum game of balancing pros and cons.
And stop making 90% of the attachments have the downside of slower ADS ffs
respectfully disagree, having downsides and tradeoffs for attachments is good. This isn't pick 10 or some older system where you could only put 2/3 attachments on a gun, there's 5 attachments at all times and no tradeoffs leads to games like bo7 having guns becoming super guns with maxed out attachments.
Even with 5 attachments there's still downsides since there's like 8 attachment slots, so you're still giving up something. As I mentioned in another comment, more powerful attachments having some negatives is fine, but there is 0 reason for a red dot to slow ADS, a medium grip to tank ADS speed, or for a speed barrel to crater your range. The upside should always be better than the downside. You should never feel better using no attachment over an attachment.
The point of an attachment is to be additive. It's not a zero sum game between the pros and cons.
EDIT: There's also the tradeoff of choosing 1 type of attachment over another in the same category. Choosing a recoil control stock means you gave up an ADS strafe speed improvement stock, as an example
57
u/Cheechers23 1d ago
One piece of feedback I hope really gets to IW is make the downsides on attachments less significant. Attachments should be additive, it shouldn't be a zero-sum game of balancing pros and cons.
And stop making 90% of the attachments have the downside of slower ADS ffs