Rapid fire even with having actual cons muddies the good idea bo6 had with no con gunsmith with the straight buff to TTK, especially since you can negate the penalty with attachments or just git gud and control the recoil Otherwise I don’t mind the idea bo6 have with flat out boosts for most attachments
This comment section tells me that people think the point of gunsmith is to Pack A Punch your guns as opposed to tweaking their performance. My specific fear is that this is just another way to arrive at the same problem Vanguard had, everything's good at every range and situation. Everything becomes versatile. It's all reward and no risk. I'm worried attachment selection will boil down to three factors. What decreases ADS or TTK the most, what increases your damage ranges and general versatility, and what reduces received flinch the most. I'm worried 'lesser' attachments that decrease hipfire crosshair size or increase aim walking speed or whatever else will be totally ignored. But I do think this could work if at the end of the day, the gun you're using determines how it functions and not your attachments. If the attachments only really nudge the weapon in a certain direction. But that just seems kinda boring and dumb compared to the tradeoff system from MW2019. Also, I know you'd like to show gratitude for my super thanks but I really don't mind if you don't agree with something I said and chose not to like and heart it. Or just tell me, and I won't fight you on it in your own comment section. I know you're grateful, you're just that guy. I trust your intelligence and analyzation of things over mine, and if we're not on the same page about something it's more worth it to me to double check my thinking. I'm not blindly agreeing with everything you say, but I do trust your thought process more than mine is all.
I can see it working the same as CW. Beta had less attachments than launch. Same will apply with BO6. First few attachments never have downsides. From about halfway onwards they start getting negative effects
I think Vanguard, Warzone (especially the Vanguard integration) and at a smaller scale MWIII warped people's idea of what an ideal Gunsmith should be like Like, sure, MWII did went overboard with the drawbacks on several Attachments, but also said drawbacks made sense (even though, again they were harsh). Want to make a gun great for range? Fine, you'll ADS and movement speed should be affected. Want to make a gun great for close quarters? Good, your recoil and bullet velocity should suffer instead. COD players hate the idea of any cons, drawbacks or trade-offs because they want to eat their cake and eat it too. You shouldn't be able to have a gun that's snappy at close range and lethal at long range, that's bad balancing.
I get what you're saying, but "The best attachment for a gun" might not be as cut and dry as you think. Let's say we have a battle rifle with good recoil, but bad ADS speed. between the Front Grip that improves ADS speed and the one that improves recoil control the obvious pick would be improving that bad Aim Down Sight speed, but you could also pick the other grip and have a laser-accurate BR since it improves the already really good recoil. The BR with 'Bad ADS speed and 0 recoil' might not be better than the BR with 'Decent ADS and decent recoil' but that doesn't mean it won't be a fun build to run.
There is a chance that they didn’t add cons, or maybe visible cons, into the beta, but maybe the full game will have cons and more attachments. We just didn’t see it so we didn’t feel forced in any way to build one way or another.
Guaranteeing 5 attachments where most attachments have no downsides is going to make it very boring. I feel like gunsmith is always degrading in terms of quality since MW2019. This system would be fine in a pick 10 system where attachments take away from the rest of your class. Gunsmith + Pick 10 when?
Never. pick 10 is the worst system ever made maybe it suits the old CoDs but definitely not new CoDs it would be a disaster if it comes back and one more point the gunsmith is about customizing and creating your gun in a creative and effective way and giving more freedom on the other hand the pick 10 is the exact opposite it’s so limiting how would you bring the opposites together? It doesn’t make any sense
@@hm_kw1124 I wouldn't say the worst thing but it has been mishandled in every CoD after BO2; 3arc understood at the time that everything that cost a point should be worth the point. There were a handful of outliers to that (mainly the foregrip) but every CoD after BO2 would have even more things to add to the list of garbage not worth the point.
@@mcbonkytron8411for example if you want more that two attachments you need to sacrifice some of your perks if want perks you may sacrifice your secondary weapon and let’s not forget that wildcards takes slots of that pick 10 so it’s very strictly limited and doesn’t have the freedom of customization like the gunsmith system
@@mcbonkytron8411oh and I forgot to mention that back in day you have three wildcards *”EACH”* wildcard takes a slot from your 10 slots which is ridiculous in my opinion because wildcards should help you not take a slot from you so that is why it’s so limiting and doesn’t suit new Call of Duties
I agree with most the stuff you say but idk man the guns themself need to be distinct from each other while only being able to choose 3 attathments but each attachment has a significant increase to whatever it is, and with gunfighter you can pick 4 attachments. Just too many attachments man it’s convoluted
I think i accidentally hit the nail on the head when i said that 3Arc attachments with mp cons were either going to be completely present in the full game or kept as they were in the beta as some insane experiment on gunsmith and modern CoD. Gun balance will definitely be interesting to see, whether some attachments will either get slightly nerfed to make up for the sake of no cons or have cons to make up for the fact that an attachment is too good. I already said this before, but if 90% of attachments had at least 1-2 cons max, then i feel like game could be balanced a bit better. But if we're not getting cons at all for most of the attachments, then i guess this might be the end of making interesting builds for the sake of interesting builds cause everyone is just going to run meta attachments and build 24/7 in pub matches.
i love no cons. but just dont have a massive positive. instead of 30% increase do it like 7-10%. i hated it in bf4 some guns kitted wrong made them worse than the base guns. attachemtns any combo should be a positive not a negative. thats frustrating this isnt real life. idk its hard beating 2 primaries with 5 attachments. at the end of the day everyone is running the same stuff. ur still going to have to pick which all positives u want. there are 8 categories of attachments. ur going to have to give up something unless u do the 8 attachments.
This is gonna suck for people getting the game after everyone’s leveled their guns and for people who are wanting to try a different gun from the one they’re maining.
@@Tatman2TheResQ Not really with 2019 and MW2. Giving them downsides means even a default weapon is gonna be competent. Spawning in and getting into a gunfight with someone using your gun but better puts them at a big advantage
@@Lolbloko Except any gun with attachments is your gun but better, even with cons. No one is just purposely making their gun worse. Regardless I didn't think any of the guns were terrible in the beta, compared to finding many of the MWII guns rather unusable until they're leveled up.
I typically agree with your points of view in cod but this video is just yapping so hard, it’s not that deep bro people just enjoy the simplicity of not having to over analyse every attachment
Yeah, aside from Rapid Fire and Underbarrel Grenade Launchers not having any severe trade-offs, it doesn't really matter. Most of the weapons already have good stats without attachments
Same here. MW2 was pretty cool in having a TON of attachments for you to play with, but in practice only 1/5th of what they gave you would be the ones you'd even care about. Probably best to simplify the choices so it wouldnt take a million years to have a build suiting your needs.
I'd rather not have to weigh pros and cons when literally all I'm trying to do is making my gun better/more how I want it. If I want the highest aim walking movement speed, I now dont have to do a balancing act of calculus to achieve that.
@@Ellie3-l1z Yeah, it's soooo basic but yet we complain that we need a sheet of detailed stats added in every game so that we can decipher what all is actually happening when adding various attachments. Don't @ me with that nonsense. lol
I am with you OP, I just want to make the gun the way I want to play it, no cons feels like it’s going to be great…. I mean everyone was using the same loadout that some “pro” posted anyways.
@@Ellie3-l1z thats ture, if you dont care about what you pick. having to test 4-5 of the same muzzle attachments to find the "best one" is very annoying and time consuming. and searching up meta loadouts is just boring now. so for most ppl, balancing is hard because its not fun
@@Tatman2TheResQ If you’re so dumb you can’t weigh 5 things at once you can just say that, learning loadouts was maybe a 30 minute task tops to figure out how it worked and i can reliably make good classes, not saying git gud but just git gud ig
This is very true and something i have been mentioning since playing the beta, idk why they thought that was a good idea, it feels like a big step back for the gunsmith, so does the perk system, an card, they feel very limiting, so far, hopefully that will change with the full release, But when it comes to weapon attachment, all of them being positive is a huge issue, I hope they at least have a whole lot of different weapons that actually feel different from eachother, an it be real nice if they do change the gunsmith attachments an add in a lot of variants for each weapon, it would be really cool to see some weapons make a comback from infinite warfare, some of those 2 in 1 chnage at will weapons as well as some from aw as well
There is no real problem with no downside attachments. Aside from the silencer reducing range, this has been the entirety of attachments throughout the history of call of duty all the way up through B04. It wasn’t until the last five years that we got cons with almost every single attachment. And people really criticize that when it came out. We are used to it now, yeah, But a gunsmith system with no attachments is the most natural evolution of what call of duty was for the first 3/4 of its life
Truth be told I'd prefer a dead simple gunsmith over the ones in the MW series. I don't want to have to go to somebody like Ace just to find out that the muzzle I'm using to help one recoil is actually secretly hurting another one and making my hip fire bad, and my ads and sprint to fire. So I'm all for having a gunsmith where the attachments are all good with slight downsides, it's reminiscent of older COD where you'd have several good attachments but you could only have one or two attachments. And I feel like because we have five or more slots on the guns they've tried to overcorrect by giving the attachments more intense widespread downsides, referring back to stuff like ADS speed increase but idle sway, recoil control and hip fire going down
Another reason why having cons is important is so that people leveling up guns arent at a huge disadvantage compared to people using already leveled guns. It was an issue with CWs simplified gunsmith and it might get worse. I think the perfect system would be MW2019's gunsmith with MWIII's AMPs. I think they could maybe simplify some of MW2019's attachment attributes even more, and obviously remove the secret effects on some attachments. Have just recoil control, so you can't nullify a recoil pattern. A surpressor comes with a damage range penalty. Maybe 2 of each type of grip (vertical helps with recoil, angled helps with stability, handstops help with handling). Not every gun needs big magazines or a magazine option. Not every gun needs 20 barrel options or stocks. Have those parts be tied to conversions. Barrels can affect the effective range of a gun. The stocks can either help with mobility or stability.
Mw2019 did it best for gunsmith its not perfect, but in terms of pros and cons they are fairly balanced. The only thing they did a poor job at are the suppressors because firing doesnt show on the minimap anyways only when theres a UAV, and the Monolithic Suppressor was the clear choice
the only thing taking away from skill is cracked out movement, and removing all skill gaps by raising ttk, removing attachments, and just all around destroying the beautiful foundation IW created, again.
Rapid fire even with having actual cons muddies the good idea bo6 had with no con gunsmith with the straight buff to TTK, especially since you can negate the penalty with attachments or just git gud and control the recoil
Otherwise I don’t mind the idea bo6 have with flat out boosts for most attachments
this game was made for zoomers with a 6 second attention span. no thought, just w key.
This comment section tells me that people think the point of gunsmith is to Pack A Punch your guns as opposed to tweaking their performance.
My specific fear is that this is just another way to arrive at the same problem Vanguard had, everything's good at every range and situation. Everything becomes versatile. It's all reward and no risk. I'm worried attachment selection will boil down to three factors. What decreases ADS or TTK the most, what increases your damage ranges and general versatility, and what reduces received flinch the most. I'm worried 'lesser' attachments that decrease hipfire crosshair size or increase aim walking speed or whatever else will be totally ignored.
But I do think this could work if at the end of the day, the gun you're using determines how it functions and not your attachments. If the attachments only really nudge the weapon in a certain direction. But that just seems kinda boring and dumb compared to the tradeoff system from MW2019.
Also, I know you'd like to show gratitude for my super thanks but I really don't mind if you don't agree with something I said and chose not to like and heart it. Or just tell me, and I won't fight you on it in your own comment section. I know you're grateful, you're just that guy. I trust your intelligence and analyzation of things over mine, and if we're not on the same page about something it's more worth it to me to double check my thinking. I'm not blindly agreeing with everything you say, but I do trust your thought process more than mine is all.
I can see it working the same as CW. Beta had less attachments than launch. Same will apply with BO6. First few attachments never have downsides. From about halfway onwards they start getting negative effects
"Spending more time in the gunsmith than on the battlefield" have I introduced you to armored core 6?
I think Vanguard, Warzone (especially the Vanguard integration) and at a smaller scale MWIII warped people's idea of what an ideal Gunsmith should be like
Like, sure, MWII did went overboard with the drawbacks on several Attachments, but also said drawbacks made sense (even though, again they were harsh).
Want to make a gun great for range? Fine, you'll ADS and movement speed should be affected. Want to make a gun great for close quarters? Good, your recoil and bullet velocity should suffer instead.
COD players hate the idea of any cons, drawbacks or trade-offs because they want to eat their cake and eat it too. You shouldn't be able to have a gun that's snappy at close range and lethal at long range, that's bad balancing.
I get what you're saying, but "The best attachment for a gun" might not be as cut and dry as you think.
Let's say we have a battle rifle with good recoil, but bad ADS speed. between the Front Grip that improves ADS speed and the one that improves recoil control the obvious pick would be improving that bad Aim Down Sight speed, but you could also pick the other grip and have a laser-accurate BR since it improves the already really good recoil.
The BR with 'Bad ADS speed and 0 recoil' might not be better than the BR with 'Decent ADS and decent recoil' but that doesn't mean it won't be a fun build to run.
There is a chance that they didn’t add cons, or maybe visible cons, into the beta, but maybe the full game will have cons and more attachments. We just didn’t see it so we didn’t feel forced in any way to build one way or another.
Guaranteeing 5 attachments where most attachments have no downsides is going to make it very boring. I feel like gunsmith is always degrading in terms of quality since MW2019.
This system would be fine in a pick 10 system where attachments take away from the rest of your class.
Gunsmith + Pick 10 when?
Never. pick 10 is the worst system ever made maybe it suits the old CoDs but definitely not new CoDs it would be a disaster if it comes back and one more point the gunsmith is about customizing and creating your gun in a creative and effective way and giving more freedom on the other hand the pick 10 is the exact opposite it’s so limiting how would you bring the opposites together? It doesn’t make any sense
@@hm_kw1124 I wouldn't say the worst thing but it has been mishandled in every CoD after BO2; 3arc understood at the time that everything that cost a point should be worth the point. There were a handful of outliers to that (mainly the foregrip) but every CoD after BO2 would have even more things to add to the list of garbage not worth the point.
@@hm_kw1124
Pick 10 is more limiting? Genuinely, how is it more limiting?
@@mcbonkytron8411for example if you want more that two attachments you need to sacrifice some of your perks if want perks you may sacrifice your secondary weapon and let’s not forget that wildcards takes slots of that pick 10 so it’s very strictly limited and doesn’t have the freedom of customization like the gunsmith system
@@mcbonkytron8411oh and I forgot to mention that back in day you have three wildcards *”EACH”* wildcard takes a slot from your 10 slots which is ridiculous in my opinion because wildcards should help you not take a slot from you so that is why it’s so limiting and doesn’t suit new Call of Duties
I agree with most the stuff you say but idk man the guns themself need to be distinct from each other while only being able to choose 3 attathments but each attachment has a significant increase to whatever it is, and with gunfighter you can pick 4 attachments. Just too many attachments man it’s convoluted
I think i accidentally hit the nail on the head when i said that 3Arc attachments with mp cons were either going to be completely present in the full game or kept as they were in the beta as some insane experiment on gunsmith and modern CoD.
Gun balance will definitely be interesting to see, whether some attachments will either get slightly nerfed to make up for the sake of no cons or have cons to make up for the fact that an attachment is too good.
I already said this before, but if 90% of attachments had at least 1-2 cons max, then i feel like game could be balanced a bit better. But if we're not getting cons at all for most of the attachments, then i guess this might be the end of making interesting builds for the sake of interesting builds cause everyone is just going to run meta attachments and build 24/7 in pub matches.
i love no cons. but just dont have a massive positive. instead of 30% increase do it like 7-10%. i hated it in bf4 some guns kitted wrong made them worse than the base guns. attachemtns any combo should be a positive not a negative. thats frustrating this isnt real life. idk its hard beating 2 primaries with 5 attachments. at the end of the day everyone is running the same stuff. ur still going to have to pick which all positives u want. there are 8 categories of attachments. ur going to have to give up something unless u do the 8 attachments.
This is gonna suck for people getting the game after everyone’s leveled their guns and for people who are wanting to try a different gun from the one they’re maining.
@@Lolbloko Hasn't that literally been the case for the past 5 years?
@@Tatman2TheResQ Not really with 2019 and MW2. Giving them downsides means even a default weapon is gonna be competent. Spawning in and getting into a gunfight with someone using your gun but better puts them at a big advantage
@@Lolbloko Except any gun with attachments is your gun but better, even with cons. No one is just purposely making their gun worse.
Regardless I didn't think any of the guns were terrible in the beta, compared to finding many of the MWII guns rather unusable until they're leveled up.
@@Tatman2TheResQ That’s fair. That recoil was gnarly.
I miss the rock paper scissors element to weapon attachments
We're about to watch Treyarch go 0 for 2 on implementing gunsmith
I typically agree with your points of view in cod but this video is just yapping so hard, it’s not that deep bro people just enjoy the simplicity of not having to over analyse every attachment
my tism go brr tho
yeah honestly, like its not that big a deal to be honest and i got sick of all the mw attachments making guns worse most the time
Yeah, aside from Rapid Fire and Underbarrel Grenade Launchers not having any severe trade-offs, it doesn't really matter. Most of the weapons already have good stats without attachments
Same here. MW2 was pretty cool in having a TON of attachments for you to play with, but in practice only 1/5th of what they gave you would be the ones you'd even care about.
Probably best to simplify the choices so it wouldnt take a million years to have a build suiting your needs.
It’s going to make it to where you care about how your weapon look more than anything
They do have cons....the game just doesnt tell you
Just wanna go back to the BO3 Gunsmith or whatever it was called. Or at least something similar.
i was tryed to here him out but idk what hes on about
I'd rather not have to weigh pros and cons when literally all I'm trying to do is making my gun better/more how I want it.
If I want the highest aim walking movement speed, I now dont have to do a balancing act of calculus to achieve that.
It’s really not that hard and basic balancing
@@Ellie3-l1z Yeah, it's soooo basic but yet we complain that we need a sheet of detailed stats added in every game so that we can decipher what all is actually happening when adding various attachments.
Don't @ me with that nonsense. lol
I am with you OP, I just want to make the gun the way I want to play it, no cons feels like it’s going to be great…. I mean everyone was using the same loadout that some “pro” posted anyways.
@@Ellie3-l1z thats ture, if you dont care about what you pick. having to test 4-5 of the same muzzle attachments to find the "best one" is very annoying and time consuming. and searching up meta loadouts is just boring now. so for most ppl, balancing is hard because its not fun
@@Tatman2TheResQ If you’re so dumb you can’t weigh 5 things at once you can just say that, learning loadouts was maybe a 30 minute task tops to figure out how it worked and i can reliably make good classes, not saying git gud but just git gud ig
This is very true and something i have been mentioning since playing the beta, idk why they thought that was a good idea, it feels like a big step back for the gunsmith, so does the perk system, an card, they feel very limiting, so far, hopefully that will change with the full release,
But when it comes to weapon attachment, all of them being positive is a huge issue,
I hope they at least have a whole lot of different weapons that actually feel different from eachother, an it be real nice if they do change the gunsmith attachments an add in a lot of variants for each weapon, it would be really cool to see some weapons make a comback from infinite warfare, some of those 2 in 1 chnage at will weapons as well as some from aw as well
There is no real problem with no downside attachments. Aside from the silencer reducing range, this has been the entirety of attachments throughout the history of call of duty all the way up through B04. It wasn’t until the last five years that we got cons with almost every single attachment. And people really criticize that when it came out. We are used to it now, yeah, But a gunsmith system with no attachments is the most natural evolution of what call of duty was for the first 3/4 of its life
Truth be told I'd prefer a dead simple gunsmith over the ones in the MW series. I don't want to have to go to somebody like Ace just to find out that the muzzle I'm using to help one recoil is actually secretly hurting another one and making my hip fire bad, and my ads and sprint to fire. So I'm all for having a gunsmith where the attachments are all good with slight downsides, it's reminiscent of older COD where you'd have several good attachments but you could only have one or two attachments. And I feel like because we have five or more slots on the guns they've tried to overcorrect by giving the attachments more intense widespread downsides, referring back to stuff like ADS speed increase but idle sway, recoil control and hip fire going down
Another reason why having cons is important is so that people leveling up guns arent at a huge disadvantage compared to people using already leveled guns. It was an issue with CWs simplified gunsmith and it might get worse.
I think the perfect system would be MW2019's gunsmith with MWIII's AMPs. I think they could maybe simplify some of MW2019's attachment attributes even more, and obviously remove the secret effects on some attachments.
Have just recoil control, so you can't nullify a recoil pattern. A surpressor comes with a damage range penalty. Maybe 2 of each type of grip (vertical helps with recoil, angled helps with stability, handstops help with handling). Not every gun needs big magazines or a magazine option. Not every gun needs 20 barrel options or stocks. Have those parts be tied to conversions. Barrels can affect the effective range of a gun. The stocks can either help with mobility or stability.
You're just overcomplicating things 😂 it's so much easier to just copy what a cod stats guy says on yt and copy them
If that's all it means for you then enjoy doing that, videos like this are for the people who like to spend a lot of time on these sorts of things.
So then you're playing how someone tells you to play? Got it
Mw2019 did it best for gunsmith its not perfect, but in terms of pros and cons they are fairly balanced. The only thing they did a poor job at are the suppressors because firing doesnt show on the minimap anyways only when theres a UAV, and the Monolithic Suppressor was the clear choice
I actually like the op attachments i just follow a yt guide
the only thing taking away from skill is cracked out movement, and removing all skill gaps by raising ttk, removing attachments, and just all around destroying the beautiful foundation IW created, again.
Pick 10 needs to come back. It was perfect
“I hate when upgrading my gun makes it better” 🤓
Do you honestly think that's what the argument was?
Cons are cringe as fuck, it’s a video game