Deeper attachment customization means more replayability and a better game.

@shkyuwjsgqrThe Plus System is something totally different from CoD's gunsmith though? Or am I wrong. I've watched loads of Vanguard, never seen in-game weapon customization in the same vein as the Plus System?

If you're concerned about weapon customization, one of DICE/EA's blogs has explored this fairly in depth.

Battlefield is also getting loadouts.

I've read the blogs, thanks. Your attachment customization is limited to what you can fit in the PLUS menu, and you can only have one choice in each direction at a time. So a sight, ammo type, barrels, and tactical (grips, grenade launchers, flashlights, lasers..)

It seems like we'll be switching tacticals a lot, why not just break it out into another menu, only accessed while in the respawn screen or main menu? We don't need to change EVERYTHING from the plus system, I'd much rather just have more options in general. It seems like they made the attachment customization restrictive to fit conveniently inside the plus system, which is a questionable tradeoff.

I just want to see more variety to the gameplay loop by tweaking the gunplay to different playstyles. I know we haven't seen all the options, and I'm looking forward to it, but I can't help but compare what we've seen so far to current and past titles that have nailed it. Some aspects of Battlefield Hardline's customization and gunbench system come to mind.

I agree and also would like to add that there is not enough different attachments, some of them are different only in visuals.

Same goes for vehicle unlocks, number is very small and some vehicle seats, like attack helicopter gunner have only option (so why bother adding them to customization screen?).

A copy/paste of BF3 or 4's attachments would have been fine, we had a "working" attachment system before CoD that did exactly what you ask for.

I actually still don't mind the T-system and think it's a good idea in theory, right now the biggest issue is the attachments we have in 2042 making the system itself seem redundant.

Example;

Heavy barrel in BF3/4, longer range before damage drop-off with increased recoil, could be fitted with a brake or can to reduce the recoil penalty.

Heavy barrel in 2042, increased bullet velocity you hardly notice and lower RoF + higher recoil. Pick this or a brake or can.

Now put that into context of having guns that have massive PoI problems sans the PP and two DMRs and using anything that makes your gun jump around more *and* increases your TTK is complete madness, whereas in BF3 and 4 it was a very useful thing on most guns either solely for single shot fire or just in general due to the extra damage potential, ironically very much so on larger maps.

In short, i agree with the OP, what irks is that this isn't a new concept in battlefield, it's a very old one and somehow something theoretically neat like the T system which would add flexibility for outdoors vs cqb shooting if tacked on the old attachment system instead becomes representative of the (going to try to be diplomatic here) bland and sometimes illogical attachment system with it's baffling unlock rotation priorities and requirements.

And "fixing" the guns outside the PP and a couple of DMR options isn't going to change that, the attachments themselves will need an overhaul much like the weapons do to make the T-system worth using outside swapping a scope or putting on a can vs a brake. (or maybe "cqb" ammo for the guns that have it)

IMO they could remove ammo and make barrel and barrel attachments two separate categories, or if that's too much of a headache, add stock and barrel as options you can only pick in the loadout screen and leave the T-system as is with barrel being renamed barrel attachments, at least that would make some sense in a hot-swap scenario including scopes and mags (let's not discuss caliber swaps on the fly for the sake of all our sanity and just call a game a game even if you seemingly suddenly stick a 9mm mag in the M5 as an example).