Is the attachment points system really needed?

No, it would be way to easy to make weapons way too OP.  Some of the attachment points need to be tweaked but the system is there for a good reason

it absolute is needed.

what'll happen if you remove it is already op weapons eg scw10 will be come even more overpowered as it'd have hollow/synthetics (if scw10 allows it) the 6hm, flash hider that gives recoil recover than it'd have the max mag on it and people would put a thermal on it and buffer if it has it.

so yes the points system is needed as it forces you to make sacrifices. 

It might make a couple weapons OP, but It would make sense to just nerf those couple weapons than to have a whole system in place to make sure they are not.

It wouldn’t work with the way the attachments have been designed in BF6. Many have been designed to be incrementally better the more points you spend, so you’d just use the best one of the lot and the others would have no use whatsoever. Why use a 20 points stubby if the 45 points stubby is “free”? You’d either use the blue laser because it’s the best or the red or violet lasers because they’re invisible, but the green lasers would be useless. Etc.

I would much rather have a point-less system, but you need to design it from the ground up. Not just incrementally better variations, but pros and cons to induce interesting choices. 

I mean what is the worst that could happen

My DRS with:

1. CQB suppressor
2. 30 Blue Laser
3. Light barrel
4. 45 point stubby
5. 60 round magazine
6. Synthetic ammo
7. Rail cover
8. 1.5 thermal
9. Sight 1.00x accessory
10. 15 point light 

Think before you post, thanks.

The attachments points would be making much more sense if some high point attachments did not have these tradeoffs they do have.

especially the mag sizes

Weapons will be too much OP, imagine a sniper with 6X thermal, anti reflex scope, suppressor, the ability to aim while realoading bullet, expanded mag,  better grip, some kind of laser…

Well, that’s not an indictment of the point system as a whole, but rather of how the individual costs have been calculated.

But I agree it does not work in quite a few cases. Mag sizes seriously overestimate the pros of having more bullets: when they cost so much as to make the gun significantly worst, more bullets is hardly useful, you’ll be dead before you had time to fire them. And more generally, similarly costed items with different pros and cons is just more interesting than more expensive = better  

I also think the whole thing would be more readable if the base attachments cost zero (and the rest recosted appropriately). It’s just weird to spend 5 on a magazine or basic sight no matter what. 

Ruxem wrote:

My DRS with:

CQB suppressor
30 Blue Laser
Light barrel
45 point stubby
60 round magazine
Synthetic ammo
Rail cover
1.5 thermal
Sight 1.00x accessory
15 point light 
Think before you post, thanks.

It certainly does not take much thinking to see what would happen

But still, some parts cost so much that they are absolutely never worth the trade off when getting them.

or others are so important that they invalidate every other option

It's a lazy attempt at balancing, with all the class based and gun based nerfs it is not needed and should never of been added into battlefield.