Let's examine the problem. Just for reference:
Assault -> Assault Rifle - Faster draw and switch times, plus better sprint recovery.
Engineer -> Submachine Gun - Improved hip-fire control.
Support -> Machine Gun - No sprint speed penalty.
Sniper -> Sniper Rifle - Stabilize aim by holding breath and rechamber quicker between shots.
So the first reason you mention is this:
There are certain playstyles within the class that are largely unaffected or impacted by the signature weapon bonus that is given to them.
I'm not sure why you're saying this. If you had given examples, it would have been easier to understand. My first impression of these bonuses is that they are pretty generic bonuses that would pretty much benefit any playstyle.
The current system is also convoluted, as the bonuses given to each signature weapon type vary from class to class and lack consistency. It is not an intuitive system to navigate.
What it comes down to, is that each weapon has a penalty and using the proper class negates that penalty. I don't think it's inconsistent or convoluted, but I'll agree with you that it's not all that intuitive what kind of advantage or disadvantage you're given when selecting your class and weapon.
Replacing it for +20 attachment points is certainly more intuitive at first glance, yet you do already mention that you need one loadout when your class matches the signature weapon and one loadout for the other classes. The fact that a loadout may change based on the class you select isn't by itself all that intuitive either.
An additional issue is that it's indirectly a nerf to all non-signature weapon categories. The reverse approach you mentioned fixes this to some degree by ensuring that all non-signature weapons receive the same amount of attachment points as using a signature weapon with the correct class. However, this could increase the usage of non-signature weapons, as a carbine with 100 attachment points, may outperform an assault rifle that would only have 80 attachment points.
What this means is that it's likely going to be more difficult for the developers to balance the game. Changing a few bonuses would be far easier than having to adjust the balance for multiple weapon classes. Don't get me wrong though, I do think it's an interesting idea, even if I'm not completely sold on it yet.
Thanks for posting the current signature weapon bonuses to which I am referencing, you are right that I should have included those in the OP.
An additional issue is that it's indirectly a nerf to all non-signature weapon categories. The reverse approach you mentioned fixes this to some degree by ensuring that all non-signature weapons receive the same amount of attachment points as using a signature weapon with the correct class. However, this could increase the usage of non-signature weapons, as a carbine with 100 attachment points, may outperform an assault rifle that would only have 80 attachment points.
When compared to the current, existing system, the proposed system isn't actually a nerf to these weapon types, indirect or otherwise. In the current system, using a weapon that isn't signature to your class comes with the opportunity cost of losing out on the fixed bonus that each signature weapon type gets. Under the proposed system, there is still only an opportunity cost and not an added penalty for choosing a weapon type that is not signature to your class. The difference is that the opportunity costs shifts away from the current signature weapon bonus and to the opportunity cost of 20 additional attachment points.
The proposed system is designed to maintain the current status quo of power, and not to disrupt it. It only re-allocates the fixed bonus a player would receive for playing to their classes signature weapon into a bonus that can be freely chosen by the player through the use of the attachment system, which IMO is a much improved and more rewarding system. It does come with the hiccup of requiring multiple presets per weapon, but if done correctly and with a good UI, this can be implemented very intuitively and become a non-problem.
When compared to the current, existing system, the proposed system isn't actually a nerf to these weapon types, indirect or otherwise.
Sure, I agree with that. My point of reference was that all weapons start out from the same performance baseline of the gun itself plus 100 attachment points. I wasn't comparing it to the old system, but it indeed suffers from the same downside, unless the non-signature weapon classes are balanced with a different baseline in mind.
It does come with the hiccup of requiring multiple presets per weapon, but if done correctly and with a good UI, this can be implemented very intuitively and become a non-problem.
Don't you think that a proper UI would also alleviate some of the criticisms you have of the current system?
Your overall idea makes sense though, the idea of having 20 more attachment points is a far more flexible and interesting approach than static bonuses.
