Carry a second primary weapon in launcher spot

[Surefire 14]

There are a very limited number of sniper rifles that actually fit inside even the largest backpack. I would love to be able to carry an M4 CQB weapon in my hands and a long-range rifle in the launcher slot. It would be cool to see the rifle on your back as well as putting a whole rifle inside of a backpack is not very immersive.

[The Antichrist 9]

 

Edit: It should be possible if devs can somehow change around what kind of things you can stick in your launcher inventory slot but then again it's arma so i'd only assume it would be too much of a pain to do.

Edited May 27, 2016 by The Antichrist

[Alokeen 14]

There's a reason why the big rifles don't fit into the backpacks.

If you want to be a sniper - be a sniper. Get a pistol as your secondary. If you want to go CQB, equip a different loadout. If you want an universal soldier, go watch Jean Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren

[Surefire 14]

17 hours ago, Alokeen said:

There's a reason why the big rifles don't fit into the backpacks.

If you want to be a sniper - be a sniper. Get a pistol as your secondary. If you want to go CQB, equip a different loadout. If you want an universal soldier, go watch Jean Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren

How about I can "be a sniper" from far away and when I get up close I can easily switch to an M4 to "go CQB". I don't understand your logic. Having a weapon in the launcher slot would allow much more free space in backpacks and would also make it easier to play for everyone. 

[Alokeen 14]

Well, the thing is - a player shouldn't be able to have everything. Makes the game much less challenging. Let me try to make an exaggerated example to make the point clear.

Why not  make vests with 500 armor, and 10 weight. While we're at it, make an assault pack able to carry infinite scrap metal, satchels, mines and whatnot. Why bother with cars and trucks, it's easier just to collect stuff and fast travel wherever. Also, why not remove thirst and hunger, it's easier not to have to deal with food and drink. Hell, let's make people immortal - you shoot someone, and they go down for 30 seconds and come right back up. It would be easier, wouldn't it?

Back to the original point - if you want to be able to down a target with one or two shots from 1500m, you must pay the price of being less than ideally able to confront targets at close range.

The point I'm trying to make is that 'easier' isn't necessarily better. If there are less challenges to be overcome, there is less satisfaction from overcoming them.

[Surefire 14]

5 hours ago, Alokeen said:

Well, the thing is - a player shouldn't be able to have everything. Makes the game much less challenging. Let me try to make an exaggerated example to make the point clear.

Why not  make vests with 500 armor, and 10 weight. While we're at it, make an assault pack able to carry infinite scrap metal, satchels, mines and whatnot. Why bother with cars and trucks, it's easier just to collect stuff and fast travel wherever. Also, why not remove thirst and hunger, it's easier not to have to deal with food and drink. Hell, let's make people immortal - you shoot someone, and they go down for 30 seconds and come right back up. It would be easier, wouldn't it?

Back to the original point - if you want to be able to down a target with one or two shots from 1500m, you must pay the price of being less than ideally able to confront targets at close range.

The point I'm trying to make is that 'easier' isn't necessarily better. If there are less challenges to be overcome, there is less satisfaction from overcoming them.

No part of what anything I've said is about me trying to make the game easier. I'm actually the most outspoken user I've seen on the Exile subreddit actively trying to make Exile HARDER. If you don't believe me take a look at the only thread I've ever posted on this forum from 10 days ago.

 

Exile is easy enough as it is. You can go on any given server out there and have at least 100k poptabs within a few hours if you have a decent crew. If I had my own server you wouldn't even spawn with a map, (if possible) missions wouldn't be marked on the map so you actually have to explore and recon an area while maneuvering through the map, side chat would be totally disabled, TFAR or ACRE would be implemented so the only communication you would have with teammates is in direct or through radio comms, ACE3, and there would actually be nighttime for more than half an hour before restart and no vote option so players can't vote to day the second it gets one shade darker than bright sunshine out.

My suggesting being able to carry two rifles is a convenience and immersion thing. Most of us already do it but all I want is to have it on the outside of the bag and not the inside. I really don't understand why you're arguing so strongly against this of all things making the game too easy. 

 

Edit: Maybe it would stop the current status quo of people finding a ghillie and the first sniper rifle/navid/SPMG they see, slapping a long scope on it and just sitting in a bush 800m away from missions and waiting for other players. Of course it would still happen but maybe if more players physically see an M4 or other reasonable short/mid range rifle on their back it may encourage more engagements than sniping from way far away. 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Surefire

[Surefire 14]

13 hours ago, Surefire said:

No part of what anything I've said is about me trying to make the game easier.

I know you're going to quote the above and point out that I said the below in my previous post.

13 hours ago, Surefire said:

Having a weapon in the launcher slot would allow much more free space in backpacks and would also make it easier to play for everyone. 

So let me be clear that when I said it would be "easier to play" I mean that it would be easier to have a gun in that spot considering there's a keybind for switching from your rifle to your launcher. Pressing one key would be easier than opening your inventory and switching out your primary weapons, which may or may not have your attachments still on it, which leads to even more time wasted switching weapons.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Surefire

[Limitless0 12]

18 hours ago, Alokeen said:

Well, the thing is - a player shouldn't be able to have everything. Makes the game much less challenging. Let me try to make an exaggerated example to make the point clear.

Why not  make vests with 500 armor, and 10 weight. While we're at it, make an assault pack able to carry infinite scrap metal, satchels, mines and whatnot. Why bother with cars and trucks, it's easier just to collect stuff and fast travel wherever. Also, why not remove thirst and hunger, it's easier not to have to deal with food and drink. Hell, let's make people immortal - you shoot someone, and they go down for 30 seconds and come right back up. It would be easier, wouldn't it?

Back to the original point - if you want to be able to down a target with one or two shots from 1500m, you must pay the price of being less than ideally able to confront targets at close range.

The point I'm trying to make is that 'easier' isn't necessarily better. If there are less challenges to be overcome, there is less satisfaction from overcoming them.

Have you ever stopped and thought why you shouldn't be able to carry a sniper in your backpack when you can carry a freaking wood wall or a door?

Edited May 29, 2016 by Limitless0

[Chainsaw Squirrel 144]

DayZ SA, you can carry one on your back and hold one.. but it's up to BIS to do that for a3 I would assume.

 

[Alokeen 14]

12 hours ago, Surefire said:

Exile is easy enough as it is. You can go on any given server out there and have at least 100k poptabs within a few hours if you have a decent crew. If I had my own server you wouldn't even spawn with a map, (if possible) missions wouldn't be marked on the map so you actually have to explore and recon an area while maneuvering through the map, side chat would be totally disabled, TFAR or ACRE would be implemented so the only communication you would have with teammates is in direct or through radio comms, ACE3, and there would actually be nighttime for more than half an hour before restart and no vote option so players can't vote to day the second it gets one shade darker than bright sunshine out.

My suggesting being able to carry two rifles is a convenience and immersion thing. Most of us already do it but all I want is to have it on the outside of the bag and not the inside. I really don't understand why you're arguing so strongly against this of all things making the game too easy.

I see we share the same opinion on how the game should be, regarding ACE/ACRE etc.

My opinion on the topic here revolves around making any one player an 'universal' asset - I believe that a sniper should be a sniper, and a CQB specialist should be that. Being able to swap rifles around so easily makes individuals OP in my opinion. Mind you, I play alone most of the time, so this 'feature' would make it easier for me, but I still argue against it - I write this just to remove any doubts about my motivation for arguing so.

The fact that it's being done (I suppose with the 6.5 rifles that can be swapped in/out backpacks, as anything above that won't fit in a backpack IIRC), annoys me as well I'd make it so no rifles can be put in a backpack, and if you do want to haul a few (in order to move them around), you'd have to drop all but one in order to have it in the firing position, but that's just me Indeed, if we consider it's already being done, you are right in saying that it would be nicer if it was on the back instead of the backpack, altho I'd vote for some constraints being put in place to prevent the 'universal soldier' effect described above.

As for your argument regarding easier switching of weapons - I'd have to disagree there too, for the same reasons as the general point - in my opinion, that makes a player OP. One moment you are a long range shooter, then someone surprises you and at a press of a button you equip your SMG or assault rifle and defend yourself agianst odds. I'm aware that your point of the rifle being on the back would warn the attacker of said possibility, but I'm against the very possibility, not the way it would be implemented or balanced.

 

N.B.
I know that it seems that I'm arguing against your points in the traditional forum 'just because' or 'flame' style, but I do enjoy a nice discussion, and will allow my opinions to be changed by valid arguments It just so happens we disagree on some points, thank you for the civil and argumented conversation