Why were the Battle Belts removed?

[CamoRP]

This was intentionally placed in Questions section to get answers from the staff team, but also to allow a poll and community discussion.

Why were the Battle Belts removed? I'm also a bit irritated it was a decision not even announced to the community?

In my opinion, I think the Battle Belts, were way better than the Tactical Belts (MSFC) and the War Belts (MSFC)?

We keep adding more and more mods to the server to keep players happy by adding more diversity (and saturation) to the loot-table, but I can't comprehend why the Battle Belt has to be removed? Tactical bags / Plate Carrier pouches are now only used for Armored vests (and very specific backpacks). I frankly find this decision disagreeable. 

 

Battle Belt used:

• 2x Tactical Bag (24 slot)
• 1x Walkie-Talkie Radio/Radio/Cassette Player
• 1x Canteen / Military Binoculars / IFAK Bag
• 1x Knife Sheath
• 1x Plate-Carrier Pouch
• Holster

 

----Versus---

War Belt:

• 1x Pouch (24 slot)
• 1x Empty Mags Bag (36?) --- Looks god awful in appearance ; also doesn't allow for another Pouch (24 slot) to be used instead.
• 1x Walkie-Talkie Radio/Radio/Cassette Player
• 1x Canteen / Military Binoculars / IFAK Bag
• 1x Knife Sheath
• Holster

Tactical Belt:

• 30? slot space
• 1x Knife Sheath
• 1x Holster

 

 

Other comments:

Battle Belts - rarely clipped through gear.

Battle Belts - allowed for nomadic/non-combative players (a.k.a. CampfireRP) to not require a plate carrier or body-armor in order to gain a balanced inventory (slots).

Battle Belts - assisted better for players who wanted to play without the need for a backpack.

Battle Belts - had a variety of camo and generic colors

Battle Belts - Storing away a Battle Belt was impractical due to it's enormous size, this is a con, but also brought balance.

Battle Belts - The ugly leg straps that were added a few patches ago are really it's only downside.

War Belts/Tactical Belts, allowed to be stored away with their attachments still attached, which is a major exploit in my opinion. You'll notice this with other items in the modpack as well.

War Belt/Tactical Belts - Some colors appear to be faded, specifically the attachments, i don't think they're very pleasing to the eye, when you're trying to blend in the environment or with other items.

War Belt - "Empty Mags Bag" slot doesn't allow for interchangeability, such as another Pouch.

War Belt - "Empty Mags Bag" physics aren't present, and honestly clips 100% of the time. It just god awful.

 

Do people geniunely think the Battle Belt was that bad? It seemed alright in most loadout outfits that I had.

Spoiler

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Camo

[Chewy]

2 minutes ago, Camo said:

the ugly leg straps

THAT'S THE COOLEST PART WYM!?

Seriously though I'm all for variety, why not just keep them in as well as warbelt? Gives people more options. on customization etc.

[tz]

Wait battle belts were removed?! Oh no!

my battle belt was my favorite piece of gear. 
 

guess I have to go out and find something to replace it. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Tysdal

[Whitename]

When we introduced MSF-C any items that Mass's had were removed if there was an MSF-C version that existed (Plate carrier, certain weapons), it was replaced. In this case the Battle Belt and Warbelt serve the same utility, so it was replaced.

Capacity: The battle belt holds a fuckload of gear. If you remove the empty mags bag (which yes, looks awful) then the warbelt holds even less. Yes, this means you'll carry less gear. Such is life.

Appearance: Sorry @Chewy but the leg straps don't really fit most model legs, except maybe when wearing cargo or ttsko pants bases. But then, the straps clip through the model! So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not to mention, the leg straps themselves look really bad. The battle belt is also about 2 to 3 times as thick as the warbelt, which imo looks terrible on models. 

Utility: With the sole exception of the amount of gear it can carry and the radio, the warbelt has all the same attachments. You can attach a canteen, sheath, holster, and some cargo pouches. 

Abuse vector: All belts can be stored with their attachments as long as they are empty, so this point is moot. And the battle belt also absorbs damage like an extra plate carrier which is an abuse vector in and of itself.

Clipping: Both belts have bad clipping issues with certain attachments:

Spoiler

So, the warbelt and battle belt serve the same purpose, but they're plagued with the same issues except that the war belt isn't a giant, thick, clunky mess of attachments.

[Multi21]

As useful as the battle belt was, I couldn't help but feel like I was wearing one of these the whole time:

[CamoRP]

1 minute ago, Whitename said:

Spoiler

 

When we introduced MSF-C any items that Mass's had were removed if there was an MSF-C version that existed (Plate carrier, certain weapons), it was replaced. In this case the Battle Belt and Warbelt serve the same utility, so it was replaced.

Capacity: The battle belt holds a fuckload of gear. If you remove the empty mags bag (which yes, looks awful) then the warbelt holds even less. Yes, this means you'll carry less gear. Such is life.

Appearance: Sorry @Chewy but the leg straps don't really fit most model legs, except maybe when wearing cargo or ttsko pants bases. But then, the straps clip through the model! So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not to mention, the leg straps themselves look really bad. The battle belt is also about 2 to 3 times as thick as the warbelt, which imo looks terrible on models. 

Utility: With the sole exception of the amount of gear it can carry and the radio, the warbelt has all the same attachments. You can attach a canteen, sheath, holster, and some cargo pouches. 

Abuse vector: Both the battle belt and the warbelt can be stored with their attachments as long as they are empty, so this point is moot. And the battle belt also absorbs damage like an extra plate carrier which is an abuse vector in and of itself.

Clipping: Both belts have bad clipping issues with certain attachments:

  Hide contents

So, the warbelt and battle belt serve the same purpose, but they're plagued with the same issues except that the war belt isn't a giant, thick, clunky mess of attachments.

 

 

That was actually a well-placed counter-argument, thanks for your input. 

However, in any case, with your counter-argument, it's clear they both have their flaws; that being said I don't see a reason why one must be preferred over the other, I feel it's a matter of opinion. Leave both belts in the loot-table.

What harm could it do to leave it in? It will keep players like me happy, and if players wish to use a War Belt instead, they have the option to do so as well.

[Whitename]

5 minutes ago, Camo said:

Leave both belts in the loot-table. What harm could it do to leave it in?

Pollute the loot economy with too many belts. You've said before that there's too many guns and the economy is polluted,  if we let all the belts spawn we'll have the same problem that you feel exists with the guns

[Duplessis]

The war belt simply looks better. The battle belt looks clunky and out of place.

[CamoRP]

44 minutes ago, Whitename said:

Pollute the loot economy with too many belts. You've said before that there's too many guns and the economy is polluted,  if we let all the belts spawn we'll have the same problem that you feel exists with the guns

When I made that statement I was focusing on items that have way too many variants spawning.

For example (specifically worn gear): I am most certain we have dozens variants of TTsKO/Gorka/M65 clothes; or we could speak upon the 30 different military helmets now, or dozen plate carrier variants, pouches, holsters, etc...   My largest complaint of that is we have clothes that simply is the same color/camo, but has a different insignia patch shown on it.

 

Another point to be made here is:

The Battle Belt attachments are still being circulated and used on many items. War Belt has a variety of attachments used on other items too. All you're doing it adding 6x variants of Battle Belts, frankly I would be happy with green, biege, black.

 

The Battle Belt removal was just completely unnerving for me.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Camo

[Comrade Icy]

while the new belts do look better, battle belt was op with the amount of space you could get, it will be missed

 

F

[CamoRP]

I would honestly be more satisfied with the removal, if the War Belts, allowed for Tactical Pouches being attached in place of "Pouch" and "Empty Mags Bag" slots.  That way such bags aren't strictly for very specific backpacks, or vests.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Camo

[Duke]

Moved to suggestions, as it is a discussion as much as it is a suggestion of getting it back.

On-Topic tho.

I don't mind them having been removed. Quite fond of the new belts to be honest.

[CamoRP]

12 minutes ago, Duke said:

Moved to suggestions, as it is a discussion as much as it is a suggestion of getting it back.

Fair enough. It started out a question as to why the staff decided to remove it. Our developer, Whitename gave a few reasons in their counter-argument. I suppose it's more of a suggestion at this point, given the poll, etc.

[Nonplayer]

In my opinion all of them look pretty nice and offer a bigger variety of belts people can choose to wear, so I'd keep them all in game. And the clipping issues well those will always happen its just dayz.

[Guest]

I'm for the MSFC belts because they look better, fit better with clothing and don't really bring any disadvantages compared to the Battle Belt, which unless Mass decides to fix and make it fit properly, it's good for staying out for now.

The only thing that we'll be losing with the Battle Belts is that Plate Carrier pouches will essentially only be usable on Plate Carriers, Juggernaut Arrmor and the MSFC Armor.