It is best to stick to the same opening and not change it. Changing openings takes up so much time, effort and lost games, that all this were better spent otherwise. It is also best to stay true to your own style of play, that which you are best at and that which makes most fun for you. Over the years people usually become more positional. Tal, Kasparov, Kramnik were very agressive players in their youth, but became more positional in their later years.
@the_loving_boy #1 Since you are still young it makes sense to experiment a lot with different openings and then compare results, and see if you are comfortable with the positions that can arise. It is a bad idea to limit your openings because right now you maybe think they are good choices. You are saying that you are an attacking player, but as an attacking player there's no need to limit yourself to e.g. 1.e4 only. GM Lev Aronian plays 1.c4 and the later GM Mikhal Tal also played more than only 1.e4. I suggest that you test 1.Nf3 and 1.g2g3 and 1.c4 and 1.d4 with white, and with black try the symmetrical lines for positional chess. 1.d4 d5 1.c4 c5 1.e4 e5 Good luck! :)
OP's rating is 1600 (classical). This is far, far too low to categorize yourself as any type of player from everything I've ever heard experts discuss. Until we're 1800+ FIDE, we're all categorized the same: Not very good yet.
Positional play and tactical play are intertwined. Don't go down the road of beginning to study all sorts of opening lines and variations. The opening is by FAR the least important aspect of your game right now and virtually every opening response can be properly played if you're tactical ability is sound. In all reality, you'll begin to understand how to play the opening better by studying the endgame first.
@ArtistOfWarfare82 #17 Conclusions made based on rating can be very tricky. Rating is just a measuring tool based on a given time of chess games depending on rating pool, luck, mood of the day, fatigue, opening tricks, distractions, and other things. Young players rating can fluctuate, and their rating is often underrated.