Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LANCERZz

Ruck issues

Recommended Posts

This game absolutely needs to have an ammo box dedicated entirely to the different rucks. And all units need to be able to carry rucks, not just the ones that already spawn them. I would love to have my marines have rucksacks. and It doesn't make since that machinegunners can't carry rucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should machinegunners be able to carry rucks? They already can carry a shitload of ammo all by themselves, and the game already have classes to support them; Asst. Machinegunner with a ruck preloaded with machinegun ammo. I vote a BIG no to this suggestion. The existing method seems to provide excellent balance. Even the drawbacks of the medics makes sense. Carry the same weapon system, and a medic can be restocked by someone else in the squad if he needs to play the fighter (which he should try to avoid).

Btw, a machinegunner can carry a ruck, it is not prevented by the class (like a medic who has a special ruck for medical equipment but no storage room), but by carrying a machinegun that occupies the secondary slot.

Also no to ammo boxes with rucks, we just need to come up with some method of streamlining it. Container in container creates an unfortunate exploit. You can probably script an addAction so that it gives you a ruck, either empty or prefilled based on your class or current weapon or whatever really. But if you consider space, you don't store rucks in ammo boxes, it just doesn't make sense. A ruck is a rather personal item, not something you'd change around much as you see fit (maybe with the exception of assault packs, which may be part of a larger ruck). But messing around with that for the sake of a a few slots just feels weird, considering there are no drawbacks to having a big one in the first place.

I agree USMC could have some ruck possibilities though, but that I guess that would require upgrading the config, which may not happen.

Edited by CarlGustaffa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why a ruck box would be helpful is because some classes spawn with smaller rucks than others and some rucks look better than others. The same reason why ACE had different styles of ruck that were completely available to everyone, and the same method, could be implemented in OA. I don't see how anything could be exploited with that. And all classes should be able to carry rucks. It's just balance. The majority of the servers are against AI anyway so who cares if it's a little unbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should machinegunners be able to carry rucks?

Because they can, nay do, in real life. In fact they have to. One is not really going to carry more than 3 M249 cans in weapon and on vest. That still leaves 2-3 more cans to carry somewhere. Plenty of SAW gunners have carried 10 cans total.

Not only should a pack be able to be carried by an AR, it should be absolutely necessary. 249 belts might be better off as 3-slot items instead of 2-slots. Of course the loaded magazine would have to be a "type 0" 0-slot type which makes sense when you think about it. I wish all in-weapon magazines were type 0.

I'm still confused why people keep referring to assault packs as "rucks;" it seems as silly as calling a bicycle a truck. Your standard issue MOLLE ruck is an 82L monstrosity that no one outside of some light infantry unit like the 10th mountain actually puts on their back to go outside where the shooting is. SF are usually smarter and pack lighter and use custom gear. The 33L assault pack is much more common or even a smaller patrol pack which are designed to carry 2 MREs, clothing, poncho, water for about 24 hours sustainment. The main ruck is for 72 hours and has sleeping gear, etc. Totally out of place in the ArmA environment and would be dropped 500m or more from enemy contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need the model to have a proxy in oder to be able to carry the rucks. No proxy, no joy as it is now. So all available units that don't have the said proxy won't be able to carry it.

Havent tested myself, but it seems weird that not all OA units have the same this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Havent tested myself, but it seems weird that not all OA units have the same this...

I haven't found any OA units aside from medics and other units with backpacks in their models that don't have backpack compatability.

Also, currently the engine does not support putting backpacks (containers themselves) into other containers (such as ammo boxes and vehicles).

And since backpacks use the secondary weapon slot, the only way to allow machinegunners to use them define them to only use the primary slot and not both (allowing them to also carry launchers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why a ruck box would be helpful is because some classes spawn with smaller rucks than others and some rucks look better than others.

Uhm, in ACE it's entirely up to the mission designer what ruck you get in the box. If some chose to use the "showcase ruckbox", then that is on them. And the same thing can be achieved in OA via scripting afaik, just not available from a box.

The same reason why ACE had different styles of ruck that were completely available to everyone, and the same method, could be implemented in OA. I don't see how anything could be exploited with that.

No. Again, ACE had a lot of rucks available in their addon. Mission designer is responsible for what is made available in a mission. If he doesn't want the mission to appear realistic (free-for-all), then he give everything to everyone. I'm not like that. Any scripted method of storing magazines will result in an exploit possibility. I suggested to ACE the container method, but I think it turned out to be problematic.

And all classes should be able to carry rucks. It's just balance. The majority of the servers are against AI anyway so who cares if it's a little unbalanced.

On the contrary, it creates imbalance. Medics on (many) public ACE servers only chose medic to be able to heal themselves. In vanilla the "lousy" medic role seemed to attract more serious players to the role who didn't have to be a fighter - one who let others deal with the shooting and held back until needed, so that when he moved forward to help he didn't have a bounty on his head (rating, something the AI will use against you).

Because they can, nay do, in real life. In fact they have to. One is not really going to carry more than 3 M249 cans in weapon and on vest. That still leaves 2-3 more cans to carry somewhere. Plenty of SAW gunners have carried 10 cans total.

Coincidence that the Asst. Automatic Rifleman carries 3 M249 mags in his ruck? I've heard anything from 600-1000 rounds carried by the gunner himself, and the OA SAW gunner carries 1000 (without a ruck). Thats 1600 rounds by the SAW buddy team. One box each on the two other members in a fireteam, and you have your 2000 rounds. Give a SAW gunner a coyote (12 slots), and he gets to carry 2400 rounds, without any form of penalty. How on earth is that balance? Are 1000 rounds enough?

* Our mission time doesn't compare to those long missions in the real world. If a real SAW gunner carried 2000 rounds, how long do you think those were expected to last? Way more than a typical Arma mission, that's for sure :)

* Effect of suppression is limited, making more gunners go for the kill rather than the suppression effect. During an engagement we don't use the kind of ammo to make a hit compared to a real firefight.

No, I think the system is pretty balanced as it is. If 1000 rounds are not enough, then cooperate - get an assistant and/or get other team members to carry your ammo. They can carry packs usually, and should carry for the team.

Not only should a pack be able to be carried by an AR, it should be absolutely necessary. 249 belts might be better off as 3-slot items instead of 2-slots. Of course the loaded magazine would have to be a "type 0" 0-slot type which makes sense when you think about it. I wish all in-weapon magazines were type 0.

Not sure what you mean by this ("type 0"?). I don't think I would mind them being 3 slots, but I sure can live with them as 2 slots. Consider how ACE made M240 mags actually 1 slot items (I really didn't like this much, considering the suppression effects from distance in a "one man mg station" without ever having to change a barrel). Some of the rockets thought (especially smaw/CG/PG7-VR) could have taken more slots (4 or 5), as the AT teams are now extremely potent.

I'm still confused why people keep referring to assault packs as "rucks;" it seems as silly as calling a bicycle a truck. Your standard issue MOLLE ruck is an 82L monstrosity that no one outside of some light infantry unit like the 10th mountain actually puts on their back to go outside where the shooting is. SF are usually smarter and pack lighter and use custom gear. The 33L assault pack is much more common or even a smaller patrol pack which are designed to carry 2 MREs, clothing, poncho, water for about 24 hours sustainment. The main ruck is for 72 hours and has sleeping gear, etc. Totally out of place in the ArmA environment and would be dropped 500m or more from enemy contact.

Well, it's faster to write :) But, some of the rucks are much larger than an assault pack (14 slots I think for the german ruck). Also consider the "US Ruck" which have zero slots, could probably be a dummy ruck that mission designers could use to simulate a radio, in which you don't get any additional slots.

My point is: On closed servers you can use all kinds of addons to get what you want, because you are able to constraint yourselves to "within reason" regarding realism. You will get medics with no model ruck who can carry a normal one. You'll get weapon modifications so that machineguns etc doesn't require two slots. And that is all and well. It's not that it is unrealistic, it's just that it completely ruins public gaming, and so, it shouldn't be included as default.

What happened in Arma2 wrt all those public servers? They closed down and was made available only to a few to "restore order". On public "within reason" don't exist - any exploit will be put to good use, ruining the immersion for everyone there actually trying to have a good time. Personally I like such restrictions both as it's not all that unrealistic:

* A SAW gunner can still carry a pretty decent amount of ammo without requiring a ruck.

* No egoistic medic role.

* Leave the AT fighting to other units even though technically I guess it would be possible to carry both a CG and a SAW - but I seriously doubt you would find too much of it.

* There are no other mechanisms in play to prevent anyone from loading up with insane amounts. ACE had weight and stamina - and guess what - many people absolutely hate stamina, but the ruck system they want :( It's always about the benefits and not the drawbacks. And frankly, I don't think the ACE penalty was nowhere near enough. ACE was very good for use in organized play, but the public gaming suffered badly.

Summary:

* Closed communities can achieve whatever they want using addons. No limits is the key word here. As long as they attempt to play seriously (or even if they don't), using addons will give them what they want.

* Public gaming might still be fun because it doesn't allow obvious exploits that will happen if you try to make things too free. Some may call this freedom more realistic, but if it ruins gameplay, I see no reason in adding them. And that is mostly a problem on the public scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coincidence that the Asst. Automatic Rifleman carries 3 M249 mags in his ruck? I've heard anything from 600-1000 rounds carried by the gunner himself, and the OA SAW gunner carries 1000 (without a ruck).

What's an assitant SAW gunner? This is the US Army, not that USMC junk. 800 rounds, 1 man, absolutely bare minimum load. 2000 rounds is probably crossloaded, otherwise that'd be 70 lbs just in ammo alone but not unheard of.

Not sure what you mean by this ("type 0"?)

Type0 magazines exist in the players inventory but take up 0 slots. They have no "footprint." The M240 magazines in ACE really should be the same size as M249 mags. I forget if 249s are 1 or 2 slot. Either they're actually pretty small in real life and you could physically fit a ton into a pack if you wanted... you simply couldn't lift it :P ACE has weight and that means using volume alone as a limiter to load can be relaxed to reality.

I think the Ruck and the Pack should have similar numbers of slots since in reality they have comparable amounts of free space for combat equipment. In fact the assault pack might have more. I'm also hoping that ACE2 makes the body armor an equipment item with its own weight.

I guess this all comes down to the fact that BIS should really follow through on their weight/bulk system for inventory. They started it and there's some loose ends in the config but they never finished. As for public play... 100 out of 100 are playing Domination servers and deserve no consideration in terms of design from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the game he's probably just labeled that to signify his buddy team relation with the SAW gunner. Carries SAW ammo, but is in reality just a regular rifleman.

I agree, not unheard of, but then as a marching load. But 70 lbs of ammo is not a fighting load, as it would be in Arma. Ammo in vehicle or scripted ammobox approach seems better than superhumans on the battlefield.

In ACE M249s was 2 slots, M240s was 1 slot. I never really understood that. 2-2, 3-2, or even 3-3 would have worked for me, but not 2-1.

Since we don't pack up for long (several days) missions in Arma, I think the current system works ok. You could use the free space that is not for combat equipment and fill it with combat equipment if the mission is short. I'm glad I don't have to worry about a 90 item checklist in the game :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like ive said in another thread, its all up to the missionmaker.

If you make a patrolmission, script the Gear used and take

away "Weaponboxes". That way he can only use what

gear is assigned to him. If there arise the need for more

ammo, then ammoboxes should be used. Right?

As for ACE system, i think the Weight/size sys is the most

realistic. Even for Sacks/Packs. The weight DO control what

you can pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you, I just don't agree with you. Put in all the negatives on carrying a pack, then we'll talk. That includes:

* Not being able to jog at all with a really heavy pack.

* Not being able to get up without help even if it's bad enough (seen that happen on video).

* Weight and stamina.

* No rolling on ground with pack on back.

* Unable to get out of "tall" vehicle like back of a truck without danger of hurting yourself.

* Difficulty to sight with certain packs.

Carrying a march pack is anything but trivial if it's heavy enough, and should affect your combat ability.

As long as there are absolutely no negatives about it, one have to restrict. In real life there are reasons you might not want to bring two guns. In Arma, there would be no reasons, and everyone would be running around with multiple guns (enemy ones if not otherwise provided). There are too many possible ways to exploit this system if you wanted to as long as it was built in and mission maker didn't want it. Trust me, it was a nightmare trying to prevent M136 spamming in Arma1 when I wanted real AT crews. Players would even take the round, store it, and rejoin, to get more ammo. I did manage in the end, but it took a while to get around it.

But as you say yourself, it's all up to the missionmaker. Why is that so hard to accept the other way? Magic "carryonback" is no problem at all to script when mission maker wants it. Preventing misuse of a feature is hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we don't pack up for long (several days) missions in Arma, I think the current system works ok. You could use the free space that is not for combat equipment and fill it with combat equipment if the mission is short. I'm glad I don't have to worry about a 90 item checklist in the game

My unit had one incident where this happend, we literally had a 1 and 1/2 day mission going, surrounded on Isla Duala by militia, it was quit interesting, we never intended the mission that long anyway1 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And CG, i think the experience is all about WHO are playing.

A 2H mission with rambos can take 3 days with serious players

on the server and be performed like Elites...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;1677205']performed like Elites...

:rolleyes2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CG - the reason the M240 and M249 mags use different slot capacities in ACE is because Rocko set it that way and I had no desire to argue with him about it. You do that sometimes when trying to get along with a team.

I wish people would stop thinking the ACE system of rucks as the One True Way and any other system as fatally flawed. BI chose to use slots, ACE uses volume. Neither manages to model reality perfectly. But in a $50-something simulator, both systems are good enough. Let's not get all holy about one or the other.

BTW - I don't think much of people demanding BI or add-on makers change their product to enforce some personal notion of exploit management. You do that in your mission and more so in proper server administration. Overt bugs do need fixing, but if you don't like some clever person hauling/possessing gear that you don't like - deal with it on your own site and don't jam your opinions down everyone else's throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really can't "mission manage" such restrictions. The system itself is flawed to the point that you'd have to code for weeks to close all the silly gaps that could be exploited. As for server enforcement... yeah just try to tell a pub that he can't bring 3000 M249 rounds and 2 AT4s because it's unrealistic. Your server will be labeled a Stalinist ghost town in about 30 minutes.

Systems must have their behavior arise naturally from fundamental design. Trying to change the end result with management is trying to make a river run uphill. Possible with enough effort but generally inadvisable. People will find out and do what is most effective and they make absolutely no distinction between what is physically possible and what is conscionable.

Please don't get all "everything is subjective" on us, snowflake. "Personal notion?" Please. These are relatively objective conclusions based on much experience and widely applicable axioms. People should have opinions shoved down their throat for the same reason toddlers aren't allowed to select candy for dinner. Opinions are not equal. They are proportionally valuable to how experienced and well thought-out they are. None are infallible and none are above critical review naturally, in fact all opinions should welcome it.

In a simplified case you have Johnny Strict and Billy Casual inventory systems that produce A and B gameplay environments respectively. Billy is most content in environment B and less so in A. Johnny is happiest in B and much less so in A. One can ask "in which system does the average player suffer the least discontent?" Which system has the better justification from gameplay, realism, etc.?

Generally I've found that Billy Casual will take pretty much any system at face value, with only his own vague sense of enjoyment moment-to-moment as a standard, as long as it doesn't seem obscure or overtly cruel. Johnny Strict on the other hand usually is using a few more brain cells and not only wants to be effective... he uniquely doesn't want to be too effective. He's also aware of some aspects of the real military and can (or can't avoid even) spot things that "aren't quite right" more readily.

As for ACE and the inventory decisions... there's a white paper on inventory, weight, and volume right? Please someone outlined the inventory system from the git-go so that a newly introduced item would have guidelines to its attributes and how it fits in equally with the existing items.

The ACE packs nor the BIS packs is perfect and that's a silly goal to actually attain. There should be a threshold of acceptable performance in terms of what capabilities are handled well and which oddities are not too disruptive. The ability (or in fact the necessity) to access a pack as a container on another character's back is one aspect that BIS has a bit of a leg up on the ACE system as is how well it's handled because it's native code. The ACE total volume method is infinitely better than BIS's on the other hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CG - the reason the M240 and M249 mags use different slot capacities in ACE is because Rocko set it that way and I had no desire to argue with him about it. You do that sometimes when trying to get along with a team.

Understood. And you haven't seen me bitching about it too much on your tracker either, have you? Flow of these "exotic" ammos are fairly easy to control. A more exploitable problem is that of drum mags; you just can't give them for others to carry as they would just use it themselves. My only solution; stay away from G36 based equipment. Sad.

In any case, I don't mind them being different if they only had believable slot requirement; 100rnd M240 box same as a 30rnd stanag just feels unnatural. For ACE and weight/volume, I'd prefer 3 slots for 200rnd M249, and 2 slots for 100rnd M240/M249. 3 slots for normal rockets/RPGs, 4 slots for long (i.e. SMAW and PG-7VR) rockets and 5 slots for missiles. For vanilla (since only slot based and not freely mixable), I think it is just about right except one shot launchers should be truly disposable; the impact of carrying one is just a bit too much.

I wish people would stop thinking the ACE system of rucks as the One True Way and any other system as fatally flawed. BI chose to use slots, ACE uses volume. Neither manages to model reality perfectly. But in a $50-something simulator, both systems are good enough. Let's not get all holy about one or the other.

I guess I wouldn't mind if ACE chose to use both slot and volume and weight, but that's beside the point. I'm not perfectly happy with the ACE seemingly unlimited packs (I know they aren't though), but given the weight and stamina, I can live with it - at least it has a counter in forms of stamina effects when you try to abuse it too much. But such a system in vanilla, with no counters, I find it strange that someone would want it in a realistic oriented game. MW2 - fine, I could care less.

BTW - I don't think much of people demanding BI or add-on makers change their product to enforce some personal notion of exploit management.

Was this addressed to me? I'm not the one demanding a change to enforce some personal notion of exploit management. I think the product as delivered does that. I may have suggested it to ACE, but leave it alone when I'm outvoted.

You do that in your mission and more so in proper server administration.

Yeah right. You try to kindly ask people to play Arma instead of MW2 using the Arma game :) And "bad stuff that the engine/addon permits" is really hard (often utterly impossible) to fight well. And I if DO find a solution, the response from the player would be "you fucking nazi" (yeah, have actually happened :D), and will likely feel very artificial. I.e. we couldn't use Dominations anti scan technique since we had players using space for firing (I know, don't ask). If the game/mod was known not to allow something in the first place on the other hand... Nobody has been bitching on me for the stamina effects i.e. - how do you think it would be if I had to do it in the mission :D

Overt bugs do need fixing, but if you don't like some clever person hauling/possessing gear that you don't like - deal with it on your own site and don't jam your opinions down everyone else's throat.

So two M249 mags and the rest grenades, being able to refresh the mags by putting them in ACE ruck, is clever to you (not checked lately)? That's why I prefer the vanilla rucks which uses a container approach rather than a scripted (and thus, exploitable) approach. Slots or volume/weight has lesser impact. But I would want a weight penalty in vanilla game (in addition), or more slot oriented ACE (in addition to current volume/weight) - but the key issue remains exploit control.

And I'll jam whatever I feel like, thank you very much :D - that's what public discussions are for. If someone "attacks" my viewpoints about where I think this game should go, then I'll defend it. Just as anyone would I guess.

You've probably seen it yourself on the ACE tracker; too many wants all the good stuff that increases realism, but none of the bad stuff that increases realism. All the goodies - no penalties. That's not where I want a realistic game (or mod) to go.

When on a public game did you see anyone stashing a vehicle with the required goodies? If people are too lazy to do it, why make it easier for the sake of making it easier? That's not realism, that's going cheap. If I want easy, I can script for it. If I don't want easy, that's hard to script if easy is already present.

Final note. The BIS rucks is in their infancy (some guys haven't even got their OA game yet). I'm sure they will improve, their system taken advantage of, and their "disabilities" due to being a container be understood and worked around.

---EDIT---

Generally I've found that Billy Casual will take pretty much any system at face value, with only his own vague sense of enjoyment moment-to-moment as a standard, as long as it doesn't seem obscure or overtly cruel. Johnny Strict on the other hand usually is using a few more brain cells and not only wants to be effective... he uniquely doesn't want to be too effective. He's also aware of some aspects of the real military and can (or can't avoid even) spot things that "aren't quite right" more readily.

Excellent point. Billy Casual can easily adopt to pretty much anything. But Johny Strict (me in this case) can not enjoy public games because all the Billy Casuals have been given too much of a leech to do whatever they want. Tighten the leech, Billy Casual will adopt, and Johny Strict will enjoying more playing with Billy Casual because Billy Casual can no longer "ruin the game". Worked in PR, why should it not work in Arma?

Edited by CarlGustaffa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frederf:

There is no white paper about the design on ACE ruck system, but since I did the coding of that system most would say I know it pretty darn well. And in order to make it work with A2, I had to learn how that worked also. Tcp has taken over that code since I left the team, he's the only other person qualified to discuss the how and why matters.

CarlGustaffa:

I know all too well about the magazine refresh issue. But the current design was meant to deal with the huge problems in network code and compatibility that the old ACE1 system of virtual magazines introduced. So when it came down to a chance of some people exploiting the code vs lag, disappearing mags, not being able to pack other addon mags in ACE rucks I made the judgement call and still stand by that. Tcp and I talked at length about other ways to store items and perhaps someday he'll improve the system to make magazine counts stick. If he does I'll applaud his efforts, not that easy a nut to crack without more support functionality from BIS.

Both:

I understand your desire for extra realism and dismay when players don't behave the way you want them too. I don't agree with the viewpoint about player behavior control. A good mod should be a toolkit that provides the mission maker with the ability to control those aspects, but not impose the rules itself, especially in a way that cannot be overridden by the mission maker.

I used to play BF2 a lot and our clan did try Project Reality. While we loved the way they extended the map system and it had beautiful models, the rule sets they imposed on the game made it unplayable for our team. We weren't opposed to realism, our team operated as a special operations unit conducting asymmetrical warfare - infiltration and sabotage. In theory PR would have been a perfect match, but arbitrary rules changing how objectives were captured, respawn methods, combined with other teams not following the guidelines made play impossible. So we dumped PR and switched to ArmA, which had the enhanced realism AND the flexibility to allow for differing styles of play.

My own mission designs for our clan include some training missions far more hardcore than most players are used to. You get limited ammo at your starting location and that's it. No respawns and the AI is enhanced by me to be ruthlessly efficient in it's use of support resources. The challenge is to figure out how to beat the mission by improvising, using your head to fight unconventionally. Dipping your mag in a ruck won't do jack to help in those missions. My folks rarely run out of ammo anyway - they either beat the scenario or die.

When we play on public servers we do see a lot of retarded behavior. But that is the nature of public servers and we have better things to do than fret about what the admin should be doing. We just get to work making the enemy's day miserable.

So what if some fool scarfed up all the stingers from the ammo box and now we have a Hind base-raping our MHQ? While everyone else is moaning, I've got an AT-4 out - it does not care about counter-measures and is quite deadly once you learn to lead a flying helo properly. Is that realistic? You bet it is if your life is at risk - experienced soldiers learn that the field manual is not the only way to get a job done. Any mod or server that gets uppity about me keeping my team alive via legitimate, but unconventional, tactics will get dumped in a New York minute.

You folks are entitled to your opinions, allow me to have mine. We both can enjoy ArmA as long as we stay flexible and not impose on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, all this talk about RUCKS, but I am unable to figure out how to pack a ruck via sqf. file. I know how to add a ruck and add weapons/rucks/items to your back, but cannot figure out how to add items to the ruck itself. I'm trying to make a black ops (using the BB Mod with Merc's) and I'd like to be able to carry a MIDF AUG in hand and then have a SD sniper rifle on my back with my ruck full of sniper rifle ammo so I can change weapons for close and long range tasks. Can anybody help me with this, PLEASE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have searched the mission scripting forum. But...

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/addMagazineCargo

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/addWeaponCargo

Oh, sorry. Too fast there...

Sorry, you can't have a ruck and secondary rifle, unless you use valuable ruck space to store it.

You can script it though, by giving yourself an action that stores the current weapon into a variable and removes the actual weapon. But you can never actually see a secondary rifle.

Edited by CarlGustaffa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×