stormhawkv

The weight of many guns is extremely off since patch 1.54, especially when you compare them to their real world counterparts. I think it was done to support their new "stamina"-system, which got introduced with that update. As a result most players use the MX-SW or SPAR-16S when they have the choice because they are the most weight-efficient. You can lug around one of these + 900-1200 rounds instead of an SPMG and even more when compared to the Navid or GM6 Lynx.

I have already explained the reasons behind my suggestion. They are a combination of "A is heavier than B" and real world weight x10 for lb or x22 for kg. The problem is the non-existent proportion between the guns. However, the whole discussion is null and void after the latest changes as they are obviously not interested in improving the system. A 7,62mm rifle has now twice the mass of a 6,5mm rifle and an anti-material rifle is three times as heavy as an anti-tank missile launcher. If you don't believe me download the release candidate and compare the default classes with each other.

Me too, but they seem to be determined to change it and the old system from OFP is somewhat more favorable than having 10 kg marksman rifles and 22 kg sniper rifles. That should be the load of a heavy weapons team, not the load of a sniper team.

I was thinking of alternatives to fulfill the design goals for the new stamina system by using better methods than those we have seen. Some time ago I noticed that rifles using larger cartridges than 6,5mm and belt-fed machineguns don't fit into backpacks even though their mass value would allow them to do so. This is just the type of exception that could be used to limit loadouts without making larger rifles so heavy that no sane person would choose them over one of the standard service rifles. For instance rifles that are heavier than 110 mass units (5 kg) could take up both weapon slots. The launcher slot then appears with a red overlay when you attempt to pick up a launcher and a tooltip is shown saying "Your current primary is too cumbersome to carry a launcher." or something alike. The same happens when you attempt to pick up a sniper rifle while carrying a launcher but with the primary slot turning red and a different tooltip of course. Combining ghillie suits with backpacks and/or helmets could be prevented the same way. However, the mass values of some rifles need to be adjusted for this to work because they are too inconsistent within the "classes". People wouldn't understand why they can use the TRG-21 EGLM but not the MX3GL, or the Rahim but not the Mk18 ABR. At this opportunity I would like to refer to this thread. But first and foremost there needs to be a connection between the stamina bar and sway (which is currently too much btw). If this critical requirement is not met, the system will be way less transparent than what we have now and you can just as well throw it down the drain together with the rest of the changes.

Exactly. They say the old system is too difficult to be understood by the majority of players but now they have a mechanic that is unrelated to the stamina bar which was supposed to get rid of the problem. This new stamina system doesn't achieve any of the design goals yet they intend to push it out. And why do they break the relation of mass values between guns? Who came up with the idea that the GM6 Lynx should take up half the max carry weight? I always thought the preset classes had reasonable loadouts and the new stamina system broke many of them. Did that not raise concerns in your project?

I thought the same but this is something I don't want to see in Arma 3 and even if I would the "performance gap" between the 6,5mm and 7,62mm rifles isn't big enough for a difference of 120 mass units.

Yes, I'm aware of this and I don't have a problem with mass values not being 100% realistic. However, I do have a problem with mass value relations between different guns being completely blown out of proportion. The mass of standard service rifles has not been changed. Marksman rifles now weight more than twice as much as the MX and Katiba rifles. There is absolutely no point in using them any more. You could spend the saved mass on 360 (!) additional 6,5mm rounds. A sniper now carries more weight than an AT rifleman, his spotter has to carry the ammunition for his rifle and even then he's barely able to sprint 10 meters. It feels as if they are purposefully trying to break the game with these changes.

So the MAR-10 now takes up one third of your max carrying capacity. The 220 mass units of the Mk-1 EMR equal 10 kilos for a rifle that shouldn't weight more than 4,5 kilos. The closest real world counterpart of the MAR-10 weights around 6 kilos and you can't carry more than the mass equivalent of three MAR-10. You can look at this from two different points of view. Either Arma 3 soldiers can't carry more than 20 kilos or the new MAR-10 weights 14,5 kilos which is more than the real world M200 (M320 LRR in game). WTF? Edit: I can't believe these changes made it to release candidate. Do you even realise what they do to your preset classes? You had to take away the NATO Missile Specialist's Carrier Special Rig and Enhanced Combat Helmet so that he stays under 100% load and the CSAT Sniper from the Marksman DLC (full ghillie) is missing the ammo for his rifle because it would put him over 100% load.

I noticed you're changing the mass values of the heavier guns and their ammo types. While I appreciate the idea in general there is one thing I don't like at all: please stop giving items uneven mass values. So far nearly all items have had even mass values with the 11rnd .45 mag for the 4-five as the only exception. This just makes things more complicated. The 100rnd 6,5mm mag for the MX SW now has a mass value of 25 - make it 24 instead. It's much easier to memorize because that's two 20rnd 7,62mm mags or three 30rnd 5,56mm mags and so on. Edit: What have you done? 220 mass units for the Mk-1 EMR, 320 for the MAR-10 and 420 for the M320 LRR? Are you serious? I hope this is some kind of an accident or a bad joke. If not it will totally ruin the game. I don't think I have to explain this any further.

I wasn't able to extract them either. I determined the size of the trunk of a car and put the DLC guns into it one after the other. I have no raw data for dispersion values but I did some testing with the Mk-1 EMR and it's not outperforming other 7,62mm rifles any more. Its weight however remains unchanged - still 160 mass units.

Why do you want to abandon a working system? I know it's not perfect, but you could improve it instead of heading full speed into the opposite direction, especially after you invested that much time and work into it. Having this new stamina system will not keep those who don't like the idea of movement restrictions from disabling it, but those who use the current fatigue system because they like it are then forced to use a mod that has to be made first? This makes absolutely no sense. You can please all people some of the time, or some people all of the time but you can't please all people at the same time. These changes won't do anyone any good. It won't make life of those who like to play KotH or Altis Life easier and it will severely hurt those who like to enjoy milsim-gameplay on non-modded servers. I already wrote that the current fatigue system is not perfect but it's producing a far superior milsim-experience compared to what we had before. Please consider this before releasing these changes to stable-branch. Are you doing this because you're looking for new features? Here are three much better suggestions: 1. Bullet in the chamber > nice dose of realism + working bolt-action rifles *cough* M320 *cough* (many players want to see this) 2. Collision boxes for rifles > to stop people from doing room-clearing with snipers and MMGs (gun is lowered/raised automatically upon colliding with a wall) 3. Rifle hanging from the vest when switching to sidearm so it doesn't take as long as putting it on the back (and allow the player to move while doing so)

Updated values for my suggestion on more realistic weapon mass. NATO P07 - 20 4-five - 30 Vermin - 50 MXC - 70 MX - 80 MXM - 90 MX SW - 100 MX3GL - 110 M320 LRR - 310 CSAT Rook-40 - 20 Zubr .45 - 30 Sting - 50 Katiba Carbine - 70 Katiba - 80 Rahim - 100 Katiba GL - 110 Zafir - 170 GM6 Lynx - 250 AAF ACP-C2 - 20 PDW2000 - 40 Mk20C - 60 Mk20 - 70 Mk20 EGLM - 100 Mk18 ABR - 110 Mk200 - 120 FIA TRG-20 - 60 TRG-21 - 70 TRG-21 EGLM - 100 DLC Mk-1 EMR - 100 MAR-10 - 140 SPMG - 240 ASP-1 Kir - 130 Cyrus - 150 Navid - 220 Mk14 - 90

Now that the overall weight a soldier can carry has been reduced, it's even more important to give weapons their realistic weights or at least eliminate excessive discrepancies.

Try "T". Works fine for me.

Most vehicles have a capacity of either 2000 or 4000 mass units. Quadbikes have 600. I'm currently working on my own list but it doesn't include vehicles yet.