agent()()9

I've done a search for the topic of which I am about to discuss. I'm not sure why nothing comes up; perhaps I'm not searching correctly... I love this game and have all the DLC, but I've noticed the same problem with Warlords and many other BI public multiplayer servers, and I think it is a big reason that so many of them are empty. Please please PLEASE fix the vote kick/vote admin feature. I've seen numerous complaints that TKers were ruining the public Warlords servers, and that the vote kick system is completely ineffective, so I had to see if that was the case. The first and only server I connected to (one of the Warlords public US servers) had one TKer on the other team. Both teams agreed to vote kick him, and for about five minutes straight, I see "Player X would like to vote kick Drift" from many (if not all players) in the server. After that didn't work, we all chose one player to vote as admin and the same thing happened - five minutes straight of players voting to make this one play admin, and nothing happened. This player (Drift, if anyone cares) just kept TKing away like the psychopath he is. This experience tells me one of two things: 1) The "Vote Kick" system is bugged, and doesn't work after the threshold of voting players is reached to kick a player, or 2) The "Vote Kick" system does work, but the threshold (is it 70% of players in the server?) is way too high for it to be effective. It needs to be MUCH lower, if this is the case. I've had and heard problems of players not playing other multiplayer missions (End Game, in my case), due to the complete ineffectiveness of the vote kick/vote admin system. Maybe this is a big factor for why these servers are never populated. I am the type of person who doesn't like to complain about a problem without providing a suggestion to solve that problem. My suggested solution: Make the vote kick threshold 50% of players OR 10 players, whichever is lower. Otherwise, Warlords is a fantastic multiplayer mission. It (and other great game modes like End Game) just happens to be effectively ruined by a flawed player management system. As a dedicated supporter of this game, PLEASE fix this. Thank you for hearing me out.

The reasons I hate the new weapon sway system: 1) It is not so much because of the magnitude of sway, but how loooooooong it takes to reduce the sway. For example: I've noticed that after sprinting for a short bit, even when my stamina bar fully recovers, it still takes 15-20 seconds for my sway to become fairly steady from the crouched position. If my stamina bar is full, doesn't that mean I'm fully recovered? Why does it take so long to get steady aim after that? This is really frustrating, to the point that I barely want to play anymore. 2) The amount of sway after deploying my weapon with a bipod seems to be a bit too much. A gun set up on a bipod should be fairly rock steady. As an aside, although think the old fatigue system was a bit more realistic, I do like the new stamina indicator. I really hoped sway is addressed in the next patch. If it isn't, I really don't see myself playing much anymore - especially if the AI maintains its superhuman accuracy while I'm dealing with a drunk Michael J. Fox for my character. I understand that holding my breath helps, but even shooting rifles in real life while actively breathing wasn't nearly as bad as the current system.

Agreed with St. Jimmy. I tried today's dev branch, and sway is still too high. The main problem is that after my stamina bar is fully recovered, it takes 15-20 seconds for my sway to go down. Full stamina bar should = the most steady aim for a given stance.

Good news, all (hopefully)! Just saw the dev branch changelog today: Tweaked: Adjusted the magnitude of weapon sway levels; increased stability in rested and deployed states to provide more benefit for active reduction of weapon sway and reward tactical gameplayI'm praying that this makes it to the main branch soon, and that it restores sway to pre-Nexus levels. Bonus if it reduces the sway for bipod stabilization even further than pre-Nexus. Thank you for listing to your player base, BI. Most of the other changes and additions (especially the new End Game missions) are great! It's only the Nexus sway that is really killing the gameplay for me. ​ Edit: Just tried the dev branch, testing some weapons in the virtual arsenal...the level of sway is still too high. I can only tell a slight difference :( It still takes too long for the sway to calm down once stationary and fully-rested after a very short run.

I'll probably get criticized for posting this (especially by Fennek), but I haven't gotten an answer yet, and it relates to the DLC weapons. Also, I am deployed, so I can't test this myself: Would someone mind going into the virtual arsenal of the game (dev branch) and create two exactly equal load outs (doesn't matter what, as long as they are the same) with only this difference: Loadout 1 has a Zafir and one 150-round magazines Loadout 2 has a Mk-1 EMR and seven 20-round magazine (140 rounds total) Now, look at the load percentage shown for each load out. Are they the same or different? If different, by how much? Does anyone know if your load percentage is the only thing that determines how quickly you fatigue when running? I'm hoping that the load percentage shown is not equal to the rate of fatigue, as loadout 2 should be lighter than loadout 1.

Yeah, I figured BI wasn't going to do much more tweaking of the weapons, but I'm surprised at your test results. I was reading that BI might unencrypt the .ebo files in the near future once the Marksmen DLC isn't so new/exclusive. Once they do, they'll be normal .pbo files that can be extracted and viewed for their configs. I guess we'll have to wait and see. The only information we can use besides your clever trunk trick, is the statistics bars from the virual arsenal.

How are you guys able to view the Marksmen DLC weapon statistics? Are you looking at the config files somehow? The files for them are encrypted as .ebo files, so I can't extract them. Besides that, the config viewer in the editor shows missing/incorrect values. For example, weapon mass isn't shown and the dispersion for all assault and sniper rifles are the same (0.00029).

Okay, I was able to view the config file after extracting the "weapons_f" pbo. Next question: Where are the config files for the Marksmen DLC weapons? All I see are the vanilla Arma 3 weapons. Are they located under another .pbo file name? Edit: I see the marksmen DLC files are encrypted as .ebo files...So how are people able to view the configs for them? That is ultimately all I want to do.

Hi all, Not sure this is the optimal place to post this, but here it goes: I'm trying to find all the weapon statistics/values in the editor's config viewer, but ran into a few issues. 1) I don't see the "mass" values for any of the weapons under the weapons' class names. Not sure if this is the right term, but it is the value that determines your soldier's encumbrance from that specific weapon. I looked under several class names for various weapons, and I don't see "mass" anywhere (should be in alphabetical order?). 2) The "dispersion" variable is .00029 for all the assault rifles (arifle) and DMRs (srifle_DMR, if I recall). Isn't this the weapon's accuracy value? If so, why is the MXC's dispersion the same as the Rahim's? 3) If I'm looking in the wrong place for these variables, would someone please tell me how to find the exact/find weapon attributes? I tried forum searches, googling and youtube. The only things I found was how to find the weapon class names via the config viewer under the editor, but then I have the problem of #1 and #2 above. Thank you for any guidance you can provide.

Cool, thanks. I'll give that a shot. Need to install the extractor, but I'll figure that out.

Have any of you guys been able to confirm the EMR's initspeed in the current game version? ---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ---------- If BI is going to keep the EMR as heavy as it is, then I don't have a problem with it having enhanced performance when compared to the other 7.62mm rifles. If its muzzle velocity is well beyond the realm of reality, however, then it should be reduced along with its weight.

The effect of the 22 multiplier will depend on what real-world weapons you are using to compare Arma's weapons to, of course. I was trying to use real world examples that produced more consistent results across all weapons that came near the 29 mass units/1 kg ratio, based off of the Mk14/M14 ratio. Even going with your comparisons, I would be happier if BI implemented your suggested solution. Edit: To clarify, I tried using the weapons' real life inspirations as comparable weights first, but for the EMR in particular, I used the SIG716's weight as I felt it was more fitting. Also, with the higher accuracy, muzzle velocity and weight of the EMR, it seems to be more of a sniper rifle than a battle rifle. Some heavier semi-auto 7.62mm rifles seem to be classified as sniper rifles, if Wikipedia is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sniper_rifles ---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ---------- A bit off topic, but does anyone know the distinction between a battle rifle, a marksman rifle, and a sniper rifle of the same caliber? It seems that from first rifle type to last, the rifle gets more accurate and heavier. Some sniper rifles do seem lighter though...I don't really know.

That's a very good point. The problem here is that we don't know the equation used to represent how mass and fatigue rate relate to each other. Perhaps the in-game weights were not meant to scale linearly, which would explain why heavier guns would be lighter in relation to other weapons than if we used a linear equation like [mass units = 29 x weight in kg]. I think that your solution is a better and simpler one (all weapons x22 to get mass units). Another solution would be to use a linear equation like the above, and make the rate of fatigue exponential, depending on weight carried. For a visual of what I mean, look at the graph on the right side of this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth If rate of fatigue is currently like the red equation, where X represents total mass units carried and f represents fatigue rate, then perhaps it should be more like the green equation. This way, object masses can scale correctly to each other, but items that would be made heavier as a result, equate to a similar fatigue rate. Changing the multiplier from 29(?) to 22 isn't going to change how the weights of the weapons compare to each other, it will just make ALL of them lighter, across-the-board (which sounds like a good idea in itself). What guns of comparable weight are you referring to? From my last post, and looking at different weapons online, assault rifles are generally lighter than DMRs - both in real life and in-game. I was able to find the real-life inspiration for the Kir. It is the VSS Vintorez. Source: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III

I see your point about using the 29 ratio when applied to M320. However, I see the maximum carrying capacity as more of a practical limit (i.e. "I can carry all this and still be fairly mobile") instead of a hard, I-can't-carry-anymore type of limit. I would go ruck with a maximum of 50 lbs (22.68 kgs) in my unit. Moving quickly with 50 lbs on my back was somewhat difficult for me, and I'm in fairly good shape. 42 kgs is 93 lbs! I can't imagine being able to do more than walk or run a VERY short distance with more than 80 lbs (36 kgs). 42 kgs is a good practical limit. I see that the SIG 556 looks just like the EMR, but I still think the SIG 716 is a better comparison. It is the same caliber, and still made by the same company. I see the inspiration of the SIG 516 as more of an aesthetic one, while the SIG 716 serves as a better functional comparison. It may be a heavier comparison to use, but there are several 7.62mm semi-auto DMRs that are 7.0 kgs or more. There are also lighter ones. The point is that there is no perfect comparison, but a weapon of that in-game "weight" is quite feasible. I thought I've seen something that showed the real-life inspirations for the Kir and Cyrus. I'll do a little searching and reply if I find something.

Stormhawk, which missing guns are you referring to? So I think we can all agree that the mass values aren't important, but the relationship between the weapon mass values are (to represent real-life differences in weight). This said, I wanted to eliminate the "mass units = 22 x mass (in kg)" assumption, because I don't know if that works out to correct values. To eliminate this as a factor, but still compare differences, I did some math-ing. So this calculation (mass units/real world equivalent weight) should return a ratio that is roughly equal across-the-board for all weapons, if the weapon weights compare realistically. So we take Stormhawk's mass values for some in-game weapons, and divide them by the weight in kg of real-world equivalent weapons (adjusting for differences in caliber). So here is what I use for estimations, mostly using Wikipedia as a source: Arma Weapon; Arma Mass; Real-world equivalent (weight in kg); Notes; Formula and Resulting Ratio Mk14 120; M14 (4.1 kg); Pretty much the same weapons in-game and real life; 120/4.1 kg = 29.27 MX; 100; SCAR-L (3.29 kg); Weight adjusted up to account for slightly higher 6.5mm caliber; 100/3.5 kg = 28.57 Mk18 ABR; 140; M14 EBR (5.1 kg); Same caliber; 140/5.1 kg = 27.45 MAR-10; 180; Noreen Bad News (5.9 kg); Increased weight slightly because of larger hand guard; 180/6.1 kg = 29.5 Mk1 EMR; 160; Sig 716 DMR (5.58 kg); Same caliber, lighter real-world comparison; 160/5.58 kg =28.67 Mk1 EMR; 160; Brugger & Thomet APR (7.0 kg); Same caliber, heavier real-world comparison; 160/7.0 kg = 22.86 Zafir; 180; IMI Negev NG7 (7.6 kg); Same caliber; 180/7.6 kg = 23.68 MXM; 120; SCAR-L Long (3.49 kg); Weight adjusted up to account for slightly higher 6.5mm caliber; 120/3.8 kg = 31.58 So what does this show? Weapons with higher ratios are likely heavier in-game and weapons with lower ratios are probably lighter in-game. I took two estimates of the EMR to show that there are many real-world equivalents, and that the ratios could vary widely. The most accurate ratio should be about 29, because the M14 and Mk14 in-game are virtually the same weapons. As you can see, most weapon ratios don't stray too far from 29. From this, I would conclude that the comparative weights in-game are not bad. It is hard to tell how authentic the weights are however, as the weapons could have several real-world equivalents. So looking at this, I was probably wrong to speculate that BI was fudging the weights in an attempt to artificially balance weapons. I would like to apologize to the devs for that. The comparative weights are not as bad as I made them out to be in my previous rant. Edit: Sorry for shitty formatting

*Original statement deleted, due to it being wrong* Your calculations seem accurate. Zafir weight confirmed here: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Negev So the Zafir was more accurate at 160 mass units...huh. It is the lightest 7.62mm LMG that I've seen out of all the other ones I've come across. The other DMRs as you can see however, are really overweight in-game.

Edit: After doing some more research on weapon weights and simple math calculations, I was wrong to speculate that BI was fudging the numbers. My assumption of the formula the devs used to calculate mass was based off of someone else's post, which seems to be incorrect. I am very sorry to the developers for ranting below, as I did. *Sigh* I just looked up the stats of the Noreen Bad News (http://onlylongrange.com/bad-news/). This is the weapon the MAR-10 is based on. The weight of this rifle is 13 lbs, or 5.9 kgs. Multiplied by 22, it comes out to about 130, yet it is 180 mass units in game. Even if the formula I'm using isn't correct, it is still significantly heavier than other weapons that should be about equal weight when comparing real-life equivalents. So based on this pattern, I can't help but speculate that BI is making the long-range weapons heavier than their real-life counterparts as part of some sort of gamey "balancing" tactic. This really pisses me off, if this is true. I don't want Arma to be Call of Duty or Battlefield, with arbitrary weapon "balancing" that results in unauthentic weaponry. If I wanted that crap, I'd play those games. If BI is worried that people will only pick those weapons in certain game modes, then maybe the game modes should restrict classes, or limit resources and make you "buy" the weapons in-game (NOT permanently like in KOTH). If every A-hole can use whatever weapon he wants in the game mode, then maybe the problem is with the game mode itself, and not the weapons. BI, please just make the weapons weigh the same as their closest real-life counterparts and stop playing the "balancing" game; for the love of God, authenticity, and the majority of your fan base. This kind of thing may be insignificant to some, but stuff like this is really turning me off to the game.

Agreed, but if the EMR is that heavy and has no distinctive advantage over the other DMRs (if the initspeed is reduced), then why use it? In this case however, reducing the mass of the EMR will make it more authentic to real-life DMRs with the same caliber and similar designs.

Perhaps it is an error. If it is an error and they do reduce the velocity, then they should reduce the EMR's mass a bit more as well to compensate. I wouldn't want to use an overly-heavy m14. The only other explanation I can think of is "future" Arma firearm technology improving muzzle velocity.

Thanks for posting the mass values, Stormhawk. So I found this (it is outdated by now): http://imgur.com/0JDAAvi For the EMR (assuming they kept the values the same), the accuracy and muzzle velocity (initspeed) is very high compared to the other 7.62mm rifles in game. The caliber is also a bit higher than the m14 (which I think is probably the default for the rest of the 7.62mm rifles). I've looked at several semi-auto 7.62mm DMR and sniper rifles online, and there are only a few that match the heavy weight of the EMR (assuming weight in kg = mass units / 22). The H&K PSG1 and M39 EMR are the only two with equivalent weight. All of the remaining semi-auto 7.62mm rifles are much lighter. Considering everything, when you look at how accurate and powerful the EMR is, I can see why BI would also make it the most heavy 7.62mm DMR. It is more of a light-caliber sniper rifle than a battle rifle. I'm still glad that the devs made the Zafir and the MMGs heavier, though. I couldn't find one 7.62mm LMG that was nearly as light as the Zafir was. Even bumping it up from 160 to 180 might still be a bit too light. I know that I've been nit-picking here on the weapon masses, so I'll finish with this: Overall, I think the folks at BI have done a fantastic job on the Marksmen DLC from what I've seen, with bipods, recoil, sound overhaul, weapon stabilization, end game mode and new weapons. They've addressed just about every major concern I've had about this game in one big update. I'll be buying the DLC and enjoying some game time when I return home from my deployment.

It would be interesting to see; thank you! I won't have access to my computer until about mid-June. Also, do you (or anyone else) know if the inertia values on the DMRs are at least better than the MGs, in general?

I agree that it doesn't have to be perfect. Those values you posted would work fine; maybe make the MMGs 180 or 200.

The problem isn't that it can't be tweaked by modders, but a problem with vanilla Arma 3 itself. There is not enough distinction between using an LMG or MMG, and other weapons if soldiers can carry MGs as easily as other weapons that should be lighter. I saw a recent youtube video of End Game where almost everyone was running around with an LMG or MMG. Edit: To clarify, I mean that stamina should deplete faster with an MG because of the heavier weight. I don't think weight should affect the initial rested run speed.

Even if volume and mass are combined in one value, this still seems way off. Authenticity of a weapon's weight is more important to accurately represent encumbrance. The easiest solution might be to make "mass units" = weight for all items, and create a new value for volume that equals the "mass units" value by default, but exists to be tweaked if the developers feel it should be adjusted later to account for unusually bulky or compact items. "Mass units" would affect a soldier's fatigue rate while moving, while "Volume" would be used to determine the maximum capacity of a container or person.

Are you guys sure the mass of the Zafir is 180? Last I heard, it was 160, same as the EMR. That's good if they increased it. I think the issues are that the DMRs are overweight overall, but volume is considered into the equation that determines the value of an object's "mass units". Thanks for doing that, Brisse. As I said, I would test myself if I were home. I'm guessing that the rate of fatigue is directly tied to the total mass units carried. I hope BI separates volume from being considered as part of the "mass unit" value. Volume should be a separate variable to limit maximum holding capacity, so as not to affect fatigue rate.