Foregrips - What Should They Do And How Should They Do It?

[Katana67 2907]

So foregrips, I've personally never really had an issue with/without them. In my own personal range experience, the difference they made is negligible for me. However, I do find certain grips and foregrips more comfortable. Whether they've actually helped improve anything down-range is up for debate.

 

However, with the KAC RIS foreguard being available for the M4A1 in DayZ, with no real discernible use (other than to attach a flashlight) I figured it might be wise to add foregrips in order to give railed foreguards (now and in the future) a wider purpose.

 

 

Moreover, there are foregrips which do not require a rail, as seen here with the AMD-65 and AIMS.

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure as to what in-game benefit I'd want foregrips, if ever implemented (they probably should be), to have.

 

So, here's just a random few ideas off of the top of my head. Not sold on any of them. Perhaps different foregrips could have different values/effects. Not sure I'm on board with this BF-esque approach (works fine for BF but I'm assuming some of the folks who value realism may not want it to have exorbitant benefits attached to it), but it could work if done properly. Or, they could all (or there could just be one model) do the same thing.

 

- Decrease sway whilst on the move

- Decrease ambient sway whilst still

- Decrease horizontal recoil (if there is such a value in DayZ/ARMA)

- Decrease vertical recoil (if there is such a value in DayZ/ARMA)

 

Either way, I think it'd be a relatively easy (if done through railed interfaces, rather than weapon-specific foregrips) way of increasing the variety and utility in the current attachment system. Granted, there aren't that many railed weapons out there yet in DayZ (assuming the M4A1 is the only one currently). But it always struck me as odd (never mind that the MOE foreguard magically makes your weapon more accurate) that the KAC rails for the M4A1 in DayZ had no purpose other than mounting a flashlight.

 

What are your thoughts? What would you like foregrips to do if implemented? How would you want attachments overall to be managed?

Edited June 29, 2014 by Katana67

[-Gews- 7443]

I'd rather have them do nothing

Personal preference and too many factors, is the grip close to the receiver, is it in the middle, is it far forward, are you gripping it like a broomstick or using it as a handstop, what else is on the rifle, etc


We've seen what happens when the devs decide to represent small ergonomic differences in-game... for example we have the "CQB" stock, which decreases your carbine's accuracy to the tune of an additional 17 MOA because it's slightly shorter when fully extended and is named "CQB" and therefore must be useless for long range (despite the fact all the stocks are collapsible and have multiple positions). Or for example the Magpul furniture which is aftermarket and therefore increases your chances of hitting certain targets by about 35 times. This stuff often happens in games...


Merely saying something like "+15% speed" or "-10% muzzle climb" just does not sit well with me... it's not satisfactory. I'd rather they just leave this ergonomic stuff to personal preference unless it's something major, like a lack of any stock at all. I'd like it so someone could stick it on or leave it off their rifle and not be penalized either way. I don't see how they can do a good representation in-game and I doubt they would either.

 

 

[Bororm 1156]

Kinda agree with Gews.  I mean they could have it affect what they've been calling "dexterity" in relation to how you gun handles when you move/turn, but I can't really see a way to do that without making one better than the rest unless they adjust accuracy figures as well, which like Gews says is basically stupid.

 

I mean I suppose they could adjust the speed at which the weapon moves around, in such a way that having a grip suited for cqb would cause your gun to whip around faster and one better suited for long range make your gun move slower and more deliberately, making smaller aiming adjustments easier.  I think you're then almost representing mouse acceleration again though, in a weirder sort of way.

[Etherious 907]

I'd rather have them do nothing

Personal preference and too many factors, is the grip close to the receiver, is it in the middle, is it far forward, are you gripping it like a broomstick or using it as a handstop, what else is on the rifle, etc

We've seen what happens when the devs decide to represent small ergonomic differences in-game... for example we have the "CQB" stock, which decreases your carbine's accuracy to the tune of an additional 17 MOA because it's slightly shorter when fully extended and is named "CQB" and therefore must be useless for long range (despite the fact all the stocks are collapsible and have multiple positions). Or for example the Magpul furniture which is aftermarket and therefore increases your chances of hitting certain targets by about 35 times. This stuff often happens in games...

Merely saying something like "+15% speed" or "-10% muzzle climb" just does not sit well with me... it's not satisfactory. I'd rather they just leave this ergonomic stuff to personal preference unless it's something major, like a lack of any stock at all. I'd like it so someone could stick it on or leave it off their rifle and not be penalized either way. I don't see how they can do a good representation in-game and I doubt they would either.

I completely agree with you on that.

[gibonez 3633]

all of your suggestions are fantastic, so long as they have no control over the accuracy of the firearm they are ok in my book.

[falcon1439 20]

Foregrips should be purely aesthetic. It's all to do with personal preference and really, guns don't need them. My dad used an FN Fal in the army, he thought it was fine. That had no foregrip. My uncle, who just came back from Afghan, used the SA80 and thought the SA80 was a great weapon. That had no foregrip. If foregrips were all advantage, I think all armies would have them on their guns. Many armies main battle rifles don't have foregrips, so surely that proves they are not the greatest things to guns since sliced bread.

Edited May 1, 2014 by falcon1439

[Tiger205 48]

They should dump the retarded concept of attachments affecting accuracy anyway. And fix accuracy for all weapons before trying to do anything else.

[liquidsnake 275]

The AMD-65 is my favourite AK, so I definitely wouldn't mind to see that as a rarer, better version of the AKM with all the advantages you mentioned

[Katana67 2907]

To those saying they disapprove/dislike attachments affecting accuracy, a few things (I agree with you for the most part).

 

I believe, as I understand it, the current attachments that affect accuracy do so via modifying spread values. This is, of course, a caveman solution. But I'm not talking about having foregrips modify innate accuracy or down-range dispersion. The sight picture should still be accurate, it'd just move around more/less before or after you shoot.

 

So there's a difference there, it's not artificially dictating your accuracy after your round is in the air. It's merely either decreasing sway before you fire, or decreasing recoil after you fire. It's not dictating the accuracy of the weapon, but it's reducing input for the user as to make X slightly easier. It's modifying the level of sway in a few of my thoughts, which I think is the best way to do it. Rather than have it mess with recoil.

 

That said, while I agree that in real life, their use is overstated (albeit very, very, very common). And their utility is negligible (although based on comfort for the most part), I believe they should do something in-game. If only to give real use to the RIS handguards.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Katana67

[rickyspanish 158]

I agree with most comments so far that weapon attachments should not effect the accuracy, because to me its to gamey. Im fine with them effect sway and maybe recoil but as it is at the moment pretty much forces me to pickup the magpul parts else my m4 would not be at its potential. And if I'm in a gunfight why would the guy with magpul parts have better chance of hitting me because he has magic stock. I think they should keep attachments as mainly a cosmetic item for the gun, maybe I prefer magpul over standard or maybe I prefer the standard look. The only thing I won't to see effecting the rifles accuracy is its condition and even then Id prefer jamming and misfires.

Not sure what the effect of foregrips could be because its mostly whatever's most comfortable to the shooter. I know some games make it faster to raise your rifle to iron sights but again is to gamey.

Really hope they don't continue the way they are currently going with attachments, because I really hate it. I like attachments and variety but not being forced to take one over the other.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Ricky Spanish

[-Gews- 7443]

The AMD-65 is my favourite AK, so I definitely wouldn't mind to see that as a rarer, better version of the AKM with all the advantages you mentioned

 

How is the AMD-65 "better"? Some cons of the design are:

 

-little to no cheek weld

-very short sight radius

-short 12.5" barrel with brake means less velocity and more noise and blast

-forward grip can interfere with mag changes

-sheet metal handguard gets very hot

 

The gun was designed for paratroopers and mechanized infantry. It's only "better" if for some reason you need something more compact.

[Katana67 2907]

Really hope they don't continue the way they are currently going with attachments, because I really hate it. I like attachments and variety but not being forced to take one over the other.

 

Agreed, artificially dictating downrange accuracy is a bad thing.

 

But changing how the weapon itself handles, seems like a decent way of making certain attachments significant. Hell, I'd even support a sling attachment for quicker transitions from primaries to secondaries. Whether or not the devs will take this approach has yet to be seen.

 

As an aside, can anyone direct me to any quotes from the devs regarding the M4-attachment relationship? Have they said anything? Do they intend on continuing?

[liquidsnake 275]

How is the AMD-65 "better"? Some cons of the design are:

 

-little to no cheek weld

-very short sight radius

-short 12.5" barrel with brake means less velocity and more noise and blast

-forward grip can interfere with mag changes

-sheet metal handguard gets very hot

 

The gun was designed for paratroopers and mechanized infantry. It's only "better" if for some reason you need something more compact.

The gun is a less cumbersome version of the AKM with less muzzle flash but more sound. But mostly I just like the look of it. 

[taco86 156]

I'd like to see them have a minimal positive effect on the sway a weapon has when up but not aiming (holding down right click) while also having an equally small increase in weapon mass...  Attachments certainly need to increase the mass of the fire arm, specifically to drive some level of choice in setting up your weapon beyond "all the stuffs".  If these are to increase weapon mass, even by a very small amount (only 82 Grams for magpul AFG, about 2.5% increase on a loaded bare bone  m4a1) very few people will use them if there is not some level of a game play incentive...  Vertical grips are suppose to decrease fatigue on the user during extended periods of the weapon being shouldered.  This is due to reduced strain on the muscles in the forearm, the result of a more ergonomic wrist position.  Don't believe me?  Hold your left arm up in the support position, now rotate your wrist like you would be holding a heat shield and fore grip.  Use your right hand to feel the muscles in your left fore arm while doing this...  You should notice a rather significant difference in the tension of your fore arm muscles between the two positions.

 

Angled front grips (AFGs) are commonly used by speed shooters that use a more elbow out standing firing position.  According to many, this firing position is extremely effective at controlling recoil.  This, to me, is more than enough justification to grant a reduction in recoil (by a small amount) when using this attachment.

 

As for an actual "significant" increase in stability while standing(or really almost any position)?  Rifle strap is your answer.

 

Edited May 2, 2014 by taco86

[teapot156 79]

I've personally used an advance angled grip a lot and find it to be somewhat helpful getting a better hold around .308 cal systems.

 

But to be perfectly honest I think in real life its another stupid novelty item and the core ergonomics of a weapon are dependent on the design such as the position of the bolt release or charging handle and not aftermarket trinkets. However, there's always a dude at the range that will say otherwise.

[acdc_bag 32]

I'd rather have them do nothing

Personal preference and too many factors, is the grip close to the receiver, is it in the middle, is it far forward, are you gripping it like a broomstick or using it as a handstop, what else is on the rifle, etc

We've seen what happens when the devs decide to represent small ergonomic differences in-game... for example we have the "CQB" stock, which decreases your carbine's accuracy to the tune of an additional 17 MOA because it's slightly shorter when fully extended and is named "CQB" and therefore must be useless for long range (despite the fact all the stocks are collapsible and have multiple positions). Or for example the Magpul furniture which is aftermarket and therefore increases your chances of hitting certain targets by about 35 times. This stuff often happens in games...

Merely saying something like "+15% speed" or "-10% muzzle climb" just does not sit well with me... it's not satisfactory. I'd rather they just leave this ergonomic stuff to personal preference unless it's something major, like a lack of any stock at all. I'd like it so someone could stick it on or leave it off their rifle and not be penalized either way. I don't see how they can do a good representation in-game and I doubt they would either.

 

 

The CQB buttstock is literally worthless right now.  Even when they put in the "weapon" physics for turning and different weapons turn at different speeds, a CQB buttstock to make the weapon "easier to turn" is not going to be worth the dispersion it adds to the gun.

[cuddly_rabbit 102]

Delete that kind of military expert gear completely (practically all the M4 parts. Who the hell needs different buttstocks in a survival game?).

This is not a mil-sim and the further we can distance the game from it, the better (at least in my personal opinion).

The way how you hold your gun should not matter at all. For an untrained survivor who never had any military training, it very likely does not make a difference.

Edited May 2, 2014 by cuddly_rabbit

[Katana67 2907]

Delete that kind of military expert gear completely (practically all the M4 parts. Who the hell needs different buttstocks in a survival game?).

This is not a mil-sim and the further we can distance the game from it, the better (at least in my personal opinion).

The way how you hold your gun should not matter at all. For an untrained survivor who never had any military training, it very likely does not make a difference.

 

What reasoning are you citing by holding this opinion?

 

Most, if not all, of the attachments are readily available on the civilian market.

 

We know this isn't a mil-sim, but weapon attachments aren't exclusively used by militaries. And even if they were (which they aren't) what detriments can you cite in their inclusion?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Katana67

[weedmasta 784]

Agreed, artificially dictating downrange accuracy is a bad thing.

 

But changing how the weapon itself handles, seems like a decent way of making certain attachments significant. Hell, I'd even support a sling attachment for quicker transitions from primaries to secondaries. Whether or not the devs will take this approach has yet to be seen.

 

As an aside, can anyone direct me to any quotes from the devs regarding the M4-attachment relationship? Have they said anything? Do they intend on continuing?

 

Haven't read anything with regards to attachments. That said, I agree, as long as the attachments make sense in the way they effect the weapon, they should alter how the weapon operates/handles e.g. a foregrip reducing weapon sway and recoil. However the cone bs should really be removed ASAP.

[Katana67 2907]

However the cone bs should really be removed ASAP.

 

I think folks need to be a bit more vocal and concise about this. My interpretation, is that it's pretty unpopular. Yet I haven't really seen all that much focused discussion about it outside of the forums. I've yet to see a developer actually comment on it either.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Delete that kind of military expert gear completely (practically all the M4 parts. Who the hell needs different buttstocks in a survival game?).

This is not a mil-sim and the further we can distance the game from it, the better (at least in my personal opinion).

The way how you hold your gun should not matter at all. For an untrained survivor who never had any military training, it very likely does not make a difference.

Yep, let's just remove the hours of work they spent on making a few attachments because I don't feel that they fit. The fact that I found a Magpul stock is just so gamebreaking that they need to completely delete any evidence it ever existed in DayZ because DayZ is not a mil-sim and anything that has ever been featured in any medium of fiction or reality that features, involves, or references a military/defensive force/protectorate has no place in DayZ. Unless it's Russian (then anything goes).

Edited May 11, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[-Gews- 7443]

Yep, let's just remove the hours of work they spent on making a few attachments because I don't feel that they fit. The fact that I found a Magpul stock is just so gamebreaking that they need to completely delete any evidence it ever existed in DayZ because DayZ is not a mil-sim and anything that has ever been featured in any medium of fiction or reality that features, involves, or references a military/defensive force/protectorate has no place in DayZ. Unless it's Russian (then anything goes).

Heh, I agree with cuddly_rabbit there. I would delete that shit regardless of time spent on it. Damnatio memoriae.

From the moment I saw it in the pre-alpha devblogs I never liked it.

Not happening but one can dream. My opinions remain the same, except it's much worse than I had imagined because it gives arcade-like buffs to the weapon.

 

One thing I'm not a huge fan of is all the accessories for the M4, I wouldn't imagine post-Soviet zombie apocalypse to look like a TAPCO catalogue...

ie, why would you need 3 different types of M4 stocks and where would you even find those?

I don't like it because I don't think it's plausible to find all these random parts lying around to make people's guns look cool.

[Bororm 1156]

It's more stuff to collect which means more gameplay opportunities.  The current implementation currently isn't so great, but it's going to be tweaked down the line.

 

It's better than the mod's method of "heres an m16 acog, heres an m16, here's an m16 gl, here's an m16 red dot" all as separate items.

Saying they should scrap attachments entirely is ridiculous.

 

 

Could people please actually understand what is going on in development?

They add in systems/mechanics and then move on to the next one.  They've created a foundation for a weapon attachment system and thrown in a few examples to make it "work" and then move on to the next thing, say hunting or vehicles or whatever.  They'll do the same there, they'll throw in a very basic vehicle system and it will probably be shit as well, then they'll move on to base building and it will be shit too, then they will move on to aircraft or whatever the fuck and so on.

 

They don't care about perfecting these systems yet, that comes later.  Just because something doesn't work exactly as desired currently doesn't mean it won't be properly built up later, that's the entire point of the alpha process.  Just because attachments and weapons function like shit now doesn't mean they can't tweak this shit later on.  Do you really think they give a fuck about weapon balance right now?  All they care about right now is getting a working prototype of these mechanics in the game.  Look at the grand picture.

 

You don't scrap a piece of art based on the rough sketches, you build up from them.  It's a process.

 

When the game actually releases, and if these systems still suck, then complain.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Bororm

[qww 287]

how about this?

if it slightly changed the way you moved with the rifle aimed, like slighly faster movement when aimed or with spacebar pressed so you have the rifle up, suitable for more close quarters engagements, and if a similar value was added with the cq buttstock.

no penalty , no boost, i think that would be a good reason to add it

then, its personal preference if you like it or not

 

edit , sorry forgot to mention i was talking about the foregrip here!

Edited May 12, 2014 by qww

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Heh, I agree with cuddly_rabbit there. I would delete that shit regardless of time spent on it. Damnatio memoriae.

From the moment I saw it in the pre-alpha devblogs I never liked it.

Not happening but one can dream. My opinions remain the same, except it's much worse than I had imagined because it gives arcade-like buffs to the weapon.

 

 

Well you wouldn't have spent the time on them to begin with. And I would never have complained if someone suggested them and they didn't get added.

I'm sure if you put hard work into something that someone else thought out of place you would probably not feel the same way you do now. Yes, that'd be because what you added you'd think (and logically so) in place, but nonetheless.