Ergo buffs in 0.10 is a casual iceberg about to ram the realism ship

Let's talk about ergonomics. It is one of the two main values that players watch for when modding weapons. Recoil and Ergonomics. In theory, it is a great idea. A weapon that is more ergonomic can be swayed around faster. It feels lighter.

But there are two problems with it:

  • The ergonomics modifiers on some attachments do not make sense.
  • Recent reddit requests will cause the devs to exaggerate ergonomics modifiers. 

As for the first problem. Ergonomics in theory should work like this:

  • The less stuff you pack on your gun, the handier it is. If you put a scope on it, it adds extra weight and it adds an expensive fragile thing on top that makes you naturally handle it more careful (and slower). Imagine putting a 1000$ scope on your rifle in real life. Would you throw that gun into the back of your pick up truck? Let's keep this in mind: Ergonomics = How careful I have to be when handling it so nothing breaks.

  • The second part of ergonomics is how well you have a hold of the gun. A front grip allows for a more natural wrist angle. Because human wrists are not made for holding straight barrels with their off-hand. This is a design relic of the first muskets before ergonomics was a thing people consciously applied to firearms. So following this, a vertical or angled grip give you a better grip and therefore increase ergonomics. The same for pistol grips.
So far so good.
  • If the whole weapon is easier to handle without the fear of breaking it == + ergonomics.
  • If the whole weapon is easier to hold onto == + ergonomics.
But now it gets tricky. An attachment that makes a weapon harder or less comfortable to hold should decrease ergonomics. Magazines for example. Longer and/or heavier magazine (if it is loaded) should decrease ergonomics. Because it is that long thing sticking out of the bottom of your gun. For AK 5.45 magazines, this works great. The smallest 10 round magazine has a -1% ergo penalty and the 60 round magazine has a -6%. However for other weapons there magazine ergo modifiers are removed, this could be an oversight or a bug. (This is the case for AS VAL and kedr magazines).

Handguard realism

However if we look at handguards, the realism is being derailed. If you take a look at the above comparison picture of two handguards, do you see what is wrong? This terrible sharp-edged B-10M block of unergonomic stickiness has 5 more ergomonics than the smooth wooden one. That is not realistic. The thing with mounting system, like the picatinny rails, is that they trade smoothness for stickiness to attach things. Every rail on a gun should decrease ergonomics because all these sharp contours have to be avoided to not scratch yourself and have to be avoided to bump into things so they dont get damaged, because damaged rails make it harder to put attachments on it. But almost every item in the game right now with rails on it gives ergo buffs. But it was not this way. Over a year ago, if you put a B-33 dust cover on your AK, it would lower ergo, because it is a large dustcover with a long rail on it. But my guess was that the devs detached themselves from consistent realism when "balancing" it. Because someone on reddit said "I dont want to use this thing not enough ergo plz buff!"

Here is one more thing to back up that argument. MLOK and Keymod. These are mounting systems that only put rails on the gun in specific places. Why you might wonder? Why not rail the whole gun up all the time? Why bother with buying a keymod handguard, then buy a keymod rail to put it on?

The point is that fewer rails make the weapon easier to handle. That is the whole point of these systems. To put only the required amount of rail onto the gun. Does EFT follow this logical realism? In this case it does not. Only 5 ergo for the keymod handguard. But the B-10M which is as comfortable to grip as it is to pet a chihuahua that does not want to get petted gets a 9 ergo. What the heck? Come on BSG, consistent realism. The game should reward smart and realistic weapon modding, but that feature was derailed. Because you can rail up your entire gun and get ergo buffs for it, but if you put on systems that REDUCE the rails to a minimum amount you get less ergo. And scopes have no effect on ergo, only the largest ones  give tiny ergo nerfs. If you mount a giant scope apparatus and a red dot on top of it or use a canted red dot then the weapon should be an unwieldly thing that you can barely operate.

  • Reward players with fewer mods with better handling unless the item directly improves handling. 
  • Use consistent realism as a base for decisions, not reddit upvotes.
  • Ergonomics buffs should be minimal, barely noticable, and mostly cosmetic.

The rubber pad for the AK weapons should not have ergo buffs, it is a sticky rubber pad that is designed to be sticky and to not slide off your shoulder. That is the opposite of ergonomic.

Red Dot Sights

Red dot sights, while they make it easier to acquire a quick sight picture should also get ergo NERFS. Their faster target acquisition is offset by the extra weight on the gun and the required care the shooter has to use to not bump into into things because it is fragile. Of course that is an abstract effect currently not present in EFT but it should be counted into the ergo nerf.

The Casual Iceberg

 Let's talk about the second problem, it all started with this:

Here is what I would like to predict. Players who focus a lot on creating the "perfect build" because the "meta" will lose sight of what is really important, keeping the firefights realistic. And so it appears, will the devs. Players will demand larger and larger ergonomics buffs for cool looking pistol grips so it is "worth" putting on the gun. The end result are not only visually warped AK weapons (seriously what is wrong with people putting western stocks on AK rifles), but also the realism of the game getting warped. Because the weapon handling characteristics will be distorted to unrealistic levels.

Here are the worst effects I predict:

  • Time required to acquire sight picture will be reduced to comedic COD casual levels, possibly less than a tenth of a second. Because this is an accept casual fps standard to make foregrips snap your aim faster. But this has no basis in reality. A front grip only allows you to hold the gun more comfortably and possibly have a tighter grip, so it could only affect recoil and sway, and the rate at which your left hand tires.
    This is one of the more important things. If aiming to sights becomes this quick casual snap then it removes the magic of the experience of carefully aligning the weapon sights. The realistic feeling of shooting and aiming with a weapon should not be thrown out to be a casualty for secondary game features like attachment buffs.
  • Reloading time, which already is too short, will be even shorter. Which then will be a perfect replica of the "sleight of hand" perk in COD. Another way to suck realism out of the game.
  • Heavy, large weapons will feel light as a feather because they can be pumped up with ergonomics.

Ergonomics does not need a "buff". It is supposed to be a small, barely noticable modifier. If this is exagerrated the game effectively started introducing magical modifiers and soon after that we might get frost damage or fire damage bullets because if Borderlands or Divinity 2 has it then why not?
Anything that distorts the raw hard realism of weapon handling should be removed or reduced in effect. However the opposite is happening now. This is why the article compares this very bad buff idea to an iceberg. It is one of the many very bad reddit ideas that for reasons I dont get, get picked up by the devs so that players who just play this like some diablo gear optimization puzzle feel better. But that is not the core of the game. The core is realistic gunfighting. The loot farmer casuals seriously should step back and consider all these things they wish for.

Closing words

Skip watching reddit. You guys developed the most realistic fps for 5 years without any player input before the early access alpha and you nailed the realism. And now all of this is eroded by dumb reddit posts. BSG, you do not need player input for the gameplay systems that should be designed after reality. No player should have for example input into how fast a weapon can be reloaded. That is something you can measure with a stuntman and a stopwatch in your studio. How much a weapon kicks or how much body armor a bullet penetrates, these decisions should exist in a reddit-less, streamer-less vacuum.  I bought the game in September 2016, never watched a streamer play it or someone recommend it. All I saw was a developer video where you showed weapon jams, and the fact that long barrel weapons have a forward shifted center of gravity. That is when I decided to buy it. The point is that you did all of that and you did it right, before players could influcence your decisions. Bring the game back to that time. Where all your decisions came from using consistent realism.


  1. The whole thing about the gun being "more fragile" by introducing optics is completely absurd. It's easier to break an M4 by damaging the charging handle, the fire selector, the pistol grip, the handguard, or the buffer tube than it is to break a Specter DR, ACOG scope, or most modern optics. Particularly combat optics. My old AR upper ended up with a bent barrel and the ELCAN I had on it is completely fine. Likewise, it's easier to damage or bend ironsights than it is to damage a red dot optic. Just look at any of the litany of torture tests out there.

    Ergonomics contributing to an ease of weapons manipulation is literally the entire concept of ergonomics in firearm design. This will, innately, result in faster target acquisition and manual of arms. It's making the weapon easier to operate. For instance, The GP-25 buttpad makes rifles, particularly the triangle-folders they were designed for, MUCH more comfortable and easy to use. It protects the operator from sharp corners that would otherwise require them to re-adjust their purchase on the stock under fire. A better-fitting foregrip or pistol grip will make a weapon easier for the user to index on at a much more rapid speed. Your statement about foregrips not contributing to speed of sighting in just demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about. Look at the AFG that Magpul developed, and the C-Clamp technique that popularly goes along with it. It provides quicker target acquisition by giving more direct control over the weapon itself. Go watch 3-gun shooters and how they handle their rifles. Or the Magpul videos. Or any of the massive wealth of training resource on youtube for free.

    Realistically, the only recoil compensation a foregrip will give the user is the ability to pull the weapon into their body more and preemptively compensate for recoil more efficiently. Actually having your hand over top of the handguard is much more conducive for controlling a fully-automatic weapon.

    The only real point you have is about rails, which genuinely make a weapon less comfortable to manipulate because the sharp edges will either cut into the hands of the shooter or their gloves. But if the B-11 is made of aluminum, its lighter weight as compared to a traditional polymer or wood handguard would make it a much more conducive option as far as speed. That's less mass being whipped around by the operator. But, personally, I feel on that front BSG wants to push Zenitco products because those are the image of Spetsnaz Gucci.

    Do more research and listen to people who actually shoot guns.

    1. But wouldn't it depend on where you hit an elcan on how much damage it takes? I have never used an Elcan, but from what it looks like it is designed to withstand some shock on the casing, but if anything hits or scratches the front where the lens are it may break something.

  2. "Imagine putting a 1000$ scope on your rifle in real life. Would you throw that gun into the back of your pick up truck?"

    If I spent a grand on glass, it better be able to handle getting chucked into a pickup truck. Modern optics aren't fragile, modern military optics are usually more durable than the gun they're mounted on. This applies to both magnified optics and red dots.

    The B-10 has better ergo stats than the stock wooden handguard because it is /significantly/ lighter. Wooden furniture is heavy as sin, and with the handguard being so far out, that weight feels even heavier than it is. Anything you can do to move the rifle's center of mass back over the firing hand is going to help with ergonomics and handling. The discomfort from using railed handguards without covers or another grip of some sort isn't really worth considering in a video game- yeah, it kind of stucks to hold onto a cheesegrater handguard while you shoot something, but it's not the sort of thing I'd give any mind to in combat, especially if I have gloves.

    M-LOK and Keymod primarily exist to save even more weight, if you don't need a rail somewhere, don't put it there and save the weight to make the gun even lighter. In a military context, this is less to improve the gun's handling, and more to make it actually-usable considering how much crap they throw onto the things (lasers, lights, optics, etc). Rails also aren't so fragile that knocking them into stuff or dropping the gun or whatever is going to damage them beyond dinging up the finish.

    "The end result are not only visually warped AK weapons (seriously what is wrong with people putting western stocks on AK rifles)"

    I get the feeling you're one of those "rifle is fine!" guys. The AK is a gigantic brick. It's far too heavy for a rifle of its type and anything you can do to lower the weight (like, for example, putting an aftermarket stock on, maybe an M4-style collapsible stock so you can adjust the rifle's length of pull) is a huge improvement. I say this as someone who has owned a full-sized AK for like four or five years now, a rifle which still has all the original wood on it (because there's barely any aftermarket for Yugoslav-pattern AKs), all those "western" pieces people put on them are legitimate improvements over the baseline. If you're building a rifle for combat, it doesn't matter what it looks like, it matters how it performs.

    You keep harping on about realism while making claims that have no basis in reality.


    Russian Alpha SF teams use the AR style stocks. Sounds like you have a cosmetic bias against it rather than an actual point. The AK doesn't have a buffer tube (AR15 does), therefore AK rifles can have a folding stock, that is adjustable for length of pull when using optics and wearing body armour.


Kommentar veröffentlichen

Beliebte Posts aus diesem Blog

Weapons of Tarkov