Rifles vs Carbines need adjustments in terms of stats

[etra_kurdaj]

Pictured are two otherwise identical M4 rifles. The only difference is barrel length and handguard option.

The rifle M4 has both better ergo and recoil than the carbine. I would expect the carbine to be a little jumpier because it's lighter and smaller - but if ergo is a measurement for how easy it is to "handle" a weapon, then how is a rifle beating a carbine in maneuverability? 

The rifle even has a scope on it vs iron sights. I just don't get how a larger and heavier gun is easier to shoulder into position than a lighter, small one. 

[DanExert]

@etra_kurdaj

The longer M4 has a different upper receiver in these photos, which greatly affects ergonomics and recoil in game (depending on which one you use)

The upper receiver used on the longer M4 is the Noveske Gen.3 which has an ergo stat of +13, whereas the base M4 upper (on the shorter M4 you have) gives +5, which is an 8 ergo difference. If both weapons had the same upper receiver, the shorter M4 would have 87 ergo, which is 2 more than the longer M4.

HOWEVER!

I agree that ergo and recoil should be based on weapon weight and length, rather than purely based on stats of attachments/parts. A more 'physics' based ergo and recoil system would make far more sense than the system we have at the moment, which you stated in your post; it doesn't make sense that a heavier and longer weapon would handle better than a shorter and lighter one 

[etra_kurdaj]

3 hours ago, DanExert said:

@etra_kurdaj

The longer M4 has a different upper receiver in these photos, which greatly affects ergonomics and recoil in game (depending on which one you use)

The upper receiver used on the longer M4 is the Noveske Gen.3 which has an ergo stat of +13, whereas the base M4 upper (on the shorter M4 you have) gives +5, which is an 8 ergo difference. If both weapons had the same upper receiver, the shorter M4 would have 87 ergo, which is 2 more than the longer M4.

HOWEVER!

I agree that ergo and recoil should be based on weapon weight and length, rather than purely based on stats of attachments/parts. A more 'physics' based ergo and recoil system would make far more sense than the system we have at the moment, which you stated in your post; it doesn't make sense that a heavier and longer weapon would handle better than a shorter and lighter one 

Good catch, I didn't notice that.