Without any equipment, weight is 6?

[sender]

Previous thread:
https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,1107.0.html

I'd like to reopen this.

I'm quite certain that this is incorrect. The base weight for an unloaded soldier should be 0.

The source of confusion is that Vanilla X-Com suffers from bugs tracking ammo weight. Scroll down to the section for "displaced ammo weight". Basically whenever you dropped a loaded gun you would still be incorrectly tracked as carrying the ammo for weight purposes. This would make it appear that you had extra weight even when stripping yourself of all inventory items. Unloading the gun before dropping it would update your weight correctly and you would end up with 0 weight for an empty inventory.

[redrat9595]

I thought this might be an issue, too, but I assumed there was some decision made that I didn't know about. I can attest to the fact that, in the original, it WAS possible to get down to zero weight. The only things turned on in UFOExtender are inventory stats, D3D, Cursor Clipping, and Cursor Scaling. ALL bugfixes are turned off (as in not fixed).

I unloaded the rifle, then dropped everything down to the ground.

[OwenQ]

I went ahead and reported this on the bug tracker. It's a constant source of consternation, especially when I have low-strength rookies who can't handle a rifle, extra clip, and grenade (17 units), leave their spare clip on the floor of the Skyranger, and have the game try to autoequip said clip to a guy who can't handle that loadout plus another clip, then everybody has a TU penalty and I feel as though everything is wrong with the world.

[Warboy1982]

according to ufopaedia's notes, getting down to zero weight by unloading your initial weapon and then dropping it is actually exploiting the Weightless Loaded Ammo, listed just above the Displaced Ammo Weight, in fact it says in the description of the bug that this is the case.

i'm going to say there's no right answer on this one, and leave it as it is, but...

THIS should settle the issue once and for all. the weight now comes from the armour, and is defaulted to 6, rather than being hard coded. you can very easily remove this by adding "weight: 0" to the armor's entry in the ruleset.

[moriarty]

that appears to be a very nice solution to this debate

...by the way, what does the game do if you give an armor a negative weight? 

(it appears to me that it might be logical to give powered armor types a weight bonus, and this might be a way to do just that...)

EDIT: nevermind, I just looked at the new git builds page and realized that you actually implemented "allow armors to modify effective stats". woot!!! so no need for negative weight

[Align]

This seems like it would be very easy to test in vanilla xcom, just send a skyranger with no guns to a mission.

[OwenQ]

I reinstalled XCOM on Steam, added a Skyranger full of grenades and the first three soldiers I could find that had a strength divisible by 3. 11 grenades with 33 strength = no TU penalty, 12 grenades = TU penalty, ditty for 9/27 and 7/21. That's what I'd expect if the base weight carried is intended to be 0, and I don't think there are any bugs related to grenades and weight.

Either way the armor thing is more than good enough and makes me positively giddy with possibilities.

[sender]

according to ufopaedia's notes, getting down to zero weight by unloading your initial weapon and then dropping it is actually exploiting the Weightless Loaded Ammo, listed just above the Displaced Ammo Weight, in fact it says in the description of the bug that this is the case.

i'm going to say there's no right answer on this one, and leave it as it is, but...

THIS should settle the issue once and for all. the weight now comes from the armour, and is defaulted to 6, rather than being hard coded. you can very easily remove this by adding "weight: 0" to the armor's entry in the ruleset.

That's not how weightless loaded ammo works. The ammo is weightless because it's still thought of by the game as on the ground. Soldiers who unload the weapon are correctly tracked as holding ammo (INCREASING their weight, because the ammo is no longer weightless), and dropping it resets their weight to zero properly. Dropping the weapon as-is without unloading it resets their weight to zero, but then when another soldier picks up the gun they don't gain the correct weight (because the ammo is still "owned" by the ground). But if that soldier unloads it, the ammo is correctly tracked and increases their weight as before.

Load up a vanilla X-Com game and check. If you check the save game (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=OBPOS.DAT) you can see that unit weight = the sum of items that they are the "owner" of. The only issue was tracking who owned what item. There was never any hidden encumbrance.

[redrat9595]

...bugs related to grenades and weight.

Either way the armor thing is more than good enough and makes me positively giddy with possibilities.

Good idea! Completely removes the issue of bug debate.

Also, I am thoroughly excited about the new armor fields. That makes a couple of things I wanted to try ridiculously easy.

[sender]

This is not a matter for debate. Subtracting 6 weight from all units is provably wrong, and anyone who loads up a vanilla X-Com game can plainly see so. Until it is fixed the game is broken. Forcing players to modding to get the original weight limits is supremely moronic.

Here's a save which makes it abundantly clear what the weight limit is. 3 Rifles (8 weight) with no ammo on a soldier with 24 strength = 0 encumbrance.

[redrat9595]

This is not a matter for debate. Subtracting 6 weight from all units is provably wrong... 3 Rifles (8 weight) with no ammo on a soldier with 24 strength = 0 encumbrance.

I agree. I think the issue was pretty obvious from the beginning. I wasn't saying there should be a debate, I was saying that there was one and it is no longer debatable at all because that proved it definatively by removing the subject of said debate (ammo handling bugs).

While I am happy with the new armor handling (which has been fun to play with, by the way), this does need to get fixed. This is now three sources proving the exact same point in three different ways: default X-COM armor has NO weight, at least as far as the code is concerned.

BARELY RELATED SIDE NOTE: As sender said, unloading the gun before dropping it made the weight of the magazine attributed the soldier instead of the ground, which is why I did it.

Thanks for your time, Warboy, as well as anyone else who helps sort this out in the official build.

[Warboy1982]

This is not a matter for debate. Subtracting 6 weight from all units is provably wrong, and anyone who loads up a vanilla X-Com game can plainly see so. Until it is fixed the game is broken. Forcing players to modding to get the original weight limits is supremely moronic.

well, i've done extensive research into the topic, using the source code as my reference, and i've come up with conclusive and definitive results.

however, i'm not going to share them or make any code adjustments, in case you fall under the misguided impression that this kind of attitude will get you anywhere here or indeed anywhere else in life.

[OwenQ]

Sender's attitude is completely uncalled for, but he's not the only one following this issue. I, for one, would like to know what's actually going on and be proven wrong if I am. At least a couple of other folks in the thread also bothered to empirically test it so I imagine I'm not alone.

Like redrat, I fully appreciate the time and effort put into this.

[redrat9595]

Hey, whoa, wasn't trying to offend anyone here. I frequent much rougher forums than this, so if I did, I apologize. I was agreeing with the data presented, not its presentation.

I'm not sure what source code you're talking about, but if you have numbers that I don't I'd love to see them. I was under the impression that removing ammunition entirely from the experiment (bringing only grenades) removed all confounding variables and created a clear-cut situation (one that I replicated). If I'm missing something obvious here, please let me know.

Thanks,
Red

[sender]

well, i've done extensive research into the topic, using the source code as my reference, and i've come up with conclusive and definitive results.

however, i'm not going to share them or make any code adjustments, in case you fall under the misguided impression that this kind of attitude will get you anywhere here or indeed anywhere else in life.

I have yet to make any personal attacks. I am not judging you or the (considerably large) amount of work you have put into this project. I am stating the facts as they are available, to which every available research by multiple people points towards 0 base encumbrance.

If you would like to put forth evidence supporting your decision you are free to do so, and if it is compelling I will retract everything I have said. As it is, you are either intentionally withholding evidence to spite both me and the rest of those who are in this thread, or you have no evidence to support your claim and are dismissing our claims entirely out of hubris. Either of these is you acting childish. And that was a personal attack.

Please, just load up the save I posted earlier. It's a single soldier in a skyranger entirely empty other than 4 rifles. You can easily pick them up and compare encumbrance. There are no possible problems I can find with this test.