So you're saying the weapon based on short-range Blaster tech was always meant to be more effective at mid-long range encounters than the weapon based around mid-long range Pulse Laser tech?

Seems legit.

WTF. The scrambler rifle is the most balanced gun in the game. Dont you dare mess with it and destroy what is great.

The SCR is just fine. I prefer the assault variant and will soon have the Carthum variant. The CRD-09 already owns enemy players, so the Carthum will be on par with a tentacled **** monster.

In short, the SCR is fine and does not need a buff.

Assault Rifles are the best weapon in Dust 514? Someone should notify the player-base immediately.

Getting back on topic maybe CCP should offer variants and see how the reaction is. The breach and assault variants for some weapons have drastically altered their use from the standard models.

I think they should swap the optimals of both weapons. Leading to this numbers:

GEK-38 Assault Rifle
Max Range: 68m
Optimal Range: 1 - 29m

CRD-9 Assault Scrambler Rifle
Max Range: 73m
Optimal Range: 1 - 40m

As far as I know the Gallante Weapons should be more short ranged high ROF high DPS weapons therefore either lower the SR damage slightly or buff the AR damage slightly to seperate both weapons more in combination of the optimals range change (the same DPS with higher Range for any of the two weapons would result in another imbalance)

So much this.

I've played Gallente so I'm familiar with blasters; not so much Amarr, but I have heard when you get range, you can melt people with your lasers.

Anyways, I believe the Gallente Assault Rifle is similar to Blaster tech in EVE, while the Scrambler Rifle is similar to the Laser tech on Amarr ships in EVE (though admittedly I don't know if long range or short).

In any case isn't the optimals and range on lasers greater than the blasters?

EDIT: Never mind. Found this. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=834118#post834118

The passive skill not helping the assault variant is another issue. A Heat build-up reduction skill would make more sense.

Pulse lasers ARE the shorter range range option between pulse & beam for Amarr in EVE, but they aren't CQC exactly.

Pulse Lasers are described as "Medium" range turrets, blasters are "Short" range turrets.

What does that mean in practical terms? Well, if we just look something like the Medium-sized turrets sets for both, Pulse lasers have an optimum range of about 12,000 meters, while Blasters have a range of about 3,000 meters. So, Pulse Lasers outrange blasters by about 4 to 1 (in EVE).

Anyway, better, head-reducing passive skill and a range bump would be great.

I get the feeling something like the TAC AR was more meant to be in the Rail Rifle set.

It should be comparable to EVE stats, where pulse lasers have a significant range advantage over plasma weapons. The heat, fire-rate, uneven dmg percentile (shields vs. armor), and large power draw are where the differences should be.

I wonder if they would consider making the round bigger? One difference I see between the AR and SR is that the dispersal at close range helps the ar users hit the moving target. So, oddly the accurate sr suffers in cqc. Also, I can't count the times I hard a charged head shot lined up and it looks like it should hit, but no it goes next to his head. Added to this is the aiming controls not being smooth enough to account for such a small difference in space. Even adjusting sensitivity I cannot account for it well.

For illustration purposes, here's two roughly equivalent specimens from blasters and pulse lasers. They're both MEDIUM and META lvl 5.


Heavy Pulse Laser II 12,000m 4000m 5.25s 3.6x 35tf 231MW 0.08125

---

Heavy Blaster II 3,000m 4,000m 4.5s 3.375x 33tf 158MW 0.11 rad/s

---

The stats you can see are, in order: Optimal Range, Accuracy Fall-off, Rate of fire, damage modifier, CPU, PG, and tracking speed.

A pulse laser has 4x the range as a blaster in this instance, but about the same accuracy fall-off. You can also see a pulse laser uses more CPU and much more PG.

Right....

I'd say comparably, that a Pulse Laser Weapon (Scrambler) should definitely be longer range than a blaster (the Gallente plasma blaster). A laser should be longer range than either of them (laser rifle - beam), the Sniper rifle is a rail rifle and should be longer range than that.

A comparison of Beam and Railgun ranges is relatively much closer than pulse and blaster ranges though.

Pulse lasers outrange blasters by 4 to 1. This is a HUGE difference, and isn't even remotely represented well in-game.

A medium turret of Beam and Railgun at meta 5 would compare at ranges more like 24km to 29km. The laser has about 82% of the range of the railgun. If the laser rifle and sniper rifle are the current representatives of each in Dust, then it's another super-lopsided comparison where the hybrid weapon has been given a ridiculous edge on something that it's actually very similar to.

In both cases they've screwed up the lore of their own universe.

There's a few different points here.

The Scrambler is a pulse laser, it's supposed to outrange blasters (in EVE, pulse outrange blasters by 4 to 1). Currently, the opposite is true, so a Scrambler user can be taken down by a blaster user at a range where they can't effectively counter.

The scrambler is effectively less accurate than a blaster as well, for a combination of reasons. Even without the sharpshooter skill, the TAR is going to get tighter groups than the scrambler, and is much more accurate when hip-firing.

Not only is the scrambler outclassed on shear numbers (range, etc.), it has a drawback to contend with - overheating. Besides rendering you unable to attack, switch weapons, or do anything else - it damages you. The AR takes a sizable jump in preference with that alone.

The Scrambler passive skill only functions on the semi-auto variant, the assault variant gets nothing out of it. The passive isn't useful to begin with of course (charge time reduction), however - it makes the Scrambler Rifle the only weapon in the game to have a passive that doesn't benefit a variant at all. A heat build-up reducing passive would be more sensible.

The charge shot will quickly overheat a weapon, and will be hard to follow-up after the first shot. The TAR wouldn't have this problem of course - without charging at all - they can put very high damage shots on a target in rapid succession.

Scramblers also require more tanks in Light Weapon Op to use than AR, which is ultimately the superior weapon.


So, basically - there's many reasons one might think the Scrambler has issues. Especially if you have any knowledge of EVE lore.

I'd say fixing the passive problem is a big one. Superior range to blasters is another.

my only issue with the scrambler rifle is how quickly it overheats. I think MAYBE if its going to overheat, dont make it use a clip. because then on top of overheating you have to reload. other than that im good with it as is.