this is in fact wrong. From the rifles invention to now it has never been the source of more death in any conflit than every other weapon combined. the conquistadores used black plague as a WMD.
in WW1 Gattling guns/machine guns killed more people than ARs (still rilfes, but reloadied chamber themselves.
in WW2 Bombs killed more people than ARs, HMGs killed more people than ARs. and LMGs came into heavy use, killing more people than ARs.

ever since, every other conflit and war world wide the AR has never been the most potent weapon on the battle filed. It is the most standard weapon, but in fact LMGs have consistently since their inseption been more potent than ARs.

Many LMGs are just ARs with extended clips and heavier barrels. (if this were applied to DUST my HMG would be doing 34 damage per shot at 2000 RPM. but, balance dictats that it can't be that powerful..lol).

Many simple, early snipers are ARs with longer barrels, and a sight (if applied to dust, a sniper would have 34 damage per shot...lol)

ARs in RL over heat (yes sustained fire will damage your barrel and warp/distort your barrel thus ruining accurcy, the melting could cause a backfire. so if applied to dust, i can only imagine what super heated plasma will do to your barrel.) so they are fired in bursts.

ARs in RL jam when put in water, sand, mudd, etc.

ARs in RL normally have 30 round magazines.

ARs in RL are horrible for CQB due to their bulky designed and that they can easily snag on items indoors (except the recent M4 carbine with a shorter barrel and the same accurcy as an M16.)


a good portion of players PREFERED to run flaylocks.
Well, about roughly 35% of players ran flaylocks as side arms, 20% had it proto. and less than 1% ran two flaylocks. People complained and it was nerfed. so, by your own definition. your an idiot.



That doesn't means it s not OP. 90% of players ran TAcs when it was OP. and 90% of kills came from them. and TAC was op.

I quote from the book of Proverbs 14:24 "...the foolishness of the stupid ones is foolishness."

So i suggest you do this proverbs 17:28 "even anyone foolish, when keeping silent, will be regarded as wise; anyone closing up his lips as having understanding"

"And thus did Breakin Stuff Look down from on High and speaketh his word: DUH! For by math, shall ye be saved."

And yet 1. this is the same evidence people brought with regards the Flaylocks, MD, HMGs, LAZERs, etc and they were subsequently nerfed

And 2. I have numbers and math littered across almost every post i make on this god damn forum and no one responds to it, because it is irrefutable.


seriously? people cries "flaylocks are OP" and i can't even rememebr a single reason why they said so. in fact 90% of their reasons for saying it was OP, were actually things the weapon was DESIGNED for. So, not only was it unnessesary, they effetively nerfed a gun that was in fact perfectly balanced.

Where as everyone profess the AR to be balanced and yet, it out guns HMGs, and Shotguns in their niches. Please explain, why an AR has more damage per second than a Tank turret?

number 1 that link you ad there was of a guy with spazzed hair saying "nanites"

number 2 AK-47s are extremely resilient and reliable guns, but still jam, still must be cleaned, still over heat, still must be fired in bursts, and still have a 30 round magazine. in fact if it gets too hot the wooden stock can catch fire (modern models have a metal and plastic stock made of fire retardant materials)

you were the one who quoted RL to begin with. and remember i frequently made reference back to dust because your assertions made no sense in RL or in DUST.


Ars are not infantry suppression.. so why do they supress infantry better than an HMG. in fact, please explain to me how in the ******* world an AR fires bigger bullets than an HMG?

ARs are supposed to be good weapons at all ranges, its just annoying that we only have 4 to choose from, we should have like 20, and most of them need extended range