How exactly are AR's OP? I'm a heavy, so I never use em really. But going against them a lot, I don't really see it. I would say maybe just knock the effective range down a bit (probably excluding the TAR); they seem to shred me just a little bit too quickly at some crazy ranges.

ARs are fine at short range, but their ADS dispersion and kick is too low, which extends their effective range further than a scrambler rifle (scrams have a higher optimal range, but the kick and semi-auto fire lowers the DPS compared to the constant accurate stream of plasma coming from a scoped AR).

I don't use the AR.

I find the AR rant threads to be stupid.

the current AR is in a decent place right now. it should be the baseline, average weapon, around which the rest of the weapons are balanced by role.

it kills fast, but not overpoweringly so.

the whining is achieving critical mass.

so does the assault rifle in real life.

90% of gamers prefer assault rifle gameplay. Nerfing it because 90% of gamers prefer vanilla play isn't a justification, it's being an idiot.

if 90% of players use ARs, then it stands to reason that 90% of the kills will come from assault rifles.

I quote from the book of Goon 69:96

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

Yes it is true that with a higher use level will come a higher total volume of kills and further that such a volume could be misunderstood to be a balance issue. It is also true that a large portion of the player base used the TAR and that the number of users certainly contributed to the volume of its kills.... it was also brokenly OP.

An assessment of this type needs to consider per capita kills per weapon, and since we're not in a liner system it also needs to include ratio of kills per weapon vs each given alternate weapon with a ratio established for the optimal range of each weapon under consideration.

If it gets 90% of the kills because it's used by 90% of the players (were we living in a world where all players had equal skill and all characters had equal SP) then that would be one thing, but if it's winning 90% of the time when matched against weapons of another type then that's something else.

@Thread if anyone wants to see more of my commentary on actual weapon balance as opposed to methods of assessing it then feel free to look here. Replies which treat my post in this thread as a direct assessment pro or neg of AR balance will likely be redirected to the above link.

Cheers,
Cross

I don't use the AR.

I find the AR rant threads to be stupid.

the current AR is in a decent place right now. it should be the baseline, average weapon, around which the rest of the weapons are balanced by role.

it kills fast, but not overpoweringly so.

the whining is achieving critical mass.

How exactly are AR's OP? I'm a heavy, so I never use em really. But going against them a lot, I don't really see it. I would say maybe just knock the effective range down a bit (probably excluding the TAR); they seem to shred me just a little bit too quickly at some crazy ranges.

How to have fun in Dust 514:
Step 1. Play as a Caldari assault with an AR.
Step 2. Cry for everything that isn't a Caldari assault with an AR to be nerfed.
Step 3. ????
Step 4. Profit!

I just want to know. I want ot stick with this game. but, i really want to know if something is going to be done ...Anything to fix ARs OR buff everything else for balance.

Mint chip, Logi bro, eterni, Foxfour.... anyone.

The current AR is stupidly overused due to it being standard, but more importantly, OP.

Currently, in pubs, the AR kills almost as much as 11 of the available 14 weapons in the game combined.

Because ARs are useful and familiar and easy to pickup. If you want an OP weapon, try the high end forge guns.

Because ARs are useful and familiar and easy to pickup. If you want an OP weapon, try the high end forge guns.

I just want to know. I want ot stick with this game. but, i really want to know if something is going to be done ...Anything to fix ARs OR buff everything else for balance.

Mint chip, Logi bro, eterni, Foxfour.... anyone.

so does the assault rifle in real life.

90% of gamers prefer assault rifle gameplay. Nerfing it because 90% of gamers prefer vanilla play isn't a justification, it's being an idiot.

if 90% of players use ARs, then it stands to reason that 90% of the kills will come from assault rifles.

How exactly are AR's OP? I'm a heavy, so I never use em really. But going against them a lot, I don't really see it. I would say maybe just knock the effective range down a bit (probably excluding the TAR); they seem to shred me just a little bit too quickly at some crazy ranges.

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."

Play caldari logi is how to have fun?

Cripes! Why didn't you tell me I'm not having fun playing the most obnoxious fatty in DUST history???

How was I to know my HMG was less optimally fun? Does my forge gun suffer this deficiency?

You bring anecdotal evidence, and no hard facts. nothing is OP because you assert that it is OP.

Something is OP if numbers and facts prove it.

All I see here is that "the assault rifle beats everything." <---This would be an example of anecdotal evidence.

All nerf threads on the DUST forums save for a few who bring math to the party are anecdotal, and thusly worthless from a game balance standpoint.

"in the hands of skilled players it proved to be as effective as primary weapons"

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?

The weapon is overused. There's no two ways about it. It's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of preserving diversity.

Heres my maths....

The FleyLock could kill any suit other than a heavy (stupid cal logi) in 3 shots. Think thats quite simple.

Heres my maths....

The FleyLock could kill any suit other than a heavy (stupid cal logi) in 3 shots. Think thats quite simple.

As for the link, its an example... the AK47 could pretty much be fired underwater after being burried in sand. This is a whole other universe, quoting real life and that type of stuf for a GAME is pointless.

If you think the FleyLock was balanced... you might as well ask for HMG with 34dmg... wait...

According to your statement the MD need to be nerfed as well as this weapon is heavily overused in PC and most believe that this is the place to look for balance.

Apart from that I get barely killed by ARs in pubs not more than from sniper rifles, MDs and HMG. Even the SR gets a comeback...

The AR is used that much becasue there is a (well not onlyy one) BPO and its in the Starter fits so its logically that someone specs into that weapon. And with the slow skill progress most will stick with thier initial choice quite some time, especially when this choice feels familiar.

Remove the AR from starter fits and or give more weapon BPOs and than you will see more variety.

The AR is not OP in fact the AScR is much better rigt from the start. The damage falloff of the AR is much harcher than the fallof of the AScR. The only advantage the AR has over the AScR it benefits from two skills wheras the AScR gets nothing from skills. And to get there you have to spent 1.5 mil SP...

The only thing that is needed is the correct dmage and range profile (short Range and High DPS) and maybe a rename so not everyone will stick with the assault rifle.

My ideal Plasma Rifle (or Blaster Rifle) would look something like this:
opt Range up to 30m
eff. Range up to 45m
Damge 50
RoF 580 to 600
Clip Size 40 to 45

That would give the AR its niche and would differentiate it from the AScR...

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?

"***** and Moan... ***** and Moan... ***** and Moan..."


I honestly feel Assault Rifles are one of the most balanced weapons we have.
The only thing I'd change is the range of the Tactical Rifles, possibly.

I used to run Proto AR's, but then switched to Proto ScR's.
Now, I'm using Shotguns and occasionally the GEK-38.

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

a militia AR has the potential to kill a heavy in less than 3 seconds. that is utter bs

ARs are fine at short range, but their ADS dispersion and kick is too low, which extends their effective range further than a scrambler rifle (scrams have a higher optimal range, but the kick and semi-auto fire lowers the DPS compared to the constant accurate stream of plasma coming from a scoped AR).

face it :P the ranges on all weapons need to be buffed by 5-10%, but because this is on the PS3 we have the situation where the hardware is determining content and play.

Off topic? Not really

IRL miniguns are quite often accurate to 200m

IRL the TAC would be what we are using for a sniper

The sniper would be hitting easily from redzone to redzone. (can i haz rendering limits IRL?!?)


The weapons are all generally balanced as per the Game, that the game is more complicated that tic-tac-toe is a given, there is a reason CCP is reluctant to go the way of full disclosure, and many of the community are that reason.

application on paper and application in practice are two different things.

My heavy fits, sentinel or otherwise do not die in 3 seconds to AR or anything else. On one gloriously memorable occasion I made a dipwad waste an entire mass driver drum on me (freedom mass driver). People who have shot at me and tried to splash me with forges don't live long.

1v1 generally they do not die. period.

You have lots of on-paper math which fails scrutiny in game. Just because ARs are violating YOU does not mean the rest of us are similarly challenged.

since CCP has denied your request to give heavies 30% resistance you're moving on to demanding nerfs on the weapons that actually kill heavies?

the assault rifle is the bread and butter weapon. many people use and are familiar with them, and know how to employ them. Similarly I know people who find similar utility in the scrambler and asscram rifles.

Further I have learned that presenting evidence contrary to your assertions is pointless because you don't even acknowledge it, much less evaluate it.

Every time this little cadre speaks (quit using alt accounts to like yourself and echo chamber your posts) sanity shrivels a little.

nerfing the AR is not necessary but what is necessary in real recoil. recoil for varies weapons are nearly non exsistent but until they increase recoil for smg, scrambler rifle, and other automatics than i think introducing AR recoil would do more harm than good to the game..

It drops well fit STD suits in less then one second, up to and easily past, 45 meters.

I'm fine with that. Gallante weapons should run the show when it comes to CQC. But, it manages to deal great damage out to ScR range, and deals incidental damage at sniper range, 200 m.

My rework of the GAR, is this

-New absolute range, 168 (Current Effective Range)
-New Effective Range, 120
-The rest of the stats are kept the same.

That all I want.

I think lowering the DPS is wrong, the other guns just need severe buffing, (Tighten HMG dispersion slightly, 2-3 more pellets per shot+fixed aiming and HD for the shotty, etc, etc, etc...)

I don't think I'm asking too much of the AR, it will remain the staple of Short to Mid range engagements, and preferred for General purpose combat, equally efficient at attacking and defending.

Do I sound crazy now?

I'm a troll. and completely ignore all the numbers D legendary uses to prove his points and logic and just write bullshit on his threads because I'm a troll

application on paper and application in practice are two different things.

My heavy fits, sentinel or otherwise do not die in 3 seconds to AR or anything else. On one gloriously memorable occasion I made a dipwad waste an entire mass driver drum on me (freedom mass driver). People who have shot at me and tried to splash me with forges don't live long.

1v1 generally they do not die. period.

You have lots of on-paper math which fails scrutiny in game. Just because ARs are violating YOU does not mean the rest of us are similarly challenged.

since CCP has denied your request to give heavies 30% resistance you're moving on to demanding nerfs on the weapons that actually kill heavies?

the assault rifle is the bread and butter weapon. many people use and are familiar with them, and know how to employ them. Similarly I know people who find similar utility in the scrambler and asscram rifles.

Further I have learned that presenting evidence contrary to your assertions is pointless because you don't even acknowledge it, much less evaluate it.

Every time this little cadre speaks (quit using alt accounts to like yourself and echo chamber your posts) sanity shrivels a little.

It drops well fit STD suits in less then one second, up to and easily past, 45 meters.

I'm fine with that. Gallante weapons should run the show when it comes to CQC. But, it manages to deal great damage out to ScR range, and deals incidental damage at sniper range, 200 m.

My rework of the GAR, is this

-New absolute range, 168 (Current Effective Range)
-New Effective Range, 120
-The rest of the stats are kept the same.

That all I want.

I think lowering the DPS is wrong, the other guns just need severe buffing, (Tighten HMG dispersion slightly, 2-3 more pellets per shot+fixed aiming and HD for the shotty, etc, etc, etc...)

I don't think I'm asking too much of the AR, it will remain the staple of Short to Mid range engagements, and preferred for General purpose combat, equally efficient at attacking and defending.

Do I sound crazy now?

I dunno why I even bother. Every one of D Legendary Hero's posts somehow wraps back to "Heavies are UP and in need of serious buffs."

Fixing armor tanking fixes heavies. period.

further, when the caldari and minmatar heavies are released you can rejoice and enjoy the OP fatsuits you have always dreamed of (all hail shield tanks). Amarr heavies are armor tankers. go figure. There couldn't POSSIBLY be an imbalance there... NOPE!

but, every time I say fixing armor tanking fixes heavies... It's like his brain shuts off and he doesn't read, nor acknowledge the statement.

Allow me to spell this out in Crayon:

Heavies are not underpowered. they are suffering because armor tanking is imbalanced versus shields. When Armor tanking is as balanced as shield tanking, heavies will be fixed, and the Assault Rifle and Mass Driver will be less of hurt points for contentious butthurt.

Yeah lol, its an example of how tech can be used to explain away things like jamming
I used the AK referance because due to design and as youve stated material selection, issues can be overcome.

You quoted RL with how LMG were modded AR's and WW2 and stuff. My assersions make as much sense as yours if you want to keep any resemblace of balance in a game

If weapons worked how you want then HMG would do the same dmg as snipers now, AR would have sniper accuracy, Snipers would be like FG's, FG would be like orbitals, and orbitals would nuke the battlefield.

And FleyLocks were still OP.

application on paper and application in practice are two different things.

My heavy fits, sentinel or otherwise do not die in 3 seconds to AR or anything else. On one gloriously memorable occasion I made a dipwad waste an entire mass driver drum on me (freedom mass driver). People who have shot at me and tried to splash me with forges don't live long.

1v1 generally they do not die. period.

200 meters? I call bullcrap; with iron sights on an AR you cant hit anything at that range, thell they should not be baleto,I use them as just one of the guns I use (skilled into SMG, Swarm launcher, SCrambler and sniper rifle too)

I agree with you and the actula ranges balancing - almost I agree on the max range change but it is firing a magnetised bolt of super heated gas so its dropoff point should be around 140, but after that it should drop very quickly due to the plasma diffusing over range

A proto heavy can kill a dropsuit in half a second to 1 second, the Boundless HMG has a DPS of 759, proto HMG, while the Proto AR has a DPS of 467.5,

the only way a medium dropsuit is able to kill a heavy is if the heavy has terrible accuracy, is not shooting at the medium, or if the medium is strafing all over the place. The reason the Militia AR is so "good" is because the Assault rifle doesn't have a huge spike in damage, or DPS, like most other weapons when going from basic to proto, for example the basic HMG has a DPS of 600 while the proto HMG has a DPS of 759, thats a 26% difference in DPS compared to the Assault rifles 425 DPS at militia and 467.5 DPS at prototype which is only a 10% difference in DPS.

So unless you suck as a heavy, or your using a basic HMG you have a fairly good chance of killing a medium dropsuit unless you get ganked, or they are strafing all over the place.

Only ARs with scopes are the TAC and the Burst, TAC is semi auto like the scram and their recoil was increased, Burst ARs are just a joke, lower damage than the standard and due to the way it fires it has a lower ROF as well
As for the standard itself at range its called pulsing your shots IE being a skilled FPS gamer, if you try full auto squeeze at distance you wont hit jack **** without having to make constant minor adjustments which guess what is something a skilled FPS gamer can do

I literally couldn't have said this better myself.

As for an earlier post talking about how missiles, bombs and the black death killed more people than AR's, wtf are you smoking? Sure that's entirely accurate in and of itself, but when you apply it to ground combat you become an idiot. Of course weapons of mass destruction are destructive on a massive scale (the clue is in the name). Assault rifles or rifles are, and always will be the main ground troop's weapon of choice.

As for very close CQC with AR's, we usually use breaching tools like shotguns or short barrelled versions of the same weapons that make up the bulk of the armed forces. Bullpup weapons are often employed in CQC because the gun packs all the power of a full sized AR but also has the same barrel length whilst retaining a shorter overall weapon length.

Are all the AR threads end up segueing about if the AScR or AR is OP, and then turn into a flame war?
Heres my thoughts from page one on the subject.

Were you around during chromosome? I ask since we had greater ranges back then and further draw distances as well
Trying to blame the hardware is a **** excuse since the reduced ranges and changing rendering distances to be dependent on what weapon you have equipped were design choices by CCP, asinine choices but not ones made due to the hardware unless they are absolutely horrible at optimizing their content which is something I can believe

I just want to know. I want ot stick with this game. but, i really want to know if something is going to be done ...Anything to fix ARs OR buff everything else for balance.

Mint chip, Logi bro, eterni, Foxfour.... anyone.

don't nerf the ar. don't nerf the md. buff the hmg, buff the laser rifle, buff the plasma cannon.

I don't use the AR.

I find the AR rant threads to be stupid.

the current AR is in a decent place right now. it should be the baseline, average weapon, around which the rest of the weapons are balanced by role.

it kills fast, but not overpoweringly so.

the whining is achieving critical mass.

Like this guy says here. The AR is in a relatively good place. Other weapons need to branch out off the AR's sturdy all round performance. Use the AR as a benchmark and adjust others accordingly.

HOLY CRAP HE GETS IT!!!!

Also make armor tanking as viable as shields.

my problem is that CCP hasn't really tried to make any lasting fixes to important things. Hopefully 1.4 will bring some perminant fixes. then 1.5 will rebalance weapons i beleive. i can wait a month if i know things will be rebalanced. but if 1.4 sucks and they aren't gonna buff my stuff in 1.5 im out. as many players have i invested alot of spare time and attention in this game i even bought a pack. i've been playing this game for 5 months. Im trying to help new players and help retain them. but if their is no hope for change, why bother....?

I would generally use the AR IF CCP FIXES THE CONTROLS!!

so does the assault rifle in real life.

90% of gamers prefer assault rifle gameplay. Nerfing it because 90% of gamers prefer vanilla play isn't a justification, it's being an idiot.

if 90% of players use ARs, then it stands to reason that 90% of the kills will come from assault rifles.

I quote from the book of Goon 69:96

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

Yes, getting killed by the duvolle assault rifle in my very cheap standard heavy suit, very annoying. Nerf the AR please... Trololol

There was a spreadsheet that explained that AR damage does equal damage to shields and armor making it the weapon of choice to down someone.

Anything else that is kinetic like a grenade or Mass Driver deals less damage vs shields but a bit more against armor.
Same goes with Scram and Laser rifles which tend to affect shield but weaker vs armor.

AR's are annoying when you're killed by one fairly quickly but that's the nature of the beast of that kind of weapon.

And just relax about AR's killing you so fast - just relax and enjoy playing the game. It's not like you plunked down extreme monetary investment into this now did you?

Nerfing the AR is not the answer.

Getting the last two combat rifles into circulation is.

that won't make my HMG work. that won't make my shotgun more effective, that won't fix my Scr rifle. that wont, give my Lazer rifle a purpose, won't make the MD actual frightening.

that won't even garuntee that the combat rifles wont be prenerfed, or a viable option.

its long over due. everything else got nerfed, and if they arent gettign buffed, then ARs gotta get nerfed.

I just want to know. I want ot stick with this game. but, i really want to know if something is going to be done ...Anything to fix ARs OR buff everything else for balance.

Mint chip, Logi bro, eterni, Foxfour.... anyone.

It's not a problem with the AR being good, it's a matter of the LR sucking ass.

of all the weapons that NEED balance, the AR is at the bottom of that list.....

I just want to throw in my two cents that I don't use ARs, I'm a scrambler rifle guy mostly but I don't find AR to be overpowered. I do think some of the other weapons could use a balance pass to make sure they are noticeably better in their given niche, EG the laser rifle needs to beat the AR at range hands-down and it doesn't. It's not a problem with the AR being good, it's a matter of the LR sucking ass.

The LR was a horribly effective, vastly over powered weapon. It rained destruction from afar in mere seconds (2 max) in the hands of a skilled operator that learned how to maximize its accelerated range damage; Aim at something else before moving the beam onto the target. That ever increasing damage over time was the OP and generated a legion of LR users that sat safely back and beam destruction on Heavies.

Now that the LR is properly restricted those same users are QQ Kittens here on the forums attempting to reduce the AR such that their precious LR will rule once again. Assault Rifles are, and will be even in the future, the standard issue mid-range weapon. Tactical, burst and assault variant of all weapons are standard for DUST and CCP.

Distance is now back in the hands of snipers, major damage belongs to forge gunners, QCQ is the HMG (which I don't totally agree with) and the Evil that was the Flaylock has been nullified back to what it should have been, an alternative Small Weapon.

Recall that SP is very dear down in the DUST and most will not spec into both. Many AR wielders may eventually try the other weapons but to skill heavily into several commits precious SP Irrevocably to a path.

My weapon choices are few, while back in Chromosome they were many. SP was reasonable and inspired experimentation. Those days are gone. We are all in the grinder that is DUST.

Welcome. Or not. That is your choice.

The LR was a horribly effective, vastly over powered weapon. It rained destruction from afar in mere seconds (2 max) in the hands of a skilled operator that learned how to maximize its accelerated range damage; Aim at something else before moving the beam onto the target. That ever increasing damage over time was the OP and generated a legion of LR users that sat safely back and beam destruction on Heavies.

Now that the LR is properly restricted those same users are QQ Kittens here on the forums attempting to reduce the AR such that their precious LR will rule once again. Assault Rifles are, and will be even in the future, the standard issue mid-range weapon. Tactical, burst and assault variant of all weapons are standard for DUST and CCP.

Distance is now back in the hands of snipers, major damage belongs to forge gunners, QCQ is the HMG (which I don't totally agree with) and the Evil that was the Flaylock has been nullified back to what it should have been, an alternative Small Weapon.

Recall that SP is very dear down in the DUST and most will not spec into both. Many AR wielders may eventually try the other weapons but to skill heavily into several commits precious SP Irrevocably to a path.

Laser rifles are the amarr equivalent of the sniper rifle.

Kinda like the scrambler rifle is the amarr equivalent of the Assault rifle.

Noticing a pattern here?

Oh wait, you mean all of the weapons will have racial variants?

OH NO! CHOICES! I CAN'T CHOOSE!

I would like to see this experiment: 2 players both decent at shooting, 2 amarr STD medium suits, not fitted (because they have the same shield and armor), 1 with std AR and 1 with std MD, shoulder to shoulder, 10 meters distance, count 5 seconds, turn around and start the duel.
Of course the 2 players must be new characters, to be sure they are not advantaged by their skills.

Laser rifles are the amarr equivalent of the sniper rifle.

Kinda like the scrambler rifle is the amarr equivalent of the Assault rifle.

Noticing a pattern here?

Oh wait, you mean all of the weapons will have racial variants?

OH NO! CHOICES! I CAN'T CHOOSE!

Not exactly.

CCP has explicitly stated various things about the rifle lines (Scrambler, Plasma, Rail, Combat), and how they're supposed to compare to each other.. vaguely equating to each other, but with variants that copy the other guns (Tactical, Assault, Breach, and Burst).

Similar comments were made for pistols, and how there's a racial variant for each (Ion, Flaylock, Scrambler, etc.).

The same can't be said of the other weapons. There are clear "racial" connections with weapons like the SMG, Mass Driver, Sniper, and so on, but they can't be said to have direct equivalents.

It's possible the "Precision Rifle" of the Minmatar is made to be an alternate form of Sniper rifle, but the function of the Laser Rifle doesn't quite add up range-wise or otherwise to be the same as a Sniper rifle. The Shotgun and Mass Driver also don't have what I'd call any direct analogs.

I just don't understand CCP. Why is everything being nerfed so that a team with ARs aand 1 guy running AV, can kill anything in the Game? the only usable sidearm is the SMG now. the oly weapon good at killing infantry is the Ar. and why use a heavy suit with forgun when SL allows you to move faster, lock on, does similar damage and get close enough to use av nades?

a militia AR has the potential to kill a heavy in less than 3 seconds. that is utter bs

[quote=D legendary hero]
1) HMG's are getting a buff in 1.4 or perhaps you didn't see that. (-5% dispersion per level of operations) Which should increase their usefulness and prevalence on the battlefield. Sounds like CCP is trying to increase all the weapon's usability to me.

2) When did the SMG become the only usable sidearm? The scrambler pistol is still amazing (if you can aim). Heck even if you can't get headshots your still doing beastly damage. Plus the flaylock, even in its nerfed state is no slouch, it is a great back up weapon and finishes off people who are already in armor nicely.

3) By saying the only good weapon for infantry is AR you are showing your ignorance once again. Scrambler weapons and laser weapons are great and just require a bit of thought as to their use. The mass drivers is extremely viable and can easily take on suits in most situations, and the shotgun (with the help of the new hit detection mechanics) might even be up to snuff again. That sounds to me like quite a few choices for aggressive players even if you remain unconvinced about the shotgun.

4) The Forge is the swarm launcher's best friend. Together they can take down a vehicle regardless of tank type quickly. The forge will blast off the shielding and the swarms will take down the armor. This sounds like a match made in heaven not a one or the other kind of exclusion. Also, please don't forget that the swarms still can't kill infantry (in anything but the most extreme instances) while forges are great at holding down a point in the absence of a sniper.