As Effective range decreases, DPS should increase by relation

Therefor Rail Rifle should have the least Damage Per Second followed by Scrambler Rifle (ignoring charge) and increasing as we approach combat rifle and Assault Rifle having the highest DPS since its effective range is the least of the rifles. This should seem like common sense since weapons with shorter ranges are at a range disability, they should make up for it with a higher DPS value aka faster kills.

Damage Per Shot

With range, the damage per shot should increase. This is because at range it is essentially increasingly difficult to hit moving targets so each shot really needs to count and so thus Rail Rifle should have the most damage per shot followed by scrambler rifle, combat rifle, and assault rifle. This would mostly be because high range weapons need minimal kick to be effective at their ranges and thus a slower RoF which is compensated by a higher damage level.

Currently this only seems like common sense but as of now it's not being applied wholesomely to the game. Currently the Assault rifle is at both a range and DPS disadvantage to many if not all the other rifles. That does not make sense, to stack cons onto a weapon. If the game needs balance then why not have everything actually balanced? Where pros and cons offset eachother but cause the weapon to be used in a certain style. I'm not trying to cry specifically about the Assault Rifle but rather push for a range versus DPS versus damage scenario where there would be no unbalance (to your favor or lack there of) to your choice of rifle.

The rail rifle in terms of damage versus range currently follows suit however it has a DPS that defies its range. It's a simple equation where range decreases, DPS increases. It just makes sense.

If ScRs had less DPS than ARs they would be useless. Look at the current TAC AR as an example. The frontloaded combat style of the ScR requires high DPS.

But it outranges the TAC AR, it's all about playing the ranges and the damage application. If all weapons had a higher DPS then the Assault Rifle why would use the Assault Rifle? If the Rail Rifle had higher DPS than scrambler rifle then why bother with scrambler rifle. If everything is literally balanced, how could there be a wrong choice?

But thanks for bringing that up

You can't only balance with numbers...
For the ScR to have less DPS than an AR it would require it to do only only 36 damage per shot, or have a RoF of 350 rounds per minute. I don't think I need to tell you that this would be utterly worthless.

Some weapons require more skill to use than others. In videogames, this skill requirement is almost always rewarded with higher DPS than another weapon that is easier to use.

Or you scale the AR DPS up so you don't have to a 350 rof. But who/what defines what weapons require more skill? Semi-auto versus automatic? Heat versus lack there of (in that case ScR would have highest DPS followed by laser rifle, HMG, then KRINs)?And what would prevent it beating an AR in CQC? *Genuine questions not trying to be snooty*

Laser Rifle
Overheat, backwards damage profile, small optimal range, no dispersion

Scrambler Rifle
Semiautomatic, Overheat

Tactical Blaster Rifle
Semiautomatic, Small Magazine

Burst Blaster Rifle
Burst Fire, High RoF

Combat Rifle
Burst fire, High RoF

Rail Rifle
Fulky Automatic Charge time, Low Rof

Blaster Rifle
Fully Automatic, Large Magazine

Assault Rail Rifle
Fully Automatic

Assault Combat Rifle
Fully Automatic, High RoF

Are we calling them "Blaster Rifles" now? How unimaginative. Might as well call the others the Railgun Rifle, Autocannon Rifle and Pulse Laser Rifle. Also, the Laser Rifle should not be grouped with the AR-type weapons, it is very much unique.

The SCR should have a lower DPS regardless of its heat and tactical status. Reason being is that it's bread and butter is the charged shot. Meaning the SCR can go from a DMR to a SR in the click of a button. Keep in mind for a long range weapon lower DPS almost always means lower rof not lower damage. In the case of the SCR it might also need some lower damage but a longer time until cool down. My reason being is that if you look at the ion pistol it has the lowest DPS and the lowest range of all the pistols but a 350 damage charged shot which justifies it's lower than average DPS and this is a very special weapon.

As for the overall DPS balance of this game i think it should come with rof, accuracy, stability, and clip buffs/nerfs.

I did read all your rifle changes post and I have to slightly disagree with the accuracy one. I judge accuracy by two ratings, accuracy by the accuracy stat and stability. The accuracy stat affects how good the weapon is in CQC, while stability Is not a stat it affects the weapons climb. I believe thst CQC weapons should have the best accuracy but the worst stability, vice versa for long range. There is also bullet spread, and I also believe that the AR and CR should have decent bullet spread while the SCR and RR have tight spread, a tight weapon would meab that you need pinpint accuracy wether in ADS or hipfiring to hit a target. This along with what I said about accuracy and DPS would make long range weapons good at long range, very good, but very bad at CQC.

As for clip size long range weapons have a higher damage per shot therefore they need a smaller clip to maintain an equal clip size damage count. At the moment high damage per shot weapons also maintain a higher total clip damage, enough so that their longer reloads do not help bring down this damage. This should also be adjusted.

+ Accuracy Ratings
Simple and to the point, the greater the range of weapon, the higher the accuracy. It would not make sense to have a long range weapon not being able to actually hit things at long range. As we shorten effective range of rifles (approaching Assault Rifle) you delve into pray and spray mechanics. Currently the Rail Rifle's high accuracy rating allows it to be a good cqc weapon as well, but mainly because of the current DPS imbalance. Given that AR should have highest DPS, in a cqc scenario the Assault Rifle should really beat the RR.

Now we all know that currently the Rail Rifle's tight hipfire (higher accuracy and slower RoF) make CQC handling actually pretty effective, as CCP introduced the Breach Assault Rifle we should have been well aware of this. So in a Rail Rifle versus AR in AR optimal, the dispersion on the assault rifle should only be enough to the point where targets beyond optimal become increasingly difficult to accurately hit (when full auto so you would need to manage shots to get a good accuracy at longer ranges) but not so much to where in a CQC loss of control would be too great to bear or too quick to manage.

You can't only balance with numbers...
For the ScR to have less DPS than an AR it would require it to do only only 36 damage per shot, or have a RoF of 350 rounds per minute. I don't think I need to tell you that this would be utterly worthless.

Some weapons require more skill to use than others. In videogames, this skill requirement is almost always rewarded with higher DPS than another weapon that is easier to use.

The SCR should have a lower DPS regardless of its heat and tactical status. Reason being is that it's bread and butter is the charged shot. Meaning the SCR can go from a DMR to a SR in the click of a button. Keep in mind for a long range weapon lower DPS almost always means lower rof not lower damage. In the case of the SCR it might also need some lower damage but a longer time until cool down. My reason being is that if you look at the ion pistol it has the lowest DPS and the lowest range of all the pistols but a 350 damage charged shot which justifies it's lower than average DPS and this is a very special weapon.

As for the overall DPS balance of this game i think it should come with rof, accuracy, stability, and clip buffs/nerfs.

I did read all your rifle changes post and I have to slightly disagree with the accuracy one. I judge accuracy by two ratings, accuracy by the accuracy stat and stability. The accuracy stat affects how good the weapon is in CQC, while stability Is not a stat it affects the weapons climb. I believe thst CQC weapons should have the best accuracy but the worst stability, vice versa for long range. There is also bullet spread, and I also believe that the AR and CR should have decent bullet spread while the SCR and RR have tight spread, a tight weapon would meab that you need pinpint accuracy wether in ADS or hipfiring to hit a target. This along with what I said about accuracy and DPS would make long range weapons good at long range, very good, but very bad at CQC.

As for clip size long range weapons have a higher damage per shot therefore they need a smaller clip to maintain an equal clip size damage count. At the moment high damage per shot weapons also maintain a higher total clip damage, enough so that their longer reloads do not help bring down this damage. This should also be adjusted.

As Effective range decreases, DPS should increase by relation

Therefor Rail Rifle should have the least Damage Per Second followed by Scrambler Rifle (ignoring charge) and increasing as we approach combat rifle and Assault Rifle having the highest DPS since its effective range is the least of the rifles. This should seem like common sense since weapons with shorter ranges are at a range disability, they should make up for it with a higher DPS value aka faster kills.

Damage Per Shot

With range, the damage per shot should increase. This is because at range it is essentially increasingly difficult to hit moving targets so each shot really needs to count and so thus Rail Rifle should have the most damage per shot followed by scrambler rifle, combat rifle, and assault rifle. This would mostly be because high range weapons need minimal kick to be effective at their ranges and thus a slower RoF which is compensated by a higher damage level.

Currently this only seems like common sense but as of now it's not being applied wholesomely to the game. Currently the Assault rifle is at both a range and DPS disadvantage to many if not all the other rifles. That does not make sense, to stack cons onto a weapon. If the game needs balance then why not have everything actually balanced? Where pros and cons offset eachother but cause the weapon to be used in a certain style. I'm not trying to cry specifically about the Assault Rifle but rather push for a range versus DPS versus damage scenario where there would be no unbalance (to your favor or lack there of) to your choice of rifle.

The rail rifle in terms of damage versus range currently follows suit however it has a DPS that defies its range. It's a simple equation where range decreases, DPS increases. It just makes sense.

The idea is to emphasize where effort is put into the mercenary. For example, Rail Rife users would need to expend minimal effort into traversing to get targets in range. The emphasis is put on being able to apply the damage over time and keep enemies from closing gaps. The ScR users would need to spend a little effort into getting in range but once they are there the rest of the battle is applying the damage over time and not allow gaps to be closed. As we get to CR and AR the battle becomes more about closing the gap then applying damage over time. Admittedly the weapons should not do everything for them, there should be no EZ mode. But really it should be a challenge for a Assault User to close the distance on the Rail Rifle user and for the rail rifle user to kill the Assault Rifle user before it is too late. That puts an emphasis on skill and strategy.

As Effective range decreases, DPS should increase by relation

Therefor Rail Rifle should have the least Damage Per Second followed by Scrambler Rifle (ignoring charge) and increasing as we approach combat rifle and Assault Rifle having the highest DPS since its effective range is the least of the rifles. This should seem like common sense since weapons with shorter ranges are at a range disability, they should make up for it with a higher DPS value aka faster kills.

Damage Per Shot

With range, the damage per shot should increase. This is because at range it is essentially increasingly difficult to hit moving targets so each shot really needs to count and so thus Rail Rifle should have the most damage per shot followed by scrambler rifle, combat rifle, and assault rifle. This would mostly be because high range weapons need minimal kick to be effective at their ranges and thus a slower RoF which is compensated by a higher damage level.

Currently this only seems like common sense but as of now it's not being applied wholesomely to the game. Currently the Assault rifle is at both a range and DPS disadvantage to many if not all the other rifles. That does not make sense, to stack cons onto a weapon. If the game needs balance then why not have everything actually balanced? Where pros and cons offset eachother but cause the weapon to be used in a certain style. I'm not trying to cry specifically about the Assault Rifle but rather push for a range versus DPS versus damage scenario where there would be no unbalance (to your favor or lack there of) to your choice of rifle.

The rail rifle in terms of damage versus range currently follows suit however it has a DPS that defies its range. It's a simple equation where range decreases, DPS increases. It just makes sense.

The idea is to emphasize where effort is put into the mercenary. For example, Rail Rife users would need to expend minimal effort into traversing to get targets in range. The emphasis is put on being able to apply the damage over time and keep enemies from closing gaps. The ScR users would need to spend a little effort into getting in range but once they are there the rest of the battle is applying the damage over time and not allow gaps to be closed. As we get to CR and AR the battle becomes more about closing the gap then applying damage over time. Admittedly the weapons should not do everything for them, there should be no EZ mode. But really it should be a challenge for a Assault User to close the distance on the Rail Rifle user and for the rail rifle user to kill the Assault Rifle user before it is too late. That puts an emphasis on skill and strategy.

you cant have dps and range be an inverse line, they are many other factors that have to be considered (accuracy, clip size, heat, charge time, explosion radius, ease of use, to a lesser extent cpu and pg use)

under this system, the sniper would tickle you lightly, the laser rifle (which needs to out range RR's), will act like a laser pointer, and shotguns/knifes will 1 shot heavies.
Are RR's a bit to good in short range. in skilled hands/keyboard and mouse users, yes. will lowering dps fix that, yes. will it hurt it at long range(60m out), yes, badly.

under this system, the sniper would tickle you lightly, the laser rifle (which needs to out range RR's), will act like a laser pointer, and shotguns/knifes will 1 shot heavies.
Are RR's a bit to good in short range. in skilled hands/keyboard and mouse users, yes. will lowering dps fix that, yes. will it hurt it at long range(60m out), yes, badly.