Everyone knows that the current FOTM are the Rail Rifle and Combat Rifles. Sure, these are the two newest weapons, and they may be slightly overtuned, but the real issue is that they are extremely effective at long ranges (intended), and still quite effective when in CQC (intended?). And with the published stats to the Magsec, Bolt and Ion pistols, there are seemingly no changes that are on the horizon to fix this.

Compare those two new rifles to our old faithful trusty companion, the Assault Rifle, and while it is extremely effective close range (doing the most damage, smallest spread), the detriment to using it at long ranges is fairly high: it stops functioning, it doesn't hit its target, or the damage is so incidental as to not matter. The problem is that the Rail and Combat rifles are more effective at close ranges than the Assault rifle is at long ranges; there's not the same degree of "reverse falloff" that afflicts the RR and CR at close ranges that the AR experiences when firing past effective range.

One solution would be to dramatically increase the dispersion of the RR and CR up close--this would make them very ineffective while hip firing (especially so for the assault versions (talking more spread than an unskilled SMG puts out)), but very well when aiming down scope. Another possibility would be to create a "minimum range" where those two offenders would have very little damage up close (akin to the AR's incidental damage at long ranges). There needs to be an incentive for a RR or CR user to swap to their sidearm in CQC, and the "burst" fire mode of the CR or spool up time on the RR are largely negated by the Assault variant of the CR and the fact that the dispersion while hip firing the RR is too good (the base burst firing mode of the CR is a fairly big drawback, requiring constant trigger pulls).

Without some major change to the close damage-dealing power of the "long range weapons," they'll continue to dominate over any short- to medium-range weapon due to the extreme detriment of using weapons with very short optimal and effective ranges vs weapons that perform great at long ranges and well at close ones.

the problem right now is that for some reason weapons meant for long range are jack of all trades. RR should be terrible in cqc while the ar being a cqc rifle should dominate. After ccp fixes this(hopefully) the next step will be making new urban maps. we have plenty of long range fighting maps but we need more cqc. I love playing as a heavy but since 75% of the maps are wide and open, Im forced to either stick to an objective inside a building or run assault.

Balancing weapons on range was a terribly flawed idea from the start. Mercs aren't spaceships travelling at extreme speeds and dog fighting dozens of kilometers apart. What makes sense for Eve does not make sense for soldiers running around on the ground.

Stop balancing on range, and improve the maps by adding cover for troops to move around without constantly being exposed in open terrain.

I had a 1v1 rifle duel with another player today. We were both running toward the same point from opposite directions, and spotted each other at about 80-90 meters apart. I opened fire first (AR) strafing erratically trying to get closer, he barely moved (CR), lined me up and... Guess who won.
Yeah I know I was out of optimal range, but so was he.... He just stood there.... I really hope he had maxed proficiency, because otherwise that really sucks.

Combat rifles: Is it true that timed fanning of the trigger defeats kick? (I don't know, i haven't used it enough, or like, at all....)