This isn't really a case of 'who' the developers should balance toward.
It's a case of everything needing its own role.

Hypothetically, if a weapon was similar to another weapon in most respects except it outperforms it in x attribute with no disadvantage compared to the other, people are going to use the advantaged weapon.

So it is in Dust. A number of weapons are simply better than others - consider the rifle class, and specifically the CR and AR. Let's not start a flame war, but let's have a quick comparison:

The combat rifle and assault rifle do similar damage per bullet, with the assault rifle managing slightly more.
The combat rifle has a significant rate of fire advantage over the assault rifle.
The combat rifle has a range advantage over the assault rifle.
The combat rifle and assault rifle have a similar clip size.

Essentially, in this case, the CR outperforms the AR. As a result, people use the CR over the AR and its role is overshadowed. This is not a good thing. Ideally, every weapon should be balanced so that it has its own role in which it shines. It's fine to be versatile, but not to outperform other weapons in their niche as well as being versatile.

Looking on from the rifle class, this is the reason rifles are the most prevalent weapon on the battlefield. They have versatility and the power to beat other weapons in their niche roles. As a result, they become much more widely used.

It's not a case of balancing towards people, it's a case of balancing so that everything can co-exist and be useful.

Essentially, in this case, the CR outperforms the AR. As a result, people use the CR over the AR and its role is overshadowed. This is not a good thing. Ideally, every weapon should be balanced so that it has its own role in which it shines. It's fine to be versatile, but not to outperform other weapons in their niche as well as being versatile.

Arkena,

I see where you coming from and respect the concept and have a question back to you in a similar vein as the OP.

Lots of folks complain about the DPS of the RR vs the AR when complaining about their relative ranges. In the long range game the RR absolutely applies it's max DPS (assuming perfect aim and even if both players see each other at same time) with minimum ability for the AR to retaliate, however, in shorter range the .25 sec reaction time significantly detracts from the DPS and thus CQC capability of the rail., correct?

My suspicion is your answer will be "not really" and give me several points fairly logical points to back this up. That doesn't change the fact that an average player like me is actually experiencing the rail rifle as it was likely intended...great at long range and disadvantaged at CQC.

I use my SMG routinely in close range or tight maps exactly because of the disadvantages in CQC that I experience as an average player.

I've said it many times...the better the player the more "OP" the weapon seems to the guy on the other side of it. Individual player skill is still the biggest factor in the game otherwise the SCR would wreck house more than it already does.

Not saying the RR doesn't need tweaks, I'm on board with a mild dmg reduction and lowering it's hip fire accuracy rating. I'm actually more on board with giving the AR an increase in ROF and hip fire accuracy to further separate itself in close range fights.