Unnecessary? They've been needed for quite some time now. It's good it's happening.

The only real headscratcher one is for the SMG. (lol, like really?)

Though the Plasma Rifle's various variants are just, well, copies of the other races' own rifles, they shouldn't be expected to outperform Gallente's design. They are, after all, imitations. They are, yes, underwhelming, but that is more or less an acceptable outcome of what they are. I do remember the days where the TAC underwent what is going on with the Scrambler Rifles right now.

Tactical was the Scrambler Rifle, Breach was the Rail Rifle, Burst was the Combat Rifle. That's all they are. Imitations. In a sense, we've had all the racial rifles for a while- they were just poorly made by Gallenteans.

I never once said the other assault variants should be just as underwhelming, atm all assault variants on other rifles seem to be just fine. IMHO of course. Edit: I never once mentioned cheap copies the other assault variants while still being competent and effective, to a certain extent they don't outperform the AR at cqc.

They are underwhelming. At least for the ones we have now. The Assault variant of the Scrambler Rifle is, well, laughable compared to their "normal" Scrambler Rifle, just as the Combat Rifle's "normal" variant is more efficient at the intended range. In a close up, "I can hug you" fight? The ACR will have the stronger edge over the CR, but why is the CR user even getting that close? The same applies to the Scrambler Rifle and Rail Rifle.

If you didn't know, the Assault variants are the attempts to imitate Gallente's Plasma Rifle. Gallente is currently the only one that has one imitation variant of the other three races' rifles. Amarr lack burst and breach, Caldari lack tactical and burst, Minmatar lacks breach and tactical (in the current names of the Plasma Rifle variants).

From highest damage reduction coming in 1.8: RR, SCR, CR, AR, SMG (which is still weird). Each and every variant of these listed weapons are having their damage reduced. For now, you can say anything you want about the CR's, RR's, and (possibly?) ScR Assault variant outpreforming the Plasma Rifle- I promise you that it's going to change in 1.8. All we are really doing right now, you and I, are pissing back and forth about things that are going to be changed, though I'm extremely sure the CR, SCR, and RR are going to lose a bit of popularity when they no longer do nearly twice the damage of the Plasma Rifle, if not more than that. I'm extremely positive, that against a shield tanker, the Plasma Rifle will devastate better (faster) than the Assault Combat Rifle can against an equally healthed armor tanker in 1.8. The problem right now with CR and RR is that they are armor killers with far too much damage being dealt to even be slowed down by shields. In 1.7, CR and RR are superior to every other rifle. In 1.8? We'll see.

Am I saying the Plasma Rifle variants will find use in 1.8? No, I'm not. I really can't. People will use pretty much whatever they want to use.

The moment that the "they'll have higher DPS because of theory and no actual testing!" slipped out, I shook my head. It holds no argumentative value. The DPS arguments are just "what ifs". That's it. "What if". The greatest problem with DPS arguments is simply... they don't formulate human error. You can expect a brick to break a window when thrown, but it'll just do nothing if it never meets the window.

DPS is based around the ideal that every bullet will hit and every bullet will do the exact same amount of damage constantly. In Dust 514, that's incorrect. We have armor, shields, headshot bonus, headshot bonus while shielded, headshot bonus for only armor, distance of attacking, the skills of the attacker, the skills of the defender, modules of attacker, modules of defender, and various other variables. It can be static, but only after every possible situation and outcome are calculated. While people can "what if" these, application is still questionable.

That's why DPS isn't a viable choice to use to argue.

Balance shouldn't be judged from equal grounds. It should be assumed that the attacker has the best while the defender has the worst. This is, after all, New Eden. I actually believe they attempted balance around the "equal ground" belief, which is both understandable and questionable. Questionable because, well, there's so many variables to assume.

For example: Prototype gear, as much as people apparently hate to talk about it, is balanced. Around killing and defending other prototype. Advanced has less of a fighting chance, where standard has even less. In an ideal, completely same tier, situation, a lot of unbalanced things are actually balanced but only against itself.

Gear aside, HAVs are a great example of this. (No, I am not a tanker. I'm not ready to lower myself that far.) 1.7's HAV blunders aside, the non-militia fights between the HAVs are pretty good. Am I saying that's good for everyone? No, not so much. AV is suffering indefinitely and it's showing with HAV spam. The arguments have been "because they're so cheap!", but that's only a minor part in the overall problem. With HAVs being the only thing keeping HAVs in check, that's the extreme imbalance. The fact that AV's chances to killing even moderately able HAV pilot is abysmal plays a part in this. Someone try to correct me. I'll tell you to look at 1.6.

Balance around unequal grounds is the preference to me because this is New Eden. Do you know why the new players get mowed down within a second? Why their little peashooters tickle the older players? Do you even care?

It's because somebody somewhere thought that everyone has the same gear. If this was Call of Duty, sure, balance around equal grounds. Battlefield? I don't see why not. But Dust 514? Where my shotgun can sneeze on people and blow them away because I skilled into it? Where my CR can snipe and two burst mediums? Are you serious?