All I am saying is if the weapon is nerfed more then the Minmatar suits suffer the most. Now if the suits are normalized enough for them to use diverse weapon combinations as others then go for it.

Currently other suits can get more out of a CR than Minmatar

Also I think some of you are overstating the strengths of the CR over the others

ScR and RR do just fine against them with the ScR being a monster in skilled persons hands and the RR working very well up close as well as it's designed range.

I will concede the assault and commando point (play scout) and I will wait to see the new cpu/pg because increasing the requirements of the rifle will mostly hurt the race that are supposed to benefit from the rifle

Just saying, thing has excellent DPS (outranks most automatics), outstanding damage profile, half-decent range, and no-one can really complain about it's fitting cost. Really powerful weapon with not a lot of down-sides.

Now, this is just an opinion I've held onto since 1.7... but...

Anyway, I personally want to see it's dispersion or recoil looked at. Given it's lightning fast burst ratio, I don't think it really deserves it's laser accuracy. /shrug

Begin flame war.

nothign but whineing.. remember how OP AR used to be?

I think people just perceived it as being OP because it was the only thing that actually acted like an Assault Rifle in the game, thereby, usage.

"OP" is a relative designation.

-Chuckles- I take it you use the Combat Rifle, Adipem?

-Chuckles- I take it you use the Combat Rifle, Adipem?

-Chuckles- was my initial reaction when community members I'd come to respect rallied in defense of the AR-514 status quo. I'd assumed they were trolling.

To answer your question, yes, I've skilled the CR to Proficiency IV. Same with the AR and most recently the ScR. Skilled the RR to Proficiency V. I've found each of the Fine Rifles to be stupidly good in close quarters. A weapon optimized for killing at range should be sh*t in CQC ... because balance and stuff.

Ultra-precise hipfire ... from a ranged weapon ... all the while frantically wiggling?
That's something to -chuckle- about.

Then again, that's just one guy's opinion.

-Chuckles- was my initial reaction when community members I'd come to respect rallied in defense of the AR-514 status quo. I'd assumed they were trolling.

To answer your question, yes, I've skilled the CR to Proficiency IV. Same with the AR and most recently the ScR. Skilled the RR to Proficiency V. I've found each of the Fine Rifles to be stupidly good in close quarters. A weapon optimized for killing at range should be sh*t in CQC ... because balance and stuff.

Ultra-precise hipfire ... from a ranged weapon ... all the while frantically wiggling?
That right there is something to -chuckle- about.

Then again, this is just one guy's opinion.

1. Hahaha! 'rallied in defense of the AR-514 status quo' man, it's really hard to take you seriously now. Pssh, dude, if you're willing to deflect like that, I don't want your respect

2. It's a very simple fact: Nothing changed about the AR in 1.7 except that the CR and RR were implemented and all of a sudden the "AR is OP" argument died out. It's not a coincidence.

3. It was a victim of power creep and it's only just now starting to be brought back to viability and any attempt to make it viable -compared- to those other weapons is slapped down in some tin-foiling BS like that.

4. What's the actual argument against it, exactly? And, for that matter, what the hell does it even matter to this thread? This isn't some Cult of the AR but nice job trying to turn it into one, I suppose we do need a niche group for each individual playstyle like the Scouts. UNIONIZE DUST 514 amiright?

You can't balance on racial purity

1. I'm not looking to "give" you my respect, Aeon. You had it before, and it is certainly within your capacity to earn it again. I know your heart is in the right place. Less nonsense like ^ this ^ and more of the old, analytical Aeon. Everyone wins.

2. My earlier point (the one you -chuckled- at and appear to have ignored) is that "OP" is a relative designation. When 80% of every killfeed of every match reads "AR", you know have a balance problem. What came before or after that balance problem is wholly irrelevant. The AR is no longer OP; that doesn't mean it never was, and it certainly doesn't mean you were right to defend it back when it epitomized imbalance.

3. As is the situation with Scouts. Scouts went from under 5% of units-in-action to upwards of 30% immediately following 1.8. We recognize Scout Spam to be indicative of a balance problem. The same goes for Heavies and Combat Rifles. No tinfoil here. Only usage rates.

4. I don't know what you're talking about here. Fine Rifles (AR, CR, ScR, RR) are all too good from the hip. That pretty much sums up my view on the subject. Specific details were offered here. The better it is at killing at range, the less effective it should be up-close.

1. You want analytical you should find and comment on the thread I made regarding hip fire discrepancies. The one where I blatantly acknowledge that the CR/SCR/RR assault variants all have the exact same hipfire with the AR only being marginally better. The thread where I state, quite clearly, that the SCR and RR have the exact same hipfire. In fact, the only real outlier is that the AR has the best hipfire out of all of them and somehow this equates to it being "too good" despite it being designed for close quarters.

2. I get the impression you want the AR to be a high damage spray/pray weapon with something like the HMG's dispersion where it wouldn't be able to hit [redacted] because "it was OP before and it still is despite there being weapons that still overshadow it". Again, it's not 'relative designation' it's usability and viability. When you have two weapons that act like traditional assault rifles in other games (the AR and the ASCR) you kind of limit your options as to what is being used, so obviously there is going to be a lot of usage of the thing that players are most familiar with.

3. And this is ignoring the fact that all the starter suits had Assault Rifles as their base up until Hotfix Bravo. This is ignoring the fact that the variations of the Assault Rifle were absolute garbage. This is ignoring the fact that other weapons simply aren't as useful in general combat, being more specialized like the Laser Rifle (which was broken in it's own right) or the Shotgun (which apparently only needed Scouts to be OP as [redacted] but I'm willing to bet that was entirely circumstantial too, right?)

4. I'll be real, I like the hipfire of the weapons just the way it is. I hate games like Battlefield that pretend that you somehow get muscular distrophy whenever you're firing from the hip but somehow become a world class marksman just by moving the gun three inches to the left and up a hair. I'm saying that as a BF2 veteran of 500+ hours and a BF3 player of 120+ hours. After that I just stopped because it was getting ridiculous.

5. Dust 514 is a high HP strafe shooter - it's about staying on target and moving around, outskilling and out maneuvering your opponent. I sincerely hope that never changes because as awesome as Closed Beta was, turning it into an ADS game just ruins the experience of that skill input and turns the entire game into 'who shot first' or 'who has the most tank'.

6. But again, none of this even matters because the thread isn't about the AR - it's about the CR. So, while I appreciate your red herring that has completely derailed this [redacted] - something I suspect is to intentional in order to somehow defend the CR without any real argument to back it - I find this entire debate annoying as hell and am totally willing to shrug it off.

7. Again, I don't care for your respect, I never have. I'm voicing what I feel is the best for the game - not you. This has always been the case and it has never changed.

8. And what I feel is best for the game? Is that the CR has way too many pros and not nearly enough cons.

1. If you want people to assume Point A as a foundation for Point B, then reference Point A as an assumption in advance. It is unreasonable to demand that we take into account every point or claim you've made to date. If you agree that Fine Rifle hipfire should be less reliable, and that of the Fine Rifles the AR's hipfire should be most reliable, then we're on the same page.

2. Your impression is wrong. I agree that the vanilla AR is the worst of the Fine Rifles, and I'd like to see it outperform other rifles in CQC at the tradeoff of underperforming them at range. I think this is best accomplished by making the others (namely CR, RR, ScR) less effective in CQC than they are at present. Balance demands that a weapon have its strengths and drawbacks. A "jack of all trades" weapon or weapon category has no place in a shooter with Dust's weapon variety.

3. Skipped

4. Here's where you and I disagree most. (1) Weapons optimized for CQC should seldom win fights at range and (2) weapons optimized for range combat should seldom win fights in CQC. Present mechanics and design decisions to date have created an environment where (1) is routinely observed while (2) is routinely ignored, in effect granting the users of Fine Rifles the best of both worlds. You may think that you like ultra-precise hipfire, but it is a contributing factor to your original post's complaints. If the RR, CR and ScR were less effective from the hip in close quarters, then CQC weapons like the AR would be in a far better place.

5. Things like tactics, teamwork, situational awareness, aim, reflexes --- these are skills. Things like ultra-precise hipfire, forgiving HP pools, every-range Fine Rifles, overly effective wiggling, insta-spin for all shapes and sizes --- these are more free passes than skills. When we talk about "out-skilling" an opponent, we should focus more on skills and less on free passes.

6. Apologies if you think I intended to derail your thread. I did pursue a tangent when I perceived you to be claiming that the former master-of-all-trades AR was in fact "fine" and that you were somehow justified in defending it. Other than that, I believe I've remained on point. I hope I've made my points more clear for you.

7. Your lack of regard for any opinion contrary to your own did not help your vote count.

8. Agreed.

Significant difference between opinion and respect. I respect your opinion, and you bring up decent points (sometimes), even if I may not agree with them. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I care about what you think of me, let alone whether or not I care about 'votes'. Community got their representatives and never did I ever advocate that I was running as a candidate for specific balance discussions - because that's not what the CPM was about. If that's what your driving decision was for voting, then I've done some severe overestimation.

Thank you. I think.

In my mind, CPM is all about speaking to the Devs on behalf of the playerbase. If balance and bugs are the only things subject to change, what other topics might a productive member of CPM discuss with Rattati and Logibro? Even if it is beyond the scope of the institution's original mission, I'd like to think that current CPM members will step up to the plate and participate in balance discussions with the community they represent.

What else is there to talk about?