People are taking a really wrong turn comparing the RR to the LR...it's indicitive of the bigger problem in the design.

The RR has / is becoming basically a special weapon like the LR. The SCR is the general infantry weapon of the Amarr...not the LR.

The RR is much more akin to a special or support weapon...truth be told it functions much more like a light machine-gun than a general purpose infantry weapon. Trying to make one weapon have extreme range, very good accuracy ADS, feature sustained fire, relatively high damage per shot, and be decent in CQC but not too strong is at it's base poor design. When you use weak charge mechanics and recoil as your "balance" tools on weapons like this it further backs the weapon into a narrow niche and makes it untenable as a general infantry weapon.

The ARR is closer to how the basic RR should actually function if you want it to be closer to a general purpose infantry weapon.

For "fixing" the RR I think I would actually prefer lowering the damage per shot, dropping recoil down to less than pre-1.9 nerf levels - particularly in ADS mode, and using similar charge mechanics as the small rail turrets where it prevents you from pre-charging but bring the charge time back to about .25 or .3sec. Honestly, even if you did this I'm not sure it would truly balance easily due to some fo the root design issues.

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=178946&find=unread

Just, curious to know (I've only read half way through so far, so maybe its in there, if so I'll retract this) if you factored in price differences into your calculations. There is quite a bit of difference between the prices of each weapon's standard variant and its racial equivalent variants. This could be the factor that is throwing off the balancing equation, and could be the reason why you guys have had such a hard time with balancing over the last two years. Assuming that this is a missing factor, it will cause an over buff roughly proportionate to the difference in price, the reverse is also true. Just a suggestion.

There are other price related factor as well that should be taken into account. I can think of about a half dozen of the top of my head.

The nerf has turned it from a standard service weapon into what essentially amounts to a specialist weapon. You can look back in the thread to Ceej Mantis' post and Fox Gaden's reply.

Specialist weapons imply it can only do one thing and to that i sat you are right. This question should clear things up quite nicely. Can i kill efficiently with an assault rifle at 70+ meters? The answer is no. So then why must we assume that we ahould be able to kill efficiently with a rail rifle at less than say 20 or 30?

Every rifle has is optimal and so they are specialized in that optimal role. Its not a bad thing. Players wanted variety; here it is. Each tech has its specialized role in the battlefield. Accept it. Its the way of New Eden.

You're making an intentional fallacy here with the statement that the rail rifle killed efficiently at short ranges - it didn't, it was one of the worst weapons for short range. just because it was capable of getting the job done didn't mean it was 'efficient' at it.

Still don't understand why you want to force people to use the ARR and your so hungry to do so you have to make the standard variant a specialty weapon.

That kick is jarring and leads to bad play experience.

Really, did everyone suck at the game so bad they couldn't handle the rail rifle?

The AR had a scope once... CCP took it off though.

John, I respect your opinion a lot....however the victory conditions of the game are for the most part dictated by closing to an objective, by definition bringing most of the fighting into CQC range. Makes no sense to put one racial line at such a clear disadvantage.

This really boils down to poor weapon design for then RR and ARR and there nerf/buffs associated are only symptoms of the problem.

So to sum up this things.. CCP Feels that the Rail Rifle is to popular so they are hitting it hard with the nerf bat. Nothing else matters besides that fact.

I'd have to assume you are referring to Rattati's statment to the effect that the fine details are not as important because the rail rifle accounted for 50% of kills.

1 weapon accounting for essentially as many kills as all the others combined implies pretty strongly that it has a substantial advantage over the rest. If you have a more plausible explanation for that, I'd love to hear it.

I hope it worked, because the numbers I was looking at today were worse than I thought, the RR has been OP for far too long, eluding me like a hobbit

...the numbers I was looking at today were worse than I thought, the RR has been OP for far too long...

No. ARR got a slight damage increase, clip size increase, and the spool-up time was not increased.

I'd have to assume you are referring to Rattati's statment to the effect that the fine details are not as important because the rail rifle accounted for 50% of kills.

1 weapon accounting for essentially as many kills as all the others combined implies pretty strongly that it has a substantial advantage over the rest. If you have a more plausible explanation for that, I'd love to hear it.

Not necessarily, there are plenty of other reasons that it could be used so much. My belief is that quite simply it does the best at the most common and most 'ideal' engagement ranges. Like on spine delta standing on the end of the bridge you can prettymuch shoot to either the point above you, or the other end of the bridge while still being in fairly good cover and without having to move a whole lot. Where other people have to try and cross a decent chunk of open ground to try to get to you.

Not because it's overperforming in CQC.

I feel like that is somewhat of a fallacy. In a competitive genre like FPS players don't necessarily gravitate to a weapon because it has a "significant" advantage they do some because a weapon has "an advantage" that being said that disparity could be anything from game breaking RoF to slight percentage more damage per round or some such nonsense.

Kind of feel like the nerf was heavy handed for watching clips of the game....not to say that it did not need some alterations like this....but perhaps not as great as this initial change.

I hope it worked, because the numbers I was looking at today were worse than I thought, the RR has been OP for far too long, eluding me like a hobbit