I use the TAR frequently. Have a few videos posted where I use it. It's a very niche weapon that needs the correct environment. Scrambler Rifle is better and it's probably not surprising to anyone that I started using it in place of my TAR. TAR can't make up for the ability to charge shot, longer range, etc. I've had a long drawn out argument about this in another thread.

If you want the TAR to be more competitive, needs to have something that'll compete with the Scrambler Rifle - which won't happen because the Scrambler rifle is just outright better. TAR would need excruciatingly high alpha damage to make up for a lack of charge, range, etc. No-one will allow that for fear of it being OP.

Oh lord, here we go with the whole "it's an imitator and shouldn't be competitive against it because it's not the real thing".

Seriously, I really do hate that argument, it's archaic and out-dated. With that logic, all the Assault variants should pale in comparison to the Assault Rifle but they don't. In some cases, in particular the ARR, they're even better. It's -always- been that way.

The constant misconception that a weapon has to be worse than a similar weapon just because of some concept a CCP Dev put down two years ago shouldn't even be a thing anymore. If anything we should have evolved from that with racial takes on the variations including their own unique flare to make the weapon competitive; and by that logic the TAR would have -much- higher damage than the Scrambler Rifle while simultaneously having lower range.

The question you have to ask: "What is the functionality of this weapon if it is an imitator that isn't competitive with the other weapon?"

Functionless gameplay is a waste of time. If your idea doesn't serve a purpose, providing something new and unique that we don't already have, then it doesn't need to be implemented because we already have that. Making something "kinda similar but not as powerful because #reasons" is just annoying, adds repetition, and punishes players for making the wrong choices.

why aren't we looking at reversing the role and making them vulnerable in CQC and deadly at long range?

There's only so many more nerf options before the stupid thing gets pushed off a cliff.

I'm not trying to be high and mighty or condescending. I'm honestly believing CQC HMGs aren't working, haven't worked as intended since their inception and making them and the Sentinel platform a CQC thing was a bad idea to begin with.

We also need to consider that in my experience most HMG engagements and kills happen at 20m or less. Sentinels hug CQC areas like it's their lifeline to force people to fight them on optimal terms for them. Anything inside 20m is chutney, so that's where the hits tend to happen.

until you drop the HMG below shotgun optimal these nerfs are going to be a zero-sum effort because a logi and tight spaces will do the work and they will continue racking up kills. It'll also see more fatties resorting to tactics like murder taxis to bypass the range restrictions.

Ejecting sentinels from CQC is, in my opinion, the best answer.

put the HMG heavies in a situation where their ideal combat arena is filled with snipers, forge gunners and rail rifles, ideally.

If the HMG sucks ass in CQC this breaks the Heavy > All meta in half and forces people to use heavies to keep people out of the facilities entirely, by using them at entrances as overwatch, locking down open fields, etc, and NOT participating gleefully in the knife-fighting.

If someone's in knife range the heavy should bluntly be dogmeat unless he's LUCKY.