While I agree with the premise, I don't agree with your justification.
Nothing is stopping the AR user from putting on damage mods himself.

A better argument is that beyond the effective range you always lose battles, but within your optimal range it depends on skill and not a guaranteed win even if you close the distance and do everything else right.


Long Range weapon at long range = Guaranteed win
Short range weapon at short range = A slightly higher chance to win


One is clearly better overall.

this would make it "OP" the AR is already great in CQC its at a good spot in my opinion, I don't understand why you would want a buff to it

if range is that much of a problem I would say increase effective range and leave the optimal as it is but as it stands it does what it is supposed to do and the other variants are good at range but not so much that it steals another rifles job

the only weapon that doesn't do what it is supposed to do that well is the RR but that's just my opinion

I like the AR if the Caldari can't do CQC that well then why have the Gallente be good at range stick to your role if you dont like it switch roles

you want range go Caldari or Amarr as the ScR is fairly OP at any range

I say if there should be any buff to the AR is to give it a scope so you can aim better with the sight making it easier to kill targets at range, this would be a psudo buff as it only makes it easier to use and doesn't actually give it that much of an advantage

the ARR is not so much intended for long range combat as it is for mid range, as it has no scope
the fact of the matter is that you are comparing a mid range weapon with a short to mid range one

if you want to compare it to a long range weapon compare it to the RR and not the ARR if you want to compare the ARR to something it should be in my opinion the breach AR or Burst AR

now the AR if you can't destroy CQC and mid range up to its optimal then you either lack the skills, quite literally the AR skill tree, or you lack aim of any sort

I don't hear many people complaining about the AR being bad at CQC I do however see Gal assaults using ARR's because of the range advantage which is why I keep on bringing up the range

I do like the idea of making the AR the best in CQC, but I worry that it would become overused due to how relatively easy it is to actually get into CQC. I know that if these proposed changes came to be, the AR would probably become the Scout weapon of choice. Perhaps there's another way to improve it's CQC performance? Would limiting all the other rifles' CQC performance be a potential solution?

I don't see anything wrong with the current AR design. High damage, and a pretty big mag.
Having that high of damage actually counteracts the damage falloff at range, to a point.

Not to mention that, due to poor map design, most fighting in Dust is done within the AR's optimal anyway.

Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice.

There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range.

I'm saying it doesn't work well in practice because most engagements with rifles in dust occur within 40 meters already because of map design. I also disagree with your assumptions and mathematical breakdown of dps because you don't even mention the rail rifle charge up time or insane recoil.