Still needs to be nerfed

It is way OP versus shields. A maxed out triple damage mod proto scrambler does somewhere around 120 shield damage per round. Depending on how fast it can be shot that takes out a 600 ish shield hp (pro cal assault) in about 0.5 to 0.6 seconds and only uses 1/6 of a clip. Like seriously wtf ccp, are you dumb? How many people have to say this before you do something?

Let's compare to the "cqc king" duvolle assault rifle. A fully maxed our triple damage mod duvolle assault rifle does about 53 shield damage per round. At full dps that's 11-12 rounds to destroy 600 ish shield hp and takes 0.85 to 0.9 seconds. Not to mention the range difference.

I don't wanna hear **** about "but lasers kill shields that's what they are for" because you know damn well scramblers can chew through armor easy enough. Don't make me spit the math at you because we've been over it a million times. A scrambler rifle out dps a assault rifle versus armor by a wide margin even down close to 75% of its max fire rate. Again not to mention range difference which is huge!

Oh now let's add in modded controllers (which I know a good number of people use, including well known vets), as well as a charge shot.

Do something ccp. Wonder why shields are UP? Well this is one huge reason. No buff to shields, that isn't completely ridiculous, could ever hope to overcome this huge disadvantage.

You also can't overheat it & get your movement penalized you also do not need to spend +2m sp to use it effectively.

Can you spit some math. The ScR looses a disproportionate amount of its potential DPS vs armour when compared to it's effectiveness vs shields.

I won't dispute changes need to be made however I disagree with on what scale. Mechanical changes to the charged shot and a small change to the per shot damage could really do wonders for the rifle and bring its DPS down.

However worth consideration is what would happen to the relatively closely balanced Tactical AR. Too great a change to the ScR and it would simply be a better rifle. Featuring more anti-shield DPS , more anti armour DPS, only a few metres less effective range, and with slightly less manageable recoil.

I could spit some math for scr against armor but what's the point? The whole issue is that one single weapon nullifies an entire tanking philosophy... Of which there are two, shields and armor. Shields are in a good place until you run into one scr in the opposition.

Two equally skilled players 1v1. One is using a shield tanked min assault with a cr, the other uses a armor tanked amarr assault with a ScR. The amarr wins every time. Why? 1) because the drawbacks of the scr are not apparent on an amarr assault and 2) the scr vs shield is by far more potent than the cr vs armor, as was shown in the OP

What does TAR when you charge ... you can't charge it. Nevermind.

Two equally skilled players 1v1. One is using a shield tanked min assault with a cr, the other uses a armor tanked amarr assault with a ScR. The amarr wins every time. Why? 1) because the drawbacks of the scr are not apparent on an amarr assault and 2) the scr vs shield is by far more potent than the cr vs armor, as was shown in the OP

Now compare it to the TAR that shots just as many rounds as an ScR with Amarr Assault level 5.

But there is a very short delay between shots. They need to do the same thing they did to the TAR to the scr. As it stands the TAR can't be shot the way a scr can.

But there is a very short delay between shots. They need to do the same thing they did to the TAR to the scr. As it stands the TAR can't be shot the way a scr can.

That's a rather glaring fallacy and not set in stone at all.