I agree that making no gun better than another is boring, but I would also venture to say that EVE balance is going to be different than gun balance in an FPS, simply due to the fact the FPS relies more on "skill", as in, ability to recognize a target, acquire a sight picture, aim, and eliminate that target in the shortest amount of time possible.

Skill in EVE is there, to be sure. Its just a different skill, a "management" skill, that isn't based as much on twitch reflexes as it is on managing a group of variables to output the greatest possible amount of favorable percenteges, hence, "Spreadsheets Online" moniker EVE has.

In an FPS, the virtue of you having a "better" gun should not make you win by default. However, a worrying thing about DUST is that it does. It is harder to overcome a huge difference in stats between two players than it might be in EVE. Honestly I think the design philosophy behind the progression curve in DUST needs a looking at, possibly base gameplay fundamentals.

In my personal opinion, DUST would be better served by making the difference between proto and militia gear more of an EDGE than a ADVANTAGE. I think the whole EVE philosophy of bigger percentege differences (working with a lot more in an EVE ship than a DUST dropsuit), isn't good in DUST. Making mercenaries fragile and die a lot could be offset by lower costs for dropsuits, instead of dying 4 times, you would die 49 times, but it would br the same cost overall keeping inter-game price balance even between economies.

I am not calling for CoD fragility, but instead of taking 12 shots to die as a merc, taking 5-9 shots depending on suit you are using (basing numbers off of the Assault suit.)

Instead of the difference between a miitia and proto suit being 10 shots, the difference would be 3.

Thats kind of how I always envisioned DUST; medium damage, medium health, instead of the low damage high health model currently employed.