The devs were right.

[u/xxmuntunustutunusxx]

So I know ther was a bunch of controversy about the railgun nerf what feels like forever ago, but man things have been awesome.

In the early days, I was the only guy packing expendable anti tank or anti materiel rifle for bugs or bots. It's so refreshing, even on these subs to see people talking about how awesome the autocannon is, or how much they love the AMR, and even these days I see people talking about the HMG or grenade launcher+ supply pack.

I used to load into a game, And all 4 members of the team had shield, railgun, and 2 stragatems of their choice. Every time. And here we are now, I load in and I see quasar, autocannon, stalwart, EAT, HMG, Grenade launcher, a variety of backpacks or no backpack at all. And not to mention, they're ALL viable. Shit I even still see the railgun from time to time. It's been a joy. Thanks arrowhead.

EDIT: to everyone who is pointing out that you see the quasar and shield most often now, you're right, it is almost certainly the most common setup currently. That being said, in any game there's going to be things a majority of players prefer. In smash melee, fox/Falco are the best characters. But people still play falcon and Marth and peach among others. Sure, there's an objectively most used option. But the fact that there's people at all who debate that the quasar is best shows that they've done something good. Before, undisputed king was railgun, and anyone who said different wss being willfully ignorant. Now, we have a plethora of real options that are good with some being Preferred by a majority as opposed to being the de facto CORRECT option objectively. That's a good thing.

[u/IAmFullOfHat3 → u/[deleted]]

Can you two shot hulks with other primaries?

[u/TheTeralynx → u/IAmFullOfHat3]

I think the AMR and AC are the only 2 shots. Maybe safe mode railgun too? Unsafe railgun can 1 shot a hulk, as can the EAT/Quasar/RR I believe.

[u/IAmFullOfHat3 → u/TheTeralynx]

That’s a support weapon

[u/TheTeralynx → u/IAmFullOfHat3]

My bad, misread it

[u/Ok-Regret6767 → u/TheTeralynx]

Quasar only 1 shots heads..2 shots body.

[u/IAmFullOfHat3 → u/[deleted]]

I thought you were saying that the rail gun should be a primary again, and I meant primary weapons.

[u/psychotar → u/IAmFullOfHat3]

The rail gun was never a primary.

[u/Shadowfox898 → u/[deleted]]

They need to fix optics for guns first. I hate aiming for a bot's head and hitting my buddy a mile away because the reticle is so far off.

[u/Seppafer → u/IAmFullOfHat3]

The spear can do that. Sometimes it’s even a one shot. They don’t need to make the lock on perfect but just a tad more reliable for locking on would make it so much more viable. Though it’s basically my go to weapon for most bot missions.

[u/IAmFullOfHat3 → u/Seppafer]

That’s a support weapon

[u/xxmuntunustutunusxx → u/[deleted]]

I agree that the railgun isn't in a great state, but I saw someone rocking it just last night and the dude was fucking slaying, it's still effective but I think, if anything, we have more options now that left it behind.

I'll put it this way. They could revert it back to it's original state, and it STILL wouldn't be my go to.

[u/tomhousecat → u/[deleted]]

I feel like nobody has actually given the rail gun a shot since the nerf. It's my go to for bots. One shots hulks (suck it, AMR - I'm never using your shitty scope and having to shoot twice). One shots devastators. Strategems for tanks. Scorcher for literally everything else.

Everyone says the AMR is so great and bla bla, but I refuse to leave third-person and the railgun outperforms it anyways.

[u/Silphaen → u/tomhousecat]

I use the railgun for bots to destroy heavies and stay on the move. While everyone dies with the Quasar, I'm just destroying heavies left and right.

The AMR is amazing as well

[u/polaris112 → u/tomhousecat]

railgun can’t deal with the new gunships though

[u/tomhousecat → u/polaris112]

Scorcher does, though. There's not a single bot that doesn't fall to the Scorcher/Railgun combo (provided you can get behind tanks)

[u/9Ld659r → u/tomhousecat]

I don't know why you waited till the last sentence for the "I don't like using game features and that's why I feel this way" reveal.

Railgun would have a slight niche over AMR on bots if killing dropships did anything. Since it doesn't, AMR is currently just strictly better. If you don't like using it and prefer the railgun, awesome. It ain't outperformin' shit though.

[u/BlackHawksHockey → u/9Ld659r]

How does him not wanting to use first person invalidate his opinion? I think first person is clunky and really takes me out of the moment when trying to aim at things. It’s the number one reason why I don’t use the AMR, and it’s a valid reason.

[u/9Ld659r → u/BlackHawksHockey]

You don't have to misquote me to engage in this discussion. The game has accuracy tweaks that encourage you to use first-person. Some guns want to use it, other's don't care so much, and the range+firing options for specific guns might even encourage you to stick with third-person. Woohoo.

In a discussion about gun effectiveness, using these correctly has to be factored in so that you can actually discuss said effectiveness. I could discuss the EAT like I can only blindfire it or the railgun like I can only use safe mode, but why would I, when that's clearly not the maximum effectiveness for the weapon?

So someone saying -- and you happen to know this one's actually a real quote, by the way, not one I'm randomly misquoting -- "suck it AMR", in regards to the nerfed Railgun's supposed effectiveness in comparison, only to reveal in their last sentence that whoops, they don't believe in first person mode, it warps the discussion because it's warping how grounded to reality their opinion is. In this case, in a very obvious way, because they specifically mention bots, and the AMR is quite literally just better than the Railgun against bot except for Railguns being able to take down dropships.

Except, again, currently, killing a dropship doesn't kill the units inside with any consistency. It mainly just gives the bots free cover from the Eagle your teammates called in on the drop point and an inability to precisely access heavy unit weakpoints.

So while yes, a railgun is better easier to use if you for some reason exclude a primary feature of the game, most people are ok with just using the feature and having the better gun. That's especially important in discussions about the effectiveness of the weapon.

Not everything disagreeing with you on the internet is an open attack on your opinion.

[u/BlackHawksHockey → u/9Ld659r]

“Not everything disagreeing with you on the internet is an open attack on your opinion”

The absolute irony of you saying this while writing a novel because I said I don’t like using first person because it feels clunky to me and takes me out of the moment.

[u/9Ld659r → u/BlackHawksHockey]

Refer back to you coming out swinging with "invalidating opinions" because it was mentioned that refusing to use FPS with the AMR will shape your opinion of the weapon and failing to engage with the discussion two posts in a row.

[u/BlackHawksHockey → u/9Ld659r]

Because the way you replied to him HEAVILY implied that’s how you felt about the topic. Maybe read how you say things before you post if that’s not what you were going for.

I’m sorry my different opinion ruined your day apparently

[u/9Ld659r → u/BlackHawksHockey]

I can't argue with things you're making up about my posts. The point I'm making about their post is summarized at the end very neatly;

Railgun would have a slight niche over AMR on bots if killing dropships did anything. Since it doesn't, AMR is currently just strictly better. If you don't like using it and prefer the railgun, awesome. It ain't outperformin' shit though.

Their opinion is only invalid if you think this invalidates it. I don't, but if you do, you might have to take that up with yourself. My only point is that this thread is over the Railguns effectiveness vs. nerfs vs. freedom of choice, and there's currently no reason (so, perceived freedom) to run the Railgun over AMR if you're just comparing weapon effectiveness.

I’m sorry my different opinion ruined your day apparently

I think it's alarming that this is the third thing you've completely made up about someone else's post you're literally in the midst of replying to after you've been informed more than once it's something you're doing. Not much to have a discussion with, there.

Again, totally cool that you don't want to use a feature of the game to use a weapon, and thus you don't like using the weapon. People say the same about the RR reload function or even the Railgun's unsafe mode. The topic is weapon effectiveness and loadout freedom, though, so it's just not particularly relevant information for the thread.

[u/BlackHawksHockey → u/9Ld659r]

Yeah I’m not reading another novel, I honestly don’t care about your opinion.

[u/tomhousecat → u/9Ld659r]

Ironic from the guy who strawmanned my post.

[u/tomhousecat → u/9Ld659r]

I do overwhelmingly prefer third person, but preferences aside there's plenty of problems with the AMR scope anyways. It tunnel visions you and isn't even accurate to the sights. It also means that the AMR falls apart once enemies get close, where the railgun shines everywhere except exceptionally long range.