Board Thread:General Nerf discussion/@comment-27306930-20160603044700/@comment-2001041-20160628020922

Now, gentlemen, let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's a much bigger problem with the HyperFire than just statistics.

For a moment, let's assume that the HyperFire actually does perform at 5 darts per second. The first and foremost issue I have with the blaster is that it was designed to be an infantry weapon. In other words, it is by design an offensive assault weapon meant to quickly dissolve a defensive position. This is the same principle that went into the Stampede and the Rapid Strike - and both failed. The Stampede was too heavy; the Rapid Strike too underpowered compared to its contemporaries (most of which are still some of the most reliable weapons on the battlefield today). Imagine that you are leading such an attack with this weapon. You empty your drum in literally five seconds - and then need another one. How exactly are you going to store enough ammunition for an engagement longer than half a minute? Even if you are conservative with your firing (which mostly ruins the purpose of the assault), there is little to no room for error - waste any more than half a drum and the attack will fail - you just can't carry enough ammunition to sustain it.

These kind of mechanics would do so much better (if they actually work) in a defensive machine gun emplacement, like the Rhino-Fire. That gun would be amazing with 5 DPS, and you have as much ammunition as you can store at your station. It's just baffling. They couldn't have included a tripod with the HyperFire, at least?