Decreasing playerbase

[Pinky]

This is probably going to be more complicated but yeah basically this is what I suggest. Make a measuring standard and start fixing the rest and adding them to the list.
Not just fixing random bugs by chance but start testing a single weapon until it's done and then move to the next one.

Well, that doesn't work here. Mathematically, Aza deals with a high-dimensional non-linear global optimisation problem. Non-linear means that changing one parameter affects other parameters in a non-predictable way. Finding the global minimum (aka the balanced state) in such a system is very challenging. You may run into local minima, i.e. the game seems to be balanced for a while until players find the right combinations of unbalanced stuff. It is very hard to find the global minimum in such a system given the extreme high number of dimensions (basically equal to the total number of all tune-able weapon parameters). There are some mathematical methods do deal with such problems - but if you're not close to the global minimum to start with, you may never find it. Of course, it also remains to be proven if the global minimum - the totally balanced state - even exists in this problem.

[Azarael]

In layman's terms, the optimal method of resolving this problem is to wing it, take things as they come and strive for the best obtainable gameplay and balance.

[Pinky]

In layman's terms, the optimal method of resolving this problem is to wing it, take things as they come and strive for the best obtainable gameplay and balance.

In principle: yes! The other option would be to actively seek for the global minimum by constantly varying all the weapons' parameters across the board. But I don't think that players would like such an approach
BTW, there really seems to be at least one (trivial) totally balanced state: each weapon deals the same the amount of damage...

[Aberiu]

I still believe there's a way to find a step-by-step solution.
Some of the weapons are just dealing direct damage like SRS battle rifle. You can lock them from changes with no harm. Why is it important - because if you don't, at some point you will fall into a vicious circle of tweaking things because it's nearly impossible to see the whole picture.
For example, I know that you prefer nerfing weapons over buffing them probably because finding an overpowered weapon is much easier than an underpowered one. And once you nerfed a certain number of them you might suddenly realize that the ones that were ok before are now overpowered.

Once you make changes to a single weapon it's not that complicated. However, you were talking about new weapons and general reworks to a class of weapon, and this is why I suggested you to establish some rules. You see, you're making changes to core gameplay and local changes to weapons at the same time. Was it really necessary to add that melee weapon offset? Was it the only solution? Wouldn't it be easier if you just said: ok, I'm satisfied with basic rules and I'm not going to change them any more and if I'm not satisfied with melee class I'd better rework melee range or damage or whatever instead of affecting every single weapon in the game. Because this is a perfect example of a decision which affects the amount of non-predictable consequences.

[Pinky]

I still believe there's a way to find a step-by-step solution.

Belief means nothing in mathematics, only things you can prove matter. And unless someone proves that the problem Aza is dealing with has a solution which is unique and that your proposed iterative method is convergent, I chose not to believe.

[Azarael]

For example, I know that you prefer nerfing weapons over buffing them probably because finding an overpowered weapon is much easier than an underpowered one. And once you nerfed a certain number of them you might suddenly realize that the ones that were ok before are now overpowered.

This isn't true. The reason you may believe so is that it's much easier to be aware of an overpowered weapon, which players will prefer and with which they'll saturate the server, versus an underpowered weapon, which players will avoid. Both buffs and nerfs are necessary, although buffs are more rewarding as they tend to bring lesser featured weapons back into the meta. Given that the SAR-12's DPS acts as the baseline, there is no risk of a dangerous shift in general DPS levels which WOULD result in gameplay changing.

Both actions come with their problems. "Buff my weps, nerf yours" became a mantra for a while. Nerf yours because I nerf overpowered weapons some people whore, and buff mine because lacking a good way to get the opinions of the playerbase on which weapons are underpowered, I play with them for a while, and if I find them lacking, I buff them. Thus, what people see is me changing weapons and then buffing the weapon I was using.

To counter your SRS example is trivial: next patch there is a feature on heavy-hitter sniper rifles which causes the aim to displace on chest and head shots. This doesn't affect the SRS, as it's not a heavy-hitter. This could lead to the SRS requiring a compensatory buff to remain on par with other weapons in the sniper class. Then again, it might not. Who knows, but it illustrates that no weapon is safe.

[Aberiu]

The reason you may believe so is that it's much easier to be aware of an overpowered weapon, which players will prefer and with which they'll saturate the server, versus an underpowered weapon, which players will avoid.

The reason why I believe so is because I usually read the changelog thread. I'm not the kind of person to blame you in buffing "your weps", you know :)
Anyway, breaking the solution to stages - this is what I would do I was in the same situation. Core gameplay first, weapons next. Maybe I am wrong and you know better.

[Azarael]

If I set out to buff my own weapons to be better than the rest, whether that means buffing weapons I use or weapons I created or helped to create, I would be unfit to be a balancer. I've seen the results of that approach first hand, and it is something I really do not like to see. To expect respect, I must actually BALANCE the game.

As Pinky already stated, when considering this particular kind of problem where elements depend on other elements in an unintuitive fashion, there is no logical place to start. It's pretty much trial and error.

[Aberiu]

I didn't say that you buff your favorite weapons, it's absolutely ridiculous.
Maybe this all sounds a bit awkward because of my broken English.

[Azarael]

You're insulting yourself by implying that your English is broken. It's at least en-5 level. I just took your statement

I'm not the kind of person to blame you in buffing "your weps", you know

To mean that you'd be perfectly fine with the idea of me buffing my own weapons. Had you said "accuse you of" instead of "blame you in", it would have had the correct meaning.