Autorifles, Shadow Price and Suros Regime as examples, killing far too quickly. Fusions, Pocket Infinity comes to mind, being to shoot and kill down long hallways. Shotguns like Felwinters killing people at excessive ranges because the maps are not large and frequently block sightlines. Thorn, TLW, and Red Death's extremely overt presence. Gjallarhorn's massive damage, Black Hammer's practically infinite ammo and high damage. Pulse Rifles being too consistent and efficient at all ranges. Snipers, TLW, and MMT currently dominating the Crucible. All of these situations resulted in other weapons being pointless to use. Yes, people will gravitate towards the most effective weapons that's true. But usually that means what works best for them. The problem is there isn't an effective weapon for that person specifically, just a weapon that's plainly better under most circumstances. That's a issue. If a game has a variety of weapons but one crappy one nobody uses, whatever. If a game has a variety of weapons but only a handful are used and the rest are ignored, that's not good. They might as well not even have any other guns in the game. "Get good" and "Learn to counter" aren't solid arguments in this case either. Why? Because the guns people wanted nerfed have lower risk for error against other weapons and also have a higher reward in too many circumstances and as such if they improve at the same rate as the other person trying to "Get Good" they'll win. And eventually people learn how to deal with the counters that other people have come up with. So you're back at square one. If you're (not specifically you, I mean anyone) okay with that and the narrow weapon selection that accompanies it, that's fine. That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. It's perfectly reasonable and logical too. The only guns that are good, just use them and ignore everything else. But from what I've seen in the forums other people want to be able to use guns they enjoy and not being forced to use a certain set of weapons.