I rather liked the interview, and taken in the appropriate realistic and objective context what they said made a lot of sense. I wouldn't say I agreed with everything, but probably with most of it. I see from some of the OP's responses to comments that you pretty clearly do not agree with what's said, I'm curious what specifically bothered you. One common argument I see below is people up in arms about balancing decisions being based on usage... which I can honestly only conclude is because they used the item in question and refuse to even consider the possibility that it was OP. I mean, there are still people here who swear up and down that Thorn was completely fine... and I'm sorry, but that thing was frankly broken and to say otherwise is just indefensible. It is really that crazy to consider usage? Lets say weapon A is used by 30% of players. No other weapon is used by more than 15%. And over a decent period of time: It's not just the week after Xur sells it (*coughmidacough*), and it's not just the week the ToO map clearly favors that type of weapon. And it's not something everyone gets basically for free, like a Conspiracy theory or 1KYS. That's like, [u]an actual definition of un-balanced.[/u] If it's your job to make sure that things are balanced, it would be beyond incompetence to say [i]"Yeah, that's totally fine. There's no reason at all to believe that weapon A is overpowered."[/i] You know, because everyone just picks the gun that they think is fun to use. People [i]never[/i] gravitate towards weapons that give them an advantage. Nobody cares about their KD, or their internet points, or wants a bigger epeen, right? Give me a break. If some weapon is used twice as much as anything else, there are only three possible reasons: It's easy to use, easy to get, or works too well. You need to figure out which one of those things it is, and if it's the last one, it's gotta be changed. Period.