I can't find the specific interviews at the moment but I plan to add them as I find them. Basically every time someone is asked about weapon balance the same answer is "we aren't talking specifics about weapon balance at this time". Alright that's fine, we know what happens when you make promises in interviews. But often another thing that's said is that we will be seeing more instances of one weapon or weapon type having its time of being dominant for a period of time. We've seen this with auto rifles and Suros, the slight decline of Suros and the rise of Vex, the castration of Vex and Suros and the current meta of Handcannons/felwinters clones only. So naturally with this comment it's assured handcannons will become autorifles: nerfed into the ground while another weapon type gets buffed. My personal bet is that scout rifles are next in line to be buffed hard as they have always lagged behind all other weapon types in most scenarios. I already have a couple of good rolls ready just in case. But is this an acceptable form of weapon balance? Can it even be considered balance? On the one hand a changing pvp meta is an interesting design but on the other it stifles player choice for most builds if one type of weapon is clearly preferred. This also collides immediately with vault space. I know I have several auto rifles that I would have sharded a while ago but what if they bring them back and make my good handcannon rolls garbage? It adds a certain level of gambling to what you keep. What are your thoughts? Is making each weapon archetype have a time in the spotlight of being overpowered better than trying to make all weapons equally viable?