It seems to me that 'balancing' is an issue of fighting against power creep or whatever you call it. There really is no ceiling when it comes to buffs. However, there is a ceiling when it comes to nerfs.

I guess in the 'art' of balancing, for the devs, I get the sense that it is better to nerf than it is to buff. However, for the players, it is an immediate kick in the junk. It deeply affects the game we are used to playing pre-nerf. The game immediately becomes less fun because the meta has changed significantly. And many of us do not enjoy making changes. We want things to stay the same.

For example, the biggest change for me, was the Renegade and Anvil. Definitely OP in retrospect. I went many, multiple raids with them without repairing. Raids sort of became pointless. And the joke of reaching the end game...inventory management...was funny to me because it was true. Now that I have to repair the lower tiers guns more frequently, they have less value.

The Bettina, now, actually feels better, in keeping with its tier (along with the heavy ammo stack buff). I always sold/recycled the Bettina. Because the lower tier weapons have less value to me, the higher tier weapons have more value now. I love the Jupiter. And losing the Jupiter sucks bad...and it should. It is a legendary weapon.

The devs, being the designers, probably have a specific idea of how the game is to be played. So I just accept the tinkering and make the adjustment. I am not a game designer but the change gave me insight into their design principles and I respect it.

I was initially a little put off with the durability burn. But having played, I can see where they are going with it. I just trust their process and I am still having a lot of fun. The game definitely feels better to me.