How long would the general population of MW2 last if...

How long would the general population of MW2 last if the ACR, Tactical Knife and Marathon were removed from the game

They're not the worst things in MW2.I don't use tactical knife or marathon much, but I've got a Fall for ACR so I use it often.But I won't stop playing MW2 just because they will delete one of guns ( and I know that they won't :S ).

I would ask, how long would the general population of MW2 last if Commando,Tubes (for weapons : scar-h, m4a1 etc. and thumper),M21 EBR (sniper machinegun?!),G18 akimbo (OP much?) were removed from the game. (Did I forget something? >:3)

I would ask, how long would the general population of MW2 last if Commando,Tubes (for weapons : scar-h, m4a1 etc. and thumper),M21 EBR (sniper machinegun?!),G18 akimbo (OP much?) were removed from the game. (Did I forget something? >:3)

One Man Army perk, Commando perk, Tactical Nuke, killstreaks at all... What else?

I get the meaning of the question, but the way you've applied it to an example doesn't help illustrate your point well. They would obviously not just remove items from the game without first considering how it would affect game balance and tweaking other weapons/equipment/perks to even out the removal of items for no particular reason.

Although game balance in general could be improved, just removing stuff is a really weak argument because 'X is OP'.

Even if they don't remove it, Mw2 will never beat cod4.

[Anarchy]

I get the meaning of the question, but the way you've applied it to an example doesn't help illustrate your point well. They would obviously not just remove items from the game without first considering how it would affect game balance and tweaking other weapons/equipment/perks to even out the removal of items for no particular reason.

Although game balance in general could be improved, just removing stuff is a really weak argument because 'X is OP'.

Exactly, if they remove the ACR because it is overpowered, everyone will start complaining about something else (UMP45 maybe). Something is always going to be more powerful than everything else.

I get the meaning of the question, but the way you've applied it to an example doesn't help illustrate your point well. They would obviously not just remove items from the game without first considering how it would affect game balance and tweaking other weapons/equipment/perks to even out the removal of items for no particular reason.

Although game balance in general could be improved, just removing stuff is a really weak argument because 'X is OP'.

Exactly, if they remove the ACR because it is overpowered, everyone will start complaining about something else (UMP45 maybe). Something is always going to be more powerful than everything else.

And in the end you would be stuck with an M9.

I get the meaning of the question, but the way you've applied it to an example doesn't help illustrate your point well. They would obviously not just remove items from the game without first considering how it would affect game balance and tweaking other weapons/equipment/perks to even out the removal of items for no particular reason.

Although game balance in general could be improved, just removing stuff is a really weak argument because 'X is OP'.

Exactly, if they remove the ACR because it is overpowered, everyone will start complaining about something else (UMP45 maybe). Something is always going to be more powerful than everything else.

And in the end you would be stuck with an M9.

nah just a tactical insertion and the only way to kill people is fistfights

If they remove IWnet?

Nobody would be able to even play.

If they remove IWnet?

Nobody would be able to even play.

And you call what we can do WITH IWnet "Playing"?

Because I prefer to think of it as something akin to shaving with a rusty cheese grater.

Or using starter fluid as a salad dressing.

Or paying to see a Uwe Boll movie.

You get the idea