I believe this was touched on in the other metallic rifle thread. Always bear in mind that with guns, it its most simplistic view (unfortunately the most common view in gun stats) there is no where to go but up. In other words, the more guns that get released, the more powerful they become. Nerfs such as this are the checks and balances that avoid, or at least delay, the slippery slope that eventually turns a fair PK system into a spray fest, bereft of the very "challenge" you strive for. Take a step back and look not at the cost of the weapon, but its long-term impact on the weapons system. There is a clear distinction between a challenge and a game full of overpowered guns. Not to say that the Metallic Rifle was terribly overpowered, but to establish high base stats for a low-tier weapon is the first step toward a game where the gun wins the fight, not the player. I have seen firsthand a guns system(and respectively a PK system) slowly decay over a span of 8 years, and that was in a non-monetary economy; when you throw real money into the mix it further threatens the stability of a fair weapons system. I stand behind any measure taken to re-enforce fair play. I do not understand why a player with any respect for the game would endorse compromising its fairness. It is a certain naivety that drives the creation of pro-buff and anti-nerf threads.

I do, however, agree that if a gun is determined to be too powerful, that the players should have the option to get a partial refund. Balancing should be considered prior to calling any shots to altering(and better yet, creating) a paid product. It isn't the customer's fault the cook put onions on their burger.