[Shoegaze99]

I have never seen as much whining about people's weapon selection as I have here. Utterly amazing.

If the game makers provided certain in-game resources to be used during multi-players games, i.e. shotguns, sniper rifles and the like, the usage of those weapons is perfecly legitimate. I don't personally care much for any of the three, using the submachine gun on most maps, but if somebody wants to use the "bad" weapons, fine. The weapon balance is decent enough that all three of the "bad" weapons have inherent disadvantages that can easily be taken advantage of by a superior player.

Keep shotgunners at a distance and you'll win every time. Crowd those snipers close and watch them fumble with reloads. The bazooka player misses you? Great, charge them! Their reload is pathetically slow. As long as the server is not crowded with any one weapon, things are fine.

And hey, the weapons all have legitimate tactical purposes, too. It's *smart* to use the shotgun on tight boards with lots of close quarters. Why *wouldn't* the Germans want to snipe on, say, The Hunt? And the bazooka makes a *great* weapon to flush aforementioned snipers from their hiding spots on maps like The Hunt.

Medal of Honor is not a game rooted realism. I don't thin the developers pretend it is. It's not Counterstrike. It's not Ghost Recon. It's an action game with a fantastic World War II dressing. And that's that.

But mostly, if you don't like the weapons another player is using, try developing some tactics to counter the weapon. And then do so. A lot. Until they're pissed. ;-)

(Lorenz, adults don't call things "gay." School children do. If you don't intend to look like a developmentally challenged child, you'll avoid such idiocy.)