it boils down to TTK or time to kill. When all guns had low damage people complained that it took to long to kill.
so every weapon was buffed. the HMG got a decent buf to 18 damage plus the 10% everyone else got. its still weaker but ok, a buff is a buff....

The factor of the matter is a nerf makes something weaker, where as a buff makes something else stronger. instead of nerfing a gun to make it ineffective you should buff the gun people are using against it to make their more effective.

why does this work? if i complain that shotguns are OP, for example (they are not but just an example). instead of nerfing shotguns, the devs should look at who is the demographic asking to nerf shotguns and why.

Are they asking his because they are losing in CQC or mid range combat? what weapon is this demographic using?
if the demographic is a population of AR users, and complaints are about CQC combat, no nerf or buff is required, but the AR users would need to be reminded to engage shotguns in midrange combat.
if the population of AR users are losing to shotguns out side of the shotguns effective range, then a buff to ARs would be necessary to discourage shotgunners from to engaging in midrange combat.


so the formula for balance is:

1. identify the complaining group and their weaponry
2. identify the circumstances under which they deem the weapon OP. generally classified by range
3. identify the purposes of the weaponry involved
4. when the complaining group is found correct buff their advantages but leave the disadvantages (i.e. if advantage is fast reload, make it reload faster, etc)
5. double check that the weaponry of all groups involved still accmplish and are inline with their purpose.