To quote from the OP:
Balance Changes
- Decreased the damage the rifle in melee would inflict, they were more powerful than most real melee weapons
So, I look at it under the heading of "Balance Changes", so either put it under a new heading as making something more "historically accurate" is not balancing. But if it was reduced for balancing, and I'm assuming it was as a minority was complaining about it being OP and one hitting stuff (which I lol at personally and so will other people who play rifleman every day).
So if it was done for accuracy reasons, then surely that defeats the point of a fun game, as being a skirmisher in a game I really don't want to run every time I see an enemy up close and delay a round until the timer runs out running away as I'm the only guy left and cant melee for shit.
Obviously an OP weapon such as the rifle in melee would need to be nerfed as it is unfair on the cav with their swords and line infantry with bayonets. I guess that is called balancing. Obviously if you have played with a rifle in melee before the patch you would see that it was infact so OP that it took a few hits to kill someone. So tell me why does it need to be changed if it just makes it completely unbalanced. Obviously a skirmisher is meant to used for shooting, but obviously you have to go into melee at some point, so why make it as such that they have no chance of killing people unless they are actually retarded and don't know how to change to melee mode and click the mouse?
Looking back at the thread made a year ago, all I see are people complaining who don't actually play as a rifleman. Also the fact that at least 50% disagreed to nerf them makes me think why would you change it when it is; 1) there is a split view, and 2) when no one actually complains about it in the game. Since the start of NW not once have I seen in game people complaining about the rifle being OP.
Before the change, it was fair, people with a rifle had a chance at killing a dismounted cav or a person with a bayonet, now however they have absolutely no chance of killing any. Why change it in the first place? The rifle was "no hammer of Thor potential" and I honestly can't see why people see the rifle in such a way. The animations of the up attack need working on as well, as it doesn't look too great, also it can't hit team mates unless your friend is behind you
Either change it to make it balanced, or don't change it at all. As right now, it is so unbalanced I have lost track of what the word actually means any more.
P.S. While you are at it, please nerf the sword skrims carry as it is also OP. ty.
Also @ Blob, if people wanted it to be on-par with a bayonet, then of course that would be pretty stupid. However I'm sure most people don't want it to be on-par with a bayonet or the cav sword, they want it to at least stand a chance of killing someone in melee, which to me seems reasonable, not quite sure about all the people that want easy kills in melee though... Is it me or does no one actually play the game? I really can't see how people think that reducing the melee damage of the rifle is called balancing.