"The maul and other similarly handled weapons must actually think when they attack." So slow weapon users have to think, but any weapon with speed or range does not. Mauls used to win with trades and gambles, now its pole-arms and spam weapons.

Pole weapons in live and mercs have always been able to benefit from, if nothing else, bullshit animations. I get that you want to make more weapons viable, but taking the weapon group with the worst animations in the game and giving them extra speed/hit boxes is not balance, at least not unless you have the ability to fix the animations which as you've said, you do not.

Longer ranged weapons should be played at longer range, and if someone gets in your face it SHOULD be difficult to get them away, otherwise you're only making high range/knock-back weapons BETTER than other weapons, rather than equal to other weapons. You said I seem to be biased from duels, but if that is so, then your claims on the necessity of big knock backs must also be duel biased, as I've never found the face-hugging meta to take away from the effectiveness of reach weapons in teamfights (because it doesn't).

I'm not deciding against the mod, but with no transparency as far as how these decisions are made, its very hard to take this seriously. Who is suggesting all of these changes? I think it is important to know, because while I can hop on reddit and be downvoted to shit for having a bias, at least I am here claiming ownership of my bias. Anyone on the "balance council" can suggest changes without the community knowing who suggested what, and without opening themselves up to criticism or having to acknowledge their own (perhaps self-serving) biases.

I like this game, and I like that other enthusiastic people are working on improving it. Why the secrecy though? Make a forum, post your council recordings or something, I just want to know whats happening and where everyone on the council stands.