Pretty much agree with this. It could hit guys from across the map quite literally what I would consider sniper range. It also was great in mid distance fights and only lost in close range fights to the car and shotgun if both players saw each other at the same time. I'll miss it but I understand why it needed to be changed.
Just like how I understand the halo 1 pistol needed to be changed as well. It was the same thing you could head shot people across blood gulch and take em close range as well with no downsides.
I don't get this at all. If history has shown us anything it's that the most well regarded shooters are those that had only a few main guns.
There was nothing wrong having the pistol be the main gun, just like it wasn't wrong that the shotgun was the main gun in gears of war 1. Why? Because it creates a level playing field and one that you can master.
So, I never understood this argument because Shooters work best when there's only a few select guns to master. It's also telling that a majority of complaints come from bad players of said games. More often than not it's a casual crowd whining about a game being dominated by this gun or that gun.
It's not like the carbine is some mini rocket where one click in someone's direction is an automatic kill. Titanfall is about movement and you can out strife someone easily on a carbine vs carbine situation. As long as there's gunplay the gun isn't overpowered.
As for the sniper vs carbine argument... We saw this in halo 3 where the sniper became ridiculous but at least you had to pick it up . Imagine what that would be like in this game when you can start with the long bow and not be threatened by a carbine