Slower as in less Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo with the jumping and the constantly running and everything.
Combat was the sword was definitely cleaner and more responsive, lot less frustration.
The constant jumping/movement was still a thing back then, it's like galactic said, the only difference was that your slashes actually slowed you down regardless if you missed, and that was it.
...and that's why Rare sped up movement with the sword - to facilitate balance between it and the gunners that back then could so easily run away. Now that that's harder for them to do, there have been a lot more complaints from them about the so-called "sword spam" - a term that, interestingly enough, didn't really exist prior to said change.
All changes made were to help combat double gun damage and the speed rate of that damage.
If they all they did was instead just make sword mandatory they wouldn't have had to change so much on the game. Even the equip and unequip mechanic only became a thing because of how fast players were moving. If it was original combat players got decimated by trying to unequip the sword because they would get hit. Unequiping it didn't make you move faster if you missed or even if you swung.
Honestly, best fix they could have done was just make sword mandatory. The games combat has been held hostage by that fact. They could have freely changed up sword and guns without worrying of making one meta stronger than the other. They could have create niches for everything because no matter what someone tries to say, the fact that sniper is the all around all purpose weapon for close, mid, and far range says a lot. They could have focused on how the weapons work WITH the sword instead of breaking the combat system just trying to leave a freaking play style in the game.
This isn't a FPS game so why are they trying to treat it as such??
No offense but that is just nonsense.
Its not that its "considered" an exploit. The unequip and equip WAS an exploit and it didn't advance sword combat. Straight up nonsense.
Different types of exploits do different things and some are good for the game and some are just bad mechanics. Doesn't negate the fact that they are EXPLOITS. If its unintended then its an exploit. Its up to the developers to decide if the exploit is turning into a feature. Its not the other way around.
The sword lunge? Good for the game because it helped players traverse the ocean. We all sword lunge to our boat, it helps with catching your ship as its driving past or catching another boat or swimming a distance. It wasn't something that could be exploited to gain a severe advantage in combat.
The Equip and unequip was an exploit to negate the mechanics intended to BALANCE combat.
They revert combat back to original then I hope they keep the hard delays in the game because the part where you gain an edge in combat is to UNEQUIP AND THEN EQUIP your weapon is straight up nonsense.
The reason why I dislike these types of arguments or statements is because it has nothing to do with making the game better. The reason why players love exploits like this in ANY game is because it removes the intended downside of the play style thus removing the intended "choice consequence".
Like the sniper vs pistol. Pistol is suppose to be the gun that you can quick fire from the hip when enemies are close but it does reduce damage. The sniper is suppose to be a gun that allows you to shoot farther and do more damage but at the consequence of not being able to use it for close range.
There is suppose to be a consequence and sacrifice to our choice loadout. Exploits or the discussions of these exploits is players wanting to remove that sacrifice or that consequence.
It doesn't make the game better if the exploit removes the intended downside of whatever it is your are exploiting.
Been playing PvP games my whole life and these types of statements are always in every game. The hardest core of the PvP community trying to defend an exploit by saying it makes the game more fun or makes it require more skill when in honesty all it does is make it easier for them to win. PvP'ers don't use the meta that requires the most skill, they use the meta that is the most powerful and easiest to win with. Whichever meta is the strongest requiring the least amount of skill and they always try to argue the opposite.
Again, nothing personal, not really a statement directed at you persay, more directed at that argument or statement.