The SO on the other hand doesn't need a nerf. It's far too situational. Like for example say you come across a team of people who use primarily the Gnasher, they can use that weapon in a whole host of situations. That team can battle toe-to-toe with riflers, and they have all the perks of the SO bar getting triples or higher. A whole team of Sawn Offers on the other hand are easy to defeat, pull out your rifle and you can gun them down from a distance. For the life of me I can't think of a situation SO's could be in that couldn't be bettered by the Gnasher, bar shooting a bunch of people bunched together, and ultra-close range.
The gnasher cannot fight a rifle, not at long range, which the rifles are meant for. The gnasher has some grounds in mid range, but rifles (especially the hammerburst) still have the advantage. If the gnasher user starts wallbouncing, it becomes another story, although you've said countless times that wallbouncing is easy to stop, so I'd imagine that you'd agree that the rifle still has the advantage here.
A lot of people seem to think the SO is broken, but what makes it so bad? It's still just as easy to get kills in this game. New people that use the SO are still just as easy to kill. People that try to use the SO like the Gnasher in previous games are still easy to kill. The only people that are hard to kill are the players that don't rely on one weapon, the good players, and that's the way it should be. Instead of one weapon dominating 50% of the kills like in previous Gears, there's now a shift towards other weapons being used. It creates a more diverse playing field and leads to a more fun and challenging game.
Ae you serious? Are you honestly saying it's not disproportionately easy to get kills with the SO when compared to all other weapons? Where have you been?
Furthermore, this constant overemphasis on the gnasher is disgusting. So often folks who don't understand the game say "the gnasher dominated multiplayer" as if the gnasher, by virtue of being a gnasher, is unstoppable. The only reason why the gnasher was popular in miltiplayer is because it was incredibly effective in the hands of skilled players, more effective than other weapons to a large extent. However, the fact of the matter still remains that players didn't just pick up the gnasher and all of a sudden start wallbounce bodying 3 people out of nowhere. For every person who could beast with a gnasher, there is a large background of practice they put forth go gain skill with it. It's not the gnasher that makes the gnasher good, it's the players. The gnasher is like putty, it can be molded and shaped to do a variety of beautiful things, but its effectiveness is directly affected by the person using it.
You don't know anything about what a good player should be. Players that use a variety of weapons aren't magically able to survive longer. The game is and has always been about more than that. Depth is the avenue that enables players to separate themselves from other players in terms of skill. That's why gnasher users in Gears 1 were hard to kill, because the game didn't make it easy to kill them. That's why wallbouncing in Gears 2 was a standard for good players, because there was depth to it.
Variety is not an absolute good. Epic coudl make hundreds of new weapons, but if they're broken or aren't a good fit for the game, the game will be terrible. You keep justifying the SO by appealing to the variety it creates, but you haven't assessed whether or not that variety if suited of Gears of War, which it isn't because it sacrifices Gears's deepest and most important aspect as a franchise. I've made this point several times already, seems you've never caught it.
You insist that the game is now more fun and challenging? For who? You? A person who hated the first two games and hates the company who makes them? That says a lot. Well, the game's definitely not more challenging. The beta was a laugh, everything was easy, I never had a single match that curled my guts like Gears 2 did.