Well, let's try our own tests before attempting to rebalance things, yes? I mean, the thing I understand is that at this point in time, very few people have had the chance to fully explore the system and all its myriad tactics. I'm just really reluctant to call anything obviously unbalanced yet - I know others are doing so on various places on the internet, but I'm not keen on doing so because I do not really know the deeper implications of the system.
I feel like, as I wrote before, a lot of the perceived "weirdness" in 3e is from the specter of 2e's flaws - people are worried and making mountains of molehills, so to speak. People are overfocusing on the mechanics because they're perilously afraid - out of habit, mostly - that the mechanics are going to screw up the stories they want to tell. Maybe the mechanics will do that, but I think, from what I've seen of them and having never used them yet, that 3e's mechanics are far less likely to break stories you want to try to tell than 2e's were. I mean, the 3e mechanics may not support your story fully, depending on your ST and what story you want to tell, but even then I feel that they're better off than 2e's because, so far as I can tell, you've not got a similar "mess up one stat buy and you die 100% of the time" factor. Even in the example ChaoticSky's given us, I'm not sure that it's really quite true, because I recall that the devs have said several times that 3e's combat is really not ideal for representing a 1x1 "white room" battle, under any circumstances, let alone the ones described.
Well, in any case, I think my opinion on the matter's clear enough, so I'll stop here, but I still feel like trying to fix the system is premature, and will likely result in weirder issues raising their heads down the line, but I understand why people are looking to do this.