I find melee damage unreasonable not only due to the divorce from strength, but also because unarmed aside guns do significantly more damage. Combat axe is DV5, and monofilament whip is DV6 on the melee side. RPK HMG is DV6 and panther assault canon DV7 on the ranged side, but that is also before ammo and firing mode are taken into consideration. Best non-unarmed melee vs. best ranged is a DV difference of 3 in favor of ranged.
For me, that knowledge by itself invalidates any reasoning of needing to tone it all back for the new system's mechanics and to remove armor soak, ect. First of all, melee is always harder in games. It leaves you more exposed, takes more resources to do (move and attack), ect. From a game balance perspective it should have something to make it at least as attractive as ranged, and in my opinion more so.
So in our present situation it takes more resources to use, does less damage, and is divorced from our expectations and logic in regards to the strength portion specifically. If it were me, my change would be simple. Melee damage is half strength plus weapon bonus. Weapon bonuses would come in three categories. First is small weapons that just change the damage to lethal from stun (knives, clubs, ect.). Second is one handed weapons that add +1 and lethal to value. Third two-handed that add +2 and lethal. At best that would make DV9 on a troll with 14 strength, on par with top tier ranged.