I have created this account expressly for this purpose... I have been lurking for the better part of a few years now, and this thread, petty as it is, has given me enough reason to begin posting as something of a counter-balance to the unlock-hatred that seems to be so prevalent here.
I, too, have been lurking the forums for ages but have abstained from responding to anything. That is until I found this comment. Your aggressively ignorant post prompted me to sign up as soon as I read it, and seeing as no one has responded (at least in a manner I saw fitting), I suppose I'll take it upon myself.
I, for one, Wholeheartedly enjoy and support unlocks. I have very rarely seen them ruin games to the point described in this thread. Even, so called "Arcade" games, such as a certain "Bad Company 2" was not hurt in any great way by unlocks...
I'd first like to state that, in contrast to your implications, plenty of people enjoy the unlocks, and it has split the hardcore RO fanbase in two: those who fanboy TWI, and those who fanboy Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45. Obviously the former supports nearly anything TWI does - arcade-like upgrades, as you mentioned, among other things - and the latter vehemently opposes anything remotely arcade-esque/unrealistic about the series. Let's move on.
In order to appreciate the logic of the upgrade system, you need to appreciate the bigger picture of multiplayer gaming in the modern setting. There was a time when giving someone a weapon with a faster fire rate, or a bayonet, meant that they had a clear advantage in an array of situations, But gaming has come a long way from those days, and you nearsighted nitwits need to pay at least a little attention to that; Having a semi-automatic rifle does give you an advantage, for certain, but it does not make you an invincible god, nor does it even come close to invalidating the bolt-action rifle, the SMG, or any of the other classes.
It sounds to me like you are advocating imbalance here. A semi-automatic rifle can, in a few situations, offer an edge, but the disadvantages and short supply are an attempt to even that out - and in a realistic manner. You're saying we should give back that edge, then (by using unrealistic means, no less)? No weapon in the game is God-like, but why widen any gaps unnecessarily?
For all your screaming about realism, You seem to be missing something. War is not a fair, level exercise. The entire concept of armed conflict is to out-man, out-produce, out-maneuver, and out-gun your opponents. Very rarely do you (or should you) ever get the privilege of being in an identical stance at an identical height with identical weapons and identical levels of skill, with identical levels of backup and identical levels of uniform-color camouflage.
This paragraph irked me the most. You're implying RO:Ost was fair in the way it handled itself. Sure, there was a kind of equality, but it wasn't overridden by grinding weapons; it was defeated with skill, tactic, and a smidgen of luck. That's how the territories game-mode works. Your paragraph is a load of hypocritical nonsense; supposedly advocating realism while deriding it at the same time.
I enjoy an unlock system. It gives me something to strive for and lends a sense of progress to my exploits. I could care less if my bolt action rifle reloads slightly faster, or has a bayonet; Its not about the advantage, its about the symbolism. A visible homage to your own past exploits, Something that says, "You have come this far," is worth more than any marginal increase/decrease in game balance.
This is why the unlocks are rotten for realism and for gameplay. You should be shooting fascists because they are dropping artillery on your friends, or shooting communists because their slugs whiz just past your head, into your commander,
not because you want to see an achievement icon pop up, or a full progress bar. It's a whole different mentality, and despite the Rambo-neutering suppression system, encourages people to play on their own. I think you and I can both agree that this is a multiplayer game, no?
Part of the purpose of these incongruities is to vary the system, and keep things fresh and interesting, and in the vast majority of cases, it has absolutely done that job perfectly well.
If you, as a developer, need unlocks to vary your gameplay experience, you've created an awful game.
You forum regulars like to stroke your e-peens about "being an RO1 vet" and all this jazz, and though I may not have posted at the time, I am among your number;
It's not about being a veteran or being good at rifleman, it's about the game itself...
But for all your touting of long-standing Red-Orchestra-Playing-Excellence, Why is it that you're so afraid of someone who has too much free time having a few extra bullets, or reloading a little faster?
Are you daft? How many times do we have to say it? It is because it's unrealistic and ruins the gameplay experience and atmosphere. I can shoot perfectly fine, but the main objective is advancing the team, not bagging as many kills as possible. I'm not afraid of a good sniper, I'm afraid of a bad sniper who focuses on kills and refuses to cover his team.
Stop obsessing about these things. We both know they're going in whether you like them or not, I just happen to think they're in for the better.
And the militias should have just handed Spain over to Franco...
