RO1 owners are used to having Bayonets are standard equipment. People were annoyed that they removed something to be unlocked, and realism guys are bothered by it being a standard issue for soldiers.
see this kind of post right here, is truly what turned constructive criticism in flamefests.......Ossius: what you've just said is not the case, at all. this has nothing to do with RO owners vs. RO noobs, RO vets vs. TW, or Realism fanboys vs. Casual gamers. this simply has to do with customers (current and potential), giving feedback about things that to them don't make sense. it doesn't matter WHO the person is, what "repuation" they have, or what RO "status" they have. everyone has the right to comment and question.
even though i expect to be bashed by certain forum members (or devs), i do not appreciate the attitude taken towards people like myself, who've provided valid constructive criticism in an appropriate manner. when i hear rumors that apparently forum members, namly me and Lemon, have been trying to start some conspiracy as a way to "get back at TW", i can't help but question how utterly ridiculous that is....this is certainly not true at all. to clear things up, several senior members and RO vets created a small Steam group to discuss RO2 things....both positive things and negative things. i was invited to join this group and happily accepted. some others, like Lemon, PierreChang, hockeywarrior, and Grobut are all part of this......none of us are "out to get TW". we are all just passionate about RO and enjoy discussing the game and wish to help in whatever ways we can to make sure the legacy of RO is continued with RO2.
as Ramm alluded to, Carnut's blog was a bit over the top, but as i said before, that does not negate some of the valid points he discussed. it's good that Lemon posted that link because it is a good way to see what people are thinking, regardless of the overwhelmingly "negative" feel of his article. however what i do find to be equally unacceptable and concerning is the way in which anything that was the least bit "negative" was met with the all to common "gtfo, TW is deh awesome and can do no wrong" response......just like the "OMG TW y u make RO2 like COD?!?!" comments, we as a community did not need either of those types of posts.
now, in regards to the bayonet issue.....this applied to RO2 and RO2 alone. this has nothing to do with the original RO having something and something being "removed" from RO2. this really has nothing to do with "realism" people being bothered by soldiers not being equipped with historically accurate loadouts. the argument, as i've explained in other threads, is the way a standard issued item was worked into a progression system. it's pretty simple: Real Life Soldier has an issued bayo just by enlisting in the army. translate that to the Virtual Soldier in the game.....the equivilant lowest "level" of a raw recruit should also be treated the same as the lowest "level" of reality. i.e. both would have bayos as standard issue. the logic is simply not possible to argue against.
NOW, i personally respect TW's decision to give ROOST owners the day1 bayo unlock......mostly because it at least shows that "we" got the point accross and to halt anymore arguments, they've presented a compromise. thus, as shown in my changed signature, i personally won't be discussing this issue anymore. as for other concerns i might have, i'll hold off to see how things continue with the beta. feedback has been given and if TW is going to take any of it into account, then it will be evident in the media we'll see leading up to release.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramm: i thank you for the post. it was just what was needed to help reassure concerned veterans and calm the mood around these forums.
may the peace of the Glorious :IS2: be upon you all
