What I've been seeing is "It's not realistic, it's not balanced, it's not RO1. WE don't want it". When you say "WE" you aren't speaking for everybody.
Well the basis of a sequel is to expand, improve, continue. I mentioned the KillingFloor system because it seems to be TWI's style of shooter. There's a level of realism you can reach. None of us were probably in the Wehrmacht or Red Army. You can't say they didn't pick-up each others weapons. You can't say they didn't receive upgrades for their weapons (Men who qualified as Sharpshooters received telescopes for example).
The things they added were to, obviously, improve game play and appeal to larger crowds. You all admit that there are very few servers packed now, but does it really sound like a good decision to take away these things that are meant to attract more players?
And about class stat improvements. How many times have you said "@#$@ he killed me because of his 10% less reload time!" They are almost insignificant and you can't blame a lot of your loss of f-u-n because of it. You can't say the same about the MKB or AVT. You get what? 8 out of 64 players who can have them with only 4 against you? I admit they can be cheap, but not to an extent that they are the only thing I die from. How often do you meet the same 4 players out of 32?
All I'm saying is that if you want to remove upgrades, remove class progression, remove everything tripwire added so you can have a $30 Red Orchestra expansion pack, that's your problem. Don't go around saying that it totally ruins the game, no one likes it, or that tripwire is dumb to try something new. They do what you're saying and you be following the COD formula.
Lol where to start.
Hmm lets start by picking apart the fact that they had limited development time and resources. So in your humble opinion sir would the game have more players still playing if it was released as is. ( so 1000 player peaks ).
Or if they had instead not invested their time in a leveling system / upgrades, which have really helped keep players around, and invested that time into a campaign system, coop, and two proper modes ( one realism one non realism ). As well as perhaps releasing the game in a slightly more polished state. ( Hell it would have been more polished for the lack of stats which were very broken on release ).
Do you honestly want to tell me that the former of those two options would have had better release acceptance, and that the latter would have lower player peaks?
Some of this reminds me of debating laws and the effects of laws with liberals. You bring up a law that hinders regular citizens more then it does anything to criminals, and then suggest that it be removed, to which they respond that you are going to be helping crime, as if they just dident hear a word you mentioned before hand about how it had no effect on crime.
ITs the same damn thing with the gimmicks, you say "but does it really sound like a good decision to take away these things that are meant to attract more players?". Alright, lets judge the success of those gimmicks in attracting and keeping more players.....
Lets be really generous and say that the >8000 extra player peaks ( which calculates out to a lot more than 8000 players )who came and left came ONLY for the gimmicks. Even then we are left with no excuse for the fact that the game lacked the meat and potatoes to make those players stay.
If your whole act is releasing a bag of hollow gimmicks, then you have to keep releasing a new bag of gimmicks every 9 months *cough COD *.
Lastly RO2 has MANY changes that people asked for, removing the stats does not make it RO1.5. If the stats are to stay, and they likely are, then a mode needs to be made that lets players completely ignore those stats if they so choose. And do so without that server being relegated to a different server browser that no one ever checks.
