Why try fixing something that wasn't broken? RO1 played great with barely any effective automatics available.
Because RO1 was unrealistic, and most of the fans claimed to want more realism?
When you couple the automatic weapons with the fact that the maps are unbelievably unbalanced the game pretty much comes across as broken.
Funny, I've played a lot more than you, and it's the best FPS I've ever played. I'm up around 70 hours so far (including beta) and I can have intense battles at long distance, and I can run and gun in close, with a bolt action, SMG, MG...
The one thing I have noticed is the people who dislike the game the most are the people who can only play one style. They can either run and gun, or camp and snipe, but not both. Both guys complain because the run and gunners are getting picked off by the camp and snipers, while the camp and snipers complain because the run and gunners sneak up on them and can kill them before they react.
Funnily enough, this only shows that both styles are effective, and that the game is more well balanced than just about any other.
The problem is that the game is no longer protecting you from your mistakes, whether you are a run and gunner or a camp and sniper. This also means that the automatic weapons (whether they were there or not) are dominating because that is what they were designed to do. No army in the world issues bolt action rifles to their riflemen any more, and you are finding out the reason.
How much more real do you want it?
I stopped playing Axis because it was just too easy,
Because half the Allies are only passing time until they can switch team.
but Allies is frustratingly hard.
Hmm so when the CoD guys showed up at RO1 and you said the game was fine and that if your style doesn't work, you need to change it... you were just being a hypocrite? They thought RO1 was frustratingly hard, and guys like you just laughed and said "get used to it".
Now that you have learned the truth about "camp and snipe", suddenly realism isn't so important any more, and "frustratingly hard" is "game breaking".
The realistic way to fight as the Soviets, that they developed with the strengths and limitations of their armed forces in mind, was to rapidly close with the enemy "to hug him". Not one, not half, EVERYONE.
The reason was because the Germans could and did use artillery and airpower to annihilate troops in the open. What better way to stop the Germans from using artillery than to get so close he would have to artillery his own men?
So, it appears to me that the Russians lose when they try to play RO1 style, as they should. They are all, essentially, assault troops. It's just that some are better equipped than others.
So on practically every map, even as a gunner, I will go charging into the first cap and then the second and so on... except no one ever charges into the first cap with me.. or if they do, they never leave it.
In the end there are 25 campers hanging around the first cap, and then 7 of us trying to cap the next one. Is it any surprise we lose? Not to me. The real Soviet troops would have lost if they did that too.
but it does NOT work for a WW2 game when soldiers were issued extremely standardized equipment.
"Issued" being the operative word. No soldier is ever satisfied with what he is issued with. He will customise it as much as he is allowed to get away with. In the middle of a war, you might find soldiers filing down the trigger sear to give them a dangerously hair trigger, but making them more accurate. Things like that.
Some troops have gear they were issued before the war, that is totally different from the same gear made during the war cheaply and quickly. Some troops "liberate" better gear from more well equipped units, or use captured enemy gear.
Standardisation is a goal, but it rarely makes it past the first shot.
Unlocking a "Winter Trigger Guard" when it doesn't do **** to change the gun is stupid.
It does nothing, is essentially a skin or a hat, and you can totally ignore it and never even see one. So who cares?
Sorry, but it is. Also I find it REALLY funny that TWI made the magazine standard on the PPSH rather than the drum to "balance" it, yet it's still badly inferior to the MP-40 (which is pretty much a laser beam).
Seems fine to me. You sure it's not just you?
We get into the next map and it had jumped to level 40 and he had the double-drum. Seriously..?
Ever heard of bugs? They are little problems in the code that make stuff not work. It's not like anyone INTENDED for it to happen, so why complain? The devs know and are trying to fix it, so piling on won't change anything.
Also as an afterthought... didn't you all say it would take months to become a hero? Everyone I know already has the option of being one. :|
The stats aren't working properly and people are getting massive unearned boosts to their level... and then you are surprised the Hero feature isn't working properly?
Sorry to be so blunt, but unless something radical changes, I won't play this game once Diablo 3 or SWTOR come out
Not to be blunt, but they already have your money, so why should they care? Of course they care, but why do you feel ENTITLED to threaten the devs just because the game doesn't suit you? There are bugs that need to be fixed, and TWI is trying to fix them, but they can never make you a better player. That's up to you.
PS: Don't play the "Tripwire is a small company" card, because, though it's small, it's still a COMPANY.
You paid a few bucks, much less than you would for CoD or BF, and have no more bugs than those games have to deal with on release.
Releasing such a broken product is a bad, bad way to run a business for a company of any size. How many mom and pop shops do you know that release crappier stuff than Wal-Mart?
Give over. Name a AAA title that HASN'T had bugs, regardless of the size of the company? You're saying that a tiny company should put MORE effort and MORE money into the product than the companies that make BILLIONS selling games.
You're holding them up to a HIGHER standard than a company whose CEO probably earns more than the whole of TWI. You are not being even remotely fair.
I expect this from a mod team, not an actual game developer.
What's the difference? Still have a set of human brains trying to solve problems. EA has more brains to throw at the problems and yet they STILL released buggier games than TWI.
RO2 beta ran better on my computer, the exact SAME computer. as BFBC2. RO2 release STILL runs better than BFBC2 on my computer. BFBC2 crashes my computer completely, requiring a hard reset, every single time I play it. Not in the past, NOW, nearly a year after release.
But EA are trying to sell me their next piece of crap, rather than fix the one I have already paid for.
TWI are ALREADY better than EA, and you are saying it is not enough? Since when?
Let me see... SWTOR is made by BioWare:
"Further issue arose when a player was unable to activate his purchased copy of the game due to being temporarily banned from the BioWare forums for posting "Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?". BioWare's Stanley Woo replied to the user in support of the ban by pointing to sections 9 and 11 of EA's terms of service, which state "EA may terminate access to any online or mobile products and/or EA Services at any time by giving you notice of such termination within the time period specified when you joined the particular EA Service."
[58] Woo clearly acknowledged that