Thanks Nuttin2say, great input as usual.
In many ways you are completely right. I don't need to elaborate on what you said about COD4/WaW in terms of perks evolving to MW2 because that's completely true. Despite it actually being the next in the series, it's hard to place WaW in this blamegame because while it also showed some "cookie cutter" nature itself, that was not the game that had the anticipation and responsibility as MW2 in terms of taking the multiplayer to the next level.
Because of this pattern that MW2 started, which was really "keep fundamental gameplay the same, but add more variety and customization for the players" led us to where we were today. I sometimes wonder if MW2 hadn't psuedo flopped -- was not a great leap in gameplay - and then mundane balance issues like I addressed in my first post combined with rampant boosting which was a game design error, if the rest of the series would have shaped up differently. Because, each game from there on out was on a pattern to sort of "fix" the previous one. But adding more is a necessity too, because it's a sequel to a sequel, so they have the responsibility to right the wrongs of the previous game yet add more on their own, It's like building an upside down pyramid and trying to keep it from falling apart.
This leads to issues we have now in the gaming community like "blast shield doesn't fully counter DC" where, there is an expectation for it to be a 50/50 thing. I'm not saying the overall design of these are perfect, but here is the issue. I as a player, still accept the game and what is included, so base my classes and strategies on what is given. On a daily basis I tweak and modify my classes and strategies, and improve daily. So yes, I will never use certain perks/guns/killstreaks, even if I "like" them or previous iterations of them, and vice versa, my taste does not affect my gameplay choices. I will never bother with SnD or SnR on this game. I only use the bulldog on strikezone, and only use it when the connection seems good or the enemy players seem bad. I always use LMGs on octane, prison break, stonehaven, and warhawk. I always use danger close IEDs on flooded. There are things that I do, and whether I like the perks/streaks/guns, I choose based on what gives me the best results. I accept the game for what it is, and realize that despite the time gamers put into COD, it's a one year game, these games if they aren't perfect, are not going to become perfect by the year's end.
But, there is a massive contingent that spend alot of energy clamoring for certain aspects to be different. Like I said in my post, I often don't think their specifics are "wrong" necessarily, but sometimes I question why the bother, when this game is just going to be changed again in a new release. So yea, as more and more "stuff" gets added to this game, it indeed gets more and more complicated and convoluted.
So, this is creating the recipe of bad longterm solutions for a fanbase that keeps the same entry age, but also has repeat gamers that grow older. There are too many people to please with one game, so the formula works less and less each time, since they also have to add "more" which keeps making it tougher to please everyone since for every thing a player "likes" there are that many more counters to those and sometimes those counters overpower what they like. So going back to COD4, players might have hated juggy and martyrdom. Now, players might hate Danger Close (too strong), Blast Shield (not good), IEDs (too strong), RiotShield/C4 (too strong), SnD/R (ruined by class), Snipers (too strong/not strong), Remington/Ak12 (too strong), LMGs, Sound perks, K/D non Objective play, Dogs, etc. etc. etc.
I mean, I respect the fact that players complain if they're not being satisfied, because in actuality Activision advertises these games like they are going to blow your mind year in year out. So, if the only gametype you played normally is "bad" in an iteration, it's sort of like false advertising. I do think Domination plays pretty well in this game, so I got lucky in that regard. But I didn't get "lucky" in that shotguns are not that great, or that Blast shield is weak (a factor in capping less chaotic B flags), and other things that I may or may not have historically liked. I just choose to do the whole "adapt" thing, but eventually, the population, which I also need first and foremost, will leave if this pattern continues with this franchise, and therefore I will have to jump just as fast as they do.
That's why Ghost's turmoil is in a really bad spot because it was meant to reveal the future of what COD had in store for us in the next gen, but in a lot of ways it's showing us why it could be left behind without regret. It sucks for them it was a launch title so was probably destined to succumb to early system nonsense, but then again, they should have recognized that opportunity. I mean, if Titanfall and/or Destiny take off, the Xbox1 population could become a Ghost town real fast. And if that happens, whether I "like" either of those two games, I only play Ghosts because it's "the" competitive shooting franchise, once it's not "the" game anymore, I'm not gonna play it either, no matter how much I liked it or excelled at it.
Long post, but it's an interesting time in COD land lol....