It's cool man, good to talk about this stuff even without wanting to change it. V3 just offers more ways to play (even lazy ones) part of what makes it good and popular but i get where the frustration comes from. You just gotta take the rough with the smooth when they are polar opposites of what you like. Balancing V3 maps might stifle the lethargic autosniper role for example, and that goes against the idea of V3 being more open/accessible and allowing more ways to play. I rarely see maps wanting to be extended on V3 but the other day i saw an extension vote for Kapras crop up, so people do like these static, less aggressive roles.
V1 is geared a certain way in it's weapons and maps, it's more specific in it's intentions and raises the skill floor. It doesn't surprise me it's quieter though, if you raise that entry barrier then less people can or will want to climb over it. I reckon a small % of their players are surplus from V3 being full. This is just a necessary price to pay in the same way V3 players have to deal with maps that reinforce playstyles that don't fit their own.
Even disregarding any theory behind it for a minute, there are probably a couple of simple reasons why people click on the server, they used to play years ago and nostalgia is biting into them, or just the sheer server visibility of having a high population. You can't disregard theory though when it comes to why people stick around for so long. The server is full a lot of the time, risking change wouldn't gain much when it seems to be doing well. Until those things are in jeopardy, it might not be a good thing to try fix something that isn't broken. Well, not broken by V3 definition.
Aye, see you in-game mate.
