Stop trying to sabotage third person gaming. | Forums

[Milli0nkniv3s]

tahts how it was in GR2 - you could do 3rd per son or 1st person or the host could force one

If that was the case I would like to see it return within WL.
I'll admit that I was away from gaming for some years so I don't know everything about GR and the metamorphosis from each edition.
Thanks for the post and support.

[Milli0nkniv3s]

Well here's the point, if they allow lets just say hard scoping in third person for those who want it and hard scope ADS for others it still creates a clear disadvantage and imbalance in the game where multiplayer is concerned. The fact is when it comes to scoping, hard scoping it has to be either TPS completely or ADS with third person non scoped but you cant have both in the game as it just wouldn't work. Now i know the division is completely TPS through and through and i dont mind that and almost prefer it being that its a RPG based shooter and not a realistic tactical shooter and works for that type of game. The fact is before GRP introducing this hybrid TPS/FPS shooter i would have said it would never work and hated the idea but honestly it worked really well and was very natural and have come to love that style of shooter.

I think once we know more and we all finally get a chance to play it you will realize how well it works but you gotta understand adding ADS option to a complete TPS for those who want or choose to use it doesn't work. The fact is hard scoping in TPV creates a real advantage if your being flanked because you whip around and can fire at your most accurate chance instead of alot more random spread from traditional hip firing. I get you liked GRFS and are not a FPS fan honestly but despite not being able to confirm for sure as it has not been stated i don't see the developers giving the option to hard scope from the hip and not use ADS at all as a choice. The fact is no developer can create the game everyone wants because if they gave everyone options from every game they loved to play how they want to it wouldn't work. The game has to be what it is and what the developers envision and with that some players loose or gain things they like but its always going to be give and take and never just what you want. This is a hybrid TPS/FPS and that isnt going to change and i dont need a developer to confirm that, what it boils down too is if its going to be a deal breaker for you as a player not having GRFS 2 instead of having GR:WL the new hybrid shooter because ADS isnt going anywhere and hard scoping hip firing is out of the question in my book for any game with ADS.

I just want to rectify any misunderstanding.
I'm not looking for GRWL to not have ADS at all. I want players to have the ability to aim over shoulder and react in a hip fire situation still in TPV. To enter ADS additional click required. This is GRFS control setup and I think it is perfect.

Having mentioned earlier that I have a criteria when evaluating a TPV title. Depending on genre the list of course alters slightly however here's some items to mention with GRWL in mind.
I want to be able to crouch, monkey walk/stealth, sprint, go prone, melee, cover/cover swap, hip fire and ADS. So far GRWL meet all items until hip fire and I really hope this changes.
Maybe I'm to harsh or expect to much but every game I played always has something that is missing or isn't done well.
The Division doesn't meet most of the above and has disappointed me somewhat however its RPG cover based tactical shooter so i guess will just have to wait and see upon release.

[Milli0nkniv3s]

I guess I'm not following what you mean by hard scoping. In GRFS (which is my preferred aiming scheme) you could zoom in and fire over the shoulder or ADS. The difference between the two was accuracy. Sure you could zoom into your target faster with the zoom in hip fire, but you sacrificed accuracy for that speed. Obviously ADS was slower but you gained accuracy and clearer view of targets at distance. There are tradeoffs for both types and that is what made GRFS's aiming system work. Knowing which type of aiming to use for a given situation is what made it a challenge, and therefore fun.

Now this is what I'm talking about thanks for your back up comment and support.

[FREEMAN0129]

Whether GRFS was a good game or not, the opinion may differ from person to person but I think at least the aiming system was near-perfect. Third person view, over the shoulder view aim, and there was ADS. Players had the choice to apply different aim modes in different situations, thus adding depth and variety to the way that people play the game. I believe the devs said GRW was about giving players choice. I hope they keep that idea to even smallest things like this.

[RBD_MCRob]

youtube has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

Ok i just wanted to give a visual aid, this is the scoping i feel that is being described by what we know about GR:WL, now if it ends up being a re skinned GRFS with the same scoping mechanics then thats a deal breaker for me. If i wanted another GRFS based game then i would go play that and be done with it. This style above worked really well and was very fluid as this continues to be a cover based shooter. The fact is the scoping in GRFS worked fine for campaign/co-op mode but it didn't work well for multiplayer and on of the reason i didn't bother with it, not because of the learning curve just because it didn't work for me in that environment. Ill be honest as much hate as i give GRP this is the one thing they got right and was hoping to see again in a far better and more polished AAA game in the ghost recon series.

[Milli0nkniv3s]

Whether GRFS was a good game or not, the opinion may differ from person to person but I think at least the aiming system was near-perfect. Third person view, over the shoulder view aim, and there was ADS. Players had the choice to apply different aim modes in different situations, thus adding depth and variety to the way that people play the game. I believe the devs said GRW was about giving players choice. I hope they keep that idea to even smallest things like this.

Exactly... well said.
Thx for the post and support.

[Milli0nkniv3s]

youtube has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

Ok i just wanted to give a visual aid, this is the scoping i feel that is being described by what we know about GR:WL, now if it ends up being a re skinned GRFS with the same scoping mechanics then thats a deal breaker for me. If i wanted another GRFS based game then i would go play that and be done with it. This style above worked really well and was very fluid as this continues to be a cover based shooter. The fact is the scoping in GRFS worked fine for campaign/co-op mode but it didn't work well for multiplayer and on of the reason i didn't bother with it, not because of the learning curve just because it didn't work for me in that environment. Ill be honest as much hate as i give GRP this is the one thing they got right and was hoping to see again in a far better and more polished AAA game in the ghost recon series.

I've played GRO and I guess I dislike it just as some dislike GRFS. GRO is terrible and I do not play it at all.
The TPV fire mode seems fine i would just prefer it to zoom in slightly but I could live with what you are suggesting.
Thx for the upload, post and support.

[ITK5]

Original Ghost Recon was not a True FPS (you didn't see your weapons or hands, just the Reticle.
That being said..Im am a strictly TPS guy..and got to play Wildlands and its works with the Hybrid view.

There are some adjustments I hope that they make.

ITK5

[Milli0nkniv3s]

Original Ghost Recon was not a True FPS (you didn't see your weapons or hands, just the Reticle.
That being said..Im am a strictly TPS guy..and got to play Wildlands and its works with the Hybrid view.

There are some adjustments I hope that they make.

ITK5

That's awesome to hear.
Thanks for ya input and support.

[Cortexian]

Personally, I think the system they've shown so far is "the best" system from a mechanical standpoint.

However I can see why some people would prefer the other modes as well. They all have their own advantages and disadvantages. Ideally Ubisoft would implement a system that would allow us to select any of the following modes while playing cooperatively or solo:

1) Third person only. Start in a zoomed out third person view, when you "aim" the camera closes in to your shoulder and your reticle tightens up.
2) First person only. Self explanatory. First person all the time, you start "zoomed out" but see your gun like in any other FPS game. When you aim you aim down sights.
3) Hybrid / current system. Start in third person for when you're traversing the world/maneuvering. When you aim you aim down sights in first person.

The problem with providing ALL of these as options for people to select is the sheer amount of extra work required. The animation and art teams would essentially need to make two versions of everything for both third and first person views.

Obviously when it comes to player vs player / adversarial multiplayer modes, if there will be any, only ONE of the above options would be allowed for everyone in order to make it fair. Said option should be forced by the server/session host.

As a player I want Ubisoft to add all the options and satisfy everyone.

As a realist I can't see them changing from the path they've started down now that they've got some core mechanics of the game implemented already.