According to IGN pvp are far away | Forums

[NLxAROSA]

Does that mean all the Rogues left the Dark Zone? If so, I might return to that game in the future.

Last time I played they did. I was able to solo just about everything in DZ7-9 almost without being bothered. Last Stand is actually pretty good fun, because stats are normalized (maxxed). But the bugs/balancing...

[metalgearso1971]

Just my five cents, and not meant as a personal attack on anyone, but...

\Why on Earth would you want to play this game in a PvP setting? Let me tell you what I think you will get, considering how Ubisoft has made PvP in the past. Rather small areas to have DM, TDM and all sorts of similar crap game modes that don't have anything to do with the scope of this game, which is supposed to be a game about special operatives who normally don't run and gun as most Ubisoft PvP game modes have proven to be.

PvP is why people keep coming back to games? I don't think so. Because honestly, Ubisoft's MP game modes are nothting special. They choose to implement the easy game modes that involve no proper teamwork despite the fact they claim them to be focusing on that, because of one thing - focus on kills only. Having people on the same side running everywhere just to be on top of the score board is not teamwork, or an example of team play. I wonder if Ubisoft would actually be able to create a real TvT game mode because if Wildlands would need something if PvP was created it's that.

So yeah, PvP in Wildlands? No, just no, Why? Because in the past all MP game modes Ubisoft made were nice to a small group of people while most people were like: what on Earth did you just create? Game modes got nerfed because for some reason a lot of people playing Ubisoft's game modes were downright *****s and trolls. We've seen it in Assassin's Creed, saw it in The Division and will continue to see it. Ubisoft's vision on MP game modes is only focusing on individualism, and that is something a game like Wildlands does not need in my opinion. They should also fix the damn bugs first, starting with the dumbest AI ever that don't even give proper cover when you're clearly attacked and just sit there. The uber vision of the enemy AI where they detect you from miles away and find you in like an instant is also ridiculous. But back to the subject.

What I think this game could use is to use the approach Arma 3 uses. There is a server running the whole of Bolivia. I also believe PvP players should be separated from those who wish to play PvE only. The PvP server runs in a setting where you can have large scale missions, or several large scale missions spread all over the map, and you start at a point of your own choice and travel to the area you wish to participate with the ongoing PvP action. And then I'm speaking about realistic PvP action, or at least tactical action - not the type of action kids on a high sugar level are looking for. Kills should also not be the main focus for rewards, as Ubisoft always tends to do. Instead rewards should be given for performing actions that support proper teamwork and tactical game play. I doubt Ubisoft will go that way though, as they never have and probably never will. I guess their staff is also so much into having the most kills they don't care about players who wish to experience an other type of PvP / TvT. So I am afraid, no I actually know, if they would create PvP it would die another not so glorious end because nice game modes in the end will be nerfed or removed completely, and crap game modes remain.

I never understood Ubisoft's view on PvP, and I never will. It only promotes individualism which makes the MP game modes totally not enjoyable for people who wish to experience something else. They always assume people want to play it competitive for the individiualistic factor while there is so much more than being a kill seeking experience. Just my opinion, and maybe I am sort of spoiled after playing real tactical games for quite some time but with some work this game can be quite a nice in-between.

[Jandaime]

Just my five cents, and not meant as a personal attack on anyone, but...

\Why on Earth would you want to play this game in a PvP setting? Let me tell you what I think you will get, considering how Ubisoft has made PvP in the past. Rather small areas to have DM, TDM and all sorts of similar crap game modes that don't have anything to do with the scope of this game, which is supposed to be a game about special operatives who normally don't run and gun as most Ubisoft PvP game modes have proven to be.

PvP is why people keep coming back to games? I don't think so. Because honestly, Ubisoft's MP game modes are nothting special. They choose to implement the easy game modes that involve no proper teamwork despite the fact they claim them to be focusing on that, because of one thing - focus on kills only. Having people on the same side running everywhere just to be on top of the score board is not teamwork, or an example of team play. I wonder if Ubisoft would actually be able to create a real TvT game mode because if Wildlands would need something if PvP was created it's that.

So yeah, PvP in Wildlands? No, just no, Why? Because in the past all MP game modes Ubisoft made were nice to a small group of people while most people were like: what on Earth did you just create? Game modes got nerfed because for some reason a lot of people playing Ubisoft's game modes were downright *****s and trolls. We've seen it in Assassin's Creed, saw it in The Division and will continue to see it. Ubisoft's vision on MP game modes is only focusing on individualism, and that is something a game like Wildlands does not need in my opinion. They should also fix the damn bugs first, starting with the dumbest AI ever that don't even give proper cover when you're clearly attacked and just sit there. The uber vision of the enemy AI where they detect you from miles away and find you in like an instant is also ridiculous. But back to the subject.

What I think this game could use is to use the approach Arma 3 uses. There is a server running the whole of Bolivia. I also believe PvP players should be separated from those who wish to play PvE only. The PvP server runs in a setting where you can have large scale missions, or several large scale missions spread all over the map, and you start at a point of your own choice and travel to the area you wish to participate with the ongoing PvP action. And then I'm speaking about realistic PvP action, or at least tactical action - not the type of action kids on a high sugar level are looking for. Kills should also not be the main focus for rewards, as Ubisoft always tends to do. Instead rewards should be given for performing actions that support proper teamwork and tactical game play. I doubt Ubisoft will go that way though, as they never have and probably never will. I guess their staff is also so much into having the most kills they don't care about players who wish to experience an other type of PvP / TvT. So I am afraid, no I actually know, if they would create PvP it would die another not so glorious end because nice game modes in the end will be nerfed or removed completely, and crap game modes remain.

I never understood Ubisoft's view on PvP, and I never will. It only promotes individualism which makes the MP game modes totally not enjoyable for people who wish to experience something else. They always assume people want to play it competitive for the individiualistic factor while there is so much more than being a kill seeking experience. Just my opinion, and maybe I am sort of spoiled after playing real tactical games for quite some time but with some work this game can be quite a nice in-between.

I'll tell you exactly why. It's for those who are competitive, and who need to measure their skills up against the best. You think you're good? Only PVP is the ultimate test.
I'm sure the lot of you are either close to beating this game by now, or have already completed it. PVP will always be the end measure of how high your skill is

[mezzatron]

I'll tell you exactly why. It's for those who are competitive, and who need to measure their skills up against the best. You think you're good? Only PVP is the ultimate test.
I'm sure the lot of you are either close to beating this game by now, or have already completed it. PVP will always be the end measure of how high your skill is

I wasted my time reading all of that stuff he wrote and didn't want to waste anymore writing a reply.
You're trying to explain the colour red to a clolour-blind person. He won't understand.

Ghost Recon has always had multiplayer and Ubisoft multiplayer games aren't that bad as he seems to be drawing conclusions from his own sour experience.

As long as they have;
- Good netcode;
- Good multiplayer servers;
- Ban hackers on time;
- And introduce some exciting modes other than just 4v4, it will be great.
- 8 v 8;
- 4 v 4 v 4
- Battle Royal game modes
- Capture the Point etc...

Ghost Recon multiplayer isn't like COD or BF. It's not focused on TDM. It should be fun.

Anyone who doesn't want PvP is free to keep playing the PvE mode.

[Coker101]

To me Ghost Recon has always been about multiplayer.

Even the original games that were only on PC had multiplayer and it was my favorite part of the game. Yea, single-player was fun and interesting but in the end I never got bored playing against other people in a more realistic game like GR.

I was a HUGE fan of GR before it went to 3rd person...since then it's been a slow decline towards a more arcade type game.

Sorry I got off topic there.....my point really is that it never should have been launched without multiplayer and it shouldn't be considered an afterthought.

But that's just me...

[bent_toe]

Not just you. A lot of us enjoy multiplayer.
Don't mind the pve:ers they just like to rant.

[ComradeKemo]

To me Ghost Recon has always been about multiplayer.

Even the original games that were only on PC had multiplayer and it was my favorite part of the game. Yea, single-player was fun and interesting but in the end I never got bored playing against other people in a more realistic game like GR.

I was a HUGE fan of GR before it went to 3rd person...since then it's been a slow decline towards a more arcade type game.

Sorry I got off topic there.....my point really is that it never should have been launched without multiplayer and it shouldn't be considered an afterthought.

But that's just me...

The problem there is that while the multiplayer in GR has always been popular, it has never been as popular as the single player and has always been an afterthought. While I agree that PvP should have been in the game at release (even in a minor fashion), to pretend that it has ever been the primary focus of the series is just silly.

[K0ZAK1]

As usual few month between Large Updates so what, it take time to imagine/find all new reality for GRW open world and build it up on they systemIt's not just going to be PVP there are going to be so much you all will be glad they doing it for that longforget about it and just play GRW game as simple as that

[Varakharne]

Good, PVP doesnt belong in this game, isnt that what Division is for ? I hope they never release it, Blizzard ( Diablo 3 ) knew the pointlessness of it and they said NOPE! which was a great decision. This game doesnt need PVP and lets be honest, when you get it you all will just come on here and complain about how bad it is, and how it sucks and this and that and this and that needs to be fixed,removed.... so on and so forth. its like this on EVERY SINGLE PVP game on the planet so why even bother ?

PS I wasnt directly saying you were lying, not at all.. I mean that as a general statement to the reality of gaming.

[Ghost416]

Don't mind the pve:ers they just like to rant.

I can't count the number of threads I've seen on here made by PVPers complaining about no PVP ... and PVEers are the ones that like to rant?