Ubisoft Doesnt Care | Forums

[AI BLUEFOX]

This plus the comment that you care about the community.. hilarious..

and yet the first DLC released is narco road.

Now look at wildlands.. look at the authenticity video you made.. now look at Narco Road...

If you don't see a stupid mistake.. you're an idiot.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Narco Road was bad judgement and a mistake, for this small niche of the fan base at least.

So what. That has no relevance to the main game and fallen ghosts as far as authenticity goes and it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the Dev team, the mods or anyone else cares about what we think.

[Kean_1]

.....can't say I understand the name calling and posturing going on in this thread.

While I have my own concerns, disappointments and questions about decisions/direction with game, I believe folks like Keeba and Phobos are likely genuine in their sentiments regarding the community.

....and while I don't always agree with AIBluefox, I think he has a more realistic attitude of how a large company works than some others here (being employed by a very large corporation myself for 30 years). It's not all black and white and we are obviously not privy to every detail regarding decisions that are made, hurdles, budgets, internal pressures/deadlines, restrictions on information, internal policies, etc.

In either case, I think (hope) we are all adult enough to discuss the issues/concerns we have with the game rather than resorting to questioning people's character or genuineness.

[Ghost416]

In either case, I think (hope) we are all adult enough to discuss the issues/concerns we have with the game rather than resorting to questioning people's character or genuineness.

Some of us are. The rest of us are all obnoxious bastards who think that merely buying the game makes UbiSoft subservient to our whims.

[KurtRoman]

In either case, I think (hope) we are all adult enough to discuss the issues/concerns we have with the game rather than resorting to questioning people's character or genuineness.

I agree with where you are coming from, and I actually would've re-written my own previous post without assuming this or that, but rather asking direct questions about decisions that feels a little off. But the content of my post stays still the same. There are some concerns about how and why decisions are made the way they are made within larger studios these days. But assuming bad intent is never a good idea. Still, I would like understand some decisions better. Ill ask a few questions concerned with creating this game, but Im not sure a developer/decision maker is in here to answer them.

What lead to the choice in creating a circular collision detection object (instead of a cone) which makes AIs detect you when you are aiming at their backs?

What lead to the choice in having AIs see with their third eye, instead of creating a more search-and-find AI-system?

Why is ground vehicle physics not worked out, and was this a question of budget, or were there other factors leading to poor handling of ground vehicles?

What lead to the aimbot decisions of AIs as they got harder and what choices were discussed?

Why is there two DLCs out before AI, vehicles and other concerns are worked out, or is there not going to be further enhancements to either of these categories?

In regards to the AI and vehicle code, on the surface it seems like a question of budget and wanting to do this quickly. This is especially why I bring up the circular collision detection you have implemented and the third eye-system. The circular detection system is a very quick way to code ray tracing detection, compared to implementing a more fully realistic system. Same goes for the third eye. Its quicker than creating a more fully functional AI path system. Is this why it is the way it is, or are there other decisions (ideas that might have been good in brainstorming) that lead to this sort of detections/path-systems(s)?

I am very interested in decision making, and I actually would like to have a dev article or something written about these choices (and more choices in the full process). I understand that neither these questions or an article is something you should or can use time on, but it's highly interesting. And, even though I still find the DLC content highly questionable, Ill take my own advice and not assume bad intent, which is a terrible thing to do.

Edit: Why I didnt mention anything about choppers or planes, is mostly because I see that they have tried to use real-world simulation. It just didn't work out that well in a gaming environment. It's a little sad, because I think some real effort went into trying to work that out. Vehicles are different though. The physics are just not properly done, and I am guessing that might come from spending to much time trying to figure out real-world planes and choppers.

[Kean_1]

Yeah, I don't get a lot of the decisions they made in this game either. I would agree that they missed the mark in several areas.

Just one example was one of Nouredine Abboud's responses in the last developer Q&A that stuck with me. He said that Fallen Ghosts and the new difficulty mode (what we know as the Tier mode) should appeal to the milsim fans. Being a milsim/hardcore player myself, I can't help but think they are not in synch with our segment. I doubt many of these fans would agree that adding flashy suits to enemies, impenetrable armor, increased damage/bullet absorption, cloaking tech, RPG-style leveling to weapons, etc. would be on their list of ways to improve the challenge of the game. In fact, I would argue that those are some of the reasons people like me were attracted to the game in the first place. ......due to the lack of those elements.

I'm curious as well why they made specific decisions. I'm also more uncertain than ever (after NR DLC, Tier mode) what direction they will going in the future with this title. IMO, there are ways to appeal to several types of players by (for example) merely incorporating more choices in the options menu. ......more options means more ways for players to tailor their experience to their own liking. .....expand on the orders given to AI teammates (incld ROE options). .....and so on.

It's just my opinion being someone who prefers a more milsim/realistic experience, but I would be happy if they would have spent time adding more depth, options, choices, etc. to what already exists. In a perfect world I wish they would also add more complexity to the game where ammunition, body armor, gear weight, etc. would have an effect on stamina, bullet placement/resistance/penetration, noise while moving, etc.

.....while I'm hashing this out I just have to say something else...... I have seen on more than one occasion where Ubi has mentioned the collaboration with individuals who have military background when designing weapons, etc. However, who decided to include a 1911 pistol with woefully inadequate, fixed GI sights (not to mention other aesthetic components I noticed like the GI grip safety, GI hammer, trigger, etc.)? Being a 1911 owner/fan myself, I also have never seen an otherwise GI model 1911 that was offered with a rail. .....perhaps there is one but I've never seen it.

If you look at any modern 1911 designed for military use they will have modern sights (perhaps even night sights), usually a beavertail grip safety, maybe skeletonized trigger/hammer, etc. Using a military figure who may be recognizable to most, Chris Kyle (of American Sniper fame) used a Springfield 1911 TRP Operator that includes a lot of those modern components I mentioned. This is just one of several head scratchers to me.

[KurtRoman]

if you wanted to get better on the flying controls, you could have googled "youtube.com ghost recon wildlands helicopter controls" and gotten this awesome tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUy6du586uM

so please tell me how its a dev issue!

The flying controls are easy to understand, but that dosen't make them good. Thats the difference and why its an issue for the devs. personally I've come to terms with them and would rather see them sort out ground vehicle physics first.

[SERPENT 1333]

I have seen on more than one occasion where Ubi has mentioned the collaboration with individuals who have military background

And yet the rank insignia on the GR Network are all messed up. Every insignia is wrong from specialist all the way up to the field officer ranks (and possibly beyond).

For example, they have:

specialist with the corporal insignia,
corporal with the sergeant insignia,
sergeant with the staff sergeant insignia...
staff sergeant with the sergeant first class insignia,
sergeant first class with the master sergeant insignia,
master sergeant with the sergeant major insignia,
sergeant major with the second lieutenant insignia,
second lieutenant with the first lieutenant insignia,
first lieutenant with the captain insignia,
captain with the major insignia,
major with the lieutenant colonel insignia,
etc.

So whenever Ubi says that they worked with actual military advisers, it sounds like crazy talk. I mean, even as a little kid I would have noticed that the insignia were wrong.

How could they possibly be so clueless?!!! And while this has been pointed out to them many times, they still haven't done anything to fix it. It's embarrassing.

[Kean_1]

Yeah.... I don't doubt they had military advisors but I do question the extent of their involvement in development for what was billed as an "authentic" military shooter.

[SocomUSNavySeal]

I'm not into milsim (like Arma or anything) but I have enjoyed games such as Ghost Recon and Socom. I have a lot of respect for the producers and developers and the artists who worked on Wildlands, but I still wonder about certain decisions like most fans. I agree with KurtRoman and Kean_1 about things such as enemy detection and armor.

I find it crazy that Unidad can detect me instantly and that they are everywhere and that a whole Unidad army is deployed instantly by land and air! It doesn't make sense story wise either because an army that can summon an endless horde should not have trouble exterminating the cartel, so no need for Ghosts to intervene. But game wise I find it annoying that any tactical action can be ruined by one Unidad soldier, leading to possible mission fail.

Even worse are the rebels who will attack without your permission and can ruin your tactical play, and then there's rebels attacking Unidad which makes it even worse. I think the game would be better without rebels at all. I've tried them for mortar fire but stopped using it and I only use them for vehicle drops; I don't use the other rebel stuff. I've also been run over by rebels, rebels have destroyed my convoy trucks reducing loot, and they have killed my transport/kidnap targets leading to mission fail. These things wouldn't bother me if it was a random occurrence but it's so common that it's frustrating.

I also wish the Unidad spawn was limited so that you can wipe out the deployment units, but it's endless and therefore, unrealistic. Additionally, I don't like that enemies know your exact location even though you attack them with drone or mortar or sniper rifle.

I wonder about the decision to not hide bodies !
That would have made the game immensely better. But I suppose that falls under the detection problems of the game. And why not have a "kill" option along with grab and knock out?

Likewise, although I'm not into milsim, I do like the idea of armor making a difference to your health and camouflage making you more stealthy and having options for bullets to penetrate walls.

I've noticed that upgrading skills to not be detected only works once I'm fully upgraded but even then it's only a slight difference (I could be wrong about this but it's hard to tell the greater difference).

Additionally I don't mind that the game has helicopters and planes but there are so many SAMs everywhere that it's not even fun to travel by air. And what's the point of upgrading the air vehicle armor when SAMs can take you down in one shot anyway, meanwhile you're rarely shot down by gunfire? Why not an upgrade to counter the SAMs?

On a side note about Ubisoft working with the military: I found it funny in Future Soldier that they consulted with Navy SEALS for the Guerilla Mode. The SEALS talked about (in real life) fortifying a building and closing off all entrance points so that they could engage the enemy. However, in the game, the "fortified" areas were open on all sides and you had to protect the highlighted floor area, and if an AI enemy snuck in and huddled in a corner somewhere while you're fighting off many enemies from all open entrances, you end up failing because the one hidden enemy squatted on the highlighted area for fifteen seconds. It's an example of research and execution contradicting.

Anyway I still say all my complaints with much respect and gratitude to the Ghost Recon games and its developers. I know it's hard to make a game but sometimes you gotta go "what were you thinking?"

[Kean_1]

The flying controls are easy to understand, but that dosen't make them good. Thats the difference and why its an issue for the devs. personally I've come to terms with them and would rather see them sort out ground vehicle physics first.

^^^^^^ this.

I can fly the helos as well as the planes and cars in this game. .......some of them quite well I might add. However, the controls feel unnatural (for lack of a better term), clunky and rather awkward. Like trying to stop a car without immediately reversing once the vehicle loses forward momentum. I was able to work around these "issues" rather quickly but that doesn't mean the experience is enjoyable or necessarily good. You rarely hear anyone commending this game for the vehicle controls. .....just the opposite in fact. One only has to look at some other popular titles to see why people complain about them in GRW.

I can get past the fact that this is simply the way the mechanics of the game work since the meat of it (on foot) works well. ....but obviously Ubi listened and felt a change was warranted since they announced that they will be changing (hopefully improving) the flight controls.