Member
Having gone through multiples threads on these forums. Not every feedback is a good idea. That is pretty obvious.
While I appreciate the fact that developers are taking feedback from the community, I'd like to remind everyone that we, players, are not gaming experts. And a lot of feedback here is just total non sense.
I would like to encourage developers to be very careful about the way they pick and think about what feedback to implement. I've seen people who want this to look more like battle royale (as if there weren't enough battle royale games already on steam where you can just run around and shoot the other 99 people?).
This is mainly a tactical game that isn't based on luck (unlike pubg). I'd like for developers to preserve the core of this game. It's what it makes it fun.
Yes it has a slower pace than other PVP games. But that's why I personally like it. Ghost Recon forces you to think your strategy through before executing it. You can't just run around looking for loot and people to kill like PUBG (which I don't find fun anyway). You have to think about every move you make since it can make you marked, and easier target.
Please keep it that way.
Senior Member
....and you don't see the contradiction in your argument?Originally Posted by nicolas.rumet Go to original post
Ubi is providing these forums as a platform for people to share ideas, suggestions, feedback, etc. ....and they encourage that participation within the forum rules (e.g. no trolling, no personal attacks, etc.). Why would you want to censor others input? If you have an issue with a particular idea, discuss it in the thread where it is brought up.
I say, voice your opinion but allow people the freedom to voice theirs as well. It's my belief that the "bad" ideas will vet themselves.
Senior Member
^This.Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
"Forum" - a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged
Banned
To avoid people from getting their panties in a twist and for developers to avoid asking for feedback that they have no desire to implement, would be to actual make the Moderators or CM post a list of the changes they are willing to do after the beta... perhaps this would be the easiest way.
Sure, there is always going to be pissed off people because what they wanted was not on the list but at the very least, it would prevent others from getting theirs hopes up and either decide to stick with the game or move on.
This goes for Single (perhaps I should say future if WL2 comes out), PvE (see Single) and now PvP.
Banned
That is the thing though. I have looked through the early forums and a lot of the complaints I have for the game were brought up in Alpha and Beta testing and never fixed. It is clear to me that they have no real desire to change anything no matter how many times we ask or how many different ways we ask it. They will give us one thing (like helo controls, my personal feeling being that they made the controls of the helos better but then ruined the feel of the helos so that they are more like hovercraft than a helo) to keep us but leave other hugely blatant problems (AI teammates, Clairavoyant enemies who know where you are when you drop a mortar or explode a drone) flowing along unfixed. The moderators here tell us they will pass it along and they most likely do but the guys affecting the change do nothing with that info.Originally Posted by GiveMeTactical Go to original post
I do agree though, give us a list of things that you have heard us complain about and that you will eventually fix. Let us pick the priority of those things so that we get the biggest problems fixed first by a community vote.
Banned
Either way it would work... a List of WE CAN change or a list or WE WON"T change.
Of course you won't get it until all sales are final and by then, well basically said list would be obsolete.
To appeases the masses and get the fanbois going, they will fix the miniscule things that people are asking but make no big difference to the gameplay or they will try to fix things that were jacked from the very beginning.
At the end of the day though, the answer lies on us and whether we want to buy the product as is (have some fun and frustration at the same time) or wait for the better and final product.
My opinion is based on Single Player for PC... just to avoid getting some of the kool-aid drinkers to have a bad weekend.
Senior Member
@Vargus
Yeah, this is why I didn't get my hopes up for PVP. I saw the major issues of the main game just get brushed under the carpet thus preventing it from being as great as it should've been. The first tiny shot of PVP in a video (back in May?) showed me that it was probably gonna be the same for GW - I saw markers that was enough.... Now we have classes. Even with a hardcore mode it's not gonna be epic. It could be pretty great fun, but not 3+ years of enjoyment - how I like my PVP. I say this because although there are enough people backing the suggestions, I can't see them making it so we can remove classes, or even just abilities and perks, in our custom matches. I do look forward to playing either way, and I hope they prove me to be wrong, but.... history - fool me once.
Senior Member
I agree with you D & Vargas. When I saw how fast they announced the release (3 days after the beta ended) I knew we were likely not going to see much (if anything) implemented from our suggestions. I'm glad the milsim fans turned out in force on the open beta forum though. If that doesn't get the message across that they should implement more options in this game tailored toward this segment of the community, I give up.
Frankly, GW is a different feel to me than GRW. With GRW I had more than enough there to keep me entertained. ....and while there were flaws, they were not enough to be game breaking to me. News and updates were slow coming but things like the new HUD options gave me hope that they were at least listening to the hardcore among us. ....but then things like Tier mode left me scratching my head and wondering if they truly understood.
In GWs case, I don't feel the tie that I did with GRW in it's current form. My worry is that (again) news and updates will be slow coming for those looking for things like a lower TTK, ability to disable drones, turn off markers, a customer lobby, etc. If I'm going to be completely honest, GW (in its current form) is likely not enough to keep me around.....waiting. I might play it for a week or two but I have a feeling that I will likely shelve it and maybe, just maybe come back to check if any changes have been made that will bring me back.
Here's hoping that they will at least implement some "hadcore" features we have been asking for at launch and if not, some solid news of their future intentions in this respect.
Member
Please tell me where did I write the word "censor"?
You shouldn't twist other people's word to make your point. What I said is the need to be careful about what feedback to implement (not censor feedback). If we follow your logic, any feedback that doesn't get implemented is basically censored? Total non-sense...
People can voice their opinions, and I wrote absolutely nothing against that (I would appreciate it if you actually quote me rather than twist my words). But at the same time, developers reserve the right to be selective about what ideas to implement. And I would certainly be not a fan of anything that makes Ghost War PUBG 2 tbh.
Each game should try to come up with its own style and ideas rather than copy other games just because few guys said so on the forums.
Yes, Ubi should think about making use of the big map in PvP, maybe creating competing factions for PvP or something... The possibilities are endless as long as Ghost Recon preserves its uniqueness rather than being a copycat product.
