Member
Originally Posted by Paladinrja Go to original post
Senior Member
Senior Member
Bit o'both, mostly joking, mostly..Originally Posted by Ringwraith5 Go to original post
Member
I just think with such a vast open world they should have handled the whole PvP aspect differently.
IMO they should have made PvP take place in the open world and kinda just found someway of putting players against each other that way.
Ie; defending convoys against the other squad, defending resource helicopter and plane. Maybe all they side missions could have been able to PvP squad vs squad or even have chance to play as Santa Blanca or Unidad vs the ghost squad in main story missions.
I don’t know maybe those ideas might have sucked but I don’t feel that the 4v4 ghost war they went with was the right move honestly and probably the only reason I’ve played it like 4 times lol.
Senior Member
Powering a virtual jungle, urban or otherwise is a huge investment in hardware. I don't expect to see it in the next decade no matter what DiCE claims. Won't happen. Bigger dedicated maps, sure. More players per grounds, sure. Persistent state Virtual safari/jungle, nup.
Question: What happened to MAG and Frontlines?
Senior Member
Bullsh*t like that already done multiple times in another games. And they all become a pool of toxic filled with people like OP where after a stream of replies of people supporting PvE and don't care about PvP, he claimed 'fanboy' defending Ghost War PvP.
That's some serious mentally impaired level of ignorance right there.
To OP, here I give you a template for you to request to actual developers interested in focusing your toxic pool PvP game:
"Dear Developer, I like PvP and I want your game to have a vast open-world similar to Ghost Recon Wildlands' and make battle royal PvP with it. Thanks."
You're welcome. Close the door on your way out.
Member
I think that GRW's strongest point is PvE. Trying to push PvP just so it's there is, for me, a waste of resources. It's hard to make a game that does both PvE and PvP well and focusing on one or the other usually gives better results.Originally Posted by X_FRoeeeeee Go to original post
If UBI wanted to do an arcade milsim (kinda like the old X-Wing games were arcade space sims), they should have focused totally on PvE and add a whole ton of regular content. Proper DLCs with lots and lots of missions, new skill trees (as some people have stated here, once we max out the rebel skills, a DLC could add a CIA skill tree that provides us with better intel and support), new weapons, vehicles, actually functioning ghillie suits and more. I'd love to see the Ghosts take down more corrupt Unidad officers, expose dirty politicians and, once we finish the main stroyline, take out the microcartels that would inevitably have risen from the ashes of Santa Blanca. That's where a random mission generator would come in, offering limitless assets to seize, hostages to rescue, HVTs to capture or assassinate and so on. With all this, GRW wouldn't even need PvP. It would be playable almost indefinitely.
Senior Member
Honestly, GW is where all the milsim suggestion should be funnelled into. I mean, what is PUBG other than a simplified DayZ Clone anyway?
Also, why would anyone go through the trouble of playing yet another arena shooter; when to this day FC2 MP is still in the house of lamentation?
Honestly. Forget the milsim pretend mode. May as well make a mobile time waster. Put that kinda energy into big maps and large multiplayer squads and watch people flock to it. There's a reason why BFBC2 is still often cited.
Senior Member
Senior Member
What about 4 player full squads using the entire game world, where you compete for the most area taken and have to develop each captured area. Kinda like a reverse Star Craft?Originally Posted by RedCeII Go to original post
So instead of farming resources to build troop units. Troops become resources to maintain your ability to fight and fighting power to keep competing.
