What is going on | Forums

[X_FRoeeeeee]

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.

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.

Oh for sure, as I said I’m not even into the PvP side of this game at all. I tired it a few times and found it utterly boring, if I want PvP I play R6 siege tbh (wish there was a BF3 remaster). I was just saying that the route that the Devs did go was clearly not the best but I would have totally prefered if they just kept adding content to the PvE/Co-op side of the game as that’s where I spend all my hours anyway lol.

It is weird why they added in PvP but I guess nowadays most companies are probably worried about losing x amount of player base if they don’t add in some form of PvP for the players who just like to mindlessly kill each other. I would have loved them to have further expanded the player limit of Co-op and maybe had a 8 man squad or something which would have lead to some really awesome gameplay I think. Hopefully they start to really focus on the actual core of the game (PvE) for the rest of this year 2 and all future updates are about expanding that and creating more replay value to it as so far I have been a little disappointed with the love shown to Solo/Co-op mode.

[Ghost416]

This game was never supposed to even have PVP in the first place, but loads of people just couldn't stand it, spammed up the forum with their whining, and thus Ghost War was tacked on. Now where are all these people? All I see on this forum now are mostly PVE and co-op players begging for Ubisoft to give more attention to the campaigns.

[Ringwraith5]

. 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.

There's just one part of this that I don't get. If someone wants to play a Battlefield clone, why not just play Battlefield? This game was designed as a PvE game first and foremost, with co-op being the only form of multiplayer available. Putting resources into developing a more advanced PvP mode doesn't really make sense. Sticking to BF as an example, imagine EA releasing an add-on to, say, Bad Company 2, that would be focused on the single-player "campaign". Doesn't make much sense, right? So why push for more PvP in what is basically a PvE game?

Sure, the obvious answer could be "because it would make the game better". But would it really? It would just make it another online shooter, one of umpteen already available on the market. But off the top of my head I can name just two arcade milsims on the market right now. One is Wildlands, the other is MGSV. And each offers something different. So let's not take that aspect away from Wildlands just to turn it into another Battlefield. That would be a huge waste.

[JensDekkersNL]

I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed with PVP.

I prefer PVE to begin with, just to get that out of the way, but PVP could have worked, except it has several flaws in my opinion.

1. Special abilities / class system.
Like in all ubisoft games there are too many ''special'' abilities, drones, jammers, mines, special goggles, etc. While it might be just me, I would have prefered if you had atleast the option to play a more down to earth game mode, with just people's guns, grenades, perhaps one drone (without any additional abilities) per team and that's it.

Being able to tag people in a second and then everyone being able to know EXACTLY where that person is, just why? Not to mention the 'Echelon' class, which can practically do this at all times. Who thought that'd be a good addition to a multiplayer platform? No wonder that class gets picked 90% of the time. I much prefer the approach that 'Insurgency' has. No special abilities, just that classes decide what weapons you have (sniper, or LMG, or Assault Rifle, or SMG, etc.) simple yet effective.

This is the exact reason I stopped playing Rainbow Six: Siege. They went way over the top with special characters and stupid abilities, they absolutely butchered that game in my opinion, although I am aware many people still enjoy playing it.

2. Too many snipers.
It's only 4v4 yet most games have 4 snipers (2 per team). I honestly think when you play with only 4 guys in a team, the max should be 1. Then again, I understand that there are pros and cons to this, but it ruins the casual experience for me, to an extend.

3. Maps.
Idk, but too many maps have too much vegetation, making problem 2 (sniper spam) only that much worse and frankly, it almost justifies it. In my opinion they should design maps specifically for PVP instead of taking chunks out of the campaign map. Have more 'urban' maps, with taller structures in the center so ''across the map'' shooting occurs less often etc.

Allowing the players to design maps with a world maker would be even better. I have made many maps for Mount and Blade: Warband for instance. I actually have 7000 hours on that game (no joke), because that game has so many mods and custom maps, etc.

4. Sounds.
Maybe it's just me, but the sounds appear to be ****ed up. I can hardly hear where people are when they are literally 2 meters away from me. Maybe it's the fact that you play in 3rd person that causes confusion? I am not sure, but I have died many times to people just sneaking up to me while I was looking in the wrong direction. Very frustrating.

5. Customisation.
So you have one of the nicest customisation that any game has and you decide to limit it to the max in PVP, what the f*ck? I understand that you might want to limit specific scopes, given that they could make some weapons quite overpowered. I also understand that, for example, the Mk17 was put in semi-auto, because it does a lot of damage. But why am I not able to decide what foregrip I use. Why can I not decide what stock I want?

The Mp7 for instance, has the folded stock. Why? Why can't I put the 'foregrip v2' on the Mk17? Why can I not put any foregrip on the M4A1? If weapon balance is the reason (which I wouldn't really understand) then why not make it so that it's just aesthetics atleast?

6. Player count.
Not really any explenation required. 4v4, that's the least any MP game has? Could have atleast gone for 5v5 or 6v6. Minor difference in terms of numbers, but big in terms of gameplay.

Surely some of you appreciate PVP as it is, but I am personally not that surprised that it isn't as popular as many other multiplayer games out there. The potential, once again, is huge, but hardly reached.

[RedCeII]

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?

I think you’d play for hours on end without ever firing a shot or seeing another player.

[KingSpawn1979]

This game was never supposed to even have PVP in the first place, but loads of people just couldn't stand it, spammed up the forum with their whining, and thus Ghost War was tacked on. Now where are all these people? All I see on this forum now are mostly PVE and co-op players begging for Ubisoft to give more attention to the campaigns.

Just imagine what the PvE would be like today if Time and Ressources didn't have to be spared for PvP.

[TexasRocks2]

Just imagine what the PvE would be like today if Time and Ressources didn't have to be spared for PvP.

Exactly.

[Ghost-Ami]

Just imagine what the PvE would be like today if Time and Ressources didn't have to be spared for PvP.

I'd really appreciate it if an Ubi rep could weigh in and inform us just what proportion of employees/hours are put into PvP versus PvE.

I like the PvP well enough for what it is, but I think we deserve to know if game's primary PvE mission is being compromised significantly for the sake of Ghost War.

[Paladinrja]

If someone wants to play a Battlefield clone, why not just play Battlefield?

Exactly, I agree, but that wasn't what I meant.

[AI BLUEFOX]

I'd really appreciate it if an Ubi rep could weigh in and inform us just what proportion of employees/hours are put into PvP versus PvE.

I like the PvP well enough for what it is, but I think we deserve to know if game's primary PvE mission is being compromised significantly for the sake of Ghost War.

I'm not a Ubi rep, but can tell you that PvP was made by the Bucharest studio whilst PvE was made in Paris. There is not and never has been any resource conflict in that sense.