[FEEDBACK] The Ghost Recon Team must be better at communicating | Forums

[Megalodon26]

I agree.

.....but I can't help but think of the plethora of feedback we have already provided as part of the GRW community over the 2+ years. There was a lot there to tap into and quite frankly, they could have avoided some of these mistakes and grief by paying attention to what I thought were pretty obvious indicators as to what the community really wanted in a sequel.

I'm not saying they don't listen but I do think they tend to miss the mark. Now whether that's deliberate by choice or a misunderstanding of what the community wants, i really don't know but that's how I feel about the paths and decisions Ubi makes sometimes.

The thing is, a lot of the stuff that we were asking for over the last few years, have been implemented into Breakpoint. Better looking gear, more cosmetics, wirecutters, some people were asking rocket launchers, better enemy AI, so the entire base doesn't make a beeline to your position the moment they are alerted, speed up the time of day etc. The problem is, that they made a bunch of changes to the game, that NOBODY had been talking about, or asking for. Nobody in the community thought that it would be cool to have tiered loot, that you had to scavenge for. Nobody thought that it would be nice to craft C4 out of berries and wildflowers. Nobody thought that a good alternative to a working camouflage system, was to roll around in the mud and dirt. Nobody was saying that they wanted to see other random players, in a social hub, which needed an always online connection. And nobody was saying that they wanted to fight against an army of militarized drones.

But if we had been aware of these changes a year ago, we could have been telling the devs that they were taking the game in the wrong direction, long before the game ever made it to the Alpha stage, when it's really too late to make changes to the core game mechanics.

[bloody_Dusty]

Megalodon26
Plus, it greatly cut down on the time that our feedback had to affect the direction of the game, during the development process. For example, if their intent to make the game a lone wolf experience for solo players, had been revealed last year, they would have had the time to add the AI teammates at launch. aFTER ALL, it only took a few weeks, between the reveal and E3, for them to backpedal on that design decision, because of player feedback. It would have also given them enough time to rethink the whole tiered loot system.

I agree.

.....but I can't help but think of the plethora of feedback we have already provided as part of the GRW community over the 2+ years. There was a lot there to tap into and quite frankly, they could have avoided some of these mistakes and grief by paying attention to what I thought were pretty obvious indicators as to what the community really wanted in a sequel.

I'm not saying they don't listen but I do think they tend to miss the mark. Now whether that's deliberate by choice or a misunderstanding of what the community wants, i really don't know but that's how I feel about the paths and decisions Ubi makes sometimes.

Honestly... I think there might be a misunderstanding from both sides. With the latest marketing attempt (gamescom and twitter) it became clear, that the audience targeted by Ubisoft shifted. They want to bring out there Blockbuster-Franchise and they handle their marketing accordingly - while the core community wants a tactical game, not what we'll get here. It reminds me more on Assassins Creed. Not only the whole game but also the reveal and the short time period to release.
They DON'T want to have that much feedback, because the game is already done more or less. It was meant to be a Singleplayer (meaning that: no AI - like in AC) or Coop-Experience. Not a tactical PvP game or a a core experience. They shifted with Wildlands into a more arcady and less gritty iteration and we still hope for something different. From their view of point they have done everything right:
Give the community a bit gear, nice clothing, more weapons. The rest is based on the (already well known) Ubisoft formula (from AC to The Crew to Far Cry and now WatchDogs) and we are going vocal because we don't want to have that. They succeeded after all. They archived what was asked: Bring the Ghost-Recon-Universe into the Ubisoft-World of gameplay and monetization. They have done everything right - besides asking the community and working together with them as early as possible. Because it is not needed. A game like The Division needs a striving and playing Playerbase to work (and get money) because it is an online-game. Ghost Recon is not meant to be like that, that's why there is no Elite Task Force, that is why Delta Company is delayed and things are set into stone more or less. They handle this release and gam like every other game and release - thing is: for us it is something special, something that WE want to be better than "evrything else". For Ubisoft it is just "another" franchise that they can use. It might be that simple.

[Virtual-Chris]

/\ You’re probably right. During the initial reveal, they paid lip service to the hard core community, but it’s clear that we’re pretty much irrelevant. If their objective was to make GR one of their mainstream open world loot and shoot franchises, I guess they are on the right track. But I keep coming back to the Wildlands success... 15 Million players. And a LOT of them spent money on post launch content without having loot forced on them - they wanted to spend money to enhance their immersion. I think it’s possible, this new direction could do more harm than good financially. Wildlands sucked people in with immersion and realism, that Breakpoint is casting aside. Only time will tell, but I still think there is a winning revenue formula in Wildlands that Ubisoft is overlooking or has dismissed because they see the prospect of even bigger dollar signs (which may not materialize). Just think about how many people can relate to the war on drugs. Now how many can relate to the oddball fantasy premise that is the premise of Breakpoint?

[Kean_1]

The thing is, a lot of the stuff that we were asking for over the last few years, have been implemented into Breakpoint. Better looking gear, more cosmetics, wirecutters, some people were asking rocket launchers, better enemy AI, so the entire base doesn't make a beeline to your position the moment they are alerted, speed up the time of day etc. The problem is, that they made a bunch of changes to the game, that NOBODY had been talking about, or asking for. Nobody in the community thought that it would be cool to have tiered loot, that you had to scavenge for. Nobody thought that it would be nice to craft C4 out of berries and wildflowers. Nobody thought that a good alternative to a working camouflage system, was to roll around in the mud and dirt. Nobody was saying that they wanted to see other random players, in a social hub, which needed an always online connection. And nobody was saying that they wanted to fight against an army of militarized drones.

But if we had been aware of these changes a year ago, we could have been telling the devs that they were taking the game in the wrong direction, long before the game ever made it to the Alpha stage, when it's really too late to make changes to the core game mechanics.

.....and that's really my point when I mentioned about "missing the mark". The same can be said about Ghost Mode where long requested features we finally realized but then locked behind a new mode with a mandatory permadeath feature. Nearly every discussion on the topic of those other features (e.g. lone wolf, realistic reloads, one primary, restricting where you can adjust your loadout, etc.) were all requested as OPTIONS that we could choose. .....and to be honest, few had been asking for a PD feature but that should have been an option too and not the main focus of a new mode that locks all the popular requests behind it.

Personally, it wouldn't have been a problem if they also added the new features to the core game as options along with the new mode. In fact, they did carry over the lone wolf (and perhaps onee other IIRC) but the rest were locked in the new PD mode.

Another more recent one was the searchable lobby for Custom Match. This is something Lucian Istrate mentioned in a Reddit conversation a long time ago. They were listening and know this was a popular request. They were looking into creating such system for us. ......but then the months rolled by with no mention of it. The Community staff made inquiries about it but still no news.

Then we get word that there is going to be a new feature for Custom Match coming in an update but in true Ubi fashion, they would not provide any hints or details (guess they wanted it to be a surprise). I was sure the lobby system had to be it but when it finally hit they announced the big secret was a video capture feature(?) for content creators. ......nothing for the fans that had been waiting for the lobby system.

Anyhow, fast forward months later and they finally implemented the searchable lobby. However, at that point there were not enough people to take advantage of it and to top it all off, it was severely lacking in any useful features. No way to view even the more relevant options chosen in each match so a player could determine if the setup is what they wanted.

Again, they listened but simply missed the mark. .....or rather the execution of it. I could go on but I think I'll stop there.


I totally agree with you. If they would have given us an idea of the direction there were going to go with some of these things or asked us for clarification on some of the options / suggestions we had provided, yeah, I think the community could have provided valuable feedback. If they would have tapped into this resource earlier, I think it would have saved them some frustration and who knows, maybe we would have a different game than we do now.