NORG and it's crucial importance to the Ghost Recon franchise. | Forums

[El_Cuervacho]

Not even sure why they had Weaver die. In that scene Walker is simply a cold blooded murderer and yet he goes out of his way to enlist Nomad. Just one more complete inconsistency in the game. If the idea was to make that a more emotional point in the game they missed the mark as you rarely ever dealt with that in the campaign.

As you know I have my own suggestions on how the whole Weaver situation should've gone down, which I discussed at length in an old thread of mine. Not out of any investment on the character on my part, as soon as GR became more about developing attachments to set characters through personal stories, banter and unique looks, and less about said attachment coming from experience and developing a soldier through actual gameplay; a soldier that mind you, could be wounded and/or killed, I began losing interest in that particular aspect of the narrative, which was never necessary back in the day: the job should be paramount in these games, not cheesy B-movie plots and warrior platitudes.
Not only was Weaver's death terribly handled but, not even Nomad could be asked to care about it either; not even after dealing with every Wolf on site, does Nomad have the common decency of kneeling over his fallen comrade's corpse or comment anything in relation to it, at all. Baffling couldn't even begin to describe it.

[Church367A]

To advance the franchise for me as a player, I think the team management needs to be reintroduced and then the physical "could I" decisions added to that. Arguably we have neither at the moment; if I lose a team mate I just travel 400m and they come back to life, if I get downed they pick me up. As much as I really want the physical layer of consequences too, the priority has to be that team dynamic; explored in the Breakpoint story through Weaver, Holt and then Midas, but not through gameplay. Weaver should only have died because I made a different decision that play-through, and in other play-throughs he'd live. Make me care by making it my responsibility.

When talking about bringing back team management, are you referring to OGR where you actually picked members out of a pool of Ghosts to run the missions? If so, I think that would be a very good way of getting players to once again have a desire to succeed and some kind of fear of failure. As much as I hate the whole skill points thing, I do believe there would be a need to somehow increase the lethality and skillset of the ai teammates as well to give further reason to play tactfully. Do you or others have any thoughts on how you would go about promoting such a playstyle?

[Kean_1]

When talking about bringing back team management, are you referring to OGR where you actually picked members out of a pool of Ghosts to run the missions? If so, I think that would be a very good way of getting players to once again have a desire to succeed and some kind of fear of failure. As much as I hate the whole skill points thing, I do believe there would be a need to somehow increase the lethality and skillset of the ai teammates as well to give further reason to play tactfully. Do you or others have any thoughts on how you would go about promoting such a playstyle?

I would much rather have this than these "permanent" characters that (quite honestly) I could really care less about. As it is, there is no incentive to save them given that they will simply respawn again outside of a certain range, etc.

I liked the character pool in the original GR and the R6 series not to mention H&D, XCOM, etc. ....so there is precedence for the mechanic even within the franchise. The death of a teammate had more meaning given that they would improve over time as they were utilized, etc. I actually gave strong consideration before placing my team in harms way and in contrast to the current design, it would make rescuing downed mates all the more relevant and immersive.

[Church367A]

I would much rather have this than these "permanent" characters that (quite honestly) I could really care less about. As it is, there is no incentive to save them given that they will simply respawn again outside of a certain range, etc.

I liked the character pool in the original GR and the R6 series not to mention H&D, XCOM, etc. ....so there is precedence for the mechanic even within the franchise. The death of a teammate had more meaning given that they would improve over time as they were utilized, etc. I actually gave strong consideration before placing my team in harms way and in contrast to the current design, it would make rescuing downed mates all the more relevant and immersive.

I can actually recall starting a mission over due to a teammate getting killed. You may consider this a bit cheating the system, but I always felt it was worth the time to try again than proceed and have to build up another Ghost. That said, can anyone remember if some of the specialized characters you eventually obtained already had higher stats? I want to say there was one with the OICW and for some reason I want to say there was a german machine gunner? That last may just be a false memory though.

[El_Cuervacho]

I'd absolutely agree with @Kean.

Ideally I'd adopt the structure of an ODA for the Ghosts; that is to say up to 12 operators with a roster of 3 times that or so, plus support personnel, whom would constitute the fixed part of the team (medics, intel analysts, pilots and quartermaster) as hinted at in one of the slides displayed during WL's installation process https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthrea...ure-GR-titltes

I'd have specializations (with their own set of upgradable skills), which wouldn't preclude characters from performing in other tactical fields or roles, however taking advantage of these skills or "talents" and focussing on them for a particular character would surely be the better approach when faced with a mission demanding a very specialized ability (ie a highly proficient breacher or interpreter ala SOCOM).
As @Kean said, nothing we suggest for these games is new to tactical shooters; these, same as most advanced mechanics discussed on this forum were more or less the norm back in the heyday of the genre.

[Kean_1]

I hated the idea of classes in Breakpoint (one of the many reasons I didn't buy the game and why I liked WL) but I like the idea in an AI roster. .....provided they are simple as you outlined El_Cuervacho.

This would also promote the use of other operatives from the pool rather than simply sticking with the same group throughout the game. It would give the system more depth. You as the player would feel more in control of your team and they would become valuable as assets given their specializations, skills, experience, etc.

[AI BLUEFOX]

An AI roster with permadeaths in a campaign mission save, and the roster having specialists does it for me. Playing as the Ghosts as opposed to a Ghost was a defining characteristic for early Ghost Recon.

[CrockfordCK]

with permadeaths

Quoted for posterity.

*chants*
Perma-Death
Perma-Death

[El_Cuervacho]

An AI roster with permadeaths in a campaign mission save, and the roster having specialists does it for me. Playing as the Ghosts as opposed to a Ghost was a defining characteristic for early Ghost Recon.

Definitely. It pains me to see that a console game from 11 years ago (OFP) not only did it* better than a current day one but any other title to this day and NO GAME since has built up on it.

* referring mainly to team mate commands.

[El_Cuervacho]

@Crock

PERMANENT DEATH!!



As much as I love Nick Cave's tune, at least as far as GR AIs go, death should most definitely be the end.