I have never played Tarkov, or ARMA 3, mostly because my pc doesn't have the specs to play up to date games. Not to mention most pc games nowadays, single player or not needs an account, I think. However, Tarkov is a heavily survival-based game for one thing, right. Not trying to put down others' interests, but even though Ghost Recon isn't and hasn't been a mil-sim such as ARMA, it's still a tactical game series (it's supposed to be, anyway).
Here's what would worry me. Ubi, the company that owns the TC game license, tries to ring in many players to make more money. Yes, they need to remember the older GR fans as well as introduce new ones, but I don't think all GR fans want many of the same things as other as a base game. I, for example, want GR to stay a tactical series but the realistic-ish survival as base gameplay might sound a little off putting to me. That's why I mentioned in perhaps one or two of the other threads about a separate game mode (like Ghost Mode), or a separate difficulty setting (like COD:IW's specialist mode). It'll hopefully still be tactical, like past games before WL/BP, and offer something for players, old and new, casual and hardcore, saying "I beat Regular mode, time for something more challenging". Anyone who doesn't like it or is not ready can say, "Yeah, I'm sticking with this some more". Something for just about everyone.
Sorry for the (long) concern. Just personally wanted the next GR gameplay to feel like what I felt worked before, and give you an idea for what to do about challenge (survival) mode.
I'll be honest that while reading this, all I could picture is COD Warzone and that you become a sponge where a player is trying to get rid of the armour health and then yours. That type of gameplay I do not want.Originally Posted by KnightGhostbear Go to original post
Yes of course having armour should mean that bullets hitting it should inflict less damage to you but they will need to get this right so it doesn't seem too bullet spongey and actually feels realistic in terms of damage and affect on you.
Of course I've never been in a gun fight IRL, and certainly don't know what it feels like being hit by a bullet into a bullet proof vest or helmet but from what I've seen in videos and TV of course, it does still knock you for 6 with sometimes broken ribs and potentially even getting through the vest albeit at a lower velocity. Of course it saves your life but still packs a punch. I'd hazard a guess that you would struggle to perform after taking a few to vest and if you could, not perform too well.
Definitely weight management stuff applied to it of course. More armour/equipment = greater protection but slower, less agile etc and vice versa.
I get what you are saying and in a true GR game you shouldn’t worry about food etc but armour and slots for equipment should be a thing. I think because GR wildlands went open world these RPG mechanics slowly edged in and they really shouldn’t have. We are GR, tier 1 badasses, we wouldn’t be hunting for food or ammo as they should have tons of supplies flown in.Originally Posted by jmagnum50 Go to original post
In reality the team should complete a mission, then go sleep, restock etc. We shouldn’t be roaming a place 24h a day constantly stocking up on random ammo from dead soldiers.
Well, Rugby, I wasn't thinking about rpg mechanics or gathering out in the wild, but yeah we don't have to worry about hunting in future GR, cause even though devs like to use something different for different entries, GR is still meant to be a tactical game. So maybe this could be a one off, like Auroa, and then back to being a tactical game.
I don't want to anger you about this, but I was mostly thinking about weight for every single little thing. I don't mil-sim like some other players do, and focus on way to much realism in every little thing concerns me a bit.
However, this is where my compromise kicked in, Rugby. You say slots should be be a thing, and other people talking about individual item weight. This is where the separate game mode/difficulty setting would have a place. I've played GR for some time, starting with GR 1 back in the PS2 era, all the way to Breakpoint, and honestly I wasn't wishing for a weight system like this before. The slot (and presumably weight) mechanic could be used for those modes or settings, in case players want more of a challenge.
Now in WL/BP, we items list and weapons selection were generously liberal. This contrasts with the conservative amount you get in previous games. I like GRAW 2 and FS' way of doing this. Around four slots with whatever item and weapon you see fit, as it makes me versatile. Let's say I get a sniper rifle for long range engagements, but I don't know if pistols in game are good enough for heavier close quarters. Packing an smg helps in this regard. Many here prefer more focus on realism, people like me prefer focus on good gameplay, like what some previous releases had. But, we can have our own views on what good gameplay is.
Those thinking you build a tank character, imho way off base
Ghost recon is NOT about builds ala the division
NOT about gear score, or farming or grinding
Modern body armor is NOT for standing in open while enemies empty mag after mag into toon, like current raid boss fight garbage
It’s for that oh ****e moment
When your caught out of cover etc
Full auto 9mm or bigger will shred plate
Body armor does not make you bullet proof
Damage model should be designed around typical mil load out
100-120 rnds
Not 2 main guns with 500 per gun
Ammo is heavy
Guns are heavy
You wish all you want
Ubi will still mess it up
Exactly.Originally Posted by red2smok Go to original post
I bought a case of 500rds of 7.62 a couple of weeks back for my precision rifle and just carrying it from the shop to my car I thought… “This is F’n heavy!” But my character carries more than this everywhere he goes. I LOLd. It’s absolutely preposterous what our characters pack around.
I think the standard infantry load out is 6 mags. So 180 rounds? And maybe a couple of pistol mags?
It would make the game so much more dynamic and intense, if you didn’t have an unlimited supply of ammo all the time.
It makes ammo utterly pointless. You might as well just eliminate ammo and shoot without worrying about expenditure.Originally Posted by Virtual-Chris Go to original post
That's indeed a good idea, many of us would like to see a similar system. Since we have stamina to manage now, it would make sense. It could be linked to a "vest configurator", with something ranging from vest/chest rig, with no ballistic protection but sparing stamina and on the opposite a very heavy and cumbersome protection (chest, groin, shoulders) that will impact directly speed and stamina, with everything in between.
This could also be extended to the rest of your equipment (weapon, backpack pouches and carried item in first and second line).
my idea is to just copy insurgency sandstorm
in insurgency you can choose to have no armour, light armour, or heavy armour and it affects how fast you move and how many hits it takes to kill you
you can also choose to equip more ammo pouches and grenade pouches as separate items
(example you normally carry 4 mags but by equipping "more pouches" you now carry 7 it also depends on the weapon type I.E machine guns go from 2 belts to 3)
this system works really well it's simple so casual players (aka the vast majority of players who buy the game) can understand it without watching an hour long youtube video but gives us tryhards enough depth
add in a basic item wheel system where you only get to carry a limited amount of grenades and such (4 slots in the wheel as a hypothetical) and you now have a basic loadout system that's easy to understand but forces you to take the right gear for a given mission while not forcing unwanted meta gaming