Quick Suggestions

When the game got postponed again - due to the game having major issues leaving the game unable to be enjoyed and additionally the community does not like to see "The Settlers" to be turned into a pure RTS - the official response was to work closer with the community. That is nothing new because Ubisoft has created the "Settlers Alliance" comparable to the "Anno Union" to listen to Feedback and develop a game for the community. Unfortunately, Ubisoft decided to discontinue and delete posts from the "Settlers Alliance" thus effectively cancelling their close work with the community which explains their sudden change in direction of the game. At this point we can only guess why as the feedback of the "Settlers Alliance" was positive for the new "The Settlers" introduced by Volker Wertich and people were excited for the release.

And as of this day Ubisoft still strongly holds on to their plans to release "The Settlers" as RTS with almost none of the features presented back in the alpha version from 2019. Why is this the case? Ubisoft already had an attempt at a "The Settlers" game with "Champions of Anteria" which was rejected by the community. The interesting part is that what happened now happened during the development of "Champions of Anteria": Trying to push features which are popular into a game envisioned for a different audience - back than it was MOBA now it is RTS. Should Ubisoft still continue the course they are on now it will be the second "The Settlers" game they ruined in a row. Quite an achievement, unfortunately!

However this title is not completely lost as an older version (which video presentation they have deleted from the twitch archieve) had shown which features they have to implement to make it fun again. And I can not stress this enough how important it will be to bring back features once promised as the costumer will grow resentful when they see how the game could have been years ago compared to now. This is not even a drastic redirection as the basics are already implemented they just have to revert the RTS focus back a bit and focus on storn economic gameplay with upgradable buildings and production chains - no complete redesign might be required.

It is not like Ubisoft is unable to do so - they have proven with Anno 1800 that they can do it! And that there is no interest in this kind of game is proven wrong by "Farthest Frontier" a title more like the alpha version of "The Settlers" back from 2019.

So TLDR:
Revert the course the game is going to from pure RTS to city-building economic gameplay with RTS components. Bring back the promised features and develop complexity for the game. Maybe you could consider asking the Anno 1800 development team for help to develop or bring back features? Why not bring back the alpha version from 2019 which the community was celebrating and improve on that?

I think a big problem of this game is that it is moving away from its 3d chess like gameplay style where you are supposed to outsmart your enemy, more towards a normal shooter where mechanical skill matters most.
e.g.:To get to platinum (and sometimes above) rank you need to do the following:

If I wanted that gameplay I would play any other shooter. One way to counter these "strats" might be to raise the time to kill with weapons to make C4s, traps, crossfires (and other teamwork), etc. more impactful in a round. This would remove a lot of frustration among players with less mechanical skill and reward players with the ability to quickly make the right decisions. I'd suggest opening a Lab-Test-Server with every weapon getting half it's damage output and headshots only making double the damage of a body shot. Although it would change the rather unique one-shot-headshot mechanic of the game I think it would get the game back to a slow and methodical tactical shooter.

The Title says it all: Farthest Frontier is climbing in popularity while Ubisoft's "The Settler" loses interest from players from day to day. A smaller studio than Ubisoft achieves what Ubisoft fails to do year after year - creating a fun game with long-term interesting. Although Ubisoft has been on a good way with Volker Wertich's Settler presented in 2019 - Most of the features making Farthest Frontier so popular and fun have been shown in the version from 2019 (For more information what has been cut there is an entire post about that in this forum which the plea to bring back that version).

Farthest Frontier may be lacking some tactical components but it is still closer to a settlers game fro the community than Ubisoft's. The only way to come back for Ubisoft is to bring back the vast majority of features promised in 2019 - to mention a few: upgradable buildings, walls and gates, replenishable ressources (animals, berries and forests), etc. Then they may even be able to leave it as an RTS but an RTS with focus on strong economic play with production chains and a city to provide the workforce with.

As a summary - A smaller company does better what Ubisoft means to do with features Volker Wertich presented in 2019 meanwhile Ubisoft struggles to keep their own game interesting for players by ignoring the bigger part of the community in favor to push a genre they thing they can compete in with a bad version of an RTS - and a small studio shows that if Settlers had remain as it was envisioned by Volker Wertich it could have been a popular game like anno.

The release of Farthest Frontier could have been in no better time, as a response to a failed attempt by Ubisoft to release a classic city-building simulation with RTS components.

My final statement - I hope Ubisoft will listen once again to the community and work drastically on the Settlers to deliver a good game and a succesful reboot by bringing back most features of 2019 and focusing on economy. I personally wished they would have released the game back than in 2020 when it was sheduled for released. We could have already had a good game supported by 2 years of DLC and the community would enjoy both Anno and when they get bored with Anno switch to Settler until new DLCs release for both games.

Twice now while playing the Black Tusk Tidal Basin mission, (since last update), when I've gotten to the first automated virus container, having shot at it and it gets up and runs towards the gate, and it disappears. (???)

I did manage to kill myself the first time so I just had to play that section from the start. Tonight, I couldn't kill myself. I tried everything but, nope. So, I logged out. The game then
placed me outside of the Tidal Basin entrance and I have to do the entire mission from scratch.

Has anyone else had to deal with this new since last update glitch? I mean it's, back to back, twice for me now, so...???

Sam.SamFisher, out.

P.S. Please Ubisoft, have a look into this new since last update glitch.

It doesn't always matter where you spawn when attacking in training grounds (elimination, disarm bomb, extract hostage) but when defending (protect hostage) everyone always picks the easiest room to defend. Having the system select the spawn location for all four modes (except when in lone wolf, should be a toggle option like headshot only mode) would add more variety to gameplay a bit and make it a bit more like quickplay when defending.

I play a lot of hardcore. I died at this spot as a hardcore. Please fix this spot on the map.
Normal characters it isn't a big deal, but I'm asking the devs to please fix this particular spot.
I admit at first, I thought my HC died because of a server glitch, but I'm able to reproduce it consistently.
I ask that normal players give my post a thumb up to show they would like this fixed too. If you are able to duplicate it, could you also write a short note? I'm hoping that will help the process along. Thank you for taking time on this! Or if they want to have some fun with it, paint it up and say Death Truck or something! 😄

If Blackbeard's shields shattered like Mira windows instead of falling apart then he would be a much more viable option. The shield being unable to look through means that he can't use it, unless he had pings which would make for interesting team play, but more importantly, if he wants to play normally he can disengage. Instead of a defender just melting his shield and then him, he can relocate and remove his shield before re-engaging with one less shield. This would allow him to either survive two events where he would have been headshot, as his gadget is designed to do, but would also encourage opportunities for him to be a team player rather than just an extra gun. This buff also avoids just giving his shield more health which would turn him into the oppressive monster that he used to be, there is counterplay.

Hi, so I logged in after not using the service for some time and am looking around and I see under the profile "Years with Ubi" and "Games Owned"...

What if I have owned and played games which weren't bought off the Ubisoft PC Connect and want to add them to that list?

Is there a way to do that?

undefinedundefined

"Niet!, Iz not realistic....Ballz dont freeze to the seat comrade!"

These are the things fresh in my mind but I know there are other things I had thought could change. Anyone else have suggestions?



r/farcry6 - Game Mechanics. Suggestions...

Just an idea, so posting here to see what others think.

We now have several currencies in use throughout the game:

Not everyone wants to play all of the game modes to earn credits of all types. Yet the currency specific vendors have items that are useful across game modes. For example:

I propose a new feature where we can exchange credits between the types. This could be in the form of a new vendor type character (currency exchanger / forger?) or built into the existing crafting bench feature. We would sacrifice some credits of one (or more) type - and probably some materials too - in exchange for an alternative desired currency. Obviously the exchange rates and material requirements can be set and tweaked approriately to discourage abuse. I would actually expect them to be pretty severe, but at least provide another option.

This concept is quite similar to existing mechanisms in the game where we can currently sacrifice materials & credits to 'bypass' the usual method of obtaining some other resource. e.g.

I've often seen calls for the DZ/PvP exclusive named items to be added to the general loot pool/vendors and that's an (easy) option, but it really only gives something to PvE only players. This idea is not to make it 'easy' for PvE players to obtain the exclusive named items, but rather to offer another alternative to the exsiting (bad) options, whilst giving something back to PvP players. And players of both modes get more flexibility.

On a final note, I do NOT want the developers to even consider implementing this - or any other new feature - until the current PC stability issues are resolved permanently!

So I decided to check on the server status, I typed Division 2 Server Status, and was given this address... As you can see no info to be had... I am not surprised at all. Thinking that the cemetery idea is quite appropriate.

I have all vanity items that you can unlock (excluding items that cost premium credits) and a stockpile of 131,795 Textiles that are useless.

Ideas on what to use Textiles for:

I heard that the Ubisoft store was disabled in Russia, but at that time I was resting from R6 and did not know that this also affected in-game purchases. I returned to the game - I played a lot and I wanted to buy a battlepass, and then I can't buy r6 credits. The result - I was upset. I don't understand the meaning of such sanctions. The fact that Russians can't buy something from your shop just means they'll spend that money in other ways.

I know r6 are trying to nerf the LMG because the current LMG meta is really strong.
However, we already knew from the public opinion after the gun recoil nerf that we shouldn't be patching things in the direction of nerfing them.
So, I would like to give my opinion on the direction of the LMG nerf.

1. Speed ​​penalty instead of recoil nerf. ex) Kali's CSRX 300 before buff, Black Beard's ability 
 The problem with LMGs is that they can push quickly without reloading during an engagement, which can be prevented to some extent through a speed penalty.

2.Reload cancelling removed
removing reload cancelling can slightly reduce the power of LMGs.
The downside of LMGs is that they take a lot of time to reload instead of having a lot of bullets.
But, LMGs that must be incapacitated due to long reload times are not penalized by reload cancel.

And since rainbow six siege revolves around CQB battles, I think people should be more careful about reloading their guns.
If you reload canclling removed could lead to a psychological warfare of attacking the enemy after convincing the enemy to reload, and it would also prevent the play of running around, shooting and reloading without thinking.
Also, in rainbow six, which values ​​realism to some extent, it doesn't make sense for a magazine that has already been removed to teleport back to the gun.

3. adding 1x to 2.5x scopes to guns that had ACOG just before the new scopes appeared
 I understand that the nerf is going in the direction of taking the LMG's scope.
 However, adding 1x to 2.5x scopes to other guns will disperse those who choose LMGs simply for high magnification.