ubisoft discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    Hello,

    I have a few questions for the community in general and considered as a all, that concerns gameplay, playstyle and other things. Since, I wondered a lot about various subjects, like this enthusiasm that I don't really understand for CQB or CQC (being slightly claustrophobic) or urban warfare wich a 3 different things in my opinion. The general urban warfare enthusiasm isn't really something I understand and would like to ask the community members why they like very aspect for a Ghost recon game. Please note that I'm not saying that is bad thing, I simply don't understand it and I would like to.

    On the other hand, a stack up, breaching and clearing orders would be indeed an interesting mechanic for your squad and make them more relevant. I had that in mind in GRW when you had to get in SB comms relays. But in my opinion those are CQB "tactics" or SOPs than can be applied outside to a pure urban area.

    Furthermore, I've never been a great fan of CQC (specially in this opus, because they take too much time). Stabbing, slashing, slicing someone takes time, it's messy and incorporate too much risks. Personnally, I rather shoot and be sure the target is neutralized.

    Anyhow, I'm very curious to read your opinions on this matter for a starter and if you have other questions for the community about game mechanics or things you would like to see in a future entry, share or opinion on other aspects you would like to see deepthen, feel free to use this thread.

    But, please do it respecting each others opinion.

  • Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    @mars388502

    OK, let's deal with each elements separately.

    CQC- in this game it does take a long time, especially without a buddy to watch your back, or a way to stop the animation once it's started. But there are instances in the game, and in real life, where even using a suppressed pistol would attract too much attention, so a silent CQC kill is required.

    CQB - this type of combat, requires a lot more tactics, because failing to clear a room or building properly can be deadly. But there's no real need in this game, even with competent AI, because the buildings are not designed for CQB. Most of the buildings are too small or are too wide open with no real hallways, with doors that open automatically, and at best only have a handful of enemies inside. And unfortunately, for those that enjoy that style of gameplay, there are not very many games that fill that niche, especially on console. At least on PC, they have games like Ready or Not and Zero Hour, and even several maps on Ground Branch.

    Urban Warfare - Compared to rural combat, urban combat offers a much greater risk. You don't know what lays around each corner, and being surrounded by multi floored buildings, the possible threats are not just at eye level, and in front of you.

    So basically it boils down to this, CQB and urban warfare are more challenging than always fighting enemies out in the countryside, and a lot of gamers appreciate that challenge.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @bigrexxx thank you for your reply, it's sincerely appreciated. Even if you're reply answers some questions I may have, it makes wonder what should be the nature of GR ?

    It has been illustarted with the recent mod that increase the detection distance that GRBP wasn't designed as a shooter, but neither as a CQB game, from you have undelined. Morover, gradually, we saw the engagement distance reduced to an "effective" 100-150 meters), making sharp shooter and marksman rifles pretty much useless (sharp shooter rifles especially, capable of engaging targets at ranges exeeding 500 meters).

    To get back to CQC, as you mentionned in some cases, a silent option could be usefull, what I fail to understand is the necessity of such lenghty animations. I mean, from what I know, you get behind a sentinel, cover his mouth, puncture his lungs, cut or puncture his throat. This takes what? Less than 3 seconds?

    As far as urban warfare goes, how could it be incorporated in a GR game? It's not a rethorical question, but a sincere one. As you mentionned before, urban areas are way more complex for the manœuvre than à desert. Marawi was a nightmare for the philippines special and conventional forces (I believe, it was the first time I saw artillery used in direct fire missions). But it was a particular case. Terrorist organise or others illegal organisation tend to be out or cities where the State is present and would prefer remote and hard to reach areas.

    All this to say, urban areas are to avoid as battlefield, and, closer to us, breaking a city is easier to achieve from a distance or by besieging it. Therefore the question stays the same: how to introduce Urban warfare in a GR title ?

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    @mars388502 The thing is, a real world special forces team, is not going to be conducting infiltration missions in broad daylight, if they don't have to. They will wait and use the cover of darkness to hide their approach. Unfortunately in Breakpoint, enemy detection or alertness, is not really affected at night or by inclement weather. so I'm guessing that the mod extends detection ranges even in total darkness. And a knife kill can be fast, but only if you catch the person completely by surprise, but if they see you coming, even by a second or two, they will put up a fight. So IMO, if you can't grab an enemy from behind, it's better to just shoot them.

    And it could be possible to have a Ghost Recon, set in an open world city. You could operate out of a series of safe houses, on the outskirts of the city or in an industrial district. Then you can use blacked out vans and helicopters to move to and from the target areas.

    Honda CT 90

    But you should also be able to go low profile, and walk/drive around the city to collect the intel needed to conduct the more dynamic missions

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @bigrexxx I really like the idea of the low profile mission option. That would mean that civilian clothing would be useful. Futhermore, the ability to covertly carry would come in handy.

    This would mean that cities or urban area should have a population, kind like the one we had in GRW. The image you use is fairly illustative of some missions that could be imagined: grab and snatch a HVI for further interrogation by CIA interrogators to determine the next mission/target.

    In GRW, grab and snatch often ended in shoot outs. Just to add more to it: what about introducing zip ties and black bags? Point your weapon at the target, there is a certain probability for him to surrender, zip tie him, put a black bag on his head and exfil... but, I guess I'm day dreaming.

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    @mars388502 They definitely need to improve what you do with captured enemies, because simply walking around with your arm around their neck is just not realistic. So IMO, unless you need to interrogate them first, the player should have the option to kill, or capture anyone they grab. But if you press capture, you place zip cuffs and a hood on them, so you can maintain positive control of their movements. If they struggle or try to run, they can be quickly taken down to their stomachs.

    undefinedundefined
    undefined


    Even when rescueing prisoners or VIP's, you should be hands on, instead of them just running behind you, especially when they are supposedly collaborating with the enemy. GRFS did it right.

    undefined


  • wapeddell
    33 posts

    @mars388502 The best opinion I can come up with for using a Knife is if you're out of ammo and need to reload and you're already engaging in a fight that is your last option for self-defense. There have been instances where I was clearing an area and I ran out of Handgun ammo and it is quicker to use the knife than switch to the next weapon. If slings were a thing in this game and properly implemented then switching to another weapon wouldn't be as difficult as going through the animation of reaching to your back and aiming the weapon in front of you. The amount of time it takes to do that on extreme difficulty can quickly be punished by the soldiers with Shotguns.

    There was an old thread where people were discussing that hand to hand or using melee or just fighting, in general, can be extremely loud. I do agree depending on the surroundings, melee combat isn't as silent as most think. However, it also depends on your approach, if you were to stab someone from behind on top of their skull and didn't let the victim's body drop by catching their body before hitting the floor then that may reduce sound. Most games do not put this much detail into gameplay. When this game initially launched it wasn't tailored to hardcore fans. In contrast, this game was released to appeal to a broad audience, however, the only people that stuck around were the true fans and most of the Fortnite kiddies do like they always do and jump on the next hype train. The way the game was marketed had a more serious tone but the suits made a decision at the last minute to dumb down the gameplay.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @wapeddell I agree, melee combat isn't as silent as we may think, but neither using supressors.

    You have underlined another point, which, to most may be a detail: slings and reaching for another shoulder weapon.

    I often carry 2 long weapons, because I like playing sharpshooter. I always thougt that it could be interesting to have an animation for reaching another platform. There is certain number modern backpack with a dedicated pouch for rifles (until now none of those backpack is represented in the game). The idea would be rather simple. If you carry 2 primary weapons (and this should include MANPADS), it should trigger an animation, de-shouldering a backpack, openning the dedicated pouch, take the second platform out and eventually store the previous one in its place.

    Furthermore, with this mechanic, backpack wouldn't be anymore just a cosmetic, if the sine qua none condition to get a second platform or cumbersome equipment (like breaching equipment, for example) needed a backpack.

    Since Wildlands, I come to consider that the GST was a unit designed to operate far into enemy territory with little to no support which meant that each operator has to carry all his equupment to operate autonomously. This meant for me that they need backpacks. In many of the sketches I made (years ago) I always pictured them wearing hiking and trekking equipment.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @bigrexxx I 100% agree with this. Even in the Close Protection (CP) line of work, especially in hostile environment, you need to keep control of the principal. Even if you don't put his arm in armlock of some sort, you need to be in control of his movements, first to protect him, but more importantly yourself and your team. When we trained, we sometimes simulated different principales behaviours. Sometimes you will have someones who freezes and wouldn't move, the principale could be injured (and none ambulatory), or simply starts yelling and crying (that's why there is question on asservtiness in the SIA questionary).

    Furthermore, about casualities, carrying someone on your back isn't a great idea, depending of his injuries. The "ranger roll" that we have seen isn't that great because you can further injure the casuality. If you have to exit the danger zone before applying a MARCH, you "pick and run". Reach the casuality, apply a tourniquet if necessary and possible, grab the casuality and get it to a relatively safe zone where you can administrate a MARCH and inheritent treatment of trauma and pathology. All this while covered by the rest of your team.

    In my mind this could have been interesting with AI teammates. When someone gets injured, a pop up action (under you command) could have been implemented. You and the teammates could supress the threat, while a teammate reaches to the casuality and grab him to get back to your line and apply the tacmed. In the same fashion, if the player gets incapacited, the animation would play in a similar way.

  • AI.BLUEFOX
    239 posts

    My personal preference is to avoid melee combat altogether, although I do use it, and I wouldn't mind if the game didn't have it at all - as was the case up until Future Soldier.

    As for CQB in the interiors of buildings, I find that clunky and awkward in Breakpoint, but would prefer engagements in the open anyway. I always associated GR with exterior, battleground based missions, Rainbow with interior and close up missions, and Splinter Cell with covert, Intel gathering and pure stealth. I'm not sure that trying to cover all three gameplay styles in GR works.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @ai-bluefox that is an interesting point of view. I never considered this "separation" between the various IPs of the Clancyverse.

    But, if we consider what special forces do, it make sense to have a bit of the three areas you mentionned, even more for a unit like the GST. It's a covert, military special forces unit, whose operators are knowledgeable in intelligence gathering (not interpretation nor synthesis).

    Even if the entries prior to Wildlands the games focused essentially in outdoor environnement, GRW introduced buildings that you enter and perform, even if severly limited CQB actions. On the other hand, intelligence gathering, and therefore planification wasn't really an important part of the game.

    This last part (planification) was something I really enjoyed in the firsts R6.

    As for covert operation, well to quote some phrases from GRW "4 americans bearing guns and camo isn't really low profile" and by consequence covert. This would have been interesting though.

    Eventhough, I may disagree, I find your initial consideration really interesting and thank you for sharing it

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    As long as Ubi continues to use open world maps for Ghost Recon, some level of CQB is going to be required. So if it's going to be included, it deserves to be done right. It doesn't need to be as in depth as a Rainbow Six game, but if ordered to stack up on a door, the moment the door is opened, the AI should automatically clear the room on the other side, without needing to give the Open Fire order separately. Between Wildlands and Breakpoint, Ubi has created some mechanics that would be useful during CQB, like picking a lock and breaching doors, but failed to implement them in any meaningful way.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @bigrexxx a while back (several years now), I made a thread about CQB and more specifically about breaching.

    As a team leader, point your rifle to the targeted door, a pop up menu will appear offering different breaching option (in a similar fashion to what was offered in R6 Las Vegas). Select it and your team will stack up and perform the breach option selected (at the condition that you have equipped your teammates with the appropriate equipment). Once the breaching is a go, depending on the breaching option selected, the team elements will either perform a dynamic entry or a limited penetration (clear as much possible of the room from the threshold).

    Other than picking locks, placing a breaching charge, using an hooligan tool, a mass or a shotgun would be interesting option. Those options are clearly dynamic option and more violent designed to use the element of surprise.

    But, this is just some day dreaming, and need some context, especially considering what BLUEFOX underlined before. So why, CQB and breaching should have their place in the future installements of the franchise, especially in an open world configuration?

    In my opinion, we faced enemies that had a tendency to take "prisoners", that we have to exfil. Generally, prisoners are kept indoors, inside structures that can be defended, to ensure a high degree of control and drasticly reduces their chances to runaway successfully, specially if the enemy occupies urban areas (like a prison).

    Furthermore, enemy C2 tends to be well defended and in some cases entrenched in defendable position (even if we have in the news recent counter examples to show it's not an universal rule).

    Both scenarii can imply a CQB and breaching phases. I quoted these 2 scenarii because they were the most obvious ones, but there are several others that could imply the tactics described here before.

    Moreover, CQB implies certain formations and manœuvres to be performed and the AI just can't do it at the moment (hold or digg a corner, reach a point of domination, hold rear security, etc...), this would mean that not only stacking and breaching should be implemented but an entire library of behaviours has to be coded. Wich is not a small task. It needs research, consultancy (these 2 points shouldn't be that hard to get by, especially in Paris), modelisation and heavy coding. But, more importantly the will to make it right and plausible. This last part, as far as Ubisoft's concerned, is questionable.

    As an example: who hasn't been in camp ferret, where the enemy is firmly entrenched in a "cold war" bunker? The place is a tactical nightmare with only 2 points of entry. You have staircases at different points and if you take them to get in upper levels it could become more than dangerous. But, with your teammates being what they're, they run all over the place, shoot everything on the opposing force, with small to no care at all for their own safety and at that precise moment you consider that tactics has become useless.

    This game (kind a like the previous opus, but this one even less, since teammatesweren't available at launch) wasn't meant to use real world tactics or doctrine (suppress, flank, using hand held in a affective fashion, usage of AT weapons against armored vhc, etc...).

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    @mars388502 I wouldn't expect them to add better CQB tactics into Breakpoint. It's too far gone for that. But there is nothing preventing future games from implementing them. As far as having AI capable of conducting proper CQB, Ubi only has to look back to Future Soldier. Even though those breaching scenarios were scripted, with bullet time, the behaviour of the AI would remain the same. Moving to the corners and engaging enemies near to far.

    <iframe width="1200" height="675" src="

    title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @bigrexxx that's my point, grbp can't handle these things properly

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    @mars388502 At this point, any suggestions other than maybe cosmetic requests, should automatically be considered as being made for the next game, unless specified. Because at this point, nothing is going to get added to GRBP, unless it was already being developed for the next game, and Ubi decides it can be field tested in the current game. For example, Mercenary Mode was actually developed for Breakpoint, and it included some of the new game mechanics from Breakpoint, like the closing circle for PVP and tiered weapons drops. But because Mercenaries was basically DOA, with some players never finding a single match, devs dropped the mode altogether from Breakpoint, before launch.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @bigrexxx I share your thought: any suggestion, other than simply cosmetics, won't be implemented, at least that comes from here.

    Anyway, considering all the discussions we had on the previous forum, what elese is there for us to discuss?

    We discussed (that I can remember):
    -the core game of the IP
    -campaign
    -squad
    -future missions
    -missions design
    -tactics and small unit tactics
    -ballistics and its implementation
    -vehicles and their use
    -AI teammates
    -weapons Smith
    -character personnalisation

    And I certainly forget a lot of others things, but substantially, what else can we cover?

  • Megalodon-26
    334 posts

    @mars388502 We've definitely given the devs plenty of feedback and suggestions on how to create an absolute banger of a squad based shooter game, using a realistic combat scenario, while still scalable enough to make the game enjoyable for casuals and the hardcore alike. Now we only have to wait to see if and how our suggestions are implemented.

  • AI.BLUEFOX
    239 posts
    @ai-bluefox that is an interesting point of view. I never considered this "separation" between the various IPs of the Clancyverse.

    But, if we consider what special forces do, it make sense to have a bit of the three areas you mentionned, even more for a unit like the GST. It's a covert, military special forces unit, whose operators are knowledgeable in intelligence gathering (not interpretation nor synthesis).


    Special Forces may have many roles and the Ghosts are Special Forces, but not all SF are Ghosts. One of the defining features of the franchise is the Ghosts being the tip of the spear, operating in battlespace environments where the kind of short, high-impact assault missions in buildings that R6 specialise in would be less likely. The games inevitably overlap to a certain extent, though, and with R6 abandoning any pretense of a campaign mode, there is definitely a case that GR could fill that gap.

  • Mars388502
    Original poster 223 posts

    @ai-bluefox the last R6 (where you kill aliens) doesn't even have a solo campaign ?

Suggested Topics