@fcac-no-moe you can self-help with making them call it quits.

Simply don't play the game or future updates anymore and it will achieve the same effect. Voilà, job done, your wish granted, and you won't even have to keep up your seemingly endless tirade against the Dev team.

Personally I want them to carry on supporting, adding content and improving aspects of the game even with the out of date engine as-is. It is the best way to move towards a better game when it does come.

A drag option is by far the best improvement they could make, both for PvP and PvE.

@ai-bluefox I just wanted to ask. Now, Socom aside, I was wondering if we're looking for better a.i. commands than what GR has right now, have you ever played either of the advanced Warfighter games? GRAW 2's commands worked pretty well, I believe. Basically, point and click to tell teammates to take cover or follow you, go silent or go loud, even do specific class commands, like heal me/a wounded teammate, snipe, something like that. I remember hearing on one of Ghost Island Thunder's videos for better teammate commands that this is a bit better than what Breakpoint and Wildlands had because you wouldn't be a sitting duck while giving orders. I'll have to check that video out again. Anyway, do you know what I'm talking about? If so, what do you think?

I've played all the GRs and one of my greatest wishes is that the AI team commands were expanded and enhanced to give players the level of control we had in those earlier games. Commanding squads and control of the RoE, routes, fire arcs, and even individual AI team mates would enhance the game. There have been multiple suggestions on how to do this, whilst keeping the light control system we have now for those who want it.

It's the biggest area of the current game and indeed the franchise, that needs attention.

The Devs seem wedded to the idea that the AI team mates have to be an autonomous group with a light touch of player control and operate as an "intelligent" back up team. In doing so they just expose the limitations inherent in their capability.

There is no CPU limitation, there needs to more player agency, which would reduce the CPU load anyway, this just needs the gameplay design to support it. I can't put a player on overwatch, I can't ask one to drive or fly and I can't ask them to flank, suppress or cover my back or defend a position. It can be like playing with the most annoying coop players who won't play as a team.

@raptor2-40delta I think good ideas, a dynamic system of how enemies take damage, become injured and in general the game design around their "armour" needs work. I'd see it as an extension to immersive settings.

@ai-bluefox and that is truly the shame of it. They have been handed on a platter a concept existing within the game to make it vasty more interesting. Even simply having a daytime versus a nighttime spotting distance is a huge improvement. and it has existed all along as an option within the code. I really struggle with what goes on in the dev discussions when they know what is in the code and yet have no idea how to use it.

It's why I don't really agree with the criticism about programming competence and poor coding. It is all in there, it is the gameplay design choices that are the problem. Same as bullet drop; they have a fully functioning ballistics model in there they just choose to make up bullet velocities for effect.

They overthink it instead of just going with reality. The Spartan mod simply takes the gameplay design overlay out by using natural values and lets the game breathe.

The really good news about it being this way is that it means it can be changed. It is possible, so is worth pushing for.

I absolutely agree that there must be a degree of realism and authenticity, after all RedStorm was based upon those 2 principles. Today that studio still exists, somehow, but has been relegated to the rank of consultant studio, or something like it. Furthermore there is indeed a difference between fantasy, science fiction and fiction (anyone can enter those terms in Google and get their definition). Specially in French (the native language of Mr.Jean-François Capizzi, I assume), you can say whatever you want, but French is a fairly rich language with much nuance and choosing fantasy over fiction in the description speaks volume of his knowledge, or lack, of the franchise.

To illustrate the difference of the genre quoted here above:
-Fantasy: the lord of the rings-Tolkien
-Science fiction: Star Wars-Lucas
-Fiction: Red October-Clancy

Don't you guys use the word fantasy as in the verb fantasize?
It doesn't have to literally mean a fantasy like lord of the rings.
But to live the fantasy of being a tier 1 operator.
The same way you can fantasize about the person you like
You can fantasize about a different life you wanted to live.
This was how I understood what he said in the interview

Whenever the Devs have used the word "fantasy" in workshops it was in this context, so I think you're right. They meant the fantasy of the player being a spec ops squad member. However, I think its fair to say that some of the mission designs, characters and game mechanics in Breakpoint's main game veered into the realms of a fantasy world - even if not in isolation then in their combined context - and the Raid was science fiction. This in itself, of course, undermined that spec ops fantasy for many and thus the whole purpose of the game; that fantasy requires the believable Clancy-like world and purpose we outlined in the Charter. I hope the studio understands this now.

@mars388502 good question.

I don't how it works in translation, but reconnaissance is usually going to get more detail about something you know is there. Exploring is going to find out if something you think might be there is there, or going out to see what is there. Still, however with a good idea of what you want to find.

I'd argue that the open world gameplay trope of "discovering" locations is neither reconnaissance or exploring, just a gimmick, and GR would be better without it. The best example is Operation Kingslayer in Bolivia ... "What? Nobody brought a map? Shitballs!"

@flare-bear

Apart from the obviously transparent trolling using misogynistic crap to get yourself some attention - and I hope it does get you some attention from the mods - you're not even accurate about the game which has had female soldiers in it right from the first one in the franchise.

@lolt6

I don't really agree with your characterisation of snowflakes; it's a term used for the meaningless dismissal of someone with a different level of tolerance about whatever the user of the term is getting cranked up about. Arguably you're being a snowflake about snowflakes and I'm being a snowflake about you being a snowflake about snowflakes, but it's more often than not a euphemism to castigate progressive views. As society is generally progressing in a direction that is more inclusive and fair, then I usually associate users of the term as having a bigoted attitude to inclusion and insecurities about what that might mean to them. That might be unfair on you, I apologise if so, but as @Steven527 says, maybe not use the expression? It has political connotations now.

To me, the Six Days of Fallujah controversy was more about the use of a relatively recent and traumatic battle that may be too fresh to portray in a game rather than the level of realism. It wasn't the severity and grittiness of that realism, it was using it in the context of the particular setting and what that may mean to those still suffering the effects of it. I understand and have some sympathy with those concerns, to be honest, and even the developers acknowledge that the "politics are inseparable", and have avoided some realism such as the use of white phosphorous by players.

Generally, though, I do agree with the substance of your point about differentiating between art and life; games, as art, should not be censored to the point where they become meaningless. The Ghost Recon fantasy is essentially that of a spec ops character in a conflict, and so should represent that in a believable way. I actually think it could be darker and more thought provoking than it currently is for players and their actions, but that has always been the case since the introduction of a main character lead (Scott Mitchell) in GR2.

@ubi-gizmo

Here's a screen shot of my stats from about 2 years ago at a rough guess. As you can see 1,000 hours at that point and Prestige 24, but was over 2,000 hours when the stats were reset around about May. Note, this has effected every player I know on xbox.



Here are the stats now, the only thing remaining being the Prestige level of 47. It is impossible to get to that Prestige in 36 hours and 120 matches. That would mean levelling up 20 levels per match!

@ubi-gizmo I think I might have a screen shot from a while back and I can take another one now. I'll dig them out and post them up. If I can't find that old screen shot, though, I'm not sure how I can actually prove the stats reset.

The number of played hours played was set back to zero with all the other stats and you may have access to other data to compare with. I know that Benoit Martinez had data on my stats when I met him at the studio in 2019. You'll also be able to see that my Prestige level (which didn't get reset) is totally at odds with the hours played. It would be impossible to reach the Prestige level I am at with the hours showing on the stats.

As soon as I get those pics I'll post them.

The servers definitely have an issue @Ubi-Froggard, I think.

We lost all stats a few weeks ago, and even before that then each time you load Ghost War it can either fail to synchronise or get a server error. Lately it has been taking 3 or 4 attempts to launch successfully, but usually we can get loaded within 10 minutes. That's not great though. Also in the months leading up to the stats loss, you'd load in with a reduced set of stats that didn't include the data from the earlier seasons.

Oddly if you don't get the sync error and Ghost War launches quickly, then you get all sorts of problems queuing and joining other players for about 10 minutes.

My guess without knowing your data architecture is that the data replication performance across the data centres has been scaled back. Hence the timing issues.

As much as I'd usually recommend a support ticket, this will probably not get the attention it needs that way. The support scripts in the support centre will probably follow a "user issue" route. It is definitely server side, though.

I don't think the end of Delta means the end of community engagement through a selected, small group. For the earliest engagement during development I think that this is still the only practical way to ensure hands-on game contact and feedback without leaks. It does need to be 'as well as' not 'instead of' community wide interaction, though. The timing of both these interactions will be key.

It is my sincere hope that members of this forum get the opportunity to participate in any hands-on. The forum has been repeatedly defining the essential blueprint for the core game for years.

An update on Delta Company was briefed to us today and confirms that the Delta Company won't continue. I guess not really unexpected, as it was a Breakpoint concept, although badged as GR generically, and things move on.

I know that the very existence of the programme has been a source of contention in the community, and the value of the group questioned, and I undestand those reservations. However, I do know that Delta helped to push for the improvements in the game post launch and I am pretty sure the franchise will be better for that in the future.

It was a real pleasure to meet some of the members like Vahndaar and talk about the game, and a privilege for me to be part of it, but I do agree it's time to move on. It's the franchise that is important and I hope the community here can be involved in shaping it and moving it in the right direction.

@ferromortem more great ideas

@gmoneymozart

Maybe they should recognise it as a niche game and concentrate the budget on a solid game akin to the original, but open world.

The commercial success of Wildlands was a two edge sword for the franchise. In one sense it reinvigorated the game, but it also got the dollar signs flashing which blinded the studio to many of the follies.

@ferromortem I think it's great feedback, and what the franchise needs.

It might feel like talking to a brick wall, but it inspires others in the community and helps keep these subjects alive.

I like what you've done with it. Would be good if you could mix game video in too.

This caught my eye, and in the comments the new Head of Production at the Ubisoft Paris Studio mentions that Ghost Recon is a good fit for him.

https://paris.ubisoft.com/en/blog/lifeubiparis/meet-the-team-en/ciprian-laza/: (https://paris.ubisoft.com/en/blog/lifeubiparis/meet-the-team-en/ciprian-laza/)




He also mentions the Division as a good fit, but let's hope that differentiation between games is well and truly understood now!