PDA

View Full Version : GRFS quietly changes multiplayer from 8v8 to 6v6 and not just the beta



RuthlessRebel
04-06-2012, 01:24 AM
I have been telling people that this game was 8v8 and I noticed this link below was updated and now says that the multiplayer (not just the beta) will be 6v6. A bit disappointing.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/456006-GRFS-Multiplayer-Q-A

From link if you dont feel like clicking:

[UPDATE] How many players simultaneously in a MP match? (PALADIN_BS)
Answer: As a result of our playtests and the focus on a player's enhanced experience, the multiplayer will be up to 12 players. When playing with more than 12, the game lost too much of its tactical flavor.

DUBLIN HITMAN
04-06-2012, 01:50 AM
Not happy about that but does that mean the 2 squads on each team has been removed
or will it be 2 squads of 3 in each team ???
Maybe they abolished the squad thing :-)

siccmethods
04-06-2012, 02:30 AM
That's a little disappointing. They said it was done, because it lost too much of it's "tactical flavor" when playing 8 vs. 8. I hope they know what they are doing...

ecma4
04-06-2012, 02:37 AM
This really sounds like a technical limitation to me, and not something gated by "tactical flavor." Perhaps they were have FPS issues? Either was its really not good news.

Vyper82
04-06-2012, 02:39 AM
Not too disappointed if it is 6 v 6, it'll make for a more tactical experience rather than a cluster **** of too many players, nade spamming.

6 v 6 bring it on.....

Edit: as long as you can have 6 man squads

ecma4
04-06-2012, 02:45 AM
If "Tactical flavor" is really the issue, they just need to remove the respawns. The original GR was played extremly tatically, and it was the lack of respawns that resulted in this. There was real risk in running round like a moron.

Hortey
04-06-2012, 02:49 AM
This really sounds like a technical limitation to me, and not something gated by "tactical flavor." Perhaps they were have FPS issues? Either was its really not good news.

at e3 2011(last june) and at conventions after that the games were being played 8v8. Even the consoles can handle it.

B3ANTOWN B3A5T
04-06-2012, 03:01 AM
I really would like an elaboration on what exactly changes the "tactical flavor" of the game when going from 12 to 16 players. I'm baffled by that statement.

ArmyRanger6
04-06-2012, 03:30 AM
If it's 6v6; this is disappointing and the game is going away from the GR roots. 8v8, server broswer, gametype editor and up to 16 player co-op is what it should be.

DanHibikiFanXM
04-06-2012, 03:35 AM
Ohhhhh boy...lol...this better not be the ONLY match size.

Rhett8i
04-06-2012, 03:59 AM
Interesting change. Doesn't really bother me, though...

Tyrone1985
04-06-2012, 04:45 AM
Really Ubi?

X-COFFIN-X
04-06-2012, 04:57 AM
What what I see in this picture it still looks like 8v8 and this was posted today looks like there 8 spots per team 4 squad A and 4 squad B
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/slitherx/GRN_SquadManagement_3_InGame.jpg

Hortey
04-06-2012, 05:06 AM
but if you notice... no side has more than 6 players.

What if they kept the 4 person max matchmaking but didn't let 2 full squads enter a single game on one side?

*Da NUH HUHuhuhUH!

TightNinja
04-08-2012, 02:58 PM
The news for this game gets worse and worse.........do they think all real life firefight conflicts are just 6 vs 6? I think they just need to go ahead and say the frame rate dropped to much or something. Even Call of Duty can handle 9 vs 9 via private match and it runs great! I think with the graphics overhaul in this game we lose a lot of what made GRAW so awesome.

Now GRFS is jsut looking like another COD clone. Devs need to realize you can't be COD at its own game. You have to offer more and go above and beyond. GRAW2 had those features actually...it just came out before MW1.

Hortey
04-08-2012, 03:12 PM
Lessening the player cap makes the game more like COD even though COD can handle more players?

If anything the less amount of players makes this game DIFFERENT from CoD using your same logic, at 8v8 it was a CoD clone. I don't like less players, but that argument seems to have more holes than swiss cheese.

B0rnDivine1
04-08-2012, 03:16 PM
Wow ubisoft 6 vs 6 is a joke it's 2012. Battlefield has 24 players massive maps no lag n y'all can't get 8 vs 8 with no vehicles I bet. Started to think game might be a flop

Hortey
04-08-2012, 03:26 PM
I find it funny they state that they lessened the players because of the gameplay experience yet people still bash them by saying that the hardware can handle it.


Of course the hardware can handle it, the game was being played 8v8 for a YEAR... it has nothing to do with performance.

cnuttzznc
04-08-2012, 04:25 PM
**** 6v6 hopefully it's just the map. Remember past recon games suggested 6-10 people on certain maps and 12-16 on bigger maps.

xHyPnoSiSx
04-08-2012, 05:01 PM
For all you noobs that don't know, old GR and GRIT were 6v6, and they were perfect. Lag was less of an issue, less camping (now-a-days) and more space to roam in the map without worrying who's hiding there. It will give us all a bit more freedom, I think you all may end up liking it a bit after you get used to it...

B3ANTOWN B3A5T
04-08-2012, 05:10 PM
Hypno I'm glad someone said it. If the maps are designed well I think 6v6 could provide some intense close range fights.

AI BLUEFOX
04-08-2012, 05:30 PM
After countless clan battles (99% of them siege) I'd have to say my preference is 5v5 for that game. 6v6 was good, but that made it very hard to break down a solid defence team when you were attacking some maps. 4v4 was always a bit too open and with 7 or 8 it got chaotic and you could rush attack most maps.

For other game modes 8v8 was better, especially sharpshooter and 10 or 12 a-side would have been a good improvement. When not in a clan match the more players the better.

What disappoints me the most about this move is that ONCE AGAIN, the developers have decided to shape the experience for me. Open up the options, let us host public rooms and let us select the settings we want, set respawns how we want and let us turn the junk off, you control freaks!!

DanHibikiFanXM
04-08-2012, 05:45 PM
EXACTLY. Why is it so hard to include options like every other GR in existence? Why is it so terrible and taboo to want to remove all the gimmicks to bring it back to a purely communication and skill based game? I just don't get it. It makes no sense.

cnuttzznc
04-08-2012, 05:48 PM
I just hope the maps aren't too small and cluttered.

cnuttzznc
04-08-2012, 05:59 PM
For all you noobs that don't know, old GR and GRIT were 6v6, and they were perfect. Lag was less of an issue, less camping (now-a-days) and more space to roam in the map without worrying who's hiding there. It will give us all a bit more freedom, I think you all may end up liking it a bit after you get used to it...

Back in gr2 it was 8v8 I'm sure of it, and they'll always be some sort of camping in tactical shooters. Usually run and gunners(rushers) got slapped fast lol. Especially in lms and siege.

FuchsXSX
04-08-2012, 06:04 PM
6 vs 6 is the perfect size for clan matches (or 5 vs 5) !

So i appreciate that playing public will also be 6 vs 6 max.

B3ANTOWN B3A5T
04-08-2012, 06:05 PM
Dan- I bet groups of gamers will form that all want to play the game with guns and tactics only, eliminating the Intel gathering gadgets. Maybe some clans will set up wars with these parameters.As for a main menu type option for that, I highly doubt it. They've pretty much designed the game around the use of future tech.

cnuttzznc
04-08-2012, 06:11 PM
Beast you're right gamebattle matches will probably ban a lot of the equipment.

xHyPnoSiSx
04-08-2012, 06:22 PM
Back in gr2 it was 8v8 I'm sure of it, and they'll always be some sort of camping in tactical shooters. Usually run and gunners(rushers) got slapped fast lol. Especially in lms and siege.
I'm not talking about GR2, even though I played that series as well as summit strike. I'm talking about the 1st Ghost Recon on xbox, and also Ghost Recon Island Thunder. Public matches were 6v6 most, and in clan matches, most the time ppl played 4v4, or 5v5s, very rare to find 6v6s. 6's for pubs is perfect, and most will play 4s when it comes to clan matches, maybe 5s and rarely 6s

xHyPnoSiSx
04-08-2012, 06:34 PM
Hypno I'm glad someone said it. If the maps are designed well I think 6v6 could provide some intense close range fights.

Thank you =) I do believe less is MORE, in this case. GR should keep the GR feel, and not play what everyone else deems acceptable.

B3ANTOWN B3A5T
04-08-2012, 06:45 PM
The only thing that worries me is the layout of the maps. Im praying that there will be enough room to flank, and plenty of different pathways through the level. With the advent of the Intel gathering future tech, it would be a shame to be funneled together at one or 2 choke points, where all the enemies gadgets are sure to be looking.

GR90
04-08-2012, 06:46 PM
Yeah 6v6 is better so many people think more players means more fun but Ubi is right if you start to add players is makes it less tactical and Im guessing with all the tech it hightlited it even more.

gameshoes
04-08-2012, 07:33 PM
I'm going to assume that the limitations is on the maps as already stated by others.

Emonumber1
04-08-2012, 08:50 PM
If it's 6v6; this is disappointing and the game is going away from the GR roots. 8v8, server broswer, gametype editor and up to 16 player co-op is what it should be. Yeah I must agree that I love the feel of server browsers in UBI games. It added a better community element for their games. I just loved, when playing Rainbow Six Vegas 2, how I could come into another teams server with a team of my own. We would have extremely tactical wars for hours on end. Server browsers trump matchmaking for strategic games HANDS DOWN!!!

Concerning 6v6 I don't have much of a problem with it because with the Ghost recon online Beta it doesn't really seem that a four man squad is necessary. But no matter what, I know that if the game is anything close to its free to play counterpart on PC that it will ROCK!

StrikexNinja
04-09-2012, 04:48 AM
8v8!!!!!!!!!

Maher21
04-09-2012, 06:17 AM
Okay UBI. If you are going to make it 6vs6, then at least make the max party size 6 now. That would only make sense.

TRAJEKTURY
04-09-2012, 02:40 PM
I can't believe how dumb the average gamer is. If the average gamer was smarter he or she would know that we are entering a stage in the evolution of online gaming where dedicated servers is the way of the future. He or She would know that its is their right to play online on an equal as possible playing field. And they would know that demanding dedicated servers will not only better their experience online but also help the life and growth of the game. If we don't demand them it won't happen. I applaud people like those at DICE who have actually gone so far here lately not only to have dedicated servers in the first place but to also rent them out to people so the can customize the rooms settings and create games that suit their taste. This is most likely the reason and the solution to having 6v6 as opposed to 8v8. Seriously stop kissin **** and stand up for your gaming experience!!!

VanilaGorila-x-
04-09-2012, 03:13 PM
Sounds like a stability issue to me. Lessoning the player count removes the amount of data that has to be bounced back and force from the players and the servers.

Ataxia-Geezer
04-09-2012, 03:28 PM
I myself much more prefer the feel of 6 on 6. More players online don't make for better game play IMO.

siccmethods
04-09-2012, 04:13 PM
Sounds like a stability issue to me. Lessoning the player count removes the amount of data that has to be bounced back and force from the players and the servers.


I don't buy it. I'm sure it will be explained at some point. If it is a stability issue, then shame on them. Figuring out that you have a stability issue in mulitplayer, directly related to the number of players, 2 months before launch is hysterical!

Vyper82
04-09-2012, 05:07 PM
It's not a stability issue! The fact is with 16 players it was too chaotic so reducing it to 12 solves the issue.

ranKismet
04-09-2012, 05:20 PM
Not happy about that but does that mean the 2 squads on each team has been removed
or will it be 2 squads of 3 in each team ???
Maybe they abolished the squad thing :-)

Personally hope so... 4 man squads are too limiting... but a party of 8 would have been nice.

Rufeezo
04-09-2012, 05:31 PM
It's not a stability issue! The fact is with 16 players it was too chaotic so reducing it to 12 solves the issue.

That's what they're saying and you know what?

I SUPPORT THIS!

If they think tactical flavor was lost with 16 heads on the map, then I'll trust them on that. I want it to be tactical and I want this game to be successful. I think this is a good move and it shows integrity to the kind of game they want to release. A tactical game.

Plus, no more 4 man squads. 6 man teams is a great number, if anything the MAX number of clan members most squads/clans would want for clan matches and competition. I see a lot of discontent and I'm surprised more people aren't behind 6v6. I'm super excited for the beta and when it comes, I think we will all be in a better position to comment on whether or whether not this was the right thing to do. Maybe even try a private 8v8, if possible to compare. GOD**** I'm excited!

Vyper82
04-09-2012, 05:33 PM
That's what they're saying and you know what?

I SUPPORT THIS!

If they think tactical flavor was lost with 16 heads on the map, then I'll trust them on that. I want it to be tactical and I want this game to be successful. I think this is a good move and it shows integrity to the kind of game they want to release. A tactical game.

Plus, no more 4 man squads. 6 man teams is a great number, if anything the MAX number of clan members most squads/clans would want for clan matches and competition. I see a lot of discontent and I'm surprised more people aren't behind 6v6. I'm super excited for the beta and when it comes, I think we will all be in a better position to comment on whether or whether not this was the right thing to do. Maybe even try a private 8v8, if possible to compare. GOD**** I'm excited!

Also you should check out the pipeline video & you'll see that 6v6 is the right size, I think it was a good call from Ubisoft.

Rufeezo
04-09-2012, 05:43 PM
I will do that.

bazzam1974
04-09-2012, 05:57 PM
Says 8 v8 on this vid at 34 -35 sec in but you will have to pause it or watch on slow mo
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/58048/ghost-recon-network-announcement-trailer/

cnuttzznc
04-09-2012, 06:08 PM
I can't believe how dumb the average gamer is. If the average gamer was smarter he or she would know that we are entering a stage in the evolution of online gaming where dedicated servers is the way of the future. He or She would know that its is their right to play online on an equal as possible playing field. And they would know that demanding dedicated servers will not only better their experience online but also help the life and growth of the game. If we don't demand them it won't happen. I applaud people like those at DICE who have actually gone so far here lately not only to have dedicated servers in the first place but to also rent them out to people so the can customize the rooms settings and create games that suit their taste. This is most likely the reason and the solution to having 6v6 as opposed to 8v8. Seriously stop kissin **** and stand up for your gaming experience!!!

You're right to a point, it seems ubisoft is taking a step back. Previous recon games supported 8v8. About the **** kissing part, I don't think it's that. It's just most recon players hadn't had a new title for 4 or 5 years right? Besides that we have a lot of socom players looking for another tactical shooter, with death of socom! I think most of us are tired of waiting for the next shooter to drop.ps screw cod lol.

Dexter79_
04-09-2012, 07:08 PM
8 vs 8 confirmed with this video of the Beta You can see 16 slots 8 per team (minute 03:03)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNvEuZlAKpE&feature=relmfu

Vyper82
04-09-2012, 07:13 PM
8 vs 8 confirmed with this video of the Beta You can see 16 slots 8 per team (minute 03:03)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNvEuZlAKpE&feature=relmfu

yes, yes I know it shows 8 slots but so does the ghost recon network video. my guess is its been such a late in the day decision that they have yet to re design the interface and come release day it'll be down to 6 slots.

jowell24
04-09-2012, 11:05 PM
A member of the GRFS team said in a Q&A thread that they tried 8vs8 and felt that the game lost some of its tactical flavour (something along those lines)

Personally I would love to see a 4vs4 game mode, squad against squad would work well and would really encourage teamwork. I liked the team tactical mode on COD when I would play with 3 friends in a team, great fun.

MeanMF
04-10-2012, 02:35 AM
They could have also kept that "tactical flavor" by making the maps big and open enough to support 8v8. Sounds like it's going to be 10 versions of Headquarters.

B3ANTOWN B3A5T
04-10-2012, 02:45 AM
Look at some of the videos on that guys channel. The map called "moulin" actually looks pretty big. Definitely could have fit 8v8.

DanHibikiFanXM
04-10-2012, 02:52 AM
They could have also kept that "tactical flavor" by making the maps big and open enough to support 8v8. Sounds like it's going to be 10 versions of Headquarters.

http://youtu.be/Rv0w79KcqH4

Dude, I totally know what you mean. That's exactly my first thought when I saw this map. Ugh I hate small maps.

cnuttzznc
04-10-2012, 03:12 AM
What's up with the cod style regen health, and those **** sensor grenades all I can say is wtf! Man why are all these companies trying to compete with call of goofy?

Hortey
04-10-2012, 09:26 AM
Are you guys STILL talking about how a map could fit players? It was stated that performance was NOT the reason it was changed.

Come up with a legit argument already.

AKA_Lenney
04-10-2012, 09:32 AM
Are you guys STILL talking about how a map could fit players? It was stated that performance was NOT the reason it was changed.

Come up with a legit argument already.

Despite the video looking pretty good with fewer players, this is still one thing I just don't understand. This has to be about the netcode not running right with 16 or something along those lines, despite what they tell us.

Hortey
04-10-2012, 09:44 AM
They had footage and alpha running the game 8v8 a year prior to this change. It ran fine and more players does not = more tactics....

Why do you not like it as 6v6 vs 8v8... I still haven't heard many reasons besides "the game can run more players" which isn't really even a critique.

AKA_Lenney
04-10-2012, 09:48 AM
They had footage and alpha running the game 8v8 a year prior to this change. It ran fine and more players does not = more tactics....

Why do you not like it as 6v6 vs 8v8... I still haven't heard many reasons besides "the game can run more players" which isn't really even a critique.
Footage from Alpha was via LAN, not via the internet.

CIA._.mikewins
04-10-2012, 04:06 PM
Can we PLEASE test this in the beta. I was really hoping for 8v8.

agent784
04-23-2012, 07:15 PM
I just want to be able to play a game comprised of my friends on the same team. Right now, you can have only a party of 4 for a 6 vs 6, leaving you with 2 strangers in your team! That sucks!


I have been telling people that this game was 8v8 and I noticed this link below was updated and now says that the multiplayer (not just the beta) will be 6v6. A bit disappointing.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/456006-GRFS-Multiplayer-Q-A

From link if you dont feel like clicking:

[UPDATE] How many players simultaneously in a MP match? (PALADIN_BS)
Answer: As a result of our playtests and the focus on a player's enhanced experience, the multiplayer will be up to 12 players. When playing with more than 12, the game lost too much of its tactical flavor.

Bountyhunterinc
04-23-2012, 07:38 PM
So is it confirmed? You get a squad of 4 on a team and a squad of 2? That's going to suck for respawns...

xxTpmoneyxx
04-23-2012, 08:15 PM
6v6 huh?? i am not to happy.... they say they did it for more tactical feel.... well that makes me think the maps are going to be small compared to the GRAW series which is a huge disappointment

washingtoniiij
04-23-2012, 08:26 PM
All they have to do is to improve the GUI prior to loading in the multiplayer games. It should be a party of 8, that is broken down into 2 squads of 4. The party of 8 should be of the host's choice and then filled with non-party players. GRFS is killing the clans, by not allowing 8 players to party up from the beginning. Other shooters have been guilty of this also, which is why they failed to succeed like COD. Give us our 8+ player parties....you are killing clans.

luckyghost
04-23-2012, 08:29 PM
Lame, this the reason crysis 2 sucked balls for online.

Barty rhodes
04-23-2012, 08:41 PM
6v6 lose the tactical feel........mmmmmmm......MAKE THE MAPS LARGER!!!!
No brainer 5 years since this game was announced and they take away 8v8 for 6v6 'because it takes away the tactical feel'
Amazing how the last games had 8v8 and felt very tactical when you had a chance to play 8v8 but the servers always dropped out.
having 4 man squads nd 6v6 is a bad choice as most people have a large friends list, Most of my friends list is made up of the people i met playing 8v8 blind siege in GRAW 1&2 making the ghost recon series the most sociable game i've ever played and it was great to play with a large amount of people. I was excited about the possibility of play with a room full with 15 other people after years of 6v6 in COD.
Make the maps larger and 8v8 will not be a problem or make some game modes such as siege 8v8 as there are no respawns so as people die it wouldn't take away the tactical feel they think will be lost with too many people in a game.
Smaller maps, less people , no customisation in multiplayer = watered down game and very restricted(are we under the age of 10 can't we think for ourselves)
could have been suck a great game, still could be a good game but it would just be better if it was 8v8.
Hopefully a patch will come out and change it after a few months for some game modes as this change has only just happen so close to launch it would be easy to change.

I still will buy this game as something new to play the question is how much longevity will this game have. MW3 didn't have much at all and rarely see the laser in my xbox dvd drive especially since battlefield 3 came out which due to its large player count and larger maps has made it a good game .

see you in boring 6v6 in siege mode in may!

Barty rhodes
04-23-2012, 08:42 PM
All they have to do is to improve the GUI prior to loading in the multiplayer games. It should be a party of 8, that is broken down into 2 squads of 4. The party of 8 should be of the host's choice and then filled with non-party players. GRFS is killing the clans, by not allowing 8 players to party up from the beginning. Other shooters have been guilty of this also, which is why they failed to succeed like COD. Give us our 8+ player parties....you are killing clans.


Agreed and well said

Gafanha
04-23-2012, 08:54 PM
Not too disappointed if it is 6 v 6, it'll make for a more tactical experience rather than a cluster **** of too many players, nade spamming.

6 v 6 bring it on.....

Edit: as long as you can have 6 man squads

This!

EvilPixieGrrr
04-23-2012, 10:36 PM
Ubi-Mush was kind enough to do some inquiring about the multiplayer and here is what she found out:

There will be support for player clans up to 32 people, and in private matches you can have up to 8 players on a team, but a maximum of 12 players in the match to allow for asymmetrical play. 7v5 or 8v4, for example.

Bassie52
04-23-2012, 11:01 PM
thats an option that makes me smile..8vs 4?, haha can't wait to play that with my team..talked about this a while a go..

Barty rhodes
04-23-2012, 11:03 PM
Ubi-Mush was kind enough to do some inquiring about the multiplayer and here is what she found out:

There will be support for player clans up to 32 people, and in private matches you can have up to 8 players on a team, but a maximum of 12 players in the match to allow for asymmetrical play. 7v5 or 8v4, for example.

the point in this is worthless 8 player max on a team max 12 in a game....... what the point in that . know body will do a match 8v4...come on unisoft make it 8v8 in private matches.

Bassie52
04-23-2012, 11:10 PM
4vs8 probably means that the 4 have all the tech and 8 only have rifles..pretty cool..and less players the more personall and recon the game wil be..team up and you wil know what they are trying to achieve with this game(try BF3 that way)

Ky3217
04-23-2012, 11:17 PM
I hate the fact that they reduced the size of of the lobbies. this game is fun, but it is seriously lacking in some areas

Barty rhodes
04-23-2012, 11:30 PM
4vs8 probably means that the 4 have all the tech and 8 only have rifles..pretty cool..and less players the more personall and recon the game wil be..team up and you wil know what they are trying to achieve with this game(try BF3 that way)


you can't change the configuration on the games in private matches i.e limiting weapons and gadgets.
so it will just be a team with less player but same amount of equipment

xPREDICTIONx
04-23-2012, 11:34 PM
6 v 6 is weird, Why have a 4 man squad, but then be a 6 v 6 game? Makes little sense... I'm lost on this Ubi.

Bassie52
04-24-2012, 12:23 AM
you don't have a 4 man squad..it's a 3 man squad..and there is a 6 man party...and yes there wil be a difference in intel equipment, when its 4vs8..read about it a while a go..hope the dev's wil read this and help me out..i'm pissed (drunk)..like i said..the less players, the more personal and recon this game get's..think about it..

wombledon
04-24-2012, 02:42 AM
Dan- I bet groups of gamers will form that all want to play the game with guns and tactics only, eliminating the Intel gathering gadgets. Maybe some clans will set up wars with these parameters.As for a main menu type option for that, I highly doubt it. They've pretty much designed the game around the use of future tech.

well ,thats how every single eu/ usa guys set rooms up,guns,smoke,somtimes booms,,NO GADGETS..no uavs or lol gun cameras lolol.graw 2 was spose to be futuretech at the time,uavs,gun cams etc...in100% of rooms ive plyed in they were turned off.thankfully.and thats rooms setup by people from many different countries not justy a few nerds,its the backbone of the game..
BUT OTHER GAMERS USED UAVS ETC IN THERE GAME..A VARIATION I WOULD AVOI.D BUT THERE CHOICE.PEONALY. ITS LIKE PUTTING STAYBALIZERS ON A BIKE



im only sayin when graw 2 came they were spouting the team and tactics stuff like they are now..AND THE RECON COMMUNITY CORRECTED IT TO BE A aVERY VERY LONG LASTING GAME AS FAR AS GAMEBATTLES AND TACTICAL PLAY WERE CONCERNED.NO ONE USES UAVS ECT IN SIEGE..itts more tactical and rewarding with simple options.....remove the unnesesary bits n bobs

i am only talking of siege btw,when i get to play siege i will not be playing the other game modes,just not my thing,im havin abit fun on it at the mo,,,but thats just me getting used to the mechanics n guns.

.easy peasy.some play gadgets in there rooms and we dont and play skool rules as they say.,therre shouldnt be arguments..no one suffers ,if theres choice.

no ones winjing realy just the lack of info isnt helping,ive read contradicting things so im happy now to wait and see,ubi has already takem my money out the bank so no going back.i would change my mind on purchasse as i see potential in it fo siege,the daddy of all game mode.

if folk wantt gadgets on fine set a room up with your settings..everyone will be happy.vice versa.

im not moaning i like mechanics of the new game-ish,i wont stamp my feet and huff n puff at ubi as i will just play it as an extra game choice...thats if theres no settings to do what i just said,but if it has all the ssettings to ban tech etc,it will be my game of choice...same for folk who prefer to use gadgets..no one is effected,but with no setting to alter it will not go down well with folk that want to play on gaming websites.ive accepted theres gonna be some unhappy chappys..

i can see people wanting the tech on,,,fair enough,but i see more wanting to tone it down with removal of gagets./this will hopefully be the choices we ALL can have and everyone be happy.

folk shouldnt be trashing opinions about stuff that should be pressent in game,wil see
p/s
blue knows what hes talking about.

sick ov earing folk who never played graw on a game ladder saying people a winjing or scared to get beat,or its the futre deal with it lol,,,
not one moan from me,everyone should be happy once it drops,if we ALL can play the game the way WEwant to.


sorry for the lomg ramblings.

PsychoNite
04-24-2012, 04:04 AM
if they r gonna make it 6v6 then remove the squad system. its effin pointless if 1 squad is gonna get completely screwed over and finding a match will be harder if u hav a full party. a simple solution is to scale up the maps alil bit or just suck it up n leave 8v8. im sure it didnt loose to much "tactical flavor"

lingling
04-24-2012, 06:19 AM
If "Tactical flavor" is really the issue, they just need to remove the respawns. The original GR was played extremly tatically, and it was the lack of respawns that resulted in this. There was real risk in running round like a moron.
The only thing that sucks about non respawn gametypes is people that are the losing team ends up with a huge disadvantage if they get whooped. Im not saying that It shouldnt be like this or that it shouldnt be a playlist option, just my opinion.

H4RDFOX
04-24-2012, 06:39 AM
The reason why they changed it from 8 to 6 is because they know they messed up a real fire team man power. A fire team consists of four troops no matter what and they only had three so it only makes sense for them to eliminate the number because of this ******ed move on a special ops team.

AKA_Lenney
04-24-2012, 06:57 AM
Are hosts even going to be able to kick people? I kinda doubt it since they've literally removed all host options.

AKA_Lenney
04-24-2012, 06:58 AM
The reason why they changed it from 8 to 6 is because they know they messed up a real fire team man power. A fire team consists of four troops no matter what and they only had three so it only makes sense for them to eliminate the number because of this ******ed move on a special ops team.

The reason they changed it from 8 to 6 is b/c Mill is the biggest map and even it feels like it's claustrophobic with 6. It's only a 250m map. That's ridiculous for a GR game. This game is virtual paintball. There is literally zero "recon" left in this title.