Dear Ubi...

[nabokovfan87]

Alright, honestly, I nor anyone expects a perfect game, but this is getting to the point where I have to lay down my gun....

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/672895-Feedback-Summary-and-a-List-of-issues-w-Solutions

As you and anyone can tell, I have expressed my likes and dislikes with the game, I have recorded over 4 hours of gameplay and tried to get others interested in it, tried to record even more to show my issues. I have argued, been shouted at, been spawn camped, and I am honestly tired of the mess that this game appears to be in. I am and always will be a lifelong Ubi fan, I will shout with every last opportunity about how desperately the gaming community, especially the PC community, wants and old school ghost recon/rainbow six remake/sequel. I will even put up with always on DRM, terrible ports, and ridiculously apologetic fans, but I'm done with this game at this time.

And for the sake of not ruining the sentiment, DO NOT try to say that you did, don't try to say "it's just a beta", "it's a f2p game", or "it's just a game", because I know every single one of us that grew up with the franchise care about it much more then the hands it is in. I accept that, I accept that some people see this as just another f2p game, not a precursor to future soldier online, but just some game meant to bring in more fans to the franchise while also trying to make a strategic, team based game. Needless to say, the only thing that has happened is everything has gotten much worse. The balancing is broken, laughably. The camera is broken, poorly, and to the point where enemies themselves are invisible to my line of sight, simply because of the placement of the camera, I get to die. There are 30 major issues with the game right now, all of them listed above.

My actual point and the reason I am here for one final post is this.... I care too much to let GR go down like this. Others will give a thousand excuses, apologize and make excuses, but I know you all can do better. I know you all want to do better, expect better, and deep down we all know this game has issues. Ghost recon deserves better, the fans deserve better, and Ubisoft should know better.

Please fix this game...

This is the last time I am going to ask,
-nabokovfan87

[gameshoes]

Well, come back to open beta and I hope you find a better experience.

[nabokovfan87]

48 hours isn't going to fix completely broken.

[kasterningene]

48 hours isn't going to fix completely broken.

Open beta is still a ways off. There will be an interim after the game goes offline Monday, during which there will be ample time for the team to address these issues.

[nabokovfan87]

Open beta is still a ways off. There will be an interim after the game goes offline Monday, during which there will be ample time for the team to address these issues.

And I am more then willing to bet that 99% of them are ignored. Just like they have been for this beta.

[gameshoes]

And I am more then willing to bet that 99% of them are ignored. Just like they have been for this beta.
I'm willing to argue against you on this.
You obviously haven't been since phase 1. They have been addressing many issues that were brought up.
The ones still in existence from phase 1 are really difficult to fix such as the ramp glitching.
Also things like the ramp glitching exist in almost every other shooter in the market, the problem isn't as prevalent in those games because they're in shoe-box sized maps.

[UbiSusie]

And I am more then willing to bet that 99% of them are ignored. Just like they have been for this beta.


Hi Nabokofan,

From working on this game and talking with higher ups including devs, I do know one thing for sure, fixing issues that are seen today, aren't going to be fixed immediately. As a matter of fact, the build they just released for TESTING, is from other internal QA tests, not just response from the community. And the truth is, a lot of changes the devs make, are based on internal things they noticed before it even gets released for feedback from players. They are steps ahead of what we see and things that are talked about today will possibly be implemented in future builds and not necessarily the next build you see. This is why testing is so important. Often those who don't have any experience in the gaming industry think that feedback today means implementation tomorrow but that's not how it works. The earliest dates the threads you pointed to, are beginning of April. Your timeline expectations are much different than the reality of game development timelines. I've never written code for a game but I do know that building a game this complex takes a tremendous amount of time. These guys are doing absolutely amazing work and to think they are ignoring your feedback is actually pretty disrespectful, in my opinion. How many games in beta testing, that you know of, have the devs reading the community forums? How many games in beta testing have devs post on the forums??? These guys CARE so much about the game and those who play. They want you guys to love this game because THEY love it. They should be applauded daily for all their hard work and time they put into it. And yet, most people just complain how they don't listen to the players. It's rude and disrespectful because these guys are putting their hearts and souls into this game and because things aren't done as quickly as they players think they should, they are told they ignoring the issues.

If you are looking for a game that is well done and few problems, then you should only be playing fully released games. If you are patient and understand how games are built, you will understand that last month's complaints are heard and things they are going to change, may not happen for a little while. I'm not trying to sound like we don't appreciate your time and help testing the game. The creator, developers and everyone involved in making Ghost Recon: Online find all the feedback tremendously important and totally appreciate it.

We always appreciate helpful criticism as long as you understand that your timeline of how quickly things should be fixed, is probably a very different timeline that the devs have... That is one thing most people don't understand. I most certainly didn't before I started actually working in the game industry. Closed beta testing means exactly that, EXPECT things not to work right at first, expect to be frustrated at times because it's not how it "should be". That's why it's still in closed beta.

From all the feedback you have given, you obviously care a great deal about the game and the franchise. But please know one thing, I can bet you anything that everyone on works on this game, from GMs all the way up to the devs to the creator of the game, love this game very much. We don't work on this game for the paycheck (but getting paid to do this, i'm pretty grateful!), we work on this game because it is important to us and we love it.

I'm sorry you feel that you don't want to play anymore as you are obviously the kind of person who does indeed want to see this game succeed and feedback from players like that is fantastic. I hope that you can overlook that we are in closed beta testing still and things are far from perfect and stay and enjoy the game. If you do decide to stop playing, well then I hope you will at least come back when the game is released to play again.

99% of things are NOT ignored... Devs timelines are just much different than yours.

[Bugattiboy91]

What can I say in reply to the OP, but /signed. I myself, am also unsure whether or not to return for open beta or even the next phase of CB.

And to the people who say "It's a just a beta." Even betas have standards.

[nabokovfan87]

Hi Nabokofan,

From working on this game and talking with higher ups including devs, I do know one thing for sure, fixing issues that are seen today, aren't going to be fixed immediately. As a matter of fact, the build they just released for TESTING, is from other internal QA tests, not just response from the community. And the truth is, a lot of changes the devs make, are based on internal things they noticed before it even gets released for feedback from players. They are steps ahead of what we see and things that are talked about today will possibly be implemented in future builds and not necessarily the next build you see. This is why testing is so important. Often those who don't have any experience in the gaming industry think that feedback today means implementation tomorrow but that's not how it works. The earliest dates the threads you pointed to, are beginning of April. Your timeline expectations are much different than the reality of game development timelines. I've never written code for a game but I do know that building a game this complex takes a tremendous amount of time. These guys are doing absolutely amazing work and to think they are ignoring your feedback is actually pretty disrespectful, in my opinion. How many games in beta testing, that you know of, have the devs reading the community forums? How many games in beta testing have devs post on the forums??? These guys CARE so much about the game and those who play. They want you guys to love this game because THEY love it. They should be applauded daily for all their hard work and time they put into it. And yet, most people just complain how they don't listen to the players. It's rude and disrespectful because these guys are putting their hearts and souls into this game and because things aren't done as quickly as they players think they should, they are told they ignoring the issues.

If you are looking for a game that is well done and few problems, then you should only be playing fully released games. If you are patient and understand how games are built, you will understand that last month's complaints are heard and things they are going to change, may not happen for a little while. I'm not trying to sound like we don't appreciate your time and help testing the game. The creator, developers and everyone involved in making Ghost Recon: Online find all the feedback tremendously important and totally appreciate it.

We always appreciate helpful criticism as long as you understand that your timeline of how quickly things should be fixed, is probably a very different timeline that the devs have... That is one thing most people don't understand. I most certainly didn't before I started actually working in the game industry. Closed beta testing means exactly that, EXPECT things not to work right at first, expect to be frustrated at times because it's not how it "should be". That's why it's still in closed beta.

From all the feedback you have given, you obviously care a great deal about the game and the franchise. But please know one thing, I can bet you anything that everyone on works on this game, from GMs all the way up to the devs to the creator of the game, love this game very much. We don't work on this game for the paycheck (but getting paid to do this, i'm pretty grateful!), we work on this game because it is important to us and we love it.

I'm sorry you feel that you don't want to play anymore as you are obviously the kind of person who does indeed want to see this game succeed and feedback from players like that is fantastic. I hope that you can overlook that we are in closed beta testing still and things are far from perfect and stay and enjoy the game. If you do decide to stop playing, well then I hope you will at least come back when the game is released to play again.

99% of things are NOT ignored... Devs timelines are just much different than yours.

Hey,

I understand in-depth what goes into making a game. I made some simple ones for school, computer engineer here, and I know that there is a difference between saying it's possible, doing it, and then having people yell and demand things be "fixed" immediately. I understand how to fix things, I know exactly what needs to be done.

Quite honestly, the matchmaking alone could have been fixed in a week. Add some if statements, some more filtering and decision-making, and it's done.

I understand realistic timelines, and I know that within a month, one of the issues should have been addressed, not all of them are time consuming, difficult, but the majority of things I brought up are detrimental to gameplay. They are major issues in my book, and all of them should be on a whiteboard somewhere waiting to be ticked off.

Let me put it this way Suzie, I've tried to wait, be patient, taken crap for saying my opinion, and I'm beyond giving the game any more chances in it's current state. If anything, one of the team leaders reads this and sees the passion and love of the franchise, and pushes a little harder to get specific thing addresses.

That being said, you have my list, my issues, my complaints....

Until then,
-nabokovfan87


These guys are doing absolutely amazing work and to think they are ignoring your feedback is actually pretty disrespectful, in my opinion. How many games in beta testing, that you know of, have the devs reading the community forums? How many games in beta testing have devs post on the forums??? These guys CARE so much about the game and those who play. They want you guys to love this game because THEY love it. They should be applauded daily for all their hard work and time they put into it. And yet, most people just complain how they don't listen to the players. It's rude and disrespectful because these guys are putting their hearts and souls into this game and because things aren't done as quickly as they players think they should, they are told they ignoring the issues.

So now I'm a bad person because I gave my opinion, waited, heard nothing, and complained.

Listen.... Making games is a thankless job, if you make something great, it isn't about the devs, it is about the characters, compelling gameplay, and absolutely about the title on the front of the box, then those in the credits.

Sid Mier, didn't get his name on the front by whining about forum users or fans, he put out games we all loved, and we all bought them.

I LOVE ghost recon, I LOVE rainbow six. I have been playing them for over 20 years. I can tell you the moment I sat down and first played them, what the final mission in GR, taking back the Russian capital was like, and I can tell you even hearing a chime of the soundtrack sends shivers.

I thank those people for those games, I thank Ubi for bringing more of them, but it has been a long 10 years as a fan, and I highly doubt anyone at ubi even knows ghost recon/rainbow six was supposed to be and always will be a first person game.

IT isn't about that, it isn't even about the fact that the majority of games don't live up to what they used to be, but the point is, if you want us all to cheer and chant wonderful things, then listen, respond, and actually work with us to help you as well as you helping us.

[nabokovfan87]

And the reason I posted this in the GENERAL section, was to get more opinions. It isn't feedback, its a gamer saying something to the dev.

[briangelc]

This whole conversation is over my head. it took a while for me to deduce that devs is short for developers, and I had to Google "nerfing".
I am a comsumer. i LOVED GR when it came out more than 10 years ago. I played it online and on disk on my PC. I dont know what all the technical issues are, but as a non-computer-saavy player I have opinions of how it could be better.
Playing against people who blow me away through walls is bad.
Hitting a target with a sniper rifle, only to have them shoot back and kill me is bad.
taking 40 second to spawn is bad.
selling all my weapons and spending everything for a machine gun with uncontrollable recoil is bad
shooting a guy with at sheild on his back 7 times, only to have him one shot kill me is bad...
the opposite of good.
My opinion is that the game should have less video-game style/non-realistic fantasy technology like oracles, and be more like a real gunfight.
i shouldnt have to play aginst a level 35 dude with a crazy deadly gun, or have a guy walk up behind me without hearing, only to be point blank shot in the head.
I have writen 10 lines about what isnt right about the new game, but the developers can see that I spent a ton of time playing it...so it is Good.
I got my **** handed to me in most rounds, but the maps, play and tactics are really fun. If the official version os GR is better than the Beta Test, I am going to love it.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in testing this very well-executed masterpiece.

[UbiSusie]

And the reason I posted this in the GENERAL section, was to get more opinions. It isn't feedback, its a gamer saying something to the dev.

"a gamer saying something to the dev" is traditionally known as feedback.

[UbiSusie]

This whole conversation is over my head. it took a while for me to deduce that devs is short for developers, and I had to Google "nerfing".
I am a comsumer. i LOVED GR when it came out more than 10 years ago. I played it online and on disk on my PC. I dont know what all the technical issues are, but as a non-computer-saavy player I have opinions of how it could be better.
Playing against people who blow me away through walls is bad.

Hitting a target with a sniper rifle, only to have them shoot back and kill me is bad. ----This has probably happened to every single person who has played. No one likes it.

taking 40 second to spawn is bad. ----A delayed initial spawn is often caused by slow internet or slow computer. I don't think I have waited that long to spawn, although it has felt like it.

selling all my weapons and spending everything for a machine gun with uncontrollable recoil is bad ---Recoil is listed in the stats of the gun before you purchase. Using your experience with previous guns and knowing what recoil they had is helpful in making good buying decisions for your next gun. Although at this point, not being able to use the gun beforehand can still be alarming when you finally get the one you wanted. A Try before you buy option will be very helpful in cases like this... can not say if such a thing will be implemented but would be great if it could.

shooting a guy with at sheild on his back 7 times, only to have him one shot kill me is bad... ---Assaults have shields on their back. Shields deflect most of the bullets. Knowing this info will make that situation much less likely. If coming from behind, shoot assaults in the head or the legs.... and assaults use shotguns sometimes, which makes for a one shot kill more likely. Again, this situation has probably happened to all of us.
the opposite of good.

My opinion is that the game should have less video-game style/non-realistic fantasy technology like oracles, and be more like a real gunfight. ---There are many games that are gun fights. GR:O is more about tactics and strategy and teamwork. As for "video-game style/non-realistic fantasy technology" please know that every ability in GR:O has a real life counterpart... including stealth and ageis and oracle

i shouldnt have to play aginst a level 35 dude with a crazy deadly gun, or have a guy walk up behind me without hearing, only to be point blank shot in the head. ---Make sure you have speakers turned up or headphones on to hear them coming. Plenty of times it's easy to turn around because you heard someone and then you see the watery stealth and Bam, you get him. That's always fun :D As for matchmaking, please see this thread http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/664412-Developer-Q-amp-A?p=8206555&viewfull=1#post8206555 (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/664412-Developer-Q-amp-A?p=8206555&viewfull=1#post8206555)

I have writen 10 lines about what isnt right about the new game, but the developers can see that I spent a ton of time playing it...so it is Good. ---part of beta testing is finding out what does and does not work. What is good or bad however is subjective.

I got my **** handed to me in most rounds, but the maps, play and tactics are really fun. If the official version os GR is better than the Beta Test, I am going to love it. ----I am SURE the official release will be amazing!! The beta is addicting, can't wait for the whole shabang! :D

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in testing this very well-executed masterpiece.


We're glad you have joined us thus far and look forward to seeing you in the next phase!!

[UbiDarla]

Hey there. Thank you very much for taking the time to outline your suggestions in those posts. If closed beta testing isn't for you, that's totally understandable and we hope you'll give it another shot when it is officially released. I'm not sure how much closed beta testing you've done in the past or if other experiences have been different, but we just hope you understand that this is a work in progress - you are playing an unfinished product for the purpose of finding and reporting bugs as well as giving us feedback on what you'd like to see for the game in the future. We really do appreciate the time you've taken to help us test so far.

Just to clarify one thing: you mentioned matchmaking as something you could have fixed in a week. Understand that we have tweaked matchmaking the way you described. The challenge in closed beta is to balance it so that the teams will be well-matched without it taking so long to create a match that players give up. During closed beta there is a limited number of players invited to participate. If only 100 players are online and a smaller percentage of those are actually searching for a match at a given time, there are only so many combinations of those players matchmaking can put together without waiting too long. So it really is an issue of the small player base that comes with the territory in a closed beta. Matches take a bit longer than we'd like and they aren't as balanced as we'd like. We'll keep working on it, but there will likely be some frustration until we go into open beta or otherwise start testing with a larger pool of players. That being said, we welcome feedback and constructive criticism about matchmaking and everything else. We need to know what's working for you and what isn't. I just wouldn't assume that the developers are sitting around apathetic and refusing to fix things. I promise that isn't the case. There just may be more to it than you are aware of. Hope that helps clarify that, at least. :)

Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We're sorry that the current iteration of the game didn't meet your expectations, and we will keep working to make it better.

[nabokovfan87]

"a gamer saying something to the dev" is traditionally known as feedback.

The difference between feedback and saying something, is that feedback is specific, while this is in general about the game itself, not something in the game to be revised. This is about the beta, the game, the name, the development, etc... not about having better matchmaking or improving the balance. If you say "a gamer saying something to the dev is feedback" then what is the point of having forums at all, this is the place where gamers and devs should be interacting, thus... everything would be "feedback". Make sense?


Hey there. Thank you very much for taking the time to outline your suggestions in those posts. If closed beta testing isn't for you, that's totally understandable and we hope you'll give it another shot when it is officially released. I'm not sure how much closed beta testing you've done in the past or if other experiences have been different, but we just hope you understand that this is a work in progress - you are playing an unfinished product for the purpose of finding and reporting bugs as well as giving us feedback on what you'd like to see for the game in the future. We really do appreciate the time you've taken to help us test so far.

Just to clarify one thing: you mentioned matchmaking as something you could have fixed in a week. Understand that we have tweaked matchmaking the way you described. The challenge in closed beta is to balance it so that the teams will be well-matched without it taking so long to create a match that players give up. During closed beta there is a limited number of players invited to participate. If only 100 players are online and a smaller percentage of those are actually searching for a match at a given time, there are only so many combinations of those players matchmaking can put together without waiting too long. So it really is an issue of the small player base that comes with the territory in a closed beta. Matches take a bit longer than we'd like and they aren't as balanced as we'd like. We'll keep working on it, but there will likely be some frustration until we go into open beta or otherwise start testing with a larger pool of players. That being said, we welcome feedback and constructive criticism about matchmaking and everything else. We need to know what's working for you and what isn't. I just wouldn't assume that the developers are sitting around apathetic and refusing to fix things. I promise that isn't the case. There just may be more to it than you are aware of. Hope that helps clarify that, at least. :)

Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We're sorry that the current iteration of the game didn't meet your expectations, and we will keep working to make it better.

Thanks Darla,

I understand what a beta is, I have tested probably 20 or so games, and about 10 of them FPS/TPS games. As mentioned, I have made small game projects myself, understand the specifics of making a game, and understand what is possible. My anger and frustration isn't simply about people saying "it's a beta", but more-so in the fact that little to ZERO has been said between the developers and the gamers until this past week or the week prior. I would feel much better about development if the developers themselves were available for live chats, did interviews with fans, talked in the forums, answered questions, and more specifically responded to them in the forums. Even something as simple as "thanks for the feedback, I will bring this to the rest of the team" goes a VERY long way towards making me and others who are frustrated feel like their opinions and thoughts are being heard. It has been a very long silence for multiple threads with around 50 pages of posts, not getting a response from a dev until now.

As far as matchmaking, I understand, and know specifically when it was updating. There have been at least 2 revisions this time around that specifically changed the drastics of how matchmaking was performed. Chemzero brought up and stated how the matchmaking occurred currently in one of the previous threads and I stated how it should be updated or revised to better reflect a good experience... nothing was ever said in response.

For instance, right now it is possible to have teams with all recon vs. teams of a majority of another class. Everything is pretty much based on matching levels. It would be best to have class limits, at the very least, to gather 16 players, and then split them based on classes, and then levels once they are in each respective class.

For example.....

16 players try to join a match.

1. Fireteams are seperated, Meaning, if there is one fireteam, they are placed on a team, if two, then one on either side, etc. The matchmaking takes note of the classes and levels for use in later steps.
2. The remaining players are sorted by class
3. The team without a fireteam, the classes required to match the fireteam are added, if possible, at the same level. The matchmaking uses data from #2 to match up class/level from the pools available
4. Remaining players are again, sorted and a count is provided for each number of class. Half of each class is placed on either side, with possibility of remaining or uneven numbers staying in the pool.
5. A heirarchy is created to fill the remaining spots with remaining players, for instance, once side is given an assault class while the other is given a sniper/recon class player. The heirarchy would give values to each class, and fill holes based on the team with the lowest level getting the highest value player. So, a specialists would have a value of 3, let's say... 3 * level or + level would give some sort of overall "value" to a player, then they would fill the holes with the values of the remaining players.

Of course that is a very rough idea that I just came up with, you would need to make note if there is an instance where it isn't possible to match based on class, or where two classes can be deemed equivalent, perhaps a higher level assault is equal to a specialists of a lower level, something like that. Again, the best thing is to sort by class FIRST, place teams, and then fill in the remaining teams.

Levels are not as important as having balanced classes. As we all know, teamwork and strategy is the superior factor for this game, the better you work, the better you play, the better you score, the better the experience, the better the game.

I want to say again, my issue isn't that this wasn't done, I COMPLETELY understand timetables, and as mentioned some of this could have been done prior, perhaps added within a weeks timeframe, but it wasn't. The issue I have is that ZERO contact was made between the devs and the players for a very long time. It is disheartening to be in a place where you have such a passion for a title, and there are some major issues, but no one is there even listening. Whether someone is there or isn't, is a different question, but when no one is responding, the perspective is that no one cares/is listening.

[UbiDarla]

Ah, ok, that makes a lot more sense. I understand the frustration of feeling like you are putting so much effort into providing helpful feedback for no reason. For whatever it's worth, not only do the developers read the forums, the Community Manager and GMs are constantly putting together reports filled with feedback from the community to make sure they see it - it is actually a big part of our job. The way things generally work around here is that the GMs and CM are in direct contact with the players and developers. The developers read the forums and occasionally respond, but for the most part we make sure the needs of the community are being communicated to developers and we also try to update the community whenever there's definitive information to share (we try not to give out information until something is confirmed and we know we'll be able to follow through). The developers don't always have a lot of free time for that stuff. If we haven't done a good enough job of letting you guys know that we're listening, then that's our bad. Personally, I read the threads with suggestions and share them with developers, but I don't normally respond to them. I like to allow discussion to take place so that multiple people can weigh in and we get a better idea of how the community as a whole feels about something. So I can tell you first hand that we're listening, and we can try to do a better job of making that clear. Thanks again for caring about our game and sharing your perspective.