What Ghost Recon Needs, And What We Should Expect of the Next Installment | Forums

[IV-70]

ABSOLUTELY AGREE...The better team should ALWAYS come out on top...but hey...everyone's a winner I guess.

Better team is always relative of course.
Skill, team play and experience should make the difference, no doubt. It should atleast take a minimum of skill, no ape should be able to win.

But by balancing everything to JUST allow the better team to win the game, never ever letting a just similar skilled team allow to win, i think we 're going to far. Especially when we are talking about symmetrical maps or banning everything that might require a bit less skill to deny less skilled players the win by default.

There are prolly just 3 guys in the world that can win gold on the 100m sprint, i consider this absolutly boring, not fun at all, still i have nothing but respect for the winner.
To win a golf tourney i do not hit the most fairways, greens and have the best putt average. Sometimes i get a lucky break after a bad drive, while my opponent splits the fairway to find his ball in a divot. i don't get this make everythign fair.

I play the game for fun, i do not earn any money while, i do not need to be rewarded with a win just because i think i was on better team. A close loss probable is more exciting than a landslight vicotry, even if the loss was undeserving from my point of view.

Sometimes i lost because of bad luck, but this applies to other team aswell. This does not take away the fun for me. But symmetrical maps do, on those i never ever have to deal with a team using its map advantage, never do i have to overcome the odds. Everything is fair, if i'm just a bit better i will get rewarded with a win, no matter what. Never do i have to adjust to the situation and circumstance, never is there a down side for my actions and decisions. Never would i have to win as HVT, because i just have defend against their HVT later in the game to even out everything again. I just have to mimic the enemy team and will have a draw for sure. Do i need to keep them off a good sniping spot which would allow them to controll the map? Nope, we have such a spot aswell. Do i need to look for a mine? Nope, this would be unfair, since i can not kill him with a mine in this case. The fact he earned it, by having map controll, allowing him to plant it at a spot you have to regain, else you would not have to run there, is unfair? He just needed to defend the area he conquered, this takes no skill, right?

Everyone is equal i guess. Life is fair too?

[ApocalypseNTSR]

Better team is always relative of course.
Skill, team play and experience should make the difference, no doubt. It should atleast take a minimum of skill, no ape should be able to win.

But by balancing everything to JUST allow the better team to win the game, never ever letting a just similar skilled team allow to win, i think we 're going to far. Especially when we are talking about symmetrical maps or banning everything that might require a bit less skill to deny less skilled players the win by default.

There are prolly just 3 guys in the world that can win gold on the 100m sprint, i consider this absolutly boring, not fun at all, still i have nothing but respect for the winner.
To win a golf tourney i do not hit the most fairways, greens and have the best putt average. Sometimes i get a lucky break after a bad drive, while my opponent splits the fairway to find his ball in a divot. i don't get this make everythign fair.

I play the game for fun, i do not earn any money while, i do not need to be rewarded with a win just because i think i was on better team. A close loss probable is more exciting than a landslight vicotry, even if the loss was undeserving from my point of view.

Sometimes i lost because of bad luck, but this applies to other team aswell. This does not take away the fun for me. But symmetrical maps do, on those i never ever have to deal with a team using its map advantage, never do i have to overcome the odds. Everything is fair, if i'm just a bit better i will get rewarded with a win, no matter what. Never do i have to adjust to the situation and circumstance, never is there a down side for my actions and decisions. Never would i have to win as HVT, because i just have defend against their HVT later in the game to even out everything again. I just have to mimic the enemy team and will have a draw for sure. Do i need to keep them off a good sniping spot which would allow them to controll the map? Nope, we have such a spot aswell. Do i need to look for a mine? Nope, this would be unfair, since i can not kill him with a mine in this case. The fact he earned it, by having map controll, allowing him to plant it at a spot you have to regain, else you would not have to run there, is unfair? He just needed to defend the area he conquered, this takes no skill, right?

Everyone is equal i guess. Life is fair too?

Your post was utterly senseless...better is not at all relative...people that suck are the only ones who would claim such. Do you contend that I should be able to go play a tourney and get beat then say yea well you aren't really the better team it's all relative? COME ON!!! I want to see a shooter that rewards the skilled and punishes the weak....plain and simple. Survival of the fittest...the weak will get stronger in such an environment...or they'll just get endlessly smashed. Hard work, hours of practise, and dedication to mastering the craft should be rewarded...PERIOD. As for your life is fair too...apples and oranges...the point of demanding total equality in the game is to reward talent...in life...talent is rewarded...so wtf was your point?

[Compassghost]

Sounds like Ghost Recon Online. When a good team plays, spawn trapping abounds. There is no doubt when a group of 4 people in a fireteam with high-level characters comes, which side is winning. I've come close to giving such fireteams grief, but never defeated them solo. One man doesn't break teamwork :/

[supermoc10]

I want the next game to refine GRFS's gameplay instead of changing it because it's awesome. They should make it for next-gen consoles IMO. They should also use a better engine (UE4 or maybe Anvil NEXT) because my only problem with GRFS was with the dated look of the game.

[ApocalypseNTSR]

I want the next game to refine GRFS's gameplay instead of changing it because it's awesome. They should make it for next-gen consoles IMO. They should also use a better engine (UE4 or maybe Anvil NEXT) because my only problem with GRFS was with the dated look of the game.

If they intend to operate as they have with GRFS...I would prefer that they didn't make another game.

[wombledon]

Your post was utterly senseless...better is not at all relative...people that suck are the only ones who would claim such. Do you contend that I should be able to go play a tourney and get beat then say yea well you aren't really the better team it's all relative? COME ON!!! I want to see a shooter that rewards the skilled and punishes the weak....plain and simple. Survival of the fittest...the weak will get stronger in such an environment...or they'll just get endlessly smashed. Hard work, hours of practise, and dedication to mastering the craft should be rewarded...PERIOD. As for your life is fair too...apples and oranges...the point of demanding total equality in the game is to reward talent...in life...talent is rewarded..so wtf was your point?

Spot on.nail on head.

There is allways someone who is more or less skilled than yourself..
thats how it is...your either gonna rape or get slapped..there is no need to get your hand held because your not as good as the team infront of you.



what is the point in playing mutiplayer games if you have an advantage GIVEN to you..thats cheap and pretty sissy....and dumb.


If i beat someone i wanna do it knowing it was legit,...fair n square
....not because theres something onesided in a game that aided me.

,thats pathetic

And to suggest such things is prety darn stupid,
No offence but thats one of the madest things ive read about multiplayer gaming.

The freaky thing is ...YOU ACTUALY BELIEVE THE CCCRRAAPP YOU WROTE.


isnt this game easy enough with all the intel rubbish!

you want more help if you or your team cant cut it...just WOW.

[Phoenixmgs]

I actually think Decoy is the most strategic game mode. On the maps that the attacking team has a senor close to their spawn (like Harbor), it's a rush for both teams to get that objective. If the defense stops them, it's a huge win because they stopped them plus they have a huge map control advantage. You really don't have that type of play in the other game modes.

[IV-70]

Your post was utterly senseless...better is not at all relative...people that suck are the only ones who would claim such. Do you contend that I should be able to go play a tourney and get beat then say yea well you aren't really the better team it's all relative? COME ON!!! I want to see a shooter that rewards the skilled and punishes the weak....plain and simple. Survival of the fittest...the weak will get stronger in such an environment...or they'll just get endlessly smashed. Hard work, hours of practise, and dedication to mastering the craft should be rewarded...PERIOD. As for your life is fair too...apples and oranges...the point of demanding total equality in the game is to reward talent...in life...talent is rewarded...so wtf was your point?

Maybe it's your lack of reading skills or just me failing to make my arguments more understandable to you, Eitherway, i don't want to let you have such a lame excuse again.

By 'better team is relative' i'm refering to the fact that this game or games in genral require different skils of its players. Some might be excellent snipers, others can pull off the craziest 'nade kills, but all those skills do not determine the win. Sticking to my golf analogy, i do not have to split the fairway, nor do i have to hit the green in regulation, still i will be able to make a birdie. Your text book swings and perfectly positioned balls won't help if you fail on your 15 ft putt, and i don't think is a 15fter is a gimme, some holes are just tuff to birdie. No one will remember or even reward your talent shown by your 'perfect' game. There are no style points, no one will blame the winner for having such dirty birdies.
If you wanna tell me the winner is the better team, what are we even discussing here? Even on this game 1 team will win and 1 will loose. This happens by default, if 1 team faces another, there will be 1 winner.
You are trying to make the winner relative, prolly saying 'he just was lucky, he used the more easy way, while i tried to play the game it was ment to be played'. Actually you just play for the gallery, style points, wining is how how the game was ment to be played, else competition makes no sense.
You want to take away those things that do not fit your playstyle. Why do we actually allow more than 1 gun? Why is there actually cover in this game, how about just a good wild west shoot out? Quick drawing for the win, dodging bullets is cheap,.

I want this game to have some character, some identity. No symmetrical maps or perfectly placed objectives, to just make the best team win. Even there it'
s relative, they were the best team for this particular situation.

If you are really that good, you should have no issues, sooner or later it will all even out again. You will get just as many objectives that favour you as they do favour the enemy, How is it game breaking that once in a while the opponent had a easy to victory? And how can we support this when tring to balance thoes things for every match just takes out everything that give a game its identity, and by this any cahllenge to over come.

Again, If i know the enemy will get a HVT mission later in the game too, why should i even try to win our HVT mission? Why try to even get the objective near their spawn, when i know i will just get one near ours aswell? Actually those objectives are prolly unfair too. Just objective in the middle of the map, lets forget about the rest of the map, right?

Hard work, hours of practice and dedication will be rewarded on GRFS aswell. All those things allow your team to fight the odds. But in your world we will never find out, because there are no situations in with you have to overcome a disadvantage.

[IV-70]

If they intend to operate as they have with GRFS...I would prefer that they didn't make another game.

If they a make another GRFS i hope the stick its gameplay.

But if they make a GR again, that is not FS, and i hope there will be 1, than do not stick to FS's gameplay.

I like GRFS for being different. Still i do not want every gaem to play like , because then it is not unique anymore.

[ThE_Hek7iC]

people are straying to far from the main point. I personally think that the game play itself in this game is great. What bothers me is the fact that the objectives are random. On conflict you could have to defend the whole game while a team has to attack the whole time. it is MUCH harder to attack than it is to defend. Moreover, It is unfair for a team to potentially have to potentially plant with 2 hvt's and then possibly take another objective. That would completely favor one side over the other. I am not talking about metaphorical concepts of balance in this game. I am saying Conflict is way to random. This goes for Decoy, and saboteur as i have explained in the original post.