Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

GRAW 2 COOP BASED MISSION OBJECTIVES ?


Recommended Posts

@Colin I very much think you are dead on the mark with your comments. I'm glad to see you continue to have the energy and willingness to express these issues so thoughtfully. Bravo!! :thumbsup:

@Wolfsong, I really wish you would do as I suggested and many are hinting here and spend a few hours playing some quality coop GR to understand the distinction that Clin is trying to make. Also, if you read carefully, I think you will notice that the majority of "complaints" here about modding are about the ability to construct interesting and engaging missions for more than 4 players. While you comments about the technical limitations of GRAW may be accurate, they in no way excuse the huge regressive step that they represent relative to GR. The GR engine has happily dealt with anywhere from 30 to near 200 active AI enemy on a map at any one time. To see the reduction of the number of active enemies down to less than 20 as anything other than regressive boggles my mind. As has been pointed out many times here, this is a discussion about game-play, mission flexibility and mission creation. It is not about post-effects, it is not about textures, it is not about adding weapons, it is not about sounds, etc.

As Rossiski pointed out GR has provided a mechanism that allows friends to get together in reasonably sized groups and have fun together (playing coop, TvT, solo etc.). GRAW's game-play design made that very difficult or impossible -- just count the number of people playing. I very much hope that GRAW2 does not make the same mistake. If they can manage to deliver GR's style of flexible and extensible game-play along with whatever modern cool visuals they think work, well then they may well have a winner. If it has the same HUGE barriers to cooperative play (and tournaments), well then I hope to meet up with many of my GR friends playing ArmA.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.. @Tinker, I am still stunned that Grin/ubi were not able/willing to release a DTD for the mission XML. This one simple bit of documentation that they MUST have would have gone a long way toward helping people develop missions for this system. But I'm guessing they just did not want that to happen -- I guess by their calculus it is far better to just sell a new game next year rather than develop a loyal community of users that will purchase expansion packs for many years :(

Edited by Buehgler_AS
Link to post
Share on other sites

The TvT (the other part of the overall community) received a wonderful game that supplied the majority of their needs.

Maybe it's too much to ask for one game to have it all.

You must be kidding me rossiski, right? :blink:

Look at the online # GRAW TvsT servers, the # TvsT players, he # of TvsT GRAW clans, the # of TvsT GRAW ladders...

That pretty much sums it up, and no furter explanation needed. Well, yea I can add that from muy original TvsT [GR] community in Europe there is about 5% playing GRAW, 25 % returned or sticking with [GR], the rest have moved on to other games... Not exactly what we expected when GRAW was released. :(

Peace, I appreciate the update. I stand corrected. I was unaware of the TvT scenario lately...I've been visiting these forums less and less over the past few months (since GRAW 1.35 release). I am saddened to hear that many TvT players have also been disappointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people understand what has happened in gaming developing during the last couple of years isn't just the same thing as before with more detail.

This is what I understand:

The sum of effects of that is... regress,

Regress of:

- Gameplay

- Variability/freedom

- Options/customizability

- Injury model

- Server tools

That comment was made to how modders would be able to work with the future game, not about the game itself...

But still, it's not regress in that it's making all engines more complex and and capable. But that also gives that implementing even simple things take longer time and requires more skills due to this complexity, but overall it can do way more then the old engines could. This is what keeps developers interested in staying in the business of making games. Evolution in math, programming and graphics.

Wolfsong:

They won't if they haven't been following the evolution of graphics and game complicity for the last 5 years. The reason GR was easy to mod is simply because it really easy to create stuff for it. Also because the engine was fairly simple and didn't require to much special animations and such for weapons and vehicles, it wasn't hard to rigg for it. What the community has to understand is games today are totally different beasts. You have to have the skills developer around the world had not longer then a year ago if your gonna have an easy shot at modding stuff into a modern game without it showing what isn't original work. Scripting, or course, requires less then modeling and texturing when it comes to artistic skills but is heavier on logics and programming. I hope people understand what has happened in gaming developing during the last couple of years isn't just the same thing as before with more detail.

I can agree with that, but, better tools and documentation would help. GR or GRAW, Needs an update, but your scripting tutorials, which are fantastic, cannot help the Co-Op people. There needs to be more help here, lot`s more extra options.

Like we will ever get a mission editor again! :angry:

XML is not that difficult from my angle. Have no prior knowledge, but have advanced with tutorials. However, it can take me upto 10 Mins on a CTD, just to even reset, alter an issue, reload the game! You know this takes hours of your time, making a mission. I have an uncomplete mission 05 here, i keep going back in, but it`s just not even FUN to do.

Thing is, even learning it, which i would like to be confident with, we still just so limited for a 9 Man Squad Insertion on a pretty tasty mission?

Tinker

I don't think you'll ever see a mission editor with roll downs again. That just ain't realistic for a development process to create when the majority of todays scripters are more then capable in handling scripting, which is only a lower form of programming that they usually are capable of.

To make such a tool just for modders... sure it could be done with enough time, but not something a publisher would pay the developer to do.

As for the mission problem with CTD and all that, it's just what the actual developers goes through. Scripting a normal SP mission takes months due to the size and one again, complexity, of todays maps and events. Taking just 10 min on a CTD is really short time if you look at programming actually... It can take days when you work fully time on it.

@Wolfsong, I really wish you would do as I suggested and many are hinting here and spend a few hours playing some quality coop GR to understand the distinction that Clin is trying to make. Also, if you read carefully, I think you will notice that the majority of "complaints" here about modding are about the ability to construct interesting and engaging missions for more than 4 players. While you comments about the technical limitations of GRAW may be accurate, they in no way excuse the huge regressive step that they represent relative to GR. The GR engine has happily dealt with anywhere from 30 to near 200 active AI enemy on a map at any one time. To see the reduction of the number of active enemies down to less than 20 as anything other than regressive boggles my mind. As has been pointed out many times here, this is a discussion about game-play, mission flexibility and mission creation. It is not about post-effects, it is not about textures, it is not about adding weapons, it is not about sounds, etc.

I do understand what he and the rest has written. I just look at it from a programmer and 3D artists point of view and try to be realistic.

In 2001 when GR was released you could never have up to 200 enemy AI active on a map at the same time. Today you can because the game is old and the PC hardware has evolved a lot in those years, going from 1,7GHz props to over 4GHz (Core 2 Duo 2GHz) to name just one such thing.

Also take into account that models where much simpler then, less joint (which actually is a key thing to give detail but each also adds more math each frame for each character), lower polycount (again giving the prop less to calculate for each character), lower res textures (same here), no normal maps (same again), less complexed AI (add that as well). Add the complexity of weapons in todays games as well and it gets even heavier. All in all it's a much heavier load then 2 times the old data for the props to handle for each character (and as I wrote, the hardware is only 2 times faster). Sure we have access to SLI and physics cards today, but how many users sit on such an high end rigg? Probably less then 5%.

As said, I fully understand what people are talking about but I also see the reality on the inside of the game. Not trying to be negative because I'm against it.

Edited by Wolfsong
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand more than most the ammount of work and tech that went into GRAW 1.

They broke more barriers than any other Development Team last year on PC games.

As the game is now after 1.35 its a good game I play most days, I like the missions with 3 members they are good, intersting and sometimes hard, but the cost to us to play is £200.00.

If we could use 9 players instead, doing missions the cost to us would be £450.00 You see where I am going with this.

[GR] was an add on that allowed us to play with more players, and went down well for a while but still restrictions in missions was there, this game type I feel was close but not quite, it needs more work to be sure.

So you see they are close to finding a solution to cover well our type of game style.

If this game style indeed is improved or implemented completly in GRAW 2 then the game will sell twice as many copies, and prolong the game for years with good modding capabillities of course.

The game looks great, I cant write down all the things I like its just an awsome game, but it could be a total draw droper, if a way can be found to finish the [GR] side.

It would please a lot of us, thats one bonus, but to be honest and I cant see why Ubi cant see the finance side of it, if its done like I said it will sell more copies, and that is really obvious.

Well any way here is hoping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...

:hmm: Definetly more complexity adds to the workload for both the computer and the modder.

But don't take for granted that people aren't willing to try things that the developers shouldn't because they need to make a game run on a wide set of systems. Or that we don't already have the knowledge to do certain things many consider to take years to learn from the 3d side of things or too time consuming so why even bother giving them refrence examples. People will surprise you, but it's very difficult to do anything without a jumping off point, next to impossible in some ways.

Edited by Brettzies
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past years teams and clans have been created by games like GR1.

With the ability to play coop based missions with a nine man team or more.

Example:

M02 Eager Smoke

The Farm in GR1.

Stealth, recon, mixed with Fire Fight, many peoples favourite.

This game type brought together many teams and had a knock on effect for tournaments across the world being played by many different teams with different nationalities.

Hundreds of teams and servers were created, thousands of players for 6 years and more played and made a unique impact on internet gaming.

This game type came to an end with the release of GRAW 1.

To do mission based objectives with no more than four players basically ripped the community apart, GR1`s general decline did however add to this as well.

Many Teams and clans split and went their separate ways; the community became in effect fragmented.

Most of us can understand the need for games to be better especially the AI on both sides, but with the massive improvement in this area already seen and much appreciated, it has left a part of the game completely neglected.

You may say this has to be a balancing act, what can be in a game and what cant, but the real point is a game that restricts the amount of players, being sold to a community that has been playing with a minimum of nine players, and more for years is really an opportunity lost.

Modders have worked very hard to achieve this in GRAW 1 with limited results and as I understand a steep learning curve, the ability to create Mission based objectives with more than four players needs to exist within the new game.

From my point of view COOP BASED MISSION OBJECTIVES need to be at the top of the list for GRAW2 otherwise the community fragmentation will go unaltered.

This to me was the only large element missing in GRAW 1;

I hope it will be rectified in GRAW 2.

Posts of this nature have been numerous over the past year and the reason is obvious, this element which is important to hundreds of us is missing.

It's a great thing to wish for and very well said Colin. But unfortuneatly UBI has proven this not to be any where near the top of their list of prioritys for this game. Even with the huge pool of talent in the modding arena we were not able to accomplish anything near the thrill or multi objective capabilitys of our loved GR1.

I don't think we are going to see it in AW2 either.

This alone makes me very suspisious as to getting anything worth while as far as co-op goes from AW2. But I can only hope that I am proven wrong and we get something worth while for co-op.

Edited by Creatch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...