>> Other Features Wish List! <<

[Fletch]

The Sat Map was cool but took away from the immersion of the game I felt in the original. It's just not the same when you can see what your enemies are doing like that. Maybe a on off switch so those who want it can have it but it can be turned off for hardcore matches.

Kinda like how the iff radar was on GR, you could turn it off or on, Off always had you on edge not knowing when or where the enemy was going to pop out on you.

[krise madsen]

Feeling particularly lazy today, I'm just gonna quote myself from the Ubi forums:

Much of the criticism against recent Ghost Recon games is aimed at the Advanced Warfighter tech, but I don't entirely agree. "Advanced Warfighter" is a made-up name, representing recent real-life development in advanced soldier technology. The core of these real-life systems is improved cellphone-like communication through voice and text, accurate navigation for each soldier, and digital transfer of information. Basically, this advanced soldier will have TeamSpeak, plus a map that marks the location of himself and all friendly forces, plus the location of any known enemy. Sound familiar? Ever played Battlefield 2? Basically, these systems are striving to give the soldier what FPS players have had for years.

The overhead sattelite image is a fake (real photo reconnaissance sattelites pass overhead within minutes) and probably too high resolution anyway. The UAV and the MULE are real but don't offer enough control (and having a finite supply of weapons and ammo on the MULE wouldn't hurt either). And the red diamonds, while actually an OK abstracted way of showing you information from other sources, are too accurate (accurate enough to shoot through a wall to kill someone) and a bit too "just-point-at-the-diamond-and-shoot" idiot proof for my taste.

But hey, since I'm quite the military tech whore, there's lots of other fancy gadgetry we could get: Airburst grenade launcher. Remote controlled ground vehicle, with cameras or guns. Armed UAV's. A MULE vehicle with machinegun and anti tank missiles. A shoulder-fired anti tank missile with fibreoptics (so you can guide it via the nose camera), a camera ball you can throw like a grenade, and use the camera to check for enemies. "Burglar Alarm" sensors you can place that will warn you when enemies pass by. The thing is, from the very first game, the Ghosts were "employing cutting edge military technology". The vaunted OICW of the first game was as much a pototype back then as some of the stuff mentioned above is now. The point is that this Advanced Warfighter stuff doesn't really matter. It's other features, like those described in the previous chapters that really differentiate one game from another.

linky

Or in plain language: The hi-tech stuff is not the important part. The game can be great with our without it. It's all the other bits and pieces that make up a tactical FPS that matters.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[legacywork]

Back on Topic !

Hi OldGhost

I think the majority of frequent visitors to these forums are of the ....errrrr ..... more mature ilk.

I am going to be celebrating 50 in April

I also lurked for a year or so, then I decided to learn mission modding and had to join in the forums for help.

The saying ... you can't teach an old dog new tricks .... is definately wrong ..... within a few weeks of joining the forums I had released my first modded mission for GRAW2 .... so stick in there

If you ever see me on line .... feel free to jump in and have ago.

Legacy

[OldGhost]

Back on Topic !

"Hi OldGhost

I think the majority of frequent visitors to these forums are of the ....errrrr ..... more mature ilk."

Gee. I would have figured this crowd to be younger. Not kids, but say......25 to 45?

OldGhost.

[OldGhost]

Hay Krise. I agree with you. The military is going high tech and the game just reflecting that movement.

Personally, I just love it and I am disappointed that if you don't play online, the game doesn't give you access to really high tech weapons like the OICW (XM-29?). We had them in [GR].

As for the red diamond, it serves an important perpose beyound just showing us where the bad guy is. It serves as a way to tell your ghosts to attack something.

Hay Fletch. Didn't they have an on/off switch for enemy diamonds?

That should be an easy thing to do.

OldGhost.

[Kingkat]

I think most of US are a little more "mature" in age........................ ............but certainly NOT in our thinking or playing! (my 2 sons are betwen 25 and 45..... )

Its why this site is the best. It could also explain the types of games we prefer too.

[Kingkat]

I wonder IF a small, SF team, would be able to actually use this Techno stuff while in the field? Maybe I watch too much of (the television show) The Unit, but they seem to operate with a minimum of stuff.

Not that any of this stuff is bad, just not sure if it would be necessary in what the Ghosts are trying to accomplish?

Anyway, I agree with the posts here, a return to what the original GR was......or at least how it played.

Co-Op size of at least 9. That would create 3 three man teams. Worked very well in GR.

Realistic selection of "current" weapons. And their accurate attachments as well.

No "Hero" character stuff. I will decide who I want to be in the game.

Minimize the chatter. I use headphones too.

Not too sure about vehicles though. I see good and bad.

Just a few thoughts.

[Sgt. Atoa]

Hay Krise. I agree with you. The military is going high tech and the game just reflecting that movement.

Personally, I just love it and I am disappointed that if you don't play online, the game doesn't give you access to really high tech weapons like the OICW (XM-29?). We had them in [GR].

As for the red diamond, it serves an important perpose beyound just showing us where the bad guy is. It serves as a way to tell your ghosts to attack something.

Hay Fletch. Didn't they have an on/off switch for enemy diamonds?

That should be an easy thing to do.

OldGhost.

OICW = canceled (2005)

XM8 = canceled (2005)

Land Warrior = canceled (2007)

UAV is usually controlled by HQ and not by the squad

I saw the first incarnation of the Land Warrior back in 1992 when I joined the Army it was bulky and heavy but according to Soldiers magazine the program was to suppose to be operational in 5 yrs.......15 years later Land Warrior got canceled in 2007........Now the Army is testing the Future Force Warrior this one have a better chance but is going to take at least 5 to 10 years to deploy this kind of weapon systems

I meet a few SF guys when I got deployed last year (cool guys btw) and never saw high tech wepons systems

just the usual wepons (m4, m14, ak47 etc) so maybe the FFW is the way of the future but we still have a LONG WAY to go

Edited January 26, 2009 by Sgt. Atoa

[legacywork]

I think most of US are a little more "mature" in age........................ ............but certainly NOT in our thinking or playing! (my 2 sons are betwen 25 and 45..... )

Its why this site is the best. It could also explain the types of games we prefer too.

Bravo Kk .......

Check out some of the forums for console only or Wii games ...... and you'll soon see that this is the best

Legacy

[OldGhost]

I meet a few SF guys when I got deployed last year (cool guys btw) and never saw high tech wepons systems

just the usual wepons (m4, m14, ak47 etc) so maybe the FFW is the way of the future but we still have a LONG WAY to go

Ahhh remember my friend. Whatever year WE are playing the game in, GR is supposed to take place sometime in the near future.

OldGhost.

[Fletch]

Hay Fletch. Didn't they have an on/off switch for enemy diamonds?

That should be an easy thing to do.

OldGhost.

Ya know I played and still do GR (occassionally) but both GR:AW's I have not touched in a while so I don't remember if you could turn off the diamonds. The diamonds I was not refering to though as at least you had to have line of sight (withing the draw distance) for the diamond to show up or use the not real satellite view to see them.

I was refering to the unreal IFF in the original GR which acted like a radar showing the location of enemy as long as they were on the scope. Thats one item I don't want to see reborn unless they do have a shut off switch.

As to Future Warrior I heard they were training a company very hard with the package and that they were planning to deploy it, do any of you Army type know what happened with that group?

[Sgt. Atoa]

I meet a few SF guys when I got deployed last year (cool guys btw) and never saw high tech wepons systems

just the usual wepons (m4, m14, ak47 etc) so maybe the FFW is the way of the future but we still have a LONG WAY to go

Ahhh remember my friend. Whatever year WE are playing the game in, GR is supposed to take place sometime in the near future.

OldGhost.

Granted!!!

[GR] released 2001 but in the game the year is 2008,,,,well it's 2009 where is the OICW?

anyway I do respect the type of gameplay you like and as a matter of fact I own both GRAWS for the Xbox but I see those games as something else...that's why I'm looking foward to the other game which is going to be based on what soldiers use now and not in a distant Starship Troopers future

BTW Welcome to the forums

Edited January 26, 2009 by Sgt. Atoa

[NoQuarter]

The UAV (and its limited functions/use) is a push seeing as though it is a scripted support element and not something used every mission. On the other hand, the Tac-Map in the :AW* series is just sad, start to finish.

The limited scope/range of it based on your location as noted, the simplistic command options (redundant-given that the same exact orders can be given through the Cross-Com), etc.

Ever wonder just how it is that when you Tab up the Tac-Map and zoom in on a particular location, you hear audio feedback from that particular location...either we are talking about an extremely long boom mic on that ACME satellite providing the realtime feed, or we are dealing with Buck Rodgers in the 24th Century stuff.

Base it on reality, give it a purpose, and make it usable. Don't make it cartoonish.

____

That said, considering the potential change of developer, it's more than likely that this stuff will not be carried over into the next installment...or at least not in the same form- and hopefully not in the same function.

[OldGhost]

The game creators must be pulling their hair out right about now.

Simple sollution.....

Give it all to us and make us all happy .

OldGhost.

Edited January 26, 2009 by OldGhost

[RatoN]

Actually, we are not hard to please. We just don’t like junk.

A good game engine that doesn’t feel heavy on the machine.

Non-linear maps.

With enemies that are already there. Not appear magically.

9 men coop.

Wide angle perspective view.

If RSE can come up with a modern tactical shooter with the above… the rest could be f!xed if need be.

[krise madsen]

Guys, let's not get too hung up on the technolgoy. My main point was that it isn't really important if the hi-tech gear is there or not. There are other parameters in the game (realism, non-linear mission) that matter. But if hi-tech gear is included (personally I like it, but it's a matter of taste) it has to be done right. Which it wasn't in GRAW.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Sgt. Atoa]

Guys, let's not get too hung up on the technolgoy. My main point was that it isn't really important if the hi-tech gear is there or not. There are other parameters in the game (realism, non-linear mission) that matter. But if hi-tech gear is included (personally I like it, but it's a matter of taste) it has to be done right. Which it wasn't in GRAW.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Well GRAW1 and GRAW2 multiplayer which is made by RSE have good maps my only gripe with those is that you can't go inside the buildings compared to [GR] and I like my CQB from time to time but I guess is a technical issue in their engine and that's why they never implement inside areas since [GR],

Edited January 27, 2009 by Sgt. Atoa

[OldGhost]

Well GRAW1 and GRAW2 multiplayer which is made by RSE have good maps my only gripe with those is that you can't go inside the buildings compared to [GR] and I like my CQB from time to time but I guess is a technical issue in their engine and that's why they never implement inside areas since [GR],

This is a teachable moment for me. Does CQB stand for close quarters battle? If so, I beg to differ. Much of the last two missions in GRAW2 took place in a big generator room and all those winding corridors. Did you have something else in mind?

OldGhost.

[Tinker]

Does CQB stand for close quarters battle?

Yep.

GR1 had a very small amount of enter able buildings, nothing to make much of an argument about. Probably the vast amount of mods that catered for CQB, is more to what some people may have in mind.

[OldGhost]

"GET THAT CHOPPER!!!" Captain Scott Mitchell, GRAW2 intro. movie.

I sat down to do an experiment. I played the GRAW2 mission...Codename Farallon. I proceded with the mission securing the generator room and then cleared all the bad guys (tangos?) off the dam. I then led the ghosts back into the generator room and left them there. There they could not see the choppers or be hurt by them. I then went back to the dam, planted the EMP charge, found a good hide and waited for the choppers.

The choppers rose vertically and stopped. The red diamond appeared on both of them. They then backed up and the diamond on one chopper disappeared. No diamond.....no way to order a ghost to shoot it down. I would have to wait for it to come closer. (back into range?) In the meantime, the chopper has time to get set up for HIS attack run.

If this was done on purpose, then it was done to make it harder for us gamers. If the game creators want to make shooting down choppers (or tanks) more difficult, may I suggest they put a range limit on the zues-mpar. But as long as I or any of the ghosts has line-of-sight, then I should be able to see the red diamond. I can order the shot, but then the ghost would have to wait for the target to come into range.

By the way, I used the zues to shoot down one of the choppers. Then dove for deep cover. The other chopper took off after the ghosts. It knew right where they were and kept shooting into the mountain top. What's up with that?

GODS this sucks.

When using a rifle, you click the aim button to bring the sites or scope up to your eye. The sites stay there until you click the button again. But with the Zeus-mpar, you have to press and hold the button. I personally like to map the aim button to one of the mouse keys. But this makes it kind of hard to track a moving target and get a lock. while holding the mouse button down. It would be nice to have the Zeus eye-piece stay up until you click the aim button to put it back down.

Which way to the waypoint.

In GRAW1 you could place the yellow reference waypoint anywhere on the tactical map and at any zoom level. But in GRAW2 you could only place a waypoint while in the overview map which was zoomed so far out, you could not place it with any accuracy. Bring back the way you could do it in GRAW1. Also, keep the ability to place more than one waypoint.

Bring it back.

I thought the heartbeat rate indicator with its effect on accuracy was quite realistic and way cool. Bring it back.

Off topic.

When remapping your keys, one says "Switch Stance". I could never get this one to work. any ideas?

Wadoya think????

OldGhost.

[OldGhost]

How Smart Are The Ghosts?

Let's start with GRAW1. If I was advancing down one side of a street, and used the crosscom to order a ghost into position on the other side, he would pretty much go where I wanted him to go. But if I used the crosscom to order him to cover some area in front of us, he would fidget, move around, and often move out of the position I wanted him in. And sometimes he would even move over to my side of the street. The wider the distance between us, the worse this behavior got.

In GRAW2 the ghost stayed in position much better. but sometimes still had problems looking in the direction I told him to cover. Again, the wider the distance between us the worse the problem. Also in GRAW2 if I used the tactical map to chain some move-waypoints togather ending in the cover order, often the ghost would go where I told him to go but end up in a position with some object blocking that area I told him to cover and looking in a direction other than the one I told him to cover. Sometimes he would move to the edge of the cover or object to get a clear field of view and sometimes he wouldn't.

In GRAW1 there were many 2nd story floors, windows and guard towers scattered around the battlefield that were obvious good places to put a sniper. But I would have to drag the sniper up to these positions using the move order in the crosscom and sometimes he would not go there period.

And in both GRAW1 and GRAW2 if I used the tactical map to chain a series of move-waypoints, often times one or more ghosts would stop short.

My point here is that the game would go SO much smoother if I did not have to stop and go back and reposition the ghosts for some coming firefight. And that it would be just a delight either using the tactical map, or using the crosscom to point at some 2nd story window or top floor of a guard tower and have the sniper actually go there on his own.

This is not a criticism as I understand that the game creators have done their best and that each new title represents their state of the art in gameing AI. Just something to hope for.

Keep It Real.

Ghost Recon is itself a fantasy. But it operates in a framework of realism. We gamers expect familiar things......people, vehicles, and weapons to behave in certain ways. And when they don't, it lessens the quality of the game.

In the GRAW2 mission welcome to Juarez a RPG-7 picked up off the battlefield can kill a tank. But in the GRAW2 mission that same RPG-7 can't bring down a chopper?

In GRAW2 a ghost in recon mode can't be seen by the enemy even if the ghost is in the middle of an open street and just yards away from him?

Or in GRAW1 more than once I have peeked around a corner to find an Aguila-7 soldier standing with his side facing me. With my 5.56 cal. assault rifle I put one round into his armpit above the rim of his body armor vest only to have him turn on me, put a burst into my head and kill me. :huh: It don't work that way.

These kinds of things can be very VERY and lead to having a moment.

Things To Keep.

In GRAW2, the ability to use the crosscom while viewing the game through the helmet cam of another ghost.

Concluding thoughts to come.

OldGhost.

[Sup]

Quite simply, GRAW1/2 had pretty rudimentary AI, for both sides. They did the best with the complexity of AI they'd made, and i'm sure they programmed the best AI they could with the difficulties of their engine and the time constraints... But it sucked. It wasn't versatile, and it couldnt accomplish basic tasks like walking up stares or shooting from cover correctly.

Don't be afraid to criticise, things go wrong in game development, it's not like you're insulting Bo's mother

GR1's AI was much better, frankly, and i criticize it constantly around here. I would love to see a solid squad based AI system for the opponents, with that touch of individuality and illusion of fear to let the player feel like they were really accomplishing something with stealth and flanking attacks.

[OldGhost]

My wish list posts have been so long-wended that I worry that the game creators think that all I have done is bellyache. I kink of feel like one of them in that I love this game a and want to see it be the best game possable.

Also, please see my post on the computer-Nvidia graphics card board as I can use some help with my graphics card.

OldGhost.

Edited January 31, 2009 by OldGhost

[Rocky]

My wish list posts have been so long-wended that I worry that the game creators think that all I have done is bellyache.

That's okay I'll be trimming, compiling and summerising all these posts into one big wishlist shortly....

[krise madsen]

Friendly AI and squad controls is a tricky thing.

In GRAW1, orders were more general and the team mates were tasked with figuring out the details themselves. This sometimes worked well: Put them near a corner and they'd approach the edge and lean out.

However, it often went disastrously wrong, like insisting (no matter how many times you reordered them) on standing in front of the cover, giving the enemy a free shot at them.

GRAW2 tightened up the commands somewhat, but you then had to be more finicky about ordering them about, doing more micro-management.

It's really an issue with no perfect solution. At least not until we all get a NASA supercomputer just to run the AI.

Enemy AI is a slightly different matter. With a very linear mission design, you can control when and where the players will be, so you can script very accurate and realistic behavior for the bots. But in tac-sims you want a non-linear design (at least you should), which makes it much harder to get the enemy AI act realistically. Considering how old it is, GR still does a remarkably good job with this.

Respectfully

krise madsen