I agree that the vast single player portion should be offline. I like Breakpoint and I don't want it to go away any time soon, which is why people like us want the solo part to be offline compatible. Once support is done, it's gone, and we might just be on the same boat as the Ghost Recon Phantoms fans. It's just that it has so much content, despite the fact that some side missions don't really belong in a GR game, it would suck that all that went away in one fell swoop. Now sure, if we finally got offline mode, and support would later dry up completely, we would lose the daily missions, but as I said, there's just so much content. It's nice to know that there are still other people who enjoy it.

I prefer GR stay a tactical game, and elements of Motherland really helped. I am skeptical about how much realism would be necessary. Even in past releases there were some kinds of creative freedom taken. Examples are how GR1 tackled the AT4, using tech concepts that have been cancelled. GR1 even had that stat upgrading system that I was okay with. Perhaps if things like this were implemented mildly and not overshadow the aesthetic the game has, perhaps it might work.

@zalexp__ First, a question about the weight department. You mean increase overall protection/weight (armor-wise) kinda like in Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 right? If so, that sounds good. Also, about attachments and weight: game-wise, I'm okay about certain things like heavy duty, long range optics or underslung GL's or SG's adding a bit more weight, because they seem beefier, maybe different barrels of certain length could slightly affect weight. Also, about noon lethal vs lethal, lethal takedowns could be faster than LTL, though the latter could be a bit slower, but helps preserve your target. Anyway, some of this stuff sounds good. I'll have to look over it again. Let me know what you think.

@krlex9x As I pointed out earlier, we still have Ubisoft Connect. However, I reminded myself earlier that we also have the Breakpoint store in the menu. Hopefully the devs or whoever can put these items on one of these services. If not, then whatever. I don't use Quartz and these are just cosmetics, so no need to let it get to me.

@hugo-fou There are a couple of things I do agree with in your post, both which revolve on player choice, which I think helps make this a tactical series. Setting between casual or hardcore, that's good for how players like to play the game. About things like "fantasy" tech, I think some of it is based on existing concepts, but over the years the devs come up with designs to fit those concepts. But I do agree with you about letting us have a choice about letting us use it or not. If certain players want FS-style camo, let'em. If they want to use a camo color that helps with stealth, okay. Some players want to use it, some don't. I like WL, but after I played GRAW and FS, it felt somewhat strange I guess, because GRAW let you have stuff like the mule and the drone. Before Operation Silent Spade, I thought FS came before WL and it felt weird that stuff like the sensor grenades and the warhound were. But as I mentioned before, some want to use stuff like this, some don't. But please, let players have the choice on whether they want to use it, just like they want to adjust the gameplay to their taste. Doesn't mean that it would make it any less of a tactical game.

As for bullet sponges, I think in games between GRAW and WL, the only sponges I found were mostly certain vehicles. High Explosives made things easier (because no duh), but some vehicle's I believe could soak up a certain amount of gunfire before being turned to scrap. Heck, in FS you could take out a BTR with an M134 minigun. Now, people have complained about drones, or how they acted in BP. One type of justifiable sponge could be an enemy UGV that's probably based on a real design, because I don't think enemies in the Tom Clancy game universe is just gonna be human enemies and technicals. Doesn't mean it has to be like BP, it would just be a different type of enemy to watch out or prepare for. Just a thought.

Haven't played the spillover event, because I play solo, but I have completed the calibration goal, and I've finally got the turret. Must say, even though it's been used on low level enemies, not to mention I still play on the lowest difficulty right now, it's a nice little piece of hardware. Perhaps it is worth swapping out the body armor for it. Provided you're using an operator with a good enough armor setting. Nice addition.

KUZMITCHS,
Well, if it were up to the dev team, hopefully it won't look (or feel) too weird, but I would still like to see this type of thing used in GR. I haven't read up on it myself, but I think it would be useful in case you have a class carrying heavy weapons and plenty of ammo, or you have extra ammo to resupply your team. I mean as a video game function, not a real-life function.

Rugby-Dog,
The tech in the game doesn't bother me. I hope the devs continue to allow us to use it (at least as a choice), because let's face it. Despite WL having less high-tech, we still got a hold of optical camo and got it back in Fallen Ghosts and now got it back in Operation Motherland. As for silent but deadly, stealth is a useful option in later GR games, but there's plenty of times to go loud. If they were just supposed to be silent, there's no need for grenade launchers, LMGs, rocket launchers. As for the tech not belonging in GR, it's part of GR, not just team tactics and guns (even though I'm more of a gun guy).

@virtual-chris Well, to the best of my knowledge, it does greatly affect detection at range, whether it's infantry, manned vehicle or drone, when (just about) fully upgraded. Heck, I could be cloaked and get close enough to an active turret and shut it down. You can even walk or run with it. Just be careful about getting up close with infantry, because they'll start wondering what's going on. Be careful of the duration, too. Even with extended charge, it will eventually run out, so find a safe spot to recharge.

A couple of things I should have mentioned. The first is There are some people who enjoy MGSV. I used to be into MGS when I was younger, but I got out of that. Besides, I don't want GR to be too focused on stealth. Now, about ditching BP, I don't want them to do that, right now (or for a long time). While I still enjoy BP (I think it's one of my top 5 GR games) I think there's still some things to add or fix. One thing I want to see added is like how Nomad, the remaining Ghost force, and people from Skel tech got off the island. While Motherland was a really good update, there should have been a story update set before that to answer that question, as well as some others. Right now, I not ready for them to move to another sequel. A side project (from one of the other studios), fine. But BP needs more added to it. Also, hats off to Ubi-Paris for making the game better.

Well, I play on PS4, so if the devs could put in a first person variant in this game for consoles as well, I might like to try that out. Though, if they did do that, here's hoping it would be PSVR compatible, as well.

So, still haven't gotten a reply from a specialist. Just wondering, If I proceeded from the "Choose your experience" scene, does this mean that my progress is gone? If so, should I just keep waiting for support or close the case and just start over? As I said, just wondering.

@Ubi-MrM Just letting you know, it's been 5 days and no one has responded, yet. But just wondering, how are they going to respond? By e-mail or what? Anyway, just letting you know, nothings changed much. Still waiting for a reply.

@Ubi-Keo Hey. Yeah, lost my character/profile today. It was fine yesterday, but today, all my stuff was gone. Tried doing the backup thing (since I had saved data from yesterday) but still stuck at the beginning. Ghost Experience video and everything. A little bit later, I put in a ticket this morning. Does this need to be redone or should I keep waiting? Thanks anyway.

@eagleyezx Well, yeah. I do want GR to stay true to itself. That being a tactical shooter, like let us do some planning like during and before we start a level/mission. In fact that's a good reason I want the whole tech thing we got a bit more of at the start of GRAW to be optional, because I want there to be a way that GR can stay GR. Heck OGR, that we were talking about mentioned that in the intro. But still, it's a tactical shooter, keep it that way. Know what I mean? Dunno why you mentioned medal of honor, even in the latest entries it's still a somewhat different breed.

I still have my PS2, and a lot of games for it. Case in point, Original Ghost Recon with the Desert Siege campaign and Jungle Storm with the Island thunder campaign. Honestly there's stuff in the later games I enjoy and see as an integral part of Ghost Recon, but still have other games like the first in case I want to play them. I may have gotten introduced to the Tom Clancy games with Rainbow Six on PS1, but Ghost Recon when it came out really pulled me into the franchise, mostly because OGR didn't have stealth levels like Rainbow Six had. Once they introduced them, the stealth ops my tolerance varied on which level/mission used stealth. Nevertheless, In terms of Tom Clancy, the Ghost Recon franchise holds high ranks to me.

@vahndaar Now some of this stuff I do agree with, like liberating outposts and airports, that stuff sounds like good tactical options. It can help to make Ghost Recon be tactical in ways other than just telling your teammates what to do and deciding what to bring with you. That is a much needed option. Still personally on the fence about weight systems, but I'll just have to see how it goes. Also, talk about making the game hardcore or something sounds like something reserved for difficulties to me. Ghost Recon should still be a tactical game no matter what difficulty you set it on, but I don't start a game from day one with the most brutal settings on. If it's too easy in easy mode, adjust the difficulty or gameplay settings (similar to Ghost Experience) to make it just right. But anyway more tactical choices other than just team orders and what items you choose, yes let's add that.

@mars388502 Okay, I guess it could be something to try. Hopefully, whatever kind of weight system the devs will use next time around could be something to work with. Here's hoping. Anyway, speaking of.50 caliber rifles one thing I looked up is the Sabre defense LSR-50. Maybe this could be something the devs could let us use. Thanks for the reply.

@latenitedelight Okay, that's better. Thank you.

@mars388502 No offense, but considering that a lot of the seemingly light/little stuff could make a weapon, especially a carbine or an smg much heavier and cumbersome, difficult to wield. It just brings back what I said on another post on how , much realism is necessary, or something. I've been told I take the whole weight thing out of proportion, or it's nothing to worry about. Honestly, I don't want this part of gameplay to be a complete pain to work with. Now, I have played games where some degree of weight was considered, and it didn't bother me, for example Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (armor only-decreased sprint time) Army of Two the devil's cartel (weapon weight made us slower when equipped). However if every single piece of equipment is going to add too much weight to worry about, then that doesn't sound like good gameplay to me. If weight is going to be considered in the next game, I don't want it to hinder gameplay, at least not too much. You know what I mean?

Now about suppressors, I think one reason why damage is decreased is also because subsonic ammo is considered, right? That way it's like not a perfect alternative to going loud or something. Back to weight, if it is considered for suppressors, I'd personally prefer it to add a small bit of weight, because I'd rather not have that feeling like I'm carrying a small boulder with me, you know? Also, the Barrett, you mentioned, if the full sized one is gonna be too much trouble, why not the short-barreled version, the one for "CQB"?

Right now, I'm playing Wildlands and I must say that attachments in gunsmith are very similar to, if not the same as, Breakpoint. By that I mean like things like small grips offer a bonus for one stat, all while degrading another. Really? With things like larger magazines and underslung weapons decreasing maneuverability for more firepower, that makes sense to me, but losing reload speed because I have a straight grip or an angled foregrip? That does not make sense. For gunsmith in future installments, the devs need to look back to Future Soldier. Underslung weapons are as I mentioned before. Grips either give you better control, or maneuverability, or both (with certain attachments). Magazines, not just what I said before, but some mag types give better options. Faster reload, increased damage against armored enemies. Heck, even incendiary and exacto ammo were some good choices. Tactically speaking, it was more efficient. What do you think?