Is progression really THAT hated?

[Bored_German]

This honestly isn't about the game but I just saw that there are no unlocks or any progression in this game. And I just wanted to ask if progression is really that hated. Because honestly I enjoy well made progression

[krzychuzokecia]

I think there's no progression in game (yet), because there's really not much of the game made aside of basic "sandbox" where you gear up with cool guns and go shoot a bunch of random bots.

There isn't any story or campaign, or (in terms of multiplayer) any ranking mechanic that would profit from a well-designed progression mechanic. I don't think we've even seen any hints of these things coming in the future (although IIRC campaign is planned? I may be wrong here).

Now compare that to, for example, Ready or Not, which already has some breadcrumbs of a story, and even varying difficulty for different levels. RoN would definitely benefit from campaign and progression (unlocking new equipment etc.), but from what I know it's not being worked on yet. Which is a bit disappointing, as it would enhance the game in a big way, and that's with already existing levels/assets.

In Ground Branch, in it's current state, there's really nothing that progression would improve - you'd end up with arbitrary limits. Not saying it won't be different in the future.

[Bored_German]

Originally posted by krzychuzokecia:

I think there's no progression in game (yet), because there's really not much of the game made aside of basic "sandbox" where you gear up with cool guns and go shoot a bunch of random bots.

There isn't any story or campaign, or (in terms of multiplayer) any ranking mechanic that would profit from a well-designed progression mechanic. I don't think we've even seen any hints of these things coming in the future (although IIRC campaign is planned? I may be wrong here).

Now compare that to, for example, Ready or Not, which already has some breadcrumbs of a story, and even varying difficulty for different levels. RoN would definitely benefit from campaign and progression (unlocking new equipment etc.), but from what I know it's not being worked on yet. Which is a bit disappointing, as it would enhance the game in a big way, and that's with already existing levels/assets.

In Ground Branch, in it's current state, there's really nothing that progression would improve - you'd end up with arbitrary limits. Not saying it won't be different in the future.

the feature description of ground branch sounds like they don't plan on adding progression tho

[Bored_German]

here thats what the feature discription says (translated)

We give a damn about unlocks, microtransactions and loot boxes. In GROUND BRANCH, players have access to all the necessary tools for their jobs right from the start. It's just a courtesy thing for the agency

[Nutlink]

I'd rather they focus on making me want to play the game because it's good instead of focusing on what carrot to dangle in front of me to keep me playing. However, if progression is just a point/ranking system without in-game unlocks, then go for it. I hate the idea of having to play for hours on end using weapons I don't care for just to be able to use a weapon or attachment that I want.

[krzychuzokecia]

Originally posted by Bored_German:

the feature description of ground branch sounds like they don't plan on adding progression tho

If this will work well with planned gameplay - what's the problem then?

Truth be told, at the moment I'm not even sure what they could hide behind the progression tree. The guns, within their respective categories, are mostly samey-same. Which is not a bad thing - it's not as if there's some great difference in performance between HK416 and M4A1 SOPMOD Block II. One's a bit heavier, the other's a bit lighter, but they all shoot the same, so why would you make one an unlock, and not the other?

Other games introduce arbitrary differences between various guns, but this one aims to be "realistic" so yeah... The only thing that could affect equipment availability is the story - for example mission taking place in 2006 won't have Block II M4 as it wasn't made yet. Or mission where you're attached to some indigenous forces, and are limited to guns they use. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

I do hope some of the early ideas of what GB was supposed to mean will get modified. But I'm talking mostly about the way levels are played. Devs are touting the "no magical spawns", all enemies spawned at the start of mission - but that's not really realistic if you think about it. Most of the maps are open terrains, so there always should be some option for enemy QRF (especially for intel retrieval). Or enemies fleeing/surrendering (in case of terrorist hunt). Terrorist hunt is especially painful, since it devolves into frantic search of that one missing bot.

[drakonas]

A simple rank up feature would be nice. At least to see how much someone has played versus a newer player. It doesn’t need any unlocks, just something visual.

[Bored_German]

Originally posted by drakonas:

A simple rank up feature would be nice. At least to see how much someone has played versus a newer player. It doesn’t need any unlocks, just something visual.

true

[KrisRedbeard]

Lack of unlocks and ranks is a deliberate decision.
Its the whole thing of "If you don't like it, make it yourself.".
So we did :)

[Bored_German]

Originally posted by KrisRedbeard:

Lack of unlocks and ranks is a deliberate decision.
Its the whole thing of "If you don't like it, make it yourself.".
So we did :)

Ah damn I personally love well made progression. But your game your decision

[KrisRedbeard]

Originally posted by Bored_German:

Ah damn I personally love well made progression. But your game your decision

Totally fine with it games where it suits them, such as a single player RPG or an MMO.
Unfortunately, most other games just use them as a form of hook.
Little dopamine hits as number goes up.
That sort of thing.

[Bored_German]

Originally posted by KrisRedbeard:

Originally posted by Bored_German:

Ah damn I personally love well made progression. But your game your decision

Totally fine with it games where it suits them, such as a single player RPG or an MMO.
Unfortunately, most other games just use them as a form of hook.
Little dopamine hits as number goes up.
That sort of thing.

I get that but I mean games like Deep rock galactic or payday those have really satisfying progression. But yeah I get why you think it doesn't fit this game

[NeverADullDoor]

In the context of a game where you are supposed to be playing as someone who would, IRL, have around at least a decade of experience in spec ops before even being invited to join the CIA, locking guns and gear behind an arbitrary milestone because you haven't "proven" yourself is just silly.

In extremely flippant MMO terms, Ground Branch and the contractors who work with them are the end game content.

[drakonas]

Originally posted by NeverADullDoor:

In the context of a game where you are supposed to be playing as someone who would, IRL, have around at least a decade of experience in spec ops...

We're talking about a simple 1-100 next to your name, based on whatever XP parameters the devs would decide. Mostly just to see how experienced the player is/how much they've played. In reality every player will not be as experienced as everyone else, because after all this is a video game.

[JohnJ]

We have kicked around the idea of players "achieving" ribbons or medals for certain things and time playing. But they would be purely cosmetic and have absolutely no value to gameplay.

And nothing would be achieved in a way that would be negative to gameplay. An example of that might be along the lines of a medal for 50 headshots or something dumb like that.

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Originally posted by Bored_German:

I get that but I mean games like Deep rock galactic or payday those have really satisfying progression. But yeah I get why you think it doesn't fit this game

Deep Rock is actually a perfect example of a game that exploits the human psychology using this mechanism very well.