PDA

View Full Version : An idea/Ideas to make combat more difficult.



Serrachio
11-04-2011, 08:07 AM
Now I'm pretty sure Revelations is primed for release, so I'm going to throw this out there for any of their later games.

I know people say that combat is really easy, but with the ideas that the developers are adding into combat this time around made me think a little.

My first idea was to simply not allow the use of medicine during combat. Many a time I have been in a fight with guards and whenever my health got low, I could just simply boost myself back up to full, despite being in a heated situation.

Not allowing medicine in combat would make it harder because if you're messing around a little bit and you've taken hits because of it, having no crutch to depend on while they're attacking might cost you a desync, or force some people to dodge more, which I feel is a mechanic that is neglected when it comes to guards.

If that was too harsh an idea though, having a function that would make your attacks after dodging an enemy hurt them more might balance it out.

Another idea I considered was that countering an enemy behind you should be more difficult (dependant on a radius from your character's position), because of the fact that you have a hood blocking out the surrounding noise behind you, along with not being able to see them out of the corner of your eye.

Maybe countering an enemy behind you should have a shorter time window, so that you have to be more aware when to strike, or to just dodge them as a result.

Again, another way to make up for it would be that countering more difficult guards might be made easier if there is a regular guard surrounding you, and that your character could grab the nearby guard (by the Grab function) and use them to take the attack, killing them and leaving the tougher guard vulnerable for a short while.

If you have some ideas though, please leave them here so that the developers have one place to look for them whenever they read over the forums.

dxsxhxcx
11-04-2011, 08:29 AM
they should change the way medicine works, make it SLOWLY heal us during combat and make this process faster when we aren't in battle, only doctors should be able to heal large amounts of health at once...

another thing that would be cool is make medicine only heal around 60~70% of our health, to heal us 100% we should visit a doctor...

also:

- increase the damage dealt by guards;

- bring back the ability the guards had to break our defense and attack us like they did in AC1;

- make the guards USE the advantages they create like when they grab us or throw sand at our face and not wait until we are fine to continue the battle;

- do not make a killstreak 1HKO everyone, create a chance for this to happen based on the guards ranks and health;

- make possible for the guards to dodge and defend our attacks while we are doing a killstreak, also based on their ranks and health;

- make more than one counter attack necessary to kill certain kind of guards (the more skilled ones), in AC1 Altair wasn't able to kill some guards with only one counter attack, so he punched the guards away;

iN3krO
11-04-2011, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
they should change the way medicine works, make it SLOWLY heal us during combat and make this process faster when we aren't in battle, only doctors should be able to heal large amounts of health at once...

another thing that would be cool is make medicine only heal around 60~70% of our health, to heal us 100% we should visit a doctor...

also:

- increase the damage dealt by guards;

- bring back the ability the guards had to break our defense and attack us like they did in AC1;

- make the guards USE the advantages they create like when they grab us or throw sand at our face and not wait until we are fine to continue the battle;

- do not make a killstreak 1HKO everyone, create a chance for this to happen based on the guards ranks and health;

- make possible for the guards to dodge and defend our attacks while we are doing a killstreak, also based on their ranks and health;

- make more than one counter attack necessary to kill certain kind of guards (the more skilled ones), in AC1 Altair wasn't able to kill some guards with only one counter attack, so he punched the guards away;

i would add timmings to the killstreaks too so it wouldn't be press attack button madly until we see some guard will attack us so we press high profile button.

thekarlone
11-04-2011, 11:01 AM
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

Serrachio
11-04-2011, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat.

Jexx21
11-04-2011, 11:35 AM
Yea, i'm okay with the difficulty of combat in AC. To me the game shouldn't be about difficult combat.

Altough, I wouldn't mind unlocking harder difficulties after beating the game, or just offering different difficulty levels.

And example of a game that has combat that is similar to the AC series but has difficulty levels would be Batman: Arkham Asylum and presumably Arkham City. I haven't played Arckham City yet, so :/

But I don't se ehow they could fit a difficulty level in the Assassin's Creed series because I don'tknow how it would fit into the Animus operating system.

thekarlone
11-04-2011, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Assassin's Creed is not for harcore gamers, is for all types of players. Combat is only a secondary feature, free-running for gameplay and the plot story for the background is more important than combat. I don't play AC to fight, I play it to enjoy a story touring historic cities.

The challenge when you play AC is discover things and learn who is your target and how to kill it, but not combat multiples enemies during the level like other games. As I've said before, it's only a secondary feature.

lukaszep
11-04-2011, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game was all about stealth/being an assassin. I would argue that easy sword combat challenges these two core aspects of the original game.

dxsxhxcx
11-04-2011, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Yea, i'm okay with the difficulty of combat in AC. To me the game shouldn't be about difficult combat.

Altough, I wouldn't mind unlocking harder difficulties after beating the game, or just offering different difficulty levels.

And example of a game that has combat that is similar to the AC series but has difficulty levels would be Batman: Arkham Asylum and presumably Arkham City. I haven't played Arckham City yet, so :/

But I don't se ehow they could fit a difficulty level in the Assassin's Creed series because I don'tknow how it would fit into the Animus operating system.

they just need to put the menu to choose in which difficulty level we want to play in the start menu, where we choose to play the single player or multiplayer mode, options and extras (if I'm not wrong, these are the options we have there), or do you count that menu that appears before we start playing as part of the story too?!

iN3krO
11-04-2011, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the original game was about being realistic if i can recall well... having combat hard and stealth faster then it is realistic.

Plus, as other guy said, combat is a secondary feature. if you can't handle it avoid it, that's what i did in my first run in Ac1.

You can do the whole game withou combat, what is the problem of making combat exclusive for those who can have skill enough to do combats faster then be stealth? I don't even want the game to require much skill, i just want the faster options to be more skill based then the actual system (0% fail).

LightRey
11-04-2011, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game was all about stealth/being an assassin. I would argue that easy sword combat challenges these two core aspects of the original game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Combat has always been easy.

lukaszep
11-04-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.

And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game was all about stealth/being an assassin. I would argue that easy sword combat challenges these two core aspects of the original game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Combat has always been easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true, but the killstreaks which were introduced in AC:B made it too easy to kill many guards quickly, and in my opinion unrealistically. You also rarely run out of medicine, and more health bars means it's almost impossible to be seriously injured in combat.

Serrachio
11-04-2011, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Combat has always been easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat has been easy for those who knew when to react.

AC2 made this easier, but ACB made it a lot easier for those who got better at countering because of the previous game.

ACR intends to add a little more difficulty back into the game, but there could be some things that could be added to make sure the challenge is re-instated.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
That is true, but the killstreaks which were introduced in AC:B made it too easy to kill many guards quickly, and in my opinion unrealistically. You also rarely run out of medicine, and more health bars means it's almost impossible to be seriously injured in combat.
I hate to again refer to the one move in ACII that made it easy to kill any guard: block, point at guard and attack, combo kill. Works on every guard.

Serrachio
11-04-2011, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lukaszep:
That is true, but the killstreaks which were introduced in AC:B made it too easy to kill many guards quickly, and in my opinion unrealistically. You also rarely run out of medicine, and more health bars means it's almost impossible to be seriously injured in combat.
I hate to again refer to the one move in ACII that made it easy to kill any guard: block, point at guard and attack, combo kill. Works on every guard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true, but with that, the timing had to be precise and you had to know when to strike.

With following games decreasing the time window of the counter mechanic, a lot more people are less focused on combo-killing their enemies and just waiting for guards to attack so they can instantly kill them, so that they can follow up with automatic guard slaughter.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
That's true, but with that, the timing had to be precise and you had to know when to strike.

With following games decreasing the time window of the counter mechanic, a lot more people are less focused on combo-killing their enemies and just waiting for guards to attack so they can instantly kill them, so that they can follow up with automatic guard slaughter.
It really isn't that hard of a move. I taught my little brother how to do it in like one minute.

Serrachio
11-04-2011, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
That's true, but with that, the timing had to be precise and you had to know when to strike.

With following games decreasing the time window of the counter mechanic, a lot more people are less focused on combo-killing their enemies and just waiting for guards to attack so they can instantly kill them, so that they can follow up with automatic guard slaughter.
It really isn't that hard of a move. I taught my little brother how to do it in like one minute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, once you pick up on it, it's easy. Doesn't stop people from button mashing however.

I remember trying a combo kill in AC2 and it didn't seem to work for me though.

Mr_Shade
11-04-2011, 02:06 PM
Well as posted on these very forums - the game is now "gold" meaning it's completed...

So, while I understand the need to make suggestions etc, it's a little late...


If you want to help shape the game, you need to play it, and then post in the feedback threads, which we will have after release..

While I understand that people want to have a say now, I don't want people ranting, due to these suggestions never making the final game..

And remember suggestions are just that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Serrachio
11-04-2011, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Well as posted on these very forums - the game is now "gold" meaning it's completed...

So, while I understand the need to make suggestions etc, it's a little late...


If you want to help shape the game, you need to play it, and then post in the feedback threads, which we will have after release..

While I understand that people want to have a say now, I don't want people ranting, due to these suggestions never making the final game..

And remember suggestions are just that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Now I'm pretty sure Revelations is primed for release, so I'm going to throw this out there for any of their later games.

E-Zekiel
11-04-2011, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
they should change the way medicine works, make it SLOWLY heal us during combat and make this process faster when we aren't in battle, only doctors should be able to heal large amounts of health at once...

another thing that would be cool is make medicine only heal around 60~70% of our health, to heal us 100% we should visit a doctor...

also:


- bring back the ability the guards had to break our defense and attack us like they did in AC1;

- make the guards USE the advantages they create like when they grab us or throw sand at our face and not wait until we are fine to continue the battle;



- make more than one counter attack necessary to kill certain kind of guards (the more skilled ones), in AC1 Altair wasn't able to kill some guards with only one counter attack, so he punched the guards away;

I agree with the snippets I've taken above, but aside from that, don't particularly think combat needs to be made more difficult. Average guards are not superpowered. Maybe bosses, generals, etc...but in a general sense, I don't see the need.

Serrachio
11-04-2011, 04:01 PM
Well, I pretty much always apply my ideas to Heavy and Seeker units E-Zekiel, so that they're a little more specialised instead of "Guard with a pole" and "Guard with an axe/2-hander".

Sarari
11-04-2011, 04:02 PM
They just needa make the guards more aggressive.

dman1988
11-04-2011, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thekarlone:
I don't want the game harder than it is right now. I think the difficulty is just that required in this type of game.

That's where a bunch of people will disagree with you.


And besides, starting a fight with lots and lots of guards should be its own punishment.

Even in AC1, if you came into contact with more than you could handle early in the game, you pretty much had to run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't disagree with him. The game was never about challenging combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


But it should be(partly).It should be a punishment if you fail to be stealthy,that's how it was in AC1 but ever since the first game Ubisoft seems to be fine with dumbing down the series for casual gamers.

LightRey
11-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by dman1988:
But it should be(partly).It should be a punishment if you fail to be stealthy,that's how it was in AC1 but ever since the first game Ubisoft seems to be fine with dumbing down the series for casual gamers.
No it wasn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
AC1 had easy combat, just like the others. You can completely avoid being stealthy with absolutely every assassination and just slaughter all the guards that get in your way.

Sarari
11-04-2011, 07:18 PM
This is for ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE FORUMS, the combat in AC1 might have been easy, but it was no where as easy as ACB's combat! That's all we're trying to explain! Some of us don't want it to be as easy as Brotherhood, we just want them to make the fighting slightly harder so we can at least have a fight more challenging than Brotherhood! Why is it so hard to people to understand that!

Sorry for bursting out like that, but people misunderstand what we try to say with these kind of things, even if we're being totally clear....

dman1988
11-04-2011, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
This is for ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE FORUMS, the combat in AC1 might have been easy, but it was no where as easy as ACB's combat! That's all we're trying to explain! Some of us don't want it to be as easy as Brotherhood, we just want them to make the fighting slightly harder so we can at least have a fight more challenging than Brotherhood! Why is it so hard to people to understand that!


Sorry for bursting out like that, but people misunderstand what we try to say with these kind of things, even if we're being totally clear....

Thank you,I thought I was alone in my sentiments.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
This is for ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE FORUMS, the combat in AC1 might have been easy, but it was no where as easy as ACB's combat! That's all we're trying to explain! Some of us don't want it to be as easy as Brotherhood, we just want them to make the fighting slightly harder so we can at least have a fight more challenging than Brotherhood! Why is it so hard to people to understand that!

Sorry for bursting out like that, but people misunderstand what we try to say with these kind of things, even if we're being totally clear....
Then I see no reason to make it 'slightly less easy'.

Sarari
11-05-2011, 07:33 AM
Why not make it slightly less easy?? I mean, it'll make the fans who don't like the combat that much start to enjoy again, and the people who already like the combat are still gonna get what they want. I doubt it's so difficult for Ubisoft to change just such things...

LightRey
11-05-2011, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
Why not make it slightly less easy?? I mean, it'll make the fans who don't like the combat that much start to enjoy again, and the people who already like the combat are still gonna get what they want. I doubt it's so difficult for Ubisoft to change just such things...
The thing is that the AC1 combat was only (slightly) harder because it was more limited and simplistic. It was never intended to be harder and really, until I see a poll from a significant amount of the regular players (i.e. not just "hardcore" fans like us) I'm not at all convinced that any majority would actually like the combat to be harder. Not to mention that it could well turn out to be a lot less enjoyable than you're imagining. You're all saying you'd like for the combat to be harder, but until you've actually experienced more difficult combat (with the current broad selection of options in AC) you can't determine if you'd actually like it more.

Sarari
11-05-2011, 08:08 AM
My point it is, I don't want to fight off an entire army in less than 30 seconds. They make the kill streaks way to easy. I love the kill streaks, every time I'm going in to kill another guard, they just let their guard down. Not because they're affraid, but because Ubisoft wanted it to be much more easy.

I'll give it in full detail:

I was doing a kill streak, so I killed one guy, then I moved on to the other guy, but the guy I was moving onto looked ready to block it. So once I moved toward him, he for some reason LIFTED his arms up as if I had knocked his spear upward when I actually didn't do anything more than just stare at him...

LightRey
11-05-2011, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
My point it is, I don't want to fight off an entire army in less than 30 seconds. They make the kill streaks way to easy. I love the kill streaks, every time I'm going in to kill another guard, they just let their guard down. Not because they're affraid, but because Ubisoft wanted it to be much more easy.

I'll give it in full detail:

I was doing a kill streak, so I killed one guy, then I moved on to the other guy, but the guy I was moving onto looked ready to block it. So once I moved toward him, he for some reason LIFTED his arms up as if I had knocked his spear upward when I actually didn't do anything more than just stare at him...
The thing is that regular players might like being able to kill lots of guards in a short amount of time.

kudos17
11-05-2011, 08:30 AM
My belief is that the "difficulty" in the AC series should stem from the player, not the game.

Can I rush in toward my target, kill him, and then slaughter the remaining guards? Yes. Do I want to? Absolutely not. I'd rather sneak in unseen, kill the target, and be out quick. Such is the way it is with an assassin. My only complaint is the strict path Ubisoft as made us follow in that regard.

Think back to AC1. You had a NARROW opportunity to sneak up on your target, and if you were seen, you were compromised big time. That feeling of disappointment made me literally let the enemies kill me just so I could try again to get the perfect kill on that mission. In AC2, AC:B, there are some missions where if you're spotted, you're desynchronized. That's a shame. I always felt the prime guide to get a good kill in AC1 came from the player, but now here is the game telling you that you "fail" if you make a mistake. That feeling of failure should come from within the player, not thrown at them.

If they had another AC game where you COULD do whatever you wanted, but there was definitely a more effective way to do things, then I would be very pleased.

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Sarari:
My point it is, I don't want to fight off an entire army in less than 30 seconds. They make the kill streaks way to easy. I love the kill streaks, every time I'm going in to kill another guard, they just let their guard down. Not because they're affraid, but because Ubisoft wanted it to be much more easy.

I'll give it in full detail:

I was doing a kill streak, so I killed one guy, then I moved on to the other guy, but the guy I was moving onto looked ready to block it. So once I moved toward him, he for some reason LIFTED his arms up as if I had knocked his spear upward when I actually didn't do anything more than just stare at him...

Actually, the animations don't matter that much. You would of killed the guy regardless of whether the dude lifted his spear or not.

xCr0wnedNorris
11-05-2011, 10:42 AM
You wanna play stealthy, play stealthy.

I wanna kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds, so let me do that.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You wanna play stealthy, play stealthy.

I wanna kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds, so let me do that.
Indeed.

Rakudaton
11-05-2011, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You wanna play stealthy, play stealthy.

I wanna kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds, so let me do that.

The ability to kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds renders stealth rather redundant, wouldn't you agree? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LightRey
11-05-2011, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You wanna play stealthy, play stealthy.

I wanna kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds, so let me do that.

The ability to kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds renders stealth rather redundant, wouldn't you agree? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it doesn't. His point is that if you wanna be stealthy, do so, but if you wanna kill a battalion of guards in 30 seconds, you should be able to do that as well instead.

Serrachio
11-05-2011, 11:59 AM
Just so you know, I did take into consideration how feasible my ideas were, and if you consider how much the combat allows players to quickly kill players, they are balanced by my counter-suggestions.

I know that combat is easier for players as it progressed onward, but what I did put out there are things that still fit in with the combat as it is now, but rework some small things that could have a better function.

No medicine in combat would mean that players would get better at taking down enemies swiftly, and would use more of the dodge mechanic to avoid damage, as a player can't easily heal themselves. That is counter-balanced by hitting the enemy you dodge for more damage.

Also, it is a little silly that countering an enemy behind you is as easy as one coming in from the front, even though I know the assassin is supposed to be aware of their surroundings.

Having a shorter time window for countering someone behind you is a realistic prospect, and being able to use the Grab function to make a human shield is a good counter-balance to it as well.

Overall, two combat mechanics are used a little more and have some new effects to them.

Please DO NOT turn this into a stealth vs. combat argument about what is the proper way to play. I made the thread to discuss possible ways to add a little more challenge and variety to the combat system, while still working in the parameters and being a little more realistic in its function. I bet that most people can agree that while it's awesome to kill loads of people, Brotherhood was a little too generous with Ezio's killing capacities.

Sarari
11-05-2011, 12:34 PM
I bet that most people can agree that while it's awesome to kill loads of people, Brotherhood was a little too generous with Ezio's killing capacities.
I agree with this.

Jexx21
11-05-2011, 01:40 PM
But.. you can't counter a guard coming behind you..

in any of the games.

And you CAN use grab to make a human shield in AC2 and ACB as far as I know. You automatically throw them in AC1, but not in AC2 or ACB.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
But.. you can't counter a guard coming behind you..

in any of the games.

And you CAN use grab to make a human shield in AC2 and ACB as far as I know. You automatically throw them in AC1, but not in AC2 or ACB.
You can. You just need to be respond early and of course point at him.

Rakudaton
11-05-2011, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You wanna play stealthy, play stealthy.

I wanna kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds, so let me do that.

The ability to kill an entire battalion of guards in 30 seconds renders stealth rather redundant, wouldn't you agree? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it doesn't. His point is that if you wanna be stealthy, do so, but if you wanna kill a battalion of guards in 30 seconds, you should be able to do that as well instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what point he was making. My point is that, if you can take out so many guards without breaking a sweat, then what on earth is the point in stealth?

The argument that "Someone might want to do X" is not a valid reason to do something. Lots of people have suggested stupid ideas on these forums. There needs to be an actual reason for implementing a design choice. In my opinion, the fact that some people want Ezio to be an utterly invincible death tank is not a good facet of the game. I understand that other people may have different opinions. This is why I justified my own by saying that it makes stealth redundant. Please try and read what people actually write: it saves a lot of time in the long run.

dxsxhxcx
11-05-2011, 02:21 PM
the point is, people who want to play as Ezio as a war machine have what they want, they can easily kill an "army" of 20 (or more) guards in 30 seconds if they want that they'll get the "prize" they were seeking that is fell like if they were badass because they were able to kill 20 or more guards like if they were nothing, while those who desire to play in a stealthy way don't get their "reward" in the end because there's no real reason to waste their time creating a strategy to kill their target without being detected when kill an "army" of "x" number of guards is an easy and probably faster way to achieve this, those who want to play in a stealthy way don't feel like they got their reward once they were able to kill their targets because to feel that way, they need to create the ilusion that if they were not stealthy enough, they would pay the price with their lives, what's not enough for them because they are aware that the game doesn't provide the kind of challenge they seek, if you're detected you can easily kill the guards like if they were nothing..

LightRey
11-05-2011, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Rakudaton:
The argument that "Someone might want to do X" is not a valid reason to do something. Lots of people have suggested stupid ideas on these forums. There needs to be an actual reason for implementing a design choice. In my opinion, the fact that some people want Ezio to be an utterly invincible death tank is not a good facet of the game. I understand that other people may have different opinions. This is why I justified my own by saying that it makes stealth redundant. Please try and read what people actually write: it saves a lot of time in the long run.
What's the point of stealth irl?

I play stealthily all the time in ACB. If you can't help yourself and just start hacking and slashing then maybe you just have little self-control or you really just don't like stealth as much as you think you do.

Rakudaton
11-05-2011, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
The argument that "Someone might want to do X" is not a valid reason to do something. Lots of people have suggested stupid ideas on these forums. There needs to be an actual reason for implementing a design choice. In my opinion, the fact that some people want Ezio to be an utterly invincible death tank is not a good facet of the game. I understand that other people may have different opinions. This is why I justified my own by saying that it makes stealth redundant. Please try and read what people actually write: it saves a lot of time in the long run.
What's the point of stealth irl?

I play stealthily all the time in ACB. If you can't help yourself and just start hacking and slashing then maybe you just have little self-control or you really just don't like stealth as much as you think you do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, I love stealth.

The point of stealth in real life is that it saves you from being mushed to pieces by 30+ guards. Because in real life people are not battle tanks.

I don't, while I'm stealthing along, suddenly get the urge to go and hack people to pieces. What I would like is some negative consequence of being detected. In missions where you don't get desynched for detection (which is too harsh most of the time, in my opinion), being detected merely results in a "ho-hum" moment where you're delayed for 5 seconds as you brutalise some guards without breaking a sweat. I just want there to be more of a reason for using stealth.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
The argument that "Someone might want to do X" is not a valid reason to do something. Lots of people have suggested stupid ideas on these forums. There needs to be an actual reason for implementing a design choice. In my opinion, the fact that some people want Ezio to be an utterly invincible death tank is not a good facet of the game. I understand that other people may have different opinions. This is why I justified my own by saying that it makes stealth redundant. Please try and read what people actually write: it saves a lot of time in the long run.
What's the point of stealth irl?

I play stealthily all the time in ACB. If you can't help yourself and just start hacking and slashing then maybe you just have little self-control or you really just don't like stealth as much as you think you do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, I love stealth.

The point of stealth in real life is that it saves you from being mushed to pieces by 30+ guards. Because in real life people are not battle tanks.

I don't, while I'm stealthing along, suddenly get the urge to go and hack people to pieces. What I would like is some negative consequence of being detected. In missions where you don't get desynched for detection (which is too harsh most of the time, in my opinion), being detected merely results in a "ho-hum" moment where you're delayed for 5 seconds as you brutalise some guards without breaking a sweat. I just want there to be more of a reason for using stealth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, most often stealth is used to avoid the enemy knowing who's responsible, or even that something happened. It often has nothing to do with being able to complete the mission by sheer force (which is in most cases quite easy, especially with the element of surprise; if you can be stealthy, you can also ambush).

Besides, forcing stealth would take away the kind of freedom of the game that many (if not most) AC players like. If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

xCr0wnedNorris
11-05-2011, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Besides, forcing stealth would take away the kind of freedom of the game that many (if not most) AC players like. If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

This. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Sarari
11-05-2011, 03:46 PM
Ok, In my opinion, I don't think that there should be consequences for being detecting. Some people like to go in and do their thing, while some others like it stealthy. That's all there is to it.

I'd also like to say that there are no right or wrong, fun or boring, easy or hard ways to play the game. Each person has their own feeling and opinion on how things work in the game. One thing might be easy for somebody, but for another person it could be hard. That's the great part about this game, that it has no limits to what we could feel about everything it has to offer us.

iN3krO
11-05-2011, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
the point is, people who want to play as Ezio as a war machine have what they want, they can easily kill an "army" of 20 (or more) guards in 30 seconds if they want that they'll get the "prize" they were seeking that is fell like if they were badass because they were able to kill 20 or more guards like if they were nothing, while those who desire to play in a stealthy way don't get their "reward" in the end because there's no real reason to waste their time creating a strategy to kill their target without being detected when kill an "army" of "x" number of guards is an easy and probably faster way to achieve this, those who want to play in a stealthy way don't feel like they got their reward once they were able to kill their targets because to feel that way, they need to create the ilusion that if they were not stealthy enough, they would pay the price with their lives, what's not enough for them because they are aware that the game doesn't provide the kind of challenge they seek, if you're detected you can easily kill the guards like if they were nothing..

THIS IS IT!

In ac1 if i failed stealth, even thought, i could still acomplish the mission being agresive, i felt that i failed cuz i would take more time killing those guards then just avoid them...

In Ac2 it still was almost the same thing...

In AcB i felt that i was wasting my time when i was being stealth (in my first run)... I want to know how story envolves and that makes me rush into combat cuz it's faster... in Ac1 cuz i wanted to know how story envolves faster i used stealth a lot more while i didn't know how to combat....

I got punished for not combat a lot in Ac1 when i got to roberto de sables mission, i lacked in combat skill and that mission was painfull for me... after i finished that mission and got back for the 2nd play thought, i focused in combat more and in the 3rd play thought combat was faster then stealth for me.

But if i go play Ac1 again and i don't pay attention that much to the game (if i'm talking with my brother and often look to the side) then i would be faster being stealth cuz being fast in combat needs concentration.... that is what's missing in AcB, there is no need to be conentrated while combating which also makes combat not satisfying for me....

I still play Ac cuz of the story but gameplay wise i'm really unhappy how AcB was (and how AcR seems to be).

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Besides, forcing stealth would take away the kind of freedom of the game that many (if not most) AC players like. If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

This. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely understand this, and agree. But.
I find it too easy to be stealthy. AI isn't very inquisitive, there aren't enough guards (especially on rooftops) to make stealth necessary and if any guards do spot you, all it takes is 2 seconds to take them out, meaning there is no consequence from being careless, which for me, takes a huge part of the enjoyment away from the stealth aspect.
I realize it's a big ask, and UbiMontreal do an amazing job to make the game as open as possible. I think the only way to please everyone is to have an AI difficulty setting e.g. low being few guards, just groups of 4, high being groups of guards on rooftops, patrols of 6 or more.

xCr0wnedNorris
11-05-2011, 04:29 PM
You don't need the game to challenge you, you can challenge yourself. For example, in AC1, whenever I got to the part where I had to assassinate "Robert" at the funeral, I'd always opt to fight off the guards using only my fists. It would've been easier and less time consuming to take out my sword and simply counter all their attacks, but I PERSONALLY went out of my way to challenge myself. Same thing applies here. If you want a challenge, do it yourself. Not everything has to be spoon fed to you by the game.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You don't need the game to challenge you, you can challenge yourself. For example, in AC1, whenever I got to the part where I had to assassinate "Robert" at the funeral, I'd always opt to fight off the guards using only my fists. It would've been easier and less time consuming to take out my sword and simply counter all their attacks, but I PERSONALLY went out of my way to challenge myself. Same thing applies here. If you want a challenge, do it yourself. Not everything has to be spoon fed to you by the game.
Exactly.

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You don't need the game to challenge you, you can challenge yourself. For example, in AC1, whenever I got to the part where I had to assassinate "Robert" at the funeral, I'd always opt to fight off the guards using only my fists. It would've been easier and less time consuming to take out my sword and simply counter all their attacks, but I PERSONALLY went out of my way to challenge myself. Same thing applies here. If you want a challenge, do it yourself. Not everything has to be spoon fed to you by the game.

Spoon fed like pressing attack button 4 times to kill 4 people?
A game being challenging is the very reason millions of people play games. I dare you to say a game shouldn't need to challenge you to Metal Gear Solid fans.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You don't need the game to challenge you, you can challenge yourself. For example, in AC1, whenever I got to the part where I had to assassinate "Robert" at the funeral, I'd always opt to fight off the guards using only my fists. It would've been easier and less time consuming to take out my sword and simply counter all their attacks, but I PERSONALLY went out of my way to challenge myself. Same thing applies here. If you want a challenge, do it yourself. Not everything has to be spoon fed to you by the game.

Spoon fed like pressing attack button 4 times to kill 4 people?
A game being challenging is the very reason millions of people play games. I dare you to say a game shouldn't need to challenge you to Metal Gear Solid fans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's bs. Games are played for the immersion. Challenge hasn't been important since Pac-Man.

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 05:33 PM
I'm sorry, but no. Immersion is ONE of the reasons, as is challenge. COD's multiplayer wouldn't be as successful as it is if weren't for competition, challenge. All shooters would be boring if they didn't challenge you at all.
It's proof that it's not "bs" by the simple fact that it's one of the reasons i enjoy playing games.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
I'm sorry, but no. Immersion is ONE of the reasons, as is challenge. COD's multiplayer wouldn't be as successful as it is if weren't for competition, challenge. All shooters would be boring if they didn't challenge you at all.
It's proof that it's not "bs" by the simple fact that it's one of the reasons i enjoy playing games.
Halo is one of the easiest shooters ever, yet it's also one of the most popular.

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lukaszep:
I'm sorry, but no. Immersion is ONE of the reasons, as is challenge. COD's multiplayer wouldn't be as successful as it is if weren't for competition, challenge. All shooters would be boring if they didn't challenge you at all.
It's proof that it's not "bs" by the simple fact that it's one of the reasons i enjoy playing games.
Halo is one of the easiest shooters ever, yet it's also one of the most popular. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your missing my point. People play games for different reasons, immersion aside, there is an audience for AC that wants to be challenged.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lukaszep:
I'm sorry, but no. Immersion is ONE of the reasons, as is challenge. COD's multiplayer wouldn't be as successful as it is if weren't for competition, challenge. All shooters would be boring if they didn't challenge you at all.
It's proof that it's not "bs" by the simple fact that it's one of the reasons i enjoy playing games.
Halo is one of the easiest shooters ever, yet it's also one of the most popular. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your missing my point. People play games for different reasons, immersion aside, there is an audience for AC that wants to be challenged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And there's a (likely much bigger) audience that wants the freedom to choose to play it in whichever way they want.

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 05:41 PM
And i never said players should be denied freedom in how they want to play, i suggested there be even more freedom.


I realize it's a big ask, and UbiMontreal do an amazing job to make the game as open as possible. I think the only way to please everyone is to have an AI difficulty setting e.g. low being few guards, just groups of 4, high being groups of guards on rooftops, patrols of 6 or more.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
And i never said players should be denied freedom in how they want to play, i suggested there be even more freedom.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I realize it's a big ask, and UbiMontreal do an amazing job to make the game as open as possible. I think the only way to please everyone is to have an AI difficulty setting e.g. low being few guards, just groups of 4, high being groups of guards on rooftops, patrols of 6 or more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But challenge should not take precedence over freedom. If they can implement a difficulty system, then by all means they should, but they should absolutely never force the player into being challenged significantly more than in previous installments.

crash3
11-05-2011, 05:49 PM
Ubisoft has done a brilliant job of giving Ezio amazing abilities. Now I believe they should focus more on actually giving Guards and other Enemies more abilities.

In AC1 you start out with less abilities than the guards themselves and you gradually learn new moves through the game to be able to take on the guards.

The problem with Ezio is that we start with him already as a master assassin so he already has a load of skills but I do hope that AC3 goes back to the beginnings of becoming an assassin or else it will be another game thats way too easy.

I think AC3 shouldnt have archetypes of guards as archetypes make combat too predictable and seriously limits each guard's abilities.

Also AI needs to be much more aggressive to match the fast pace of Ezio's killstreaks and to even out offensive and defensive moves in combat

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 05:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lukaszep:
And i never said players should be denied freedom in how they want to play, i suggested there be even more freedom.

quote:
I realize it's a big ask, and UbiMontreal do an amazing job to make the game as open as possible. I think the only way to please everyone is to have an AI difficulty setting e.g. low being few guards, just groups of 4, high being groups of guards on rooftops, patrols of 6 or more.

But challenge should not take precedence over freedom. If they can implement a difficulty system, then by all means they should, but they should absolutely never force the player into being challenged significantly more than in previous installments.

Which is why i suggested OPTIONAL difficulty settings. Because i agree with their being freedom! I love the freedom! OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

(edit- woah that quote went wrong)

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
Which is why i suggested OPTIONAL difficulty settings. Because i agree with their being freedom! I love the freedom! OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Which is a lot to ask for and it never really was the main focus of AC to begin with. If you want it to be optional that's fine, but don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Which is a lot to ask for and it never really was the main focus of AC to begin with. If you want it to be optional that's fine, but don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

That is true. But no i wouldn't expect them to implement that, especially not in this console generation.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Which is a lot to ask for and it never really was the main focus of AC to begin with. If you want it to be optional that's fine, but don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

That is true. But no i wouldn't expect them to implement that, especially not in this console generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well then I guess we're finally in agreement. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lukaszep
11-05-2011, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lukaszep:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Which is a lot to ask for and it never really was the main focus of AC to begin with. If you want it to be optional that's fine, but don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

That is true. But no i wouldn't expect them to implement that, especially not in this console generation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well then I guess we're finally in agreement. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif A good debate. I can now watch from the sidelines as everyone else on this thread argues.

LightRey
11-05-2011, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by lukaszep:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif A good debate. I can now watch from the sidelines as everyone else on this thread argues.
I expect many casualties. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

masterfenix2009
11-05-2011, 06:32 PM
*dies first because he fails*

iN3krO
11-05-2011, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
You don't need the game to challenge you, you can challenge yourself. For example, in AC1, whenever I got to the part where I had to assassinate "Robert" at the funeral, I'd always opt to fight off the guards using only my fists. It would've been easier and less time consuming to take out my sword and simply counter all their attacks, but I PERSONALLY went out of my way to challenge myself. Same thing applies here. If you want a challenge, do it yourself. Not everything has to be spoon fed to you by the game.

Hey, in ac1 i challenged my self to do the whole game only with hidden blade and... I COULD DO IT WITH HARD WORK.

In ac2 i did the same thing, i did it easly O.o

If in AcB i play only with my fists i still can take out all those guards faster and easier then with sword in Ac1, don't you think it's TOO easy now?...

Rakudaton
11-06-2011, 03:20 AM
If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

Well, in a sense they are. If I fail at being stealthy and end up having to fight, I'm forced to experience the ridiculously easy combat which lets me wipe out battalions. While Assassin's Creed has never attempted to be 100% realistic (and nor should it), I hate how it's become so unbelievably over the top. If I make a mistake and am detected, it would be nice to have an "Oh sh**, I might just die here" moment.

And I know freedom is a good thing, and that not everyone likes stealth. But precious few games nowadays offer the option for proper stealth (or when they do, it's a woeful strategy compared to just rushing in). I don't like FPS games: so I don't play FPS games. If people don't like a game of which one of the core tenets is social stealth, don't play that game.

Even so, I'm not asking for stealth to be the only option. I'd just like combat to be a bit less ridiculously easy. That wouldn't stop people being able to play unstealthily, but it would give a realistic advantage to stealth, as it should.

/rant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

Well, in a sense they are. If I fail at being stealthy and end up having to fight, I'm forced to experience the ridiculously easy combat which lets me wipe out battalions. While Assassin's Creed has never attempted to be 100% realistic (and nor should it), I hate how it's become so unbelievably over the top. If I make a mistake and am detected, it would be nice to have an "Oh sh**, I might just die here" moment.

And I know freedom is a good thing, and that not everyone likes stealth. But precious few games nowadays offer the option for proper stealth (or when they do, it's a woeful strategy compared to just rushing in). I don't like FPS games: so I don't play FPS games. If people don't like a game of which one of the core tenets is social stealth, don't play that game.

Even so, I'm not asking for stealth to be the only option. I'd just like combat to be a bit less ridiculously easy. That wouldn't stop people being able to play unstealthily, but it would give a realistic advantage to stealth, as it should.

/rant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm always saying this ever since AcB o.o

pacmanate
11-06-2011, 03:59 AM
I heard that if ezio gets cornered by loads of guards in revelations that running is sometimes the best thing to do

LightRey
11-06-2011, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

Well, in a sense they are. If I fail at being stealthy and end up having to fight, I'm forced to experience the ridiculously easy combat which lets me wipe out battalions. While Assassin's Creed has never attempted to be 100% realistic (and nor should it), I hate how it's become so unbelievably over the top. If I make a mistake and am detected, it would be nice to have an "Oh sh**, I might just die here" moment.

And I know freedom is a good thing, and that not everyone likes stealth. But precious few games nowadays offer the option for proper stealth (or when they do, it's a woeful strategy compared to just rushing in). I don't like FPS games: so I don't play FPS games. If people don't like a game of which one of the core tenets is social stealth, don't play that game.

Even so, I'm not asking for stealth to be the only option. I'd just like combat to be a bit less ridiculously easy. That wouldn't stop people being able to play unstealthily, but it would give a realistic advantage to stealth, as it should.

/rant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
People would still like for combat to be as "ridiculously easy" as it is now. Besides, it's not as unrealistic as you might think. Regular soldiers and city guards were generally not well trained, contrary to the Assassins. Not to mention Ezio is supposed to be extremely talented and since the second half of AC2 very experienced.

If you want to be stealthy but fail then you're going to have to fight and most people really don't like dying and having to try again, especially repeatedly. The fact of the matter is that most people would rather fail in stealth and then succeed in (epic) combat than fail in both to start over again every time they do.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you wanna be stealthy play stealthily. Nobody's forcing you to wipe out entire battalions.

Well, in a sense they are. If I fail at being stealthy and end up having to fight, I'm forced to experience the ridiculously easy combat which lets me wipe out battalions. While Assassin's Creed has never attempted to be 100% realistic (and nor should it), I hate how it's become so unbelievably over the top. If I make a mistake and am detected, it would be nice to have an "Oh sh**, I might just die here" moment.

And I know freedom is a good thing, and that not everyone likes stealth. But precious few games nowadays offer the option for proper stealth (or when they do, it's a woeful strategy compared to just rushing in). I don't like FPS games: so I don't play FPS games. If people don't like a game of which one of the core tenets is social stealth, don't play that game.

Even so, I'm not asking for stealth to be the only option. I'd just like combat to be a bit less ridiculously easy. That wouldn't stop people being able to play unstealthily, but it would give a realistic advantage to stealth, as it should.

/rant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
People would still like for combat to be as "ridiculously easy" as it is now. Besides, it's not as unrealistic as you might think. Regular soldiers and city guards were generally not well trained, contrary to the Assassins. Not to mention Ezio is supposed to be extremely talented and since the second half of AC2 very experienced.

If you want to be stealthy but fail then you're going to have to fight and most people really don't like dying and having to try again, especially repeatedly. The fact of the matter is that most people would rather fail in stealth and then succeed in (epic) combat than fail in both to start over again every time they do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...

ShaneO7K
11-06-2011, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:


i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...

The Robert De Sable would have always been a difficult fight no matter what way the combat was, he was the Master of the Templar Order I would maybe go as far to say he was Altairs equal in fighting terms if not very close to it. Such a person would never have been easy.
It just as Lightrey said most guards would not have been fully trained or experienced as the assassins so you not expect a major challenge from them.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...
And people generally detested the AC1 combat. It was considered limited, repetitive and simplistic. In fact, combat was one of the main points of criteria for AC1.

I know you want it like that, but most players really don't.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...
And people generally detested the AC1 combat. It was considered limited, repetitive and simplistic. In fact, combat was one of the main points of criteria for AC1.

I know you want it like that, but most players really don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are games without those problems in combats and the combat is still challenging in them... What will u say now? -.-''

I don't want it repetitive and simplistic, it's one of the main problem i see in both ac1, ac2 and acB combat... limited, i prefer it skill limited so to be able to use all the combat features u must be skilled, this is what adds replay value in some games, so in assassin's creed there would even be more replay value as ppl would go stealth the first way and in the second try to go agresive.

I know the problems of Ac1 combat but for me ac2/b didn't got it any better.... however, stealth was really improved, but with the let down the combat had, now the stealth is useless (stealth improved and combat improved would keep the game as stealth-reawrding to non-skilled players and combat-rewarding as skilled players in ac1 but if combat is improved and dumbed down at the same time stealth is no longer rewarded and combat is not longer satisfying for skilled ppl)

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 09:04 AM
Hey Dan, no offense, but can you try to use better spelling and grammar please?

LightRey
11-06-2011, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...
And people generally detested the AC1 combat. It was considered limited, repetitive and simplistic. In fact, combat was one of the main points of criteria for AC1.

I know you want it like that, but most players really don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are games without those problems in combats and the combat is still challenging in them... What will u say now? -.-''

I don't want it repetitive and simplistic, it's one of the main problem i see in both ac1, ac2 and acB combat... limited, i prefer it skill limited so to be able to use all the combat features u must be skilled, this is what adds replay value in some games, so in assassin's creed there would even be more replay value as ppl would go stealth the first way and in the second try to go agresive.

I know the problems of Ac1 combat but for me ac2/b didn't got it any better.... however, stealth was really improved, but with the let down the combat had, now the stealth is useless (stealth improved and combat improved would keep the game as stealth-reawrding to non-skilled players and combat-rewarding as skilled players in ac1 but if combat is improved and dumbed down at the same time stealth is no longer rewarded and combat is not longer satisfying for skilled ppl) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, people don't want it to be stealth-rewarding. People want to play the game in whatever way they wish. That basically demands that combat can in no way be a kind of "punishment" for not being stealthy, as that would mean the people that don't want to be stealthy have to suffer that "punishment" regardless.

Serrachio
11-06-2011, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...
And people generally detested the AC1 combat. It was considered limited, repetitive and simplistic. In fact, combat was one of the main points of criteria for AC1.

I know you want it like that, but most players really don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are games without those problems in combats and the combat is still challenging in them... What will u say now? -.-''

I don't want it repetitive and simplistic, it's one of the main problem i see in both ac1, ac2 and acB combat... limited, i prefer it skill limited so to be able to use all the combat features u must be skilled, this is what adds replay value in some games, so in assassin's creed there would even be more replay value as ppl would go stealth the first way and in the second try to go agresive.

I know the problems of Ac1 combat but for me ac2/b didn't got it any better.... however, stealth was really improved, but with the let down the combat had, now the stealth is useless (stealth improved and combat improved would keep the game as stealth-reawrding to non-skilled players and combat-rewarding as skilled players in ac1 but if combat is improved and dumbed down at the same time stealth is no longer rewarded and combat is not longer satisfying for skilled ppl) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, people don't want it to be stealth-rewarding. People want to play the game in whatever way they wish. That basically demands that combat can in no way be a kind of "punishment" for not being stealthy, as that would mean the people that don't want to be stealthy have to suffer that "punishment" regardless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If people don't want a stealth rewarding game, it seems a little redundant to call it Assassin's Creed.

I know Assassins are deadly, but one of the premises of the game is to hide in plain sight and remain un-noticed. If stealth is not rewarding, what's the point in being stealthy if combat offers an easy route?

I'm not saying that combat should only favour players who practice it, but if it is like toggling an 'easy switch' then it is uprooting one third of the whole game series' foundations.

Stealth shouldn't be put on the back burner to favour kill happy players.

Just because the majority wants something, doesn't mean it is good for the games. Challenge brings people back to the games and towards sequels. If they can breeze through the game though, they get through it too fast and appreciate it less.

What I have suggested doesn't change combat too much, but it does balance it slightly.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
If people don't want a stealth rewarding game, it seems a little redundant to call it Assassin's Creed.

I know Assassins are deadly, but one of the premises of the game is to hide in plain sight and remain un-noticed. If stealth is not rewarding, what's the point in being stealthy if combat offers an easy route?

I'm not saying that combat should only favour players who practice it, but if it is like toggling an 'easy switch' then it is uprooting one third of the whole game series' foundations.

Stealth shouldn't be put on the back burner to favour kill happy players.

Just because the majority wants something, doesn't mean it is good for the games. Challenge brings people back to the games and towards sequels. If they can breeze through the game though, they get through it too fast and appreciate it less.

What I have suggested doesn't change combat too much, but it does balance it slightly.
The term "assassin" has absolutely nothing to do with stealth. Its only meaning is regarding a killing for political or religious motivations. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with stealth.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
i don't want to fail in combat, i want the faster moves in combat be harder to do so only those who focus more on combat can combat faster then be stealth... in Ac1 i was ****ed up in roberto de sables' templars fight, if it was in AcB and i had been all the way stealth i would arrive that mission and wipe them out in 5 secs and probably would not be incentivated to replay the game to get better combat skill...
And people generally detested the AC1 combat. It was considered limited, repetitive and simplistic. In fact, combat was one of the main points of criteria for AC1.

I know you want it like that, but most players really don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are games without those problems in combats and the combat is still challenging in them... What will u say now? -.-''

I don't want it repetitive and simplistic, it's one of the main problem i see in both ac1, ac2 and acB combat... limited, i prefer it skill limited so to be able to use all the combat features u must be skilled, this is what adds replay value in some games, so in assassin's creed there would even be more replay value as ppl would go stealth the first way and in the second try to go agresive.

I know the problems of Ac1 combat but for me ac2/b didn't got it any better.... however, stealth was really improved, but with the let down the combat had, now the stealth is useless (stealth improved and combat improved would keep the game as stealth-reawrding to non-skilled players and combat-rewarding as skilled players in ac1 but if combat is improved and dumbed down at the same time stealth is no longer rewarded and combat is not longer satisfying for skilled ppl) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, people don't want it to be stealth-rewarding. People want to play the game in whatever way they wish. That basically demands that combat can in no way be a kind of "punishment" for not being stealthy, as that would mean the people that don't want to be stealthy have to suffer that "punishment" regardless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real-life being agresive is always punished... i don't want it to be as punished as in real-life i just want that if you don't combat properly that your combats takes more time then stealth... to be faster in combat then in stealth then ppl should have skill just like REAL LIFE. Is that hard to understand?
In no way assassins mean stealth but if the main goal of the assassin is assassinate some1 important then, those important guys have well trained guards defending them so being agresive would be only an effort that only best assassins could take... and by best assassin i would better say most skilled ppl.

I liked combat more then stealth in Ac1, combat gave me a challenge but in AcB i have nothing that makes me replay the games besides story... this made me boring in the 2nd play thought and i will be again bored in my 3rd play just before AcR is released to pc, everytime a new Ac is released i will hate a bit more AcB and it looks that same will happen with AcR...

Ac1 always gives me a bit challenge in both early and late game (not in mid game thought). Ac2 isn't boring (althought it's not as challenging as Ac1, it's not boring)
AcB is boring, whatever u do, being stealth or combat, use armor or not, use only ur fist, use only X weapon, do not use medicine, it's always boring. I tried everything out in my second playthought and i didn't get anything not boring in the game, only the trainning's room's killstreak mission.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
In real-life being agresive is always punished... i don't want it to be as punished as in real-life i just want that if you don't combat properly that your combats takes more time then stealth... to be faster in combat then in stealth then ppl should have skill just like REAL LIFE. Is that hard to understand?
In no way assassins mean stealth but if the main goal of the assassin is assassinate some1 important then, those important guys have well trained guards defending them so being agresive would be only an effort that only best assassins could take... and by best assassin i would better say most skilled ppl.

I liked combat more then stealth in Ac1, combat gave me a challenge but in AcB i have nothing that makes me replay the games besides story... this made me boring in the 2nd play thought and i will be again bored in my 3rd play just before AcR is released to pc, everytime a new Ac is released i will hate a bit more AcB and it looks that same will happen with AcR...

Ac1 always gives me a bit challenge in both early and late game (not in mid game thought). Ac2 isn't boring (althought it's not as challenging as Ac1, it's not boring)
AcB is boring, whatever u do, being stealth or combat, use armor or not, use only ur fist, use only X weapon, do not use medicine, it's always boring. I tried everything out in my second playthought and i didn't get anything not boring in the game, only the trainning's room's killstreak mission.
Did your spelling and grammar just get worse? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Btw, you could also use some more punctuation marks.

If you got bored that's your problem. If you get bored that doesn't mean the game is boring, it means that you think it's boring. I played through ACB 7 times and not a single time did I get bored of it. I would also again point out that it has the best sales of all AC games and was just as well received as its predecessors.

You keep throwing your own opinion out there as if it were a generally accepted fact.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
In real-life being agresive is always punished... i don't want it to be as punished as in real-life i just want that if you don't combat properly that your combats takes more time then stealth... to be faster in combat then in stealth then ppl should have skill just like REAL LIFE. Is that hard to understand?
In no way assassins mean stealth but if the main goal of the assassin is assassinate some1 important then, those important guys have well trained guards defending them so being agresive would be only an effort that only best assassins could take... and by best assassin i would better say most skilled ppl.

I liked combat more then stealth in Ac1, combat gave me a challenge but in AcB i have nothing that makes me replay the games besides story... this made me boring in the 2nd play thought and i will be again bored in my 3rd play just before AcR is released to pc, everytime a new Ac is released i will hate a bit more AcB and it looks that same will happen with AcR...

Ac1 always gives me a bit challenge in both early and late game (not in mid game thought). Ac2 isn't boring (althought it's not as challenging as Ac1, it's not boring)
AcB is boring, whatever u do, being stealth or combat, use armor or not, use only ur fist, use only X weapon, do not use medicine, it's always boring. I tried everything out in my second playthought and i didn't get anything not boring in the game, only the trainning's room's killstreak mission.
Did your spelling and grammar just get worse? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Btw, you could also use some more punctuation marks.

If you got bored that's your problem. If you get bored that doesn't mean the game is boring, it means that you think it's boring. I played through ACB 7 times and not a single time did I get bored of it. I would also again point out that it has the best sales of all AC games and was just as well received as its predecessors.

You keep throwing your own opinion out there as if it were a generally accepted fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

since it's my opinion and it's more logical then being a war machine like most ppl want, i just ask them to add some dificult setting so every1 would be happy.... but even that some of u are against -.-''

LightRey
11-06-2011, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
since it's my opinion and it's more logical then being a war machine like most ppl want, i just ask them to add some dificult setting so every1 would be happy.... but even that some of u are against -.-''
Now you're just insulting other people's opinions and claiming yours is more logical, which is a conclusion better left to a philosopher to be trustworthy.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
since it's my opinion and it's more logical then being a war machine like most ppl want, i just ask them to add some dificult setting so every1 would be happy.... but even that some of u are against -.-''
Now you're just insulting other people's opinions and claiming yours is more logical, which is a conclusion better left to a philosopher to be trustworthy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine is logical not better... i did not insult any1, i always said i respect ur tastes, but i also think assassin's creed isn't a game for u, but again, it's my opinion...

If i can't say what i feel then how is this a democracy?

LightRey
11-06-2011, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
since it's my opinion and it's more logical then being a war machine like most ppl want, i just ask them to add some dificult setting so every1 would be happy.... but even that some of u are against -.-''
Now you're just insulting other people's opinions and claiming yours is more logical, which is a conclusion better left to a philosopher to be trustworthy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine is logical not better... i did not insult any1, i always said i respect ur tastes, but i also think assassin's creed isn't a game for u, but again, it's my opinion...

If i can't say what i feel then how is this a democracy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who said this was a democracy? Forums are anything but democracies. Admins and mods aren't elected by its members after all.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 01:29 PM
Actually, Dan. I don't think Assassin's Creed is the game for you.. it doesn't seem to fit your tastes.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Actually, Dan. I don't think Assassin's Creed is the game for you.. it doesn't seem to fit your tastes.
Indeed. You appear the one not satisfied with the series as it is and what direction it's taking Dan, contrary to me.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 01:40 PM
Dan also seems to be obsessed in choosing the 'faster' option. I don't think he realizes that the faster option isn't always the most fun option. Sometimes the longer option is actually more fun.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Dan also seems to be obsessed in choosing the 'faster' option. I don't think he realizes that the faster option isn't always the most fun option. Sometimes the longer option is actually more fun.

In my first play i try to be fast then i try to have fun... i could to it in ac1 and ac2 but not in Acb.... i think i said that tons of times...

Plus, i loved ac1 that was the initial idea of ubisoft for this games so assassin's creed is a game for me... u liked more a game designed for the players that like GTA, prototype, infamous, etc... i think assassin's creed lost his entity in ac2 and became a sh!t in acB. take in consideration i'm talking about gameplay, in story assassin's creed is still one of the best games i've ever played.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 01:55 PM
For me, gameplay in the AC games was pretty much equally fun, but I enjoy it more in ACB because it's a lot more fluid and you can tackle it the way you want to.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Dan also seems to be obsessed in choosing the 'faster' option. I don't think he realizes that the faster option isn't always the most fun option. Sometimes the longer option is actually more fun.

In my first play i try to be fast then i try to have fun... i could to it in ac1 and ac2 but not in Acb.... i think i said that tons of times...

Plus, i loved ac1 that was the initial idea of ubisoft for this games so assassin's creed is a game for me... u liked more a game designed for the players that like GTA, prototype, infamous, etc... i think assassin's creed lost his entity in ac2 and became a sh!t in acB. take in consideration i'm talking about gameplay, in story assassin's creed is still one of the best games i've ever played. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't like GTA that much really. It doesn't really have a good story and I don't like the gunfights. I don't know about Prototype or Infamous since I've never even been attracted to play those.

I absolutely love the AC games for their awesome gameplay, freedom to choose how to complete missions and most importantly it's intriguing story.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Dan also seems to be obsessed in choosing the 'faster' option. I don't think he realizes that the faster option isn't always the most fun option. Sometimes the longer option is actually more fun.

In my first play i try to be fast then i try to have fun... i could to it in ac1 and ac2 but not in Acb.... i think i said that tons of times...

Plus, i loved ac1 that was the initial idea of ubisoft for this games so assassin's creed is a game for me... u liked more a game designed for the players that like GTA, prototype, infamous, etc... i think assassin's creed lost his entity in ac2 and became a sh!t in acB. take in consideration i'm talking about gameplay, in story assassin's creed is still one of the best games i've ever played. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't like GTA that much really. It doesn't really have a good story and I don't like the gunfights. I don't know about Prototype or Infamous since I've never even been attracted to play those.

I absolutely love the AC games for their awesome gameplay, freedom to choose how to complete missions and most importantly it's intriguing story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

for freedoom go play minecraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
i hate how freedom is the main goal of AcB when, for me, the freedom type ac1 had is better then the freedom type of AcB O.o

GTA IV was not that bad at all... but i only wanted to point that in those games the main chars are all overpowered and you can kill thousands of ppl (mainly armed ppl) brainlessly...

LightRey
11-06-2011, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
for freedoom go play minecraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
i hate how freedom is the main goal of AcB when, for me, the freedom type ac1 had is better then the freedom type of AcB O.o
I already play MC.

The freedom in ACB appears to be the direction the franchise is taking, so expect more.

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
for freedoom go play minecraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
i hate how freedom is the main goal of AcB when, for me, the freedom type ac1 had is better then the freedom type of AcB O.o
I already play MC.

The freedom in ACB appears to be the direction the franchise is taking, so expect more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been discusing about something similar about call of duty with my friends... they all say that mw3 will be **** cuz it will be like mw2 but tweked, that graphics won't improve and there will be nothing new o.o

For me ppl should stop asking for new things and start to think how to improve the game it self, sometimes new features = bad.

Said that, i know what to expect from AcR and cuz of that i will take the game more calm, i will do one sequence, do all the side-missions/atalayas unlocked, do 2nd sequence, same...
Althought, i feel that i will be hugely disapointed with altair's sequences in term of gameplay while being amazed by desmond ones...

I will tell all my friends to give their feedback of acr to this forum, most of them agree with me T_T. As i will be giving a review my self.

Jexx21
11-06-2011, 03:06 PM
The Assassin's Creed series always had overpowered main characters where you can kill people mindlessly.

and the freedom that ACB has is MUCH better than AC1's 'freedom' (which honest to god wasn't that much anyway).

LightRey
11-06-2011, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
The Assassin's Creed series always had overpowered main characters where you can kill people mindlessly.

and the freedom that ACB has is MUCH better than AC1's 'freedom' (which honest to god wasn't that much anyway).
True dat. I believe that with every playthrough I've done things differently and gave myself some facepalms after figuring out new ways to complete missions (that suited my style better).

notafanboy
11-06-2011, 03:50 PM
good news, guards can now kick you in the balls!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-exYTMFK9sw) (no story spoilers)

iN3krO
11-06-2011, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
The Assassin's Creed series always had overpowered main characters where you can kill people mindlessly.

and the freedom that ACB has is MUCH better than AC1's 'freedom' (which honest to god wasn't that much anyway).

In AcB missions are scripted, in ac1 u can chose the the order or "path" u take to do the mission, unlike AcB....

LightRey
11-06-2011, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
The Assassin's Creed series always had overpowered main characters where you can kill people mindlessly.

and the freedom that ACB has is MUCH better than AC1's 'freedom' (which honest to god wasn't that much anyway).

In AcB missions are scripted, in ac1 u can chose the the order or "path" u take to do the mission, unlike AcB.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not true at all. In every ACB mission you can take whatever path you like as long as you get there and you can be as creative as you want. AC1 on the other hand had a specific set of ways to get there (usually about 2 or 3), which were all listed in the investigation memories. Instead of allowing the players to come up with their own creative solutions, it just had them pick between these set paths.

HarvestedOrgan
11-06-2011, 05:42 PM
The combat would be great if the guards interacted with other guards, like a cowardly superior guard would tell their subordinates to attack while they sit back. Or a guard telling another guard (or civilian) to get more guards to aid them while in combat. I think it would be great if a guard went to find the nearest group of guards, and they gave you a time span(at
least 30 seconds)to kill the guards you are already combating before reinforcements arrive and hiding the bodies- so when they finally arrive, the man that called the guards says, "they were just here a minute ago" then the teller himself gets stabbed in his chest for being a "liar!"... Just a suggestion.

WegaZAC
11-06-2011, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
The Assassin's Creed series always had overpowered main characters where you can kill people mindlessly.

and the freedom that ACB has is MUCH better than AC1's 'freedom' (which honest to god wasn't that much anyway).

In AcB missions are scripted, in ac1 u can chose the the order or "path" u take to do the mission, unlike AcB.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not true at all. In every ACB mission you can take whatever path you like as long as you get there and you can be as creative as you want. AC1 on the other hand had a specific set of ways to get there (usually about 2 or 3), which were all listed in the investigation memories. Instead of allowing the players to come up with their own creative solutions, it just had them pick between these set paths. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh really. Does Ubi pay you for writing how the game is perfect?
Every time you have to be stealthy and you fail, you are rewarded with sweet "desynchronization". You cannot choose to fight with all guards on the way, so there is not so much freedom. In AC1 you have never had to be stealthy because of desynchronization.

I agree with people who write that a game without challenge is boring. And in games the fight is my fav challenge. There were races, additional requirements for 100%, and so on. But the fight itself was no challenge.

I try to play without any armor, the worst weapon, no medicine, with trainers making guards to kill you with two hits. Just missing the difficulty. Any difficulty.

AC is for 18+ (PEGI). Why make the fight as easy as it was for 3+?!

There should be difficulty levels. Easy level explained by e.g. "Animus support" so you could keep your killing 30 guards in no time. It would please everyone.

But no, you would rather say "there is more people who want AC easy, so arrivederci and buona fortuna with searching a new game for yourselves".

This is our poll (http://www.zakon-ac.info/sonda-p-17) about difficulty in AC2.
"I'd like to choose difficulty level" - 33
"Too easy" - 13
"Difficulty level is ok" - 8
"Too hard" - 1

There were more people who voted "too easy" than "difficulty level is ok", but fight in Brotherhood is even easier...

AmerPolaK
11-06-2011, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by WegaZAC:
Oh really. Does Ubi pay you for writing how the game is perfect?
Every time you have to be stealthy and you fail, you are rewarded with sweet "desynchronization". You cannot choose to fight with all guards on the way, so there is not so much freedom. In AC1 you have never had to be stealthy because of desynchronization.

I agree with people who write that a game without challenge is boring. And in games the fight is my fav challenge. There were races, additional requirements for 100%, and so on. But the fight itself was no challenge.

I try to play without any armor, the worst weapon, no medicine, with trainers making guards to kill you with two hits. Just missing the difficulty. Any difficulty.

AC is for 18+ (PEGI). Why make the fight as easy as it was for 3+?!

There should be difficulty levels. Easy level explained by e.g. "Animus support" so you could keep your killing 30 guards in no time. It would please everyone.

But no, you would rather say "there is more people who wants AC easy, so arrivederci and buona fortuna with searching a new game for yourselves".
I agree. Difficult level of Assassin's Creed games it definitely too low. We should have a possibility to change it, without using any trainers or other stuff.

That's so cute, when I can defeat 20 guards in 10 seconds by using counter. Without any damages for me 0_o ...

Next great thing. Desynchronization. How can you talk about freedom in doing quests, when you have desynchronization on every step?

"Animus Support" isn't any reason for doing this game so easy to play. Animus is some kind of simulator. Did real Ezio (not Desmond in Animus) killed 100 guards without getting damages? I don't think so.

My friend checked how much time will take, if one guard would try to kill player with maximum HP, Altair's armor and full potions.
More than 20 minutes. That's not funny -.- It should take max. 2 minutes.

But some people want a game for chill out. That's why we should have a possibility to choose difficult level.

Peace.

Oatkeeper
11-06-2011, 09:50 PM
My thought on combat over the course of the 3 major games.

- Hidden Blade as a viable weapon in combat is ******ed and should only be used if the player is feeling truly daring.

-Groups larger than 4-5 (lets assume its 3 grunts, a brute, and a seeker or agile) should pose a serious threat in damage they can deal. This encourages players to avoid massive group fights, using stealth to put them in more favorable positions or sneak past fights entirely. This also makes more of those "oh crap" moments where a fresh squad comes in and suddenly your forced to throw down a smoke and escape if your combat skills are not up to snuff.

-- The previously mentioned point also means players will have more incentive for buying upgrades and keeping themselves stocked regularly. This also helps the issue of the broken economy. Looting bodies should not give that much, and what guards do hold based on their class. (bowmen = bolts)

-Gaurds should not be afraid to suppress the player, grabbing him occasionally But also countering and disarming him. Disarming in particular should be used more because it forces the player to change weapons (sword => Dagger => secondary tools and fists and hidden blade which obviously cant be disarmed) This would really bring out the need to react and make the disarm mechanic useful for something other than taking out Brutes and seekers.

--gun men need to actually do more than a few bits of damage (even when not wearing armor)

-- Kicking and disarm should not be the end all solutions for stronger archetypes, they should create opening to deal more damage, which are balanced by other guards attacking when they think your attention is focused on one guy.

- The window of opportunity for counters need to be tightened up and make it more of a reward for quick reflexes. Alternately make it not an instant kill and you need to perform 2 or 3 if you want to use that alone to take down foe.

- at this point the health regeneration is entirely unneeded, and if it stays it only should be used on the very last bits of health where players can get that second wind when its absolutely needed.

LightRey
11-06-2011, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by WegaZAC:
Oh really. Does Ubi pay you for writing how the game is perfect?
Every time you have to be stealthy and you fail, you are rewarded with sweet "desynchronization". You cannot choose to fight with all guards on the way, so there is not so much freedom. In AC1 you have never had to be stealthy because of desynchronization.

I agree with people who write that a game without challenge is boring. And in games the fight is my fav challenge. There were races, additional requirements for 100%, and so on. But the fight itself was no challenge.

I try to play without any armor, the worst weapon, no medicine, with trainers making guards to kill you with two hits. Just missing the difficulty. Any difficulty.

AC is for 18+ (PEGI). Why make the fight as easy as it was for 3+?!

There should be difficulty levels. Easy level explained by e.g. "Animus support" so you could keep your killing 30 guards in no time. It would please everyone.

But no, you would rather say "there is more people who want AC easy, so arrivederci and buona fortuna with searching a new game for yourselves".

This is our poll (http://www.zakon-ac.info/sonda-p-17) about difficulty in AC2.
"I'd like to choose difficulty level" - 33
"Too easy" - 13
"Difficulty level is ok" - 8
"Too hard" - 1

There were more people who voted "too easy" than "difficulty level is ok", but fight in Brotherhood is even easier...
You're exaggerating. There are only a few memories where you're desynchronized for not being stealthy.

Again, challenge was never part of the AC games. I don't get why people keep bringing it up like it ever were the case. The combat in AC is about variety and creative freedom (and epicness).

You play without armor and medicine, etc. most people play with them.

Seriously? There should be difficulty levels? You know what's best for the series now do you? You're the expert? Even if it were actually necessary in any way for the series, implementing it wouldn't be a small job. The game was never designed to have difficulty settings and as such it can't "just" be implemented like that. And again, it doesn't need it. Difficult combat was never a focus of the game and clearly most fans don't mind it if we look at how popular the games are regardless of the easy combat since the very beginning.

I'm saying that whatever you want doesn't matter unless it can be done without getting in the ways of the majority of the players. They're not going to go out of their ways just to please you. That would be stupid. In the end they want to please the majority of their fans and certainly not displease them.

I really don't give a crap about your poll. It has only about 50 votes, which is a poor sample at best. Not to mention that it's done on a single site in a language other than English, which makes it a heavily biased poll. A biased poll with a small sample is less reliable than flipping a coin.

woowu
11-07-2011, 03:13 AM
I'll give you guys an idea on how to make the combat much better.. just copy/paste the combat in Arkham City and you're done. That's the best combat in this type of game that I've ever played. It's rewarding and deep to a certain extent.

Chronomancy
11-07-2011, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by woowu:
I'll give you guys an idea on how to make the combat much better.. just copy/paste the combat in Arkham City and you're done. That's the best combat in this type of game that I've ever played. It's rewarding and deep to a certain extent.

That combat is boring.

I like the AC combat the way it is.

woowu
11-07-2011, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woowu:
I'll give you guys an idea on how to make the combat much better.. just copy/paste the combat in Arkham City and you're done. That's the best combat in this type of game that I've ever played. It's rewarding and deep to a certain extent.

That combat is boring.

I like the AC combat the way it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to argument your opinion? Saying x is boring and y is ok is not saying very much.
I doubt you even played Arkham City because if you did you would know that both combat systems are rather similar with the exception of Acity being much more complex than AC's.

Chronomancy
11-07-2011, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by woowu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woowu:
I'll give you guys an idea on how to make the combat much better.. just copy/paste the combat in Arkham City and you're done. That's the best combat in this type of game that I've ever played. It's rewarding and deep to a certain extent.

That combat is boring.

I like the AC combat the way it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to argument your opinion? Saying x is boring and y is ok is not saying very much.
I doubt you even played Arkham City because if you did you would know that both combat systems are rather similar with the exception of Acity being much more complex than AC's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beat Arkham City launch day don't make assumptions.

I find the combat quite boring and too repetitive for my liking.

With ACB I can throw smoke, knives crossbow etc, with Arkham I have a few toys which get old after a few uses.

I think AC is known for it's diverse combat, and that's the way I would like it to stay.

woowu
11-07-2011, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woowu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chronomancy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woowu:
I'll give you guys an idea on how to make the combat much better.. just copy/paste the combat in Arkham City and you're done. That's the best combat in this type of game that I've ever played. It's rewarding and deep to a certain extent.

That combat is boring.

I like the AC combat the way it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to argument your opinion? Saying x is boring and y is ok is not saying very much.
I doubt you even played Arkham City because if you did you would know that both combat systems are rather similar with the exception of Acity being much more complex than AC's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beat Arkham City launch day don't make assumptions.

I find the combat quite boring and too repetitive for my liking.

With ACB I can throw smoke, knives crossbow etc, with Arkham I have a few toys which get old after a few uses.

I think AC is known for it's diverse combat, and that's the way I would like it to stay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all ACb's combat is deeply inspired by Arkham Asylum (considering the success the game had in 2009.

Second let's see: In ACB you can 1.attack 2.counter 3. kick stun 4.evade 5.use smoke bomb 6.use knives 7.use crossbow 8.steal weapon and 9.ground takedown to an extent.

In ACity you can 1.attack 2.counter 3.cape stun 4.evade 5.use smoke pellet 6.use grapnel 7.use shockwave 8.use batarang(s) 9.use explosive gel 10. summon batswarm 11.disarm and destroy weapon 12. instant takedown 13. aerial combo .. and everything contextual in between: every enemy type needs it's own handling and focus, you can throw back stuff enemies throw at you, you can double or triple takedown, etc.

Chronomancy
11-07-2011, 03:38 AM
No one is going to come out of this argument on top of the other as these comments are based on the obvious different opinions of two people.

I'm just going to leave it at that.

EDIT: I do like HarvestedOrgan's idea quite a bit, nice suggestion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WegaZAC
11-07-2011, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:

You know what's best for the series now do you? You're the expert? Ask the same questions yourself, friend. You saw the poll, so you saw that most people would like to choose difficulty or just the game to be harder. It's not in English, so I translated it.
heavily biased Oh, you see what you want to see, not what it is.

What is your proof that most players would like the combat to be as easy as it is? If it was so perfect, this topic would never be here. How can you write things like "I like the game exactly what it is, so most others fans like the game exactly what it is, everyone else shut up!"

Was on this forum a poll about difficulty level in combat? If not, maybe it should be done.

Anyway, it wouldn't harm anyone if there were difficulty levels. Instead, it would please many others, not only "me".

woowu
11-07-2011, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by WegaZAC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

You know what's best for the series now do you? You're the expert? Ask the same questions yourself, friend. You saw the poll, so you saw that most people would like to choose difficulty or just the game to be harder. It's not in English, so I translated it.

Was on this forum a poll about difficulty level in combat? If not, maybe it should be done.

Anyway, it wouldn't harm anyone if there were difficulty levels. Instead, it would please many others, not only "me". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, not having a difficulty option seems really dumb.

Chronomancy
11-07-2011, 04:35 AM
I actually wouldn't mind a difficulty level either.

But before this happens a lot of things need to be put to thought, for example, how much damage do guards inflict onto Ezio in say Hard, how much fall damage must Ezio take if any at all for difficulty levels such as easy.

It's not as easy as slap on a few difficulties.

It is impossible to implement it into Revelations now, but it's worth noting for further games in the AC franchise.

Mr_Shade
11-07-2011, 06:00 AM
Locking thread at OP request.