PDA

View Full Version : Noobs, Abilities, and Balance.



Archybad
07-15-2012, 11:07 AM
ITT I'm intending to explain why:

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood was close to perfect.
Assassin's Creed: Revelations is flawed. (Not in an angry "RARRRGH, HULK SMASH" way. I'm going to be civil about it.)
No abilities, profiles or tactics are nooby.
People need to think ideas all the way through.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood

Why was it so good? Because it balanced everything almost perfectly. Smoke bomb was slightly overpowered, always has been and probably always will be, but it was at least easy to counter. All abilities had counters and weaknesses, and those that had fewer weaknesses decreased the amount of points you could earn from such a set. Not only did it have very good balance, but before the first patch, I had never once experienced a glitch. That's right, not one. The game ran as it was intended to run, the mechanics of the game worked well in all modes, and even though I didn't see it at the time (we were all stealth noobs at some point), the balance of AC:B at least is very close to perfect.

Players who played with stealth had an advantage over people who liked to hide carefully. People who played with high speed and aggression had an advantage over those who liked to slowly approach their targets for high kill scores. People who like to be hidden well and difficult to find have an advantage over those who play aggressively. I'm not saying they're perfect counters to each style because they aren't. You can still beat them, you just don't have the advantage they have. Also, no one approach is best. A combination of all three is what gets the best scores, and that's exactly how it should be. People like to complain when others aren't playing "the right way", but there is no right way. Every way has its ups and downs, and everything has counters. Even the playstyles with very little in terms of counters are countered purely by minimising the point potential of the approach. Everything is fairly well balanced.

The only problem AC:B has now is the lag issue, which as far as I can tell Ubisoft can basically do nothing about. We wouldn't actually have this lag issue, or at least not one so bad, if people had thought through what they were asking of Ubisoft when they requested a matchmaking fix. For those of us on the PS3, we had maximum wait times of 10 minutes. Maybe 15 if your connection was somehow worse than mine. The point is, there was nothing unreasonable about the amount of time we were waiting to get into a match.

Impatience and lack of understanding lead to the mass cry of "TECHNOLOGY WIZARDS OF UBISOFT, DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT WAITING FOR A MATCH AS CURRENTLY IT'S OVERRUNNING INTO VALUABLE FAP TIME" and while matchmaking may have needed the tweak on xbox and pc, PS3 didn't need it at all. Matchmaking was improved (afaik) by allowing people further away from each other to connect, which means that lag has increased because since they're further away, it's taking longer for their actions to register on your screen and vice versa. We did this to ourselves, so anyone who's still blaming Ubisoft for lag should stop. Of course they're not prepared to spend more money to reverse a change we asked for. This is a good example of why things need to be thought through fully.


Assassin's Creed: Revelations

The game is flawed. There is no doubt about it. I'm not saying it's flawed because I don't like it. I'm not saying it's flawed because I disapprove of little nuances in it. I'm saying it's flawed because it simply is. My PS3 regularly freezes whilst playing, I constantly get told I can't use my abilities in this position (despite the position being stood still on the ground), I get told my abilities aren't ready yet (they are), and I'm still killing already dead targets before nearby live ones I'm locked onto. The game clearly does not run as intended. I will not comment on balance because I haven't played enough of it, but I assume it's also fairly well balanced apart from smoke bombs.

I think most people's problems in this game, again, come from ideas that haven't been properly thought out. What people have been complaining about since forever is stunning being so hard. "People just go through my abilities" "I only died because they were still mashing square for the guy they killed" are just some of the complaints I've heard (and made). Ubisoft actually fixed both of these by removing the delay on smoke, and making button mashing give you a ground finish rather than killing the target who's approaching. The also generically improved stunning by increasing the range and allowing it to nerf the pursuers points for killing them.

Again the idea to "make stunning easier" didn't work out because it wasn't fully thought through. You wanted to improve stunning because you thought it would make people slow down and play more carefully. Do you know which players are the easiest to stun? The ones who are bad at playing slowly. Just running in and killing doesn't work any more, and when they try to play slowly they get stunned even more because they don't know how to be inconspicuous. Improving stunning actually decreased stealth play because as previously said, stealth play has a natural disadvantage against aggressive defense. People don't enjoy getting stunned and use smoke, mute, gun to try and make sure they aren't. All these tactics have increased in use because people were getting fed up of stuns being so hard and again, Ubisoft catered to your wants and because you didn't properly think it through, you've ruined the game for yourselves a little bit more. Same with the smoke. You wanted it to be more reliable on rooftops and Ubisoft sorted that one out and have recieved no thanks in return...

Ubisoft has implemented nothing that hasn't been asked for by a large number of people. The only thing I can think of that wasn't requested was the removal of locking during kill animations, which only really seems to bug high tier players. I personally don't think it was meant to be in the game, simply because it wasn't in Brotherhood, but either way it was still a change for the better. Now people are unable to lock during their animations, people only have to be wary of them using abilities on them. They can still rush in and get the pursuer's upper hand on the person in the animation which I feel is more beneficial to the game.

If the bugs in the game were removed, I don't think AC:R would get half as much of the hate it gets currently, and while I still wouldn't enjoy it as much as I enjoy AC:B, I'd at least be able to give it a similar amount of respect.


The Reason Why 90% of the Threads on This Forum are Pointless

Everyone seems to be under the impression that there is a "right" way to play. They also seem to not understand that the way people play is based on their own personal enjoyment, and that not everyone enjoys meandering slowly around the map towards their targets whilst looking for their pursuers. So many threads are created because they hate one specific play being used on them, and rather than adapting to counter it, a thread goes up complaining about having it changed, and when Ubisoft ignores the hate because you sometimes get poisoned after you've been offensive smoked and you want poison to be unusable in smoke, then threads get created about how ignorant Ubisoft is. You should never be complaining about a specific ability use unless it's incounterable, grants an insane number of points, and is reliable. If 2x score was easy to get then this could have been a cause for complaint, however it's not, and it's not so hard to keep up with them due to the wait time between contracts. Despite the whining about it being unfounded, AC:3's system of retaining contracts actually appears to be their response to people complaining about 2x score users. Again guys, Ubisoft do listen.

Either you're playing for fun, you're playing competitively, or you're playing for high scores. The first two options mean your score should be irrelevant. The only difference being when you play for fun, you just change lobbies whenever one is getting boring, whereas the second one you keep trying to be better than the others in the lobby and it shouldn't really matter how you play. If you're playing to win, you don't stand around trying to get extra points when you can flee and arrange the situation to better suit your position. There's also no excuse for complaints about how others are playing. If they're frustrating you, chances are it's because their current playstyle is beating yours and that's no reason to complain about it, no matter how "cowardly" the playstyle is. Cowardice and other words of the like mean nothing in the game. People who degrade another player for playing cowardly are just as bad, for being too cowardly to play a different game than the one they're used to. You want people to play the way you play because you're confident you can beat them at it. People who play with styles that are not known for their high scoring potential are quite possibly the "bravest" of all. Playing in a way that ultimately gets them no points, and only serves to try and reduce the points of the opponents. That kind of play style is far more difficult to do correctly.

Playing for high scores is the only real area where people's playstyles could be called stupid and unwanted in the modes, however if you think about it for a minute, you should realise that they're just playing in the way they think will get them the most points. If they aren't prepared to learn, it sucks to be them, but every game has its good and bad players. The good ones just learn to deal with all the bad ones. Besides, it's easy to just leave the lobby and find a nicer one.

On the subject of people calling others bad players based solely on their playstyles, or describing the playstyle as nooby because of the abilities, no actions or abilities by themselves are nooby. It's the people who don't understand how to get a win from the style that make them appear nooby. If someone has won with a set, just because the style irritates you doesn't make it nooby, all it means is that you have to find a way to make your play more effective, or find a way to make their's less so.


There are no nooby actions or abilities, only noobs.


Prove me wrong.

n00bfi_97
07-15-2012, 11:28 AM
I love you, no homo.

obliviondoll
07-15-2012, 11:34 AM
Prove me wrong.
Not much of a challenge, so this shouldn't take long.


The only problem AC:B has now is the lag issue, which as far as I can tell Ubisoft can basically do nothing about. We wouldn't actually have this lag issue, or at least not one so bad, if people had thought through what they were asking of Ubisoft when they requested a matchmaking fix. For those of us on the PS3, we had maximum wait times of 10 minutes. Maybe 15 if your connection was somehow worse than mine. The point is, there was nothing unreasonable about the amount of time we were waiting to get into a match.

Impatience and lack of understanding lead to the mass cry of "TECHNOLOGY WIZARDS OF UBISOFT, DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT WAITING FOR A MATCH AS CURRENTLY IT'S OVERRUNNING INTO VALUABLE FAP TIME" and while matchmaking may have needed the tweak on xbox and pc, PS3 didn't need it at all. Matchmaking was improved (afaik) by allowing people further away from each other to connect, which means that lag has increased because since they're further away, it's taking longer for their actions to register on your screen and vice versa. We did this to ourselves, so anyone who's still blaming Ubisoft for lag should stop. Of course they're not prepared to spend more money to reverse a change we asked for. This is a good example of why things need to be thought through fully.
Point 1:

Were there players who were trying to act as a voice of reason at the time?
Did we have a few people saying "yes, the matchmaking is a bit slow, but if they make the lag any worse, the game will be unplayable" in response to those who were complaining?
Did anyone say "I wouldn't mind faster matchmaking, but if it's going to cause more problems, don't bother" instead of ranting about "FIX MATCHMAKING NAO" like a noob?

Pro-tip: Yes. YES WE DID HAVE PEOPLE SAYING THIS.

Point 2:

Whose job is it to look at customer feedback, evaluate it, and implement the correct solutions to improve the quality of the game WITHOUT breaking it?
Was it the stupid customers who were complaining who coded, released and implemented the patch? Or was it Ubisoft staff?

Pro-tip: Ubisoft didn't make the game open-source on every platform within 6 months of release, because that would have been stupid.

Result: It was most definitely Ubisoft's fault that Ubisoft released a defective patch for their game. It was most definitely NOT the fault of people who DON'T know about netcode and software development that their stupid suggestions and requests were implemented over the top of objections from the competent members of the community.

EDIT: As for the rest, including the actual POINTS you were making... nope. Right on all counts. And pretty much what I keep telling everyone.

stingray10
07-15-2012, 01:06 PM
You are right with the majority of your points however in terms of playstyle, the one that really works nearly all the time for scoring high is being aggressive. If you were to go into any regular match, it works because players don't know how to play stealthy, they always slip up. If you were to rely on defense and play stealthy, you score very little as the game does not endorse it in such a way to be viable since nearly everyones runs, away from a kill and to one. So, the catch time for this is very little and with other factors means that it is really difficult to get a high scoring kill in any modes apart from deathmatch.

Demon.King.
07-15-2012, 01:41 PM
About lag, the current real issue are the animations, mainly the stun animation. They all have the same length for all players seeing them, however the person performing them sees it start earlier, which leads to the "teleport stuns" where you see him stunning your team mate then he instantly appears in front of you and stuns you too, even if you were locked and tapping the kill button. This is ridiculous...
they seriously need to implement a ping multiplier/divisor to regulate animation speed according to lag...problem solved/reduced...

rita_g
07-15-2012, 02:17 PM
Alex, I'm sorry, but what is your point?

I'm not going to prove you wrong as we already discussed it cover-to-cover in a different topic. I thought we were done and ended our civil conversation, and there you are, copy-pasting it all as a monologue, using my words as your personal insight. I do not understand why you made this thread to begin with and what purpose does it serve.
Couldn't help but feel that a large portion of it was inflicted directly towards me. If you felt our discussion wasn't over, you could've simply continued it in our previous thread.

CrazyShrapnel
07-15-2012, 02:18 PM
I love you, no homo.

He's mine.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 02:30 PM
I dis-agree with the points on OSB.
There is no real counter when your enemy can throw them at you. And no real counter when they drop them in the middle of a animation with very little cool down.

n00bfi_97
07-15-2012, 03:16 PM
He's mine.

I'm gonna have to ask you to back off.

Serrachio
07-15-2012, 04:00 PM
Ooo, the conflict's getting heated in here. *fans self*

r_o_s_
07-15-2012, 05:40 PM
There's also no excuse for complaints about how others are playing. If they're frustrating you, chances are it's because their current playstyle is beating yours and that's no reason to complain about it, no matter how "cowardly" the playstyle is. Cowardice and other words of the like mean nothing in the game. People who degrade another player for playing cowardly are just as bad, for being too cowardly to play a different game than the one they're used to. You want people to play the way you play because you're confident you can beat them at it.


Hello, ClarkKentsDouble.

HaSoOoN-MHD
07-15-2012, 07:17 PM
There is a difference between play style and cheap.

n00bfi_97
07-15-2012, 07:45 PM
There is a difference between play style and cheap.

Yes, the line is quite fine.

Archybad
07-15-2012, 07:45 PM
Not much of a challenge, so this shouldn't take long.


Point 1:

Were there players who were trying to act as a voice of reason at the time?
Did we have a few people saying "yes, the matchmaking is a bit slow, but if they make the lag any worse, the game will be unplayable" in response to those who were complaining?
Did anyone say "I wouldn't mind faster matchmaking, but if it's going to cause more problems, don't bother" instead of ranting about "FIX MATCHMAKING NAO" like a noob?

Pro-tip: Yes. YES WE DID HAVE PEOPLE SAYING THIS.

Point 2:

Whose job is it to look at customer feedback, evaluate it, and implement the correct solutions to improve the quality of the game WITHOUT breaking it?
Was it the stupid customers who were complaining who coded, released and implemented the patch? Or was it Ubisoft staff?

Pro-tip: Ubisoft didn't make the game open-source on every platform within 6 months of release, because that would have been stupid.

Result: It was most definitely Ubisoft's fault that Ubisoft released a defective patch for their game. It was most definitely NOT the fault of people who DON'T know about netcode and software development that their stupid suggestions and requests were implemented over the top of objections from the competent members of the community.

EDIT: As for the rest, including the actual POINTS you were making... nope. Right on all counts. And pretty much what I keep telling everyone.
I'm not saying Ubisoft aren't to blame, I'm saying that we also hold some of the blame. Competent members of the community sadly make up a very small percentage of it, so while there are many posts for "improve matchmaking", very few would have included "but not at the cost of lag", and I can only assume that it was interpreted as "they want matchmaking to run faster and there aren't many who are opposed to it due to the increased lag issues". It's their fault the patch sucked. It's our fault for asking to fix something that wasn't particularly broken.


You are right with the majority of your points however in terms of playstyle, the one that really works nearly all the time for scoring high is being aggressive. If you were to go into any regular match, it works because players don't know how to play stealthy, they always slip up. If you were to rely on defense and play stealthy, you score very little as the game does not endorse it in such a way to be viable since nearly everyones runs, away from a kill and to one. So, the catch time for this is very little and with other factors means that it is really difficult to get a high scoring kill in any modes apart from deathmatch.
I'm pretty sure I said in the post that a combination of all three styles is what gets you the best score. Being aggressive usually works well, but when people who can actually defend themselves are in the lobby, aggression isn't always the best way to go.

Alex, I'm sorry, but what is your point?

I'm not going to prove you wrong as we already discussed it cover-to-cover in a different topic. I thought we were done and ended our civil conversation, and there you are, copy-pasting it all as a monologue, using my words as your personal insight. I do not understand why you made this thread to begin with and what purpose does it serve.
Couldn't help but feel that a large portion of it was inflicted directly towards me. If you felt our discussion wasn't over, you could've simply continued it in our previous thread.
I'm not sure how you managed to take this personally, but none of this was intended as a dig at you. Nor have I used your words as insight, but no, I don't think I would have made this if we hadn't been talking about it in the other thread. I still don't really understand what your point of view was to be quite honest as I'm not quite sure what:
It's the variety of players and their prefered style that keep you edged from match to match.means. I assumed you meant that it's the players themselves who make things challenging, which is pretty much what I was saying the whole time. A good player will use his set well regardless of what the abilities are, whereas a noob will not. As for why I made the thread, I made it mostly because I'm quite frankly tired of all the "people should play like this", "these things are wrong", "x is better than y" threads and general complaining, lots of which I've been a part of. It all just seems so futile considering there is nothing actually wrong with the playstyles. Players of similar skill levels can counter each other's playstyles well, and that's all the game needs. Just because you don't like a particular playstyle or ability set doesn't make it nooby. I thought I'd start this thread in the naive hope that more people on the forums will read it and maybe start thinking "Maybe I have been a bit rash. Perhaps I shouldn't start yet another thread about how smoke bombs are overpowered, or how Templar Vision is for noobs". I guess I just want to try and make people be more tolerant. There's nothing wrong with not liking people because of the way they play, or getting annoyed by particular playstyles, but grouping everyone together and saying this is bad and everyone who does this is bad just irritates me.

And yes, I do complain heavily about things and players and what they do, but I still respect the skills that they do have and mostly get irritated by them for criticising me for how I'm playing, just because they won't be able to get their high scores off me.


He's mine.
Bulletmagnet bromance. <3


I dis-agree with the points on OSB.
There is no real counter when your enemy can throw them at you. And no real counter when they drop them in the middle of a animation with very little cool down.
You're right. It's totally impossible to run away/use bodyguard/decoy/use a knife on them. I will never understand why people have these issues with running away. If they're going to offensive smoke you, you bail. You don't stick around to get smoked, you just run. If they knife you so you can't run, they're now defenseless for about a minute. It's a trade off that works. Their defenselessness might not benefit you in any way at all, but they've sacrificed the ability to defend themselves to secure a kill on you, and a competent player might be able to use their current defenselessness to his own advantage. I completely understand where you're coming from however, and actually, the option to throw abilities is one of the reasons I don't enjoy AC:R like I enjoy AC:B.


Hello, ClarkKentsDouble.
I don't understand.

Archybad
07-15-2012, 07:58 PM
There is a difference between play style and cheap.
Yes. Quite a big one. One is an adjective, the other is a noun.

There are no cheap playstyles. Everything is fine and balanced. Just because you have to play in a way you don't enjoy doesn't make it cheap. I'm happy to agree that using things like the glitch room in Monteriggioni and the little tunnel ledges in Rome and Forli are cheap because using them isn't really playing at all, but there are no types of actual playing that are cheap.

FreakyChuckles
07-15-2012, 08:43 PM
Take all of AC:B's problems, over compensate the solution and you have AC:R. They over compensated all of the solutions. Slow match making - puts you from a FFA to a Team mode. AC:B needed very few tweaks. Removal of some things, tweaking the detection meter a bit. A few simple tweaks would have made all playstyles equal. Slow and steady, aggressive, hybrid. Would all have they're advantage but AC:R catered to the slow and steady but rewarded the aggressive in a way that it should not.

LadyGahan2010
07-15-2012, 08:49 PM
OK, I had a good laugh. "ACB was close to perfect". Hahaha! Awesome I totally LOLed. ACB has aside lag which one can learn to live MAJOR problem: lack of any defense aside running away and smoking. Thanks, but no thanks. ACR is more balanced, especially with OSB, which I do not use as I feel I can be better than that.
When people claim ACB was perfect, they do have some kind of a problem. :cool:

Archybad
07-15-2012, 09:24 PM
I'm unable to avoid pursuers and use abilities effectively in AC:B. I'm glad I have AC:R to hold my hand.
AC:B had plenty of defense options, it just didn't score as highly as it does in AC:R which meant it was shunned in favour of killing which did grant higher scores. AC:R improved the defensive scoring which has led to more people choosing a defensive playstyle. There's really very little difference between defending in AC:R and AC:B. If there was, why are smoke and mute still the most common defensive abilities?

XxSewerRat28xX
07-15-2012, 10:40 PM
although I thought ACb was near perfect, matchmaking and lag were huge problems for me. It took me sometimes 25 minutes to find a decent match once revelations came out, and now i cant find one at all.