PDA

View Full Version : Where I feel ACB beats ACIV, and where ACIV has actually improved.



Pryotra
04-16-2014, 05:19 AM
As a player who has been with the series since the very beginning with Altair, I have a few things I feel I need to express in regards to the multilayer, and why I still prefer ACB over ACIV.

Lets start with where ACIV has gotten lost.

1) Always on the ladder, can't get off.
No, seriously, this is a problem. As a guy who LOVES Manhunt, I don't think it is very reasonable to ask me to play on the ladder 24/7. Sometimes, I just want to play around, just for the sake of fun. However, with the distinct lack in skill I get matched with more or less frequently, I can't really enjoy the mode for fun anymore. Compare that to Brotherhood, where you had player matches, sort of a casual mode that had 0 impact on your rank if you played it, and a ranked mode, which is what it says on the tin.

If this game wants to get better, it needs to stop forcing ALL people to play ranked whenever they want to play.

2) Gotta Go FAST! You're too slow!
Simply put, without chases, this game becomes competitive sonic, where you run around the map trying to kill faster and more often than you die. Stealth still exists, but it is nigh on impossible to get any points when your targets auto run from Square 1, masqurading as Santa Clause on the Rooftops.

Dumb Running needs more punishment in general. At least in Brotherhood you could risk losing all your points on that target if you F'up, or if they were simply smarter at free running.

3) Wanna play a team mode? Use the slide next to the ladder! It leads to the bouncy house!
This is especially accurate in manhunt, but the other team modes suffer from this as well.

Tieing in with #1, this point more represents the sheer bias this game has towards the FFA modes. We get it, When people say AC Multiplayer, the immediate thought is wanted. However, at least Brotherhood had balanced team modes when compared to the tripe you see in ACIV. In Brotherhood, most abilities are able to be used to some effect on either offense or defense. In acIV? not so much. In Manhunt, Offense needs some form of ability disabling, whether through animus shield or wipe, where as Defense NEEDS to pick up some form of stealth. In domination, you have an infiltration class, and a defender class. In AA? Try a defense, a flag capper, or maybe even a rare third class my friend nicknamed "SH!TSTORM", in which all you do is be massively obvious to the enemy team and draw them away while you allies get into position to cap when optimal.

Then the maps, which while pretty agnostic to Manhunt, can really F*CK domination or AA. Play a few matches, and you will see how effective some really dumb stuff is on different maps.

This goes hand in hand with the balancing of ladder rewards/penalties for winning/losing. Winning at a higher rank actually has the possibility of LOSING YOU POINTS, if there are enough low ranks on the enemy team. That shouldn't be a thing. Meanwhile losing will almost certainly lose you more than 100 points, unless you came in too late.

4)Rank means nothing
Back to points #1 and #3, comparing the ladders, in it's day Brotherhood's ladder ultimately meant something, whereas ACIV makes the ladder meaningless due to always having to play ranked, and with Teammodes being so utter tosh.

Now, onto where ACIV shines.
1)POISON!!!
I can't thank you enough for making it impossible to steal poisons when the lock doesn't exist previous. Now if only you could hide my locks from my allies on manhunt, and that would be just great. Also, when on the receiving end, you can still react instead of trying to either suicide into n00bs, or free-run so as to do funny things with your corpse.

2)Stealth is really good
Looking at wanted here, Stealth has DEFINITELY gotten better. Hiding to get close and rewarding the stealthier approaches makes for good pvp interactions. I just wished running had more downsides other than "oh dear, I only got 50 points, OH WELL, TIME TO GET ANOTHER KILL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT."

3)Free Running, when used wisely and smartly, is epic in this game
Anyone who remembers the nightmare of Revalations understands the importance of being able to outrun an opponent through skill. It was present in Brotherhood, but mainly as an escape or quick arial kill sort of thing. now, However, now clever freerunning can really shake up the offense. They see an opponent die over there, they won't expect you to be able to cove the other exit quickly. But you can if you are good, and know how to free run. You can also do so on defense, to get pretty epic dry stuns.

4)The maps, while having issues with team modes, are overall better and MUCH less glitchy.
Remember the out of map "party room" on forli? How about the untargetable area on siena, or even san donato? Every map had at least 1 glitch or exploit in ACB, where as that isn't so much the case in ACIV, or at least I haven't found them yet. Also, the free run paths are a whole lot less linear, which is a very good thing.

5)Character customization is now perfect.
NO one will deny that character customization is better. Congrats, you can now be pretty unique. Hopefully now you can focus on the other issues.

Well, that about wraps it up. Thanks for reading, hopefully a dev sees this and takes it into consideration.

xYnazz
04-16-2014, 06:15 AM
I really like your Post, especially the Ladder thing. I would really like to get in the Top 100 at least once on PC, but whenever my Team loses in Team Modes I lose so many points that I shouldn't even consider playing team modes. But I like them.

I would suggest to have a ladder for team modes and one for FFA. I also like the idea of having non-Ladder-Matches, just for fun.

Where-am-I-again
04-16-2014, 09:04 AM
I have to say, this game would be near-perfect (imo) if the ladder and matchmaking weren't so bugged.... And even out of these, ALL of the problems related to those two would be more or less fixed if ONE of them was. If DC's weren't so prevalent, ladder wouldn't be so much of a problem with 0(0) bug and DC ranking losses pretty much gone, or if the ladder didn't remove points for DC's, the DC's wouldn't hurt so much anymore.

The non-ranked matches would solve everything if the playerbase wasn't too small to split in any way...

Pryotra
04-16-2014, 09:10 AM
I have to say, this game would be near-perfect (imo) if the ladder and matchmaking weren't so bugged.... And even out of these, ALL of the problems related to those two would be more or less fixed if ONE of them was. If DC's weren't so prevalent, ladder wouldn't be so much of a problem with 0(0) bug and DC ranking losses pretty much gone, or if the ladder didn't remove points for DC's, the DC's wouldn't hurt so much anymore.

The non-ranked matches would solve everything if the playerbase wasn't too small to split in any way...
I would argue the playerbase wouldn't be so small if the ladder meant anything, and the matchmaker wasn't a dartboard. both of which non-ranked addresses.

It's a catch 22. Only way to implement it would be to have a larger playerbase. Only way to get a larger playerbase is to implement it.

If they can generate enough hype for ACV, and implement it on launch, about 1/2 the problems would be solved.

Where-am-I-again
04-16-2014, 09:11 AM
I would argue the playerbase wouldn't be so small if the ladder meant anything, and the matchmaker wasn't a dartboard. both of which non-ranked addresses.

It's a catch 22. Only way to implement it would be to have a larger playerbase. Only way to get a larger playerbase is to implement it.

If they can generate enough hype for ACV, and implement it on launch, about 1/2 the problems would be solved.

Unless ACV has no adversarial MP ^^

berninheck
04-16-2014, 02:57 PM
I have to say, this game would be near-perfect (imo) if the ladder and matchmaking weren't so bugged....

It seems that the matchmaking assigns people to teams based upon their level/prestige. So folks who play the game a lot (high prestige) generally get paired up with noobs against teams full of lesser prestiged players. It leads to unbalanced teams - essentially penalizing anyone who has played this game for a long time.

I'd really like to see matchmaking assign people to teams based upon their ladder rank - irrespective of level/prestige, if all games have to be "on the ladder". I like the OP's suggestion that the game offer players more choice on whether a game is "on the ladder" or not. As someone who enjoys the team games more than the FFA modes, it's a beating trying to play any team mode game without a couple of my friends (see previous paragraph). So, now that I've played a bunch and have a (relatively) high prestige, I really can't play the team modes unless I have friends to play with, without significant risk to ladder ranking. This causes a second problem - lobby hunting. Gotta keep joining and exiting sessions until I find a game that's half over. Lot's of people doing this and it makes it darn near impossible for everyone to find a game to play (because people keep leaving sessions before or shortly after they start).

Where-am-I-again
04-16-2014, 03:09 PM
It seems that the matchmaking assigns people to teams based upon their level/prestige. So folks who play the game a lot (high prestige) generally get paired up with noobs against teams full of lesser prestiged players. It leads to unbalanced teams - essentially penalizing anyone who has played this game for a long time.

I'd really like to see matchmaking assign people to teams based upon their ladder rank - irrespective of level/prestige, if all games have to be "on the ladder". I like the OP's suggestion that the game offer players more choice on whether a game is "on the ladder" or not. As someone who enjoys the team games more than the FFA modes, it's a beating trying to play any team mode game without a couple of my friends (see previous paragraph). So, now that I've played a bunch and have a (relatively) high prestige, I really can't play the team modes unless I have friends to play with, without significant risk to ladder ranking. This causes a second problem - lobby hunting. Gotta keep joining and exiting sessions until I find a game that's half over. Lot's of people doing this and it makes it darn near impossible for everyone to find a game to play (because people keep leaving sessions before or shortly after they start).

This happens in team modes a lot, although sometimes it seems completely random, e.g. 4 prestiges vs. 4 "whites", sometimes the game keeps putting late-joining people in a team that already has more members than the other team (and probably is in a hefty lead by then). Today I had a Domination game where we were three prestige players vs. 1 prestige and 1 non-prestige, the other team's prestige player left at loading screen, and the single (prestige) player that joined late was thrown into OUR team. The teams were 4-1 till the end. Talk about fair.

berninheck
04-16-2014, 03:17 PM
Team mode games that are in progress will try to assign newly joining players to the team that is currently losing (if a slot is available), regardless of number of players or level/prestige. If you were sandbagging the first minute (trying to bait the other team players to stay in the game by letting them get the early lead), that can happen.

NAVID4ASSASSIN
04-16-2014, 10:17 PM
IF they only added a new leveling pr prestige system to AC B , i would only play it 4ever, nuff said.

Kirokill
04-17-2014, 03:46 AM
It seems that the matchmaking assigns people to teams based upon their level/prestige. So folks who play the game a lot (high prestige) generally get paired up with noobs against teams full of lesser prestiged players. It leads to unbalanced teams - essentially penalizing anyone who has played this game for a long time.

I'd really like to see matchmaking assign people to teams based upon their ladder rank - irrespective of level/prestige, if all games have to be "on the ladder". I like the OP's suggestion that the game offer players more choice on whether a game is "on the ladder" or not. As someone who enjoys the team games more than the FFA modes, it's a beating trying to play any team mode game without a couple of my friends (see previous paragraph). So, now that I've played a bunch and have a (relatively) high prestige, I really can't play the team modes unless I have friends to play with, without significant risk to ladder ranking. This causes a second problem - lobby hunting. Gotta keep joining and exiting sessions until I find a game that's half over. Lot's of people doing this and it makes it darn near impossible for everyone to find a game to play (because people keep leaving sessions before or shortly after they start).

You know, I think it does. First time I played AC4 on PS4, which was in Jan, and I was experienced, I joined a full noob lobby with evryone level ranges from 1 to 11 and the ladder rank was black empty. And I got an easy 10k...

Where-am-I-again
04-17-2014, 08:39 AM
Team mode games that are in progress will try to assign newly joining players to the team that is currently losing (if a slot is available), regardless of number of players or level/prestige. If you were sandbagging the first minute (trying to bait the other team players to stay in the game by letting them get the early lead), that can happen.

It's SUPPOSED to do that, I know, but believe me, we weren't sandbagging (respect for that one guy for staying despite domination, he did have some decent tries though), and the game kept gimping the other team. But I suppose it's only natural for a Ubisoft game to not work the way it's supposed to...

Avantiic
04-17-2014, 09:53 AM
It seems that the matchmaking assigns people to teams based upon their level/prestige. So folks who play the game a lot (high prestige) generally get paired up with noobs against teams full of lesser prestiged players. It leads to unbalanced teams - essentially penalizing anyone who has played this game for a long time.

I'd really like to see matchmaking assign people to teams based upon their ladder rank - irrespective of level/prestige, if all games have to be "on the ladder". I like the OP's suggestion that the game offer players more choice on whether a game is "on the ladder" or not. As someone who enjoys the team games more than the FFA modes, it's a beating trying to play any team mode game without a couple of my friends (see previous paragraph). So, now that I've played a bunch and have a (relatively) high prestige, I really can't play the team modes unless I have friends to play with, without significant risk to ladder ranking. This causes a second problem - lobby hunting. Gotta keep joining and exiting sessions until I find a game that's half over. Lot's of people doing this and it makes it darn near impossible for everyone to find a game to play (because people keep leaving sessions before or shortly after they start).

Yeah, its really anoying, im 41* and when i search public lobbys its always like:
My Team: me, 3 low levels
Opposing team : 3 Prestige, 1 low level

This makes it almost impossible to win matches and get good scores :(

berninheck
04-17-2014, 12:41 PM
You know, I think it does. First time I played AC4 on PS4, which was in Jan, and I was experienced, I joined a full noob lobby with evryone level ranges from 1 to 11 and the ladder rank was black empty. And I got an easy 10k...

I'm not talking about how it determines which players are in your lobby/session. I'm talking about how it pairs the people who are in your lobby/session on teams in the team mode sessions.


Yeah, its really anoying, im 41* and when i search public lobbys its always like:
My Team: me, 3 low levels
Opposing team : 3 Prestige, 1 low level

This makes it almost impossible to win matches and get good scores :(

This guy knows what I'm talking about.

Kirokill
04-17-2014, 01:51 PM
Lmao, exactly. The game miscalculates in team modes, and just because you are high prestiger you get put with some crazy fellas, and the half experienced still can make use of those poor lowers as score while all your stuns in manhunt still render useless.