🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Assassin's Creed forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.

View Poll Results: What would you like a future game's Mercenary system to be like?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'd want a system more similar to Odyssey's

    1 9.09%
  • I'd want to lean closer to the Nemesis System

    8 72.73%
  • I have other ideas (share in comments)

    1 9.09%
  • Not sure yet

    1 9.09%
  1. #1
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    6,078

    Odyssey's Mercenaries and Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis

    The recent Mentor's Guild discussion thread had a question that asked our opinions of the weekly mercenary/ship stuff, and I realized how little of it I've actually done.

    This seemed strange to me, because the mercenary system was one of the things I was looking forward to most in this game. I've mentioned before that hunting orcs was one of my favorite things to do in Shadow of War/Mordor, but the mercs in Odyssey just didn't scratch that itch for me for some reason.

    Personally, I think this is due to two things-

    1) In the Shadow series, taking down orcs can have some affect on the world state, particularly if you manage to dominate them. In Odyssey, you just see a new mercenary almost immediately step into the ranks of the one you eliminated. It feels less like you actually accomplished something.I know there's been a lot of discussion on how the Battle system doesn't seem to have much of a permanent affect on the world, and I think this is a very similar issue.
    And I realize you could recruit defeated mercenaries, but it's not nearly as smooth as dominating, and it still doesn't have much of an affect on the world state afterward.

    2) Personally, I enjoy Odyssey's combat system more against waves of weaker enemies rather than a single spongey one. I feel like the weaknesses and strengths of orcs in Shadow really play into the fights that you have in that game, even if you're not consciously trying to utilize them. For instance, accidentally releasing a caragor into the fray could cause an orc to become enraged, or alternatively to flee in terror.
    In this, I really just find myself using pretty much the same tactics for each mercenary, causing the fights to feel a little samey.
    I realize that a game that more fully embraces the high fantasy stuff like Shadow has some more leeway with adding in crazy game changing abilities, and Odyssey already does push the boundaries of the Assassin's Creed universe.


    What do you guys think? If the next game were to feature something like a Mercenary system is there anything from Shadow of War that you'd like to see implemented? Or something else entirely? Or did you enjoy the Mercenary system as is?
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Dtheawesome9010's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    At home playing PS4
    Posts
    998
    Haven't spent too much time in Mordor/War but the system was cool killing orcs and then others rise for killing each other and if they kill you they rise in ranks that was awesome.Odyssey only has you kill them and nothing else no mercs killing each other to rise in ranks like War does and no mercs trying to claim your spot. it doesn't make us vigilant and aware unless you have a price on your head. Now that sounds cool for me but not everyone will enjoy getting knifed randomly so the mercs can claim your spot so for me and only me I like vigilance but at times I do set my control down without pausing cuz of various reasons If I have a long ride I'll set my controller down and let auto pilot do it's thing and when it stops it would be too easy for them to kill me if I'm not back fast enough so I guess I could start pausing games more but if if i do that during a long ride I'll have to sit through bored off my arse.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Drex404's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    597
    I haven't played shadow/mordor, but I get what you're saying, and I like the idea of mercs fighting each other or coming after us to rise in the ranks. The way odyssey does it is for simplicity's sake imo. Mercs are little more than polemarchs with his/her own de/buffs and damage resist, basically a step up from them but a step (or two) down from a boss fight. Making every mercenary like a miniboss would make defeating them more rewarding, and reaching the next tier would actually feel like an accomplishment. Some people might not like that (people are in such a rush these days ) because of time restraints and all that, but as soon as you reach top rank, there's very little reason to hunt more mercs anyway. Something else I'd like to see involves the arena. Once we become champion, why is it that we have to go challenge the merc that's there? I'd rather receive the challenge from the merc and have it play as a mini/boss fight (not the standard arena merc fight) whenever we go and enter the arena. Making each merc a mini/boss fight might be a little much, and it might be difficult to get randomely generated replacements to play as such, but I know I'd enjoy it much more. Right now (in ng+) it's opps i haz bounty, killz a few mercs, opps already gained 8 tiers. It only feels like a few mercs vs the actual number defeated. Oh, one more thing of note is dialog from other mercs. Even when I'm the #1 merc, they speak as if I'm bottom of the barrel. Did they not get the memo?
    Share this post

  4. #4
    pesto.'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    749
    I think more of a nemesis style system would be good, especially as it was in Shadow of War but perhaps not for mercenaries, instead for the state leaders. Imagine using them to further your own interests in the same way.

    For me the mercenaries are a breath of fresh air. I loved the Phylakes in Origins and was so disappointed when they ran out, so Mercenaries in Odyssey meant I never had to worry about this great mechanic. I love that if a fort gets alerted you might find some turning up to help the troops as they try to take you down, thus increasing the difficulty by as much as you want. I love that they give great loot, and I love their smack talk as they try to take you down a peg or two.

    I almost wish that if there were a nemesis system, it would work both ways, as in if you get beaten by a mercenary then you could lose XP and drop down the rankings >

    I agree in general though to the idea that mercenaries is such a good idea that it deserves to be fleshed out even further.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #5
    I would be nice to have the Nemesis system in AC involving Mercenaries and Leaders. Imagine helping a political rival become a Leader or having a Mercenary brothers traveling together. There would be a lot of interactions between mercenaries,leaders and the player. Having a rival mercenary or mercenaries wanting revenge for killing someone will make the game more interesting
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    6,078
    Originally Posted by pesto. Go to original post
    I think more of a nemesis style system would be good, especially as it was in Shadow of War but perhaps not for mercenaries, instead for the state leaders. Imagine using them to further your own interests in the same way.
    Now that's a fascinating idea, and probably more in line with the methods of the Assassins anyway. Any thoughts as to how that might play out through gameplay?

    And just to be totally clear, I am glad this feature was in Odyssey, but I've always been a fan of the idea that Assassin's Creed does a great job of introducing a feature in one game and really expanding on it in a later release. So, if we get a Merc system in the future, I'm confident it will be pretty improved in some ways or another.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Niley14 Go to original post
    I would be nice to have the Nemesis system in AC involving Mercenaries and Leaders. Imagine helping a political rival become a Leader or having a Mercenary brothers traveling together. There would be a lot of interactions between mercenaries,leaders and the player. Having a rival mercenary or mercenaries wanting revenge for killing someone will make the game more interesting
    I like this idea a lot. I think you could make a system where you can you can recruit leaders/polemarchs in a separate system, then perhaps do a mission to establish them as the replacement leader after completing a conquest battle. After you've established a leader, you gain passive resources/drachmae from the region and have a much more forgiving bounty system (perhaps illegal actions only raise your bounty 10-25% as much as it would if you did not "own" the leader of that region).

    For mercenaries, you could still recruit them in the current system, but be able to do more with them once they are recruited. You can assign them to your ship as it already exists, but you can also have a "bench" of mercenaries where they can be used to perform certain actions that could almost be reminiscent of the AC Brotherhood Assassin recruits system. They can fight with you in conquests, be summoned like the "Call to Arms" perk, they can be sent on assassination missions. You can send them on missions to weaken a region, saving you time from having to trigger conquests yourself. You can base them in your regions to defend it and keep it from being weakened, or to be a body guard for state leaders you've put in power.

    I think this would have a much greater impact on the world, but it would also mean you would have to spend significant time building up regions and defending them which could be a bit tedious given all of the other things to do in Odyssey. Not to mention certain quests and cultists depend on triggering conquest battles for certain regions, and the story never really clearly defines your allegiance to one side or another. I think this would be better in a future game, where you have to actually declare an allegiance. You could allow the player to switch sides, but you would have to perform certain tasks or missions to prove your loyalty to the other side before doing so.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    pesto.'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    749
    I'm thinking such a system is more likely to make it into the next AC rather than Odyssey (although I'd love to be proven wrong), simply because of the implications, it's a big game mechanic and would involve having a hierarchy not just separately operating state leaders and mercenaries.

    I actually like that Odyssey is pre-assassins, which frees you up your character behavior and choices from their twisted moral code as well as their inbuilt silly angst and agenda which feels so oppressive in the other games. But assuming the next AC is post Bayek and Aya then if there's an agency they could use that to promote their own assassins among the mercenaries maybe in competition with the order trying to do exactly the same thing and instead of trying to take everything over it would be more a case of trying to stop a competitor from doing the same, with the original people being neutral (or influenced either way by the right sums of money or other coercion, i.e. similar to the "shamed" option in Shadow of War).

    That way instead of having a system of bosses to try and locate and beat you could have an ever changing hierarchy that you're fighting to control, and when certain criteria are met might trigger the next stage of a story, so for example if you control a certain branch of this government you would trigger a story progression cutscene and set of missions related to that area, perhaps to reinforce those people so they're less easy to take down, but also perhaps to push the story itself forward. This would bring the grind and the story together in a more natural way rather than them feeling like separate things.

    In addition controlling a whole area might give bonuses in that area, cheaper merchants, more goods, friendlier constabulary, that sort of thing. Perhaps you could even get to control how many patrols there are, that way you could lower the number and the area would be weaker to attack and infiltration by the Order but also you could get away with your nefarious deeds easier within that region, or you could raise them to make life harder for your enemies.

    Even better imagine if this was an approach to MP in AC. Either in Co-Op or PVP. It could work.

    With Co-Op lets assume for a moment it's a bit like Wildlands, you either work together on the same missions or can split off and do your own things. Now imagine in that mode there were weekly leaderboards with rewards for the best teams. Now imagine that you had this nemesis style system in there too but to make life a little more interesting, in order to take down any boss would take some coordinated effort and perhaps some sanctions on neighboring bosses from the areas you already own to trigger a battle. Each player could be given a different lieutenant they had to take down in order for the team to trigger the battle that they could then all join in.

    Even better imagine if there were ever a competitive co-op. Now imagine that instead of the aim being something boring like assassinating other players, that instead it operated on this system where two or more players battle it out for control over the land/government. Like an RTS only played form the perspective of a single general (or spy, depending on how you view your assassin). Obviously it's a slower play than most RTS games so that would have to be taken into account, but it would give a route in to have competitive play even play between clans - imagine each person being given a prefecture, clans having their own hierarchy, or instead working as a group to take down leaders and staying out of the direct politics. Either way this could result in a very strong and unique PVP experience that wouldn't take away from the carefully planned out world of AC trying to either make it into a PVP brawler or twitch game.

    Taking that PVP element to the next level, you could even incorporate the regions/levels of Shadow Of War in that for PVP, i.e. clans forced completely out of one government could drop down to the next level and face off against a different clan, effectively "shamed" with an overall leaderboard each season. Wins would deliver a good reward, losses another. And if the games were balanced by numbers of players in the clans or in the game (perhaps a max of 8 per map, i.e. 4 per side) so if you're playing solo then you'd just be up against solo players or you could get AI accomplices, then you could have a pretty solid competitive system that wasn't excluding anyone from joining in. Plus it's a great way to combine strategy and action as you get to see who is in peril, shore them up a little (or take them down), see what the other team is doing.

    Anyhow, it's a long shot thought but it could add another interesting angle. If Ubi did that they'd have to give the option of a restricted region custom map for lan/competitive play for the e-sports crowd, to allow games that play out over a shorter period than days, also probably the option of more than two teams vying for control of the map, and a time based mode too i.e. you have one hour whomever holds the most ground at the end wins style of thing.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    cawatrooper9's Avatar AC Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A Bathtub with Caterina Sforza
    Posts
    6,078
    Sounds pretty interesting, pesto.

    For your region control idea, do you imagine a "small" group of players (2-16ish) whose actions directly impact each other in the city (and who could maybe even encounter each other, such as in Watch_Dogs)?

    Or were you thinking a sort of meta-game thing, like For Honor's region control feature, where an entire server full of people participate to help their team, but the conflict is more indirect/not inherently tied to the main conflict of the gameplay?
    Share this post

  10. #10
    pesto.'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    749
    I was thinking more like a meta-game as I don't really feel like player on player action fits well with AC which is more stealth and strategy than beat-em-up.

    SP mechanics rarely blend well into MP, it's a problem I have with Watchdogs and GTA and to be honest most Ubi games that have MP, the only one that really works well for me is Siege which lets be honest went all out for an MP gameplay style, it's almost completely ripping off CoD, twitch mechanics, and its great for it. I could see something a bit like invasions happening though along the way, but I'd hope it was optional and could be turned off as it can in Watchdogs.

    Often the problem with PVP is that it seems Ubi see it as something to be designed around the concept of "griefing" rather than competition. Don't get me wrong, there's certainly a lot of fun to be had by being a ******-bag griefer at least for a short while in games like Call of Duty when you can completely command and defeat an opponent mentally too. But when the mechanic is based around that rather than the competition it loses it's luster much faster. It ceases to be a tactical choice and becomes a forced single track, every encounter comes with dread rather than joy.

    That's my argument as to why I'd opt for a meta-game instead, because any other way seems to me to be a means to grief rather than compete.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post