PDA

View Full Version : Will Revelations MP last?



L3gendary92
11-22-2011, 07:47 PM
What do you think? Brotherhood seemed to have a very tight-knit community (on the 360 side anyway) that played all the time. Do you think Revelations is going to keep the lasting appeal?

The_Despair_
11-22-2011, 07:55 PM
I think so. Even if the only modes where the RDM works are the Deathmatch games.

ABXantos
11-22-2011, 08:10 PM
Revelations has the potential to last as long as it did like Brotherhood. However all of us (the AC Devs and the AC community) need to do a part to make sure of that or else it will die off fast.

Zoidberg747
11-22-2011, 08:12 PM
No.

A lot of that tight-knit community has given up on ACR I am not debating whether that is right or not but it is true.

I have had a hard time finding games on the weekend, and it hasnt even been out for more than a week. I just cannot see this being played a year from now, like ACB was.

Detrian
11-22-2011, 08:48 PM
Depends on how Ubisoft handles DLC and patching.

SniffyPenguin
11-22-2011, 10:14 PM
Until they fix the party matchmaking, I'm not putting it back in my disc tray. Many others have stopped playing it, too.

I don't think it'll die, but it won't ever be as popular as ACB.

gothpunkboy89
11-22-2011, 10:21 PM
They also have the ubisoft pass that is needed. So I assume if this isn't a brand new game you have to pay. Pretty much another version of the play station pass.


Also you have the people complaining about new system just because they can't pull of easy 400 point kills and stun lock anymore. So they quit because the game is now makeing you have to work harder for decent scores.

protesticle
11-22-2011, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by gothpunkboy89:
They also have the ubisoft pass that is needed. So I assume if this isn't a brand new game you have to pay. Pretty much another version of the play station pass.


Also you have the people complaining about new system just because they can't pull of <STRIKE>easy</STRIKE> fast <STRIKE>400</STRIKE> 300 point kills and stun lock anymore. So they quit because the game is now makeing you have to work <STRIKE>harder</STRIKE> differently for decent scores.

E-Zekiel
11-22-2011, 11:18 PM
I think the pass was very unnecessary, but aside from that I do think it'll last. To think that omg my freidns and teh whoel ACB community don't like it! Has any effect is very...unlikely. Just like AC:B has its hardcore fans, AC:R does and will too. Just like other games with multiple sequels all with multiplayer, there will always be people who prefer it specifically in one rendition.

BigUrn
11-22-2011, 11:30 PM
Agreed punkboy although I will say not all hate because they can't do it wit ease anymore but quite a few are probably upset by that..I will play ACR till the next 1 comes out

Blaqk_Friday
11-22-2011, 11:52 PM
I'm hoping it lasts 'cuz I've been enjoying this as much as I enjoyed Brotherhood. I especially like the voting for different modes at the end of each game so that prolongs the life of the less-popular modes.

The only thing that worries me is that since I only seem to get matched up with fellow Aussies and some NZ players, I dunno if I'll have anyone to play with/against in a few months time. I'm not so sure that the MP is all that popular down under.

lx_Reafer_xl
11-23-2011, 12:01 AM
If Ubisoft continues to ignore their core fan base and the many problems with their MP that need fixing, I honestly don't see it lasting past March next year.

And that's being generous.

Stowdace
11-23-2011, 12:04 AM
Problems present:
-Ground Finisher (and some cases teammate's lock) take priority over own lock, which I find stupid
-The lag, enough said
-Trouble connecting and joining groups as a party
-Not aquiring contracts for long period of time

Unless these, or more issues, are addressed, don't see the game lasting for long.

BigUrn
11-23-2011, 12:24 AM
core fan What is the core? People that you think are the core? Cause your definition of core might vary from person 2 person. People seem 2 think just cause they want the game a certain way than anything other than that is a fail.

Zoidberg747
11-23-2011, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by BigUrn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">core fan What is the core? People that you think are the core? Cause your definition of core might vary from person 2 person. People seem 2 think just cause they want the game a certain way than anything other than that is a fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know anyone that thinks the 15k score limit and team matchmaking are not problems with ACR.

BigUrn
11-23-2011, 12:44 AM
People care 2 much about score. I do 2 but I don't mind it

lx_Reafer_xl
11-23-2011, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by BigUrn:
People care 2 much about score. I do 2 but I don't mind it
Yes. YOU don't mind it.
YOU.

Guess what?
The entire Assassin's Creed Community isn't comprised of just YOU.

BigUrn
11-23-2011, 01:36 AM
Your the 1 talking about the core..you don't say what the core is, all you can do is say what your opinion is. Kinda why I used the word "I"

Archosakun
11-23-2011, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by lx_Reafer_xl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigUrn:
People care 2 much about score. I do 2 but I don't mind it
Yes. YOU don't mind it.
YOU.

Guess what?
The entire Assassin's Creed Community isn't comprised of just YOU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is also not compromised of the people complaining on the forums, does it? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't.

The_Despair_
11-23-2011, 01:48 AM
The reason why score is important is because people want their playstyle rewarded. Everyone knows sneaking and outwitting your opponent should mean more points, but you can't do that when you have to run to one side of the map to get to your target and hope THEY don't run to the other side of the map to get THEIR target.

Somehow Wanted just isn't fun anymore. Granted, I haven't got to play Wanted on a Brotherhood map yet, so we'll see how that works out. But Assassinate...yeah, just isn't Assassinate anymore.

Zoidberg747
11-23-2011, 01:50 AM
People dont want their scores to be thrown out because they are too awesome for Ubi's standards

YourInnate
11-23-2011, 01:53 AM
Just throwing it out there, but this game is easier to score high than acb.

Zoidberg747
11-23-2011, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by YourInnate:
Just throwing it out there, but this game is easier to score high than acb.

*But not as fun because of the 15k score limit*

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 02:01 AM
Of course. A few whiny people on the forum unwilling to adapt is something every new game suffers, and goes on to ignore.

AC:B has been broken since, what, april or something? And yet it chugged along not losing too many people. AC:R is a better game with fewer problems, there's no reason for it to die, no matter how much some people might want it to.

Chernzobog
11-23-2011, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Of course. A few whiny people on the forum unwilling to adapt is something every new game suffers, and goes on to ignore.

AC:B has been broken since, what, april or something? And yet it chugged along not losing too many people. AC:R is a better game with fewer problems, there's no reason for it to die, no matter how much some people might want it to.

I don't know.
I've seen an increasing number of my friends back on ACB these last few days.
I guess only time will tell.

Mouse03
11-23-2011, 04:56 AM
I don't think it will to be honest. The MP is, for lack of a better word, ruined, due to new additions, changes, bugs, matchmaking, the points...etc...etc.

Problems which presented in the beta, and have been discussed and feedback given, and nothing done about them.

My main gripe with it is that you cannot play with friends. To me, there's not really much point is there? If i want solo, i'll play SP. I go into MP to play with friends.

Ubi don't get it. They never have. And/or don't care. Again, never have.
And until they all wake up and take their heads out of the sand, MP in ACR will be dead.

When i got the game a couple of days ago, there were always modes where it was 'high activity'. Today i can't find anything like that. Everything is 'medium' or 'low'.

People will either go back to ACB, until the servers get so bad (like they're not already) that the game is truely unplayable for most (or all). When that happens, AC MP will be abndoned in favour of MP games that actually work.

It's very sad. Very sad indeed. But Ubi refuse to listen and refuse to care, and they can all go jump as far as i'm concerned.

SleezeRocker
11-23-2011, 06:03 AM
It may last...if AC3 doesn't include Multiplayer.

AC multiplayer is fun (for me) but I am willing to sacrifice multiplayer from AC3 if it means having an ultimate and completely big final AC game (Well at least current Desmond Arc of AC) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 07:06 AM
look i think it has the potential to last but without a patch or two people are going to leave its hard enough now 'medium activty' in all game modes apart from a few hrs a day when FFA goes green that alone suggests people have left for good and its highly unlikely theyll wait to hear about a patch and come back (not with arkham city - skyrim - halo - GOW3 the list goes on this year)

not only that but word of mouth is travelling fast the critics can fool a few but most gamers check forums and listen to their friends for a second opinion youtube to bbq's its the same opinion are there some people anjoying ACR more than ACB yes are they the majority clearly not

this game needs some work not only to keep people interested and bring them back but also to convince us its worth buying AC3 right now it doesnt seem that way

Just Krispy
11-23-2011, 07:19 AM
Not aquiring contracts for long period of time
this....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CriticaHit
11-23-2011, 09:58 AM
I couldn't say how much the ACR MP will last for everyone else. I know it'll last a whole 2 or 3 more weeks since I'll still be playing it some until SWTOR is out. The MP is fun in AC but isn't something I could do all the time, I just hope theres some people around a couple months down the road when I decide to pop it back in and play some Deathmatch.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 10:33 AM
I really hope ACR dies fast, people return to ACB, and Ubisoft FIX THE LAG WE'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT SINCE MARCH...

But it probably won't happen.

ACR will almost certainly die much faster than ACB, but I'm expecting most players will leave AC MP behind completely instead of trying to get Ubisoft to move back to when their game worked.

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 11:46 AM
its finished no doubt cant see it moving on from here the way its being played now is complete disregard for the rules manhunt is a foot race as if you have to get the highest k/d ratio all of a sudden whats up with that? wanted is the same the two most popular game modes (IMO) killed off and were asking if it can survive the answer is a firm: MAYBE IF....

E-Zekiel
11-23-2011, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I really hope ACR dies fast, people return to ACB, and Ubisoft FIX THE LAG WE'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT SINCE MARCH...

But it probably won't happen.

ACR will almost certainly die much faster than ACB, but I'm expecting most players will leave AC MP behind completely instead of trying to get Ubisoft to move back to when their game worked.

Not likely, because it's more accessible than ACB was.


Originally posted by Zoidberg747:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigUrn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">core fan What is the core? People that you think are the core? Cause your definition of core might vary from person 2 person. People seem 2 think just cause they want the game a certain way than anything other than that is a fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know anyone that thinks the 15k score limit and team matchmaking are not problems with ACR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what you mean with team matchmaking issues - do you mean people being put on different teams? In which case, I can see why they do it, and I am ok with how they do it, but I am also ok with them changing it. So I don't see THAT as a problem.

However, if you mean people being split up between different sessions (IE they're not playing with each other) - then yes, that's an issue.

BigUrn
11-23-2011, 12:12 PM
It won't die because 4 every person who hates ACR 10 more love it and will continue to play..and I hope ACB completely dies off

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by BigUrn:
It won't die because 4 every person who hates ACR 10 more love it and will continue to play..and I hope ACB completely dies off

done a survey have you? i suppose that also explains the drop from 'high activity' to 'medium activity' (even low activity) in less than 9 days too?

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by deadly_thought:
done a survey have you? i suppose that also explains the drop from 'high activity' to 'medium activity' (even low activity) in less than 9 days too? Yes, the same survey everyone else in this thread has done, the Wishful Thinking Survey.


Really guys, just because you don't like the improvements made, doesn't mean the game is spontaneously going to die.

Even the real issues, like the team matchmaking, probably won't affect it. How many people working in actual teams do you come across?

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 12:24 PM
yet to see you explain the drop in players aswell just the old "oh you cant be right" argument explain it the only way to explain it is that there are less players now than 4 days ago considering it launched 9 days ago thats a big indicator of the way things are headed by all means bury your head in the sand

DigDug510
11-23-2011, 12:27 PM
You don't come across people playing as actual teams because you can't play as actual teams.

And other than about four foumers who are giving staunch support for AC:R and telling everyone to like it because if they don't, that just means they suck at the game, the response has been lukewarm to cold at best.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by BigUrn:
It won't die because 4 every person who hates ACR 10 more love it and will continue to play..and I hope ACB completely dies off
At this point in its life, ACB had at least a couple of dozen fans for every complaint. Usually closer to 50.

ACR has 10. This is definitely reassuring me that I'm more likely to be right than wrong.

I won't complain horribly if I'm wrong. I'll be disappointed, but not surprised, at the stupidity demonstrated by people, if the game survives in spite of its issues instead of having them fixed.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by deadly_thought:
yet to see you explain the drop in players aswell just the old "oh you cant be right" argument explain it the only way to explain it is that there are less players now than 4 days ago considering it launched 9 days ago thats a big indicator of the way things are headed by all means bury your head in the sand I just checked now and both FFA and Team have High Activity. Thus far I see nothing to explain.


Originally posted by digdug510:
You don't come across people playing as actual teams because you can't play as actual teams.

And other than about four foumers who are giving staunch support for AC:R and telling everyone to like it because if they don't, that just means they suck at the game, the response has been lukewarm to cold at best. I was referring to AC:B there. And yes, everyone except those who like AC:R dislike it. The fact that many on the forum whien when they have to learn something new says nothing about whether the game as a whole will survive.


Originally posted by deadly_thought:
I'll be disappointed, but not surprised, at the stupidity demonstrated by people, if the game survives in spite of its issues instead of having them fixed. AC:B managed it, why not AC:R?

persiateddy95
11-23-2011, 12:36 PM
ACR will definitely last almost as long as ACB. What can happen is that the old players all quit playing it and there are only new players.

For now and the next months it will always have high activity.

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 12:39 PM
FFA goes into high activity for a few hrs a day i dont dispute that but thats all i havent seen teams in high activity in days must be some new suckers but that doesnt explain the previous drop over the last 4 days its just un apdate on the current status this hour

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deadly_thought:
I'll be disappointed, but not surprised, at the stupidity demonstrated by people, if the game survives in spite of its issues instead of having them fixed. AC:B managed it, why not AC:R? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. ACB started with less issues on release than ACR.
2. ACB was one of the first big-name titles Ubisoft has killed this severely.
3. ACB has been a niche market title with a solid fanbase, some of whom have refused to buy ACR, and many of whom are being far more cautious this time around because of Ubisoft's mishandling of ACB.
4. This time around, it's not a new concept the devs are playing with, which means it comes with higher expectations that aren't being met. ACB got away with being rough around the edges. ACR is ROUGHER, when it should be a better experience.

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 12:45 PM
i also doubt youll see many of those "new" players online for long theyll only be in it till the next new game is out then theyll be hitting that game for a month and move on again
im not saying with certainty the game is dead meat but the chances are pretty high and by everything ive seen in game and on this forum (and others) it wont last as long as brotherhood lets face it brotherhood was alot more fun

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by deadly_thought:
FFA goes into high activity for a few hrs a day i dont dispute that but thats all i havent seen teams in high activity in days must be some new suckers but that doesnt explain the previous drop over the last 4 days its just un apdate on the current status this hour I ahve yet to see a consistent drop in activity.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
1. ACB started with less issues on release than ACR.
2. ACB was one of the first big-name titles Ubisoft has killed this severely.
3. ACB has been a niche market title with a solid fanbase, some of whom have refused to buy ACR, and many of whom are being far more cautious this time around because of Ubisoft's mishandling of ACB.
4. This time around, it's not a new concept the devs are playing with, which means it comes with higher expectations that aren't being met. ACB got away with being rough around the edges. ACR is ROUGHER, when it should be a better experience. 1. Yes, AC:B started out good and then turned to ****. And stayed ****. For over 6 months. And yet people stuck with it. Whereas ACR is no worse than ACB.
2. Ubi killed ACB?
3. ACB started out with nothing and got on just fine. ACR is starting out with an established fanbase, at least some of whom are moving to it, giving it a a better starting point.
4. ACR is a refinement of ACB in many ways, which is exactly what you would expect. ACB looks like the rough concept it is in comparison.

IcyGregorio
11-23-2011, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by SniffyPenguin:
Until they fix the party matchmaking, I'm not putting it back in my disc tray. Many others have stopped playing it, too.

I don't think it'll die, but it won't ever be as popular as ACB.

What he said. It feels like a job trying to get this match making to work when you want to play with a group of friends which is BS.

DigDug510
11-23-2011, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
I was referring to AC:B there. And yes, everyone except those who like AC:R dislike it. The fact that many on the forum whien when they have to learn something new says nothing about whether the game as a whole will survive.


I'm not sure that many are whining about learning something new. There are fundamental flaws that could be damning as far as the life of the game. That's what most of the posts I've been reading are referring to, not how to deal with new mechanics.

Point taken on everyone except those who like it dislike it. I just think there is a lot of dislike at this point because of the flaws, not gameplay or learning something new. And isn't that what will determine the life of a game? If more people dislike it than like it, it might not last very long...

deadly_thought
11-23-2011, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by digdug510:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
I was referring to AC:B there. And yes, everyone except those who like AC:R dislike it. The fact that many on the forum whien when they have to learn something new says nothing about whether the game as a whole will survive.


I'm not sure that many are whining about learning something new. There are fundamental flaws that could be damning as far as the life of the game. That's what most of the posts I've been reading are referring to, not how to deal with new mechanics.

Point taken on everyone except those who like it dislike it. I just think there is a lot of dislike at this point because of the flaws, not gameplay or learning something new. And isn't that what will determine the life of a game? If more people dislike it than like it, it might not last very long... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> what he said

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by digdug510:
I'm not sure that many are whining about learning something new. There are fundamental flaws that could be damning as far as the life of the game. Most of what I've read on the forums has been the former, not the latter. But, I haven't been reading as much lately, as the signal to noise ratio went down the instant the beta came out and never recovered.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
1. Yes, AC:B started out good and then turned to ****. And stayed ****. For over 6 months. And yet people stuck with it. Whereas ACR is no worse than ACB.
2. Ubi killed ACB?
3. ACB started out with nothing and got on just fine. ACR is starting out with an established fanbase, at least some of whom are moving to it, giving it a a better starting point.
4. ACR is a refinement of ACB in many ways, which is exactly what you would expect. ACB looks like the rough concept it is in comparison.
See, you're FUN to disagree with. You actually provide support for your arguments. Thank you.

1. A LOT of people left, or slowed down, and were barely playing any more for a LONG time before ACR.
2. As mentioned, it lost a LOT more of its fanbase than it would have if they'd actually fixed the problems.
3. ACB started out with a LOT of people looking for a new experience, and a large portion of the existing fanbase from AC1 and AC2 (a large portion of whom were the "I've never played multiplayer before, but..." crowd). ACR has already pre-lost a portion of ACB's playerbase to other games, either because they realised how much fun MP can be but moved onto games that worked, or because they appreciated ACB but don't appreciate the lack of support provided by Ubisoft Support.
4. Disagreed. Everything good in ACR is a direct carry-over from ACB, or a change that only works in the context of other changes which don't work as well. e.g removing stunlocking. That WOULD have been a bad idea if they kept ACB's detection meter, and if they kept the players defensive capabilities the same as they were in ACB. As it stands, the new approach meter and the upgraded defensive abilities are BOTH mechanics which could do with a LOT of alterations before they're actually GOOD changes, but keeping stunlocking would have tipped the balance from being "changes I don't like personally" to "a really stupid idea." If they had done those new mechanics justice and listened to intelligent player feedback during the beta, I'd be far more supportive of the game. Probably still not buying it unless I was hearing that they'd actually fixed the lag and other issues that have carried over from ACB, but I'd still be looking at it more favourably than I do now.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 01:19 PM
I'll give you 1-3, but the Approach Meter and defence changes already fix things which were broken in ACB, even as they are now.

BigUrn
11-23-2011, 01:22 PM
I have not come across any post telling people that they should or should not like ACR and if I did I don't think I would listen either way..I would make my own assumptions.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 01:26 PM
I'm not saying the defense/offense balance in ACB was right. I'm saying it wasn't much worse than ACR has it.

Same goes for the approach meter, but leaning the other way. ACB's system was better than what ACR has done. Using a system LIKE the new one, but with a few changes (most of which were suggested and approved of by MANY players in the beta) would have resulted in an improvement over ACB, but that didn't happen, and as a result, ACR's meter is NOT as good as ACB's, in spite of the idea behind it being more refined.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I'm not saying the defense/offense balance in ACB was right. I'm saying it wasn't much worse than ACR has it. It is. ACB is boring, it has a single dominant strategy which differs very little from how noobs play the game. ACR doesn't.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Same goes for the approach meter, but leaning the other way. ACB's system was better than what ACR has done. Using a system LIKE the new one, but with a few changes (most of which were suggested and approved of by MANY players in the beta) would have resulted in an improvement over ACB, but that didn't happen, and as a result, ACR's meter is NOT as good as ACB's, in spite of the idea behind it being more refined. Most the 'changes' suggested by players during the beta were "make it the ACB meter in everything but name". As it is, it is already better that ACB's, and suggestions that would make it better than it is were few and far between.

DigDug510
11-23-2011, 01:40 PM
If they could fix one aspect of the meter, I would feel a lot better about it. If you are in a blend group and out of sight of your target and he comes barreling by your group and you kill him for a hidden once he enters your LOS, that should be a better kill than discreet.

If you could start at silent and charge it for incog, that would make things better, IMO. On the other hand, as soon as you stepped out of a blend group or did any high profile movement, you would drop to discreet and have to charge from there. MAybe even making it to where it would charge while you were blended, on a bench, etc., while not in line of sight.

Probably another discussion and many arguments against it, but that would seem to promote more stealth than the way it is now. And actually reward stealth more consistently than it does now.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I'm not saying the defense/offense balance in ACB was right. I'm saying it wasn't much worse than ACR has it. It is. ACB is boring, it has a single dominant strategy which differs very little from how noobs play the game. ACR doesn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not what I saw. SKILLED runners/roofers could get good scores by getting lots of kills and avoiding/escaping pursuers. SKILLED stealth players could get equally good scores with less kills worth more points each, and more defensive bonuses like stuns. Players who were adaptable and mixed elements of both approaches to get more kills than the stealth players AND more points per kill than the runners were able to dominate. There was no single "I win" build that a moderately skilled player could use for an advantage, and there were many gradations between between stealth and running, and between aggressive and defensive play, and different tactics were more effective against different players. In the ACR beta, the fastest option was almost always the best. I haven't heard much to convince me the release version is much better.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Same goes for the approach meter, but leaning the other way. ACB's system was better than what ACR has done. Using a system LIKE the new one, but with a few changes (most of which were suggested and approved of by MANY players in the beta) would have resulted in an improvement over ACB, but that didn't happen, and as a result, ACR's meter is NOT as good as ACB's, in spite of the idea behind it being more refined. Most the 'changes' suggested by players during the beta were "make it the ACB meter in everything but name". As it is, it is already better that ACB's, and suggestions that would make it better than it is were few and far between. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There were a lot of people saying "bring back the ACB meter" but there were also plenty of SENSIBLE suggestions about tweaking the new meter which would have made it ACTUALLY better instead of being a better concept that's poorly implemented. You say it's better as it stands, I don't agree. I definitely think it has MUCH more potential than the ACB meter, but it's not even close to working how it should.

E-Zekiel
11-23-2011, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by digdug510:
If they could fix one aspect of the meter, I would feel a lot better about it. If you are in a blend group and out of sight of your target and he comes barreling by your group and you kill him for a hidden once he enters your LOS, that should be a better kill than discreet.

If you could start at silent and charge it for incog, that would make things better, IMO. On the other hand, as soon as you stepped out of a blend group or did any high profile movement, you would drop to discreet and have to charge from there. MAybe even making it to where it would charge while you were blended, on a bench, etc., while not in line of sight.

Probably another discussion and many arguments against it, but that would seem to promote more stealth than the way it is now. And actually reward stealth more consistently than it does now.

You get the hidden bonus. Why do you need more and more on top of that?

Think of it as risk vs reward. No risk in standing there and having your target barrel into you by happen stance for a discreet hidden kill (and from that behavior, you'll likely get savior or poacher on top of that). But stalking them for long enough to build it to incognito has you giving a higher chance of being stunned, or having your kill stolen.

Also, please don't subscribe to the common dumb factor in this forum that discreet is un-stealthy. It's not un-stealthy. People just got used to it being the "bad" one from AC:B.

Chernzobog
11-23-2011, 01:45 PM
ACR HEAVILY favors defensive gameplay.
Examples?

The contested kill not only drops pursuer automatically down to discrete, but dazes them as well.

There's no penalty for stunning NPCs, as opposed to a penalty for killing NPCs.

The stun range is much larger than kill range

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Not what I saw. Look again. Almost every top player is a freerunner. I say 'almost' because every top player I have ever encountered has been a freerunner, I am simply assuming that somewhere out there there are high scoring stealth players. Maybe.

DigDug510
11-23-2011, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by digdug510:
If they could fix one aspect of the meter, I would feel a lot better about it. If you are in a blend group and out of sight of your target and he comes barreling by your group and you kill him for a hidden once he enters your LOS, that should be a better kill than discreet.

If you could start at silent and charge it for incog, that would make things better, IMO. On the other hand, as soon as you stepped out of a blend group or did any high profile movement, you would drop to discreet and have to charge from there. MAybe even making it to where it would charge while you were blended, on a bench, etc., while not in line of sight.

Probably another discussion and many arguments against it, but that would seem to promote more stealth than the way it is now. And actually reward stealth more consistently than it does now.

You get the hidden bonus. Why do you need more and more on top of that?

Think of it as risk vs reward. No risk in standing there and having your target barrel into you by happen stance for a discreet hidden kill (and from that behavior, you'll likely get savior or poacher on top of that). But stalking them for long enough to build it to incognito has you giving a higher chance of being stunned, or having your kill stolen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need more an more because of the concept of the kill. Is that not incognito or stealth at its best? Dude didn't even know you were there. As opposed to following him for five minutes and him knowing exactly who you are and using an ability to keep it from being contested. What's more incog? First scenario or second?

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by digdug510:
You need more an more because of the concept of the kill. Is that not incognito or stealth at its best? Dude didn't even know you were there. As opposed to following him for five minutes and him knowing exactly who you are and using an ability to keep it from being contested. What's more incog? First scenario or second? Stop basing your idea of what a game mechanic should be based on a label for a bonus. The Approach Meter grades your approach. If your target comes to you, you didn't approach him.

E-Zekiel
11-23-2011, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Chernzobog:


The stun range is much larger than kill range

No it's not. They're equal.

edit: Unless you were recently knifed or contested.

DigDug510
11-23-2011, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by digdug510:
You need more an more because of the concept of the kill. Is that not incognito or stealth at its best? Dude didn't even know you were there. As opposed to following him for five minutes and him knowing exactly who you are and using an ability to keep it from being contested. What's more incog? First scenario or second? Stop basing your idea of what a game mechanic should be based on a label for a bonus. The Approach Meter grades your approach. If your target comes to you, you didn't approach him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought it was a DETECTION meter. If it is an approach meter, then get rid of the discreet, silent, and incog labels. Call them short, medium and long if its about approach.

Regardless, my point was that by tweaking how it works just a bit, it could promote more low profile actions both on offense and defense.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by digdug510:
I thought it was a DETECTION meter. If it is an approach meter, then get rid of the discreet, silent, and incog labels. Call them short, medium and long if its about approach. It was in ACB, but it is now actually called the approach mater. And yes, they probably should have changed the labels.

E-Zekiel
11-23-2011, 01:58 PM
*Reverse* detection meter. IE, it's based from your target's perspective, not yours. If you continuously remain in your target's sight without being seen, you get bonus points for it.

The reason we tend to say approach meter is because it's a more accurate and simple way to describe it from your own perspective.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 01:59 PM
Even just the "I watched where he was going and got into position to intercept and he never saw the kill coming" moments are a good example. Not hidden, out in the open, but AVOIDING being seen by your target. Not the lucky "guy ran into me" moments (which really should be rewarded as well, but more because stupidity should be punished than because luck needs rewarding), but the ones where you PLAN to cut the guy off. In ACR, this is almost guaranteed to be Discreet at best, when in ACB, it was almost impossible for the deliberate ones to be less than Silent, and Incognito was common if you were good at it.

I still want them to make the meter start at Silent. It shouldn't drop below Silent while you're low profile, whether you're in line of sight or not, and it shouldn't drop from Silent when you go high profile out of line of sight. BUT when you're below Silent, going out of sight should keep the meter draining back to Discreet, instead of refilling it for you. This way, intelligent flanking will be rewarded better. It will also benefit stealth play in other ways, because if your target runs into you while you're standing in a blend group, you'll have Silent as a base to work from, and if you're walking when your target runs at you, you'll get that extra bonus, but if you're running and your target turns the corner, you drop straight back to the Discreet range, and need to spend at least a moment regaining your meter if you want to land the better kill, which risks your target picking you out and taking advantage.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 02:03 PM
m
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
*Reverse* detection meter. IE, it's based from your target's perspective, not yours. If you continuously remain in your target's sight without being seen, you get bonus points for it.

The reason we tend to say approach meter is because it's a more accurate and simple way to describe it from your own perspective. Incorrect. It is now actually called the approach meter. Check the game.

E-Zekiel
11-23-2011, 02:05 PM
Maybe the meter continuing to increase while out of sight rather than staying level at what it was when they went out of sight would be a fair compromise?

But again, I think of it as risk vs. reward. And as I've said before, I go for hidden kills as often as possible, but beyond that, I try to ensure my kills are sudden little chance to escape or contest. So I actually do exactly what you're saying - deliberately avoid being in sight, at times, but even so, I'm alright with the way it is, cause I know I'm minimizing my risk.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
m<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
*Reverse* detection meter. IE, it's based from your target's perspective, not yours. If you continuously remain in your target's sight without being seen, you get bonus points for it.

The reason we tend to say approach meter is because it's a more accurate and simple way to describe it from your own perspective. Incorrect. IT is now actually called the approach meter. Check the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake..having played beta, I didn't even read that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But yeah, that just testifies even more to the fact that it's, again, about the approach.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I still want them to make the meter start at Silent. Flanking bonus is a simpler idea. Extra points if you kill within a second of the first time they enter line of sight.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I still want them to make the meter start at Silent. Flanking bonus is a simpler idea. Extra points if you kill within a second of the first time they enter line of sight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would further reward runners. Run into target, kill fast, get another bonus. Starting at the bottom end of Silent would still get a running player a Discreet kill while rewarding SENSIBLE flanking.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
That would further reward runners. Run into target, kill fast, get another bonus. Starting at the bottom end of Silent would still get a running player a Discreet kill while rewarding SENSIBLE flanking. Starting at the bottom end of silent would be exactly the same, except that it would futz with the approach bonuses unecessarily.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
That would further reward runners. Run into target, kill fast, get another bonus. Starting at the bottom end of Silent would still get a running player a Discreet kill while rewarding SENSIBLE flanking. Starting at the bottom end of silent would be exactly the same, except that it would futz with the approach bonuses unecessarily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When your target runs around the corner into you (either because of luck or a well-played interception), you get a 300 point bonus in ACB as a reward for either your planning or your opponent's mistake. If you're running, it drops to 200, which is WAY more than someone running that close to their target deserves.

When your target runs into you when you've set up a perfect ambush in ACR, you get the same 100 point bonus you get for rushing the kill. The +200 Silent bonus would make FAR more sense in that situation. If you're not in position in time, and are still running to get there, you'll drop to Discreet as soon as they turn the corner. If you're running towards the target and they run around the corner, you've just given away your Silent bonus. But if you realise your target's coming and slow down, or if you get lucky and the target runs into you while you're playing more cautiously, then you'll be rewarded for that caution by having a Silent kill instead.

It would be a MAJOR improvement, not an "unnecessary" change. If it makes the meter do what it was supposedly meant to do, instead of punishing people because their target chooses to run everywhere, then it's worth doing. Because the current meter DOESN'T "promote stealth" the way Ubisoft claimed it would. It makes barely-intelligent running an easy way to avoid ever being killed for any kind of decent score.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
osedly mea Flanking bonus would do the same thing without futzing with a perfectly good set of bonuses.

Yes it does promote stealth, saying it doesn't over and over again won't change that.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Flanking bonus would do the same thing without futzing with a perfectly good set of bonuses.
I'm not suggesting any of the existing bonuses get changed, I'm suggesting that sensible, intelligent and cautious play should be rewarded with a decent bonus instead of a pathetic one.

And as I said, adding a flanking bonus the way you've suggested won't ONLY reward stealth play, it'll reward moderately careful runners just as much.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Yes it does promote stealth, saying it doesn't over and over again won't change that.

I provided a clear explanation for WHY the current state of the approach meter doesn't promote stealth. Just saying "yes it does" without actually backing that statement up won't change that.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I'm not suggesting any of the existing bonuses get changed, I'm suggesting that sensible, intelligent and cautious play should be rewarded with a decent bonus instead of a pathetic one.

And as I said, adding a flanking bonus the way you've suggested won't ONLY reward stealth play, it'll reward moderately careful runners just as much. Moderately carful running is flanking.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I provided a clear explanation for WHY the current state of the approach meter doesn't promote stealth. Just saying "yes it does" without actually backing that statement up won't change that. Try playing the game. It's not complicated. More points for being more stealthy = promoting stealth. There's nothign to explain.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I'm not suggesting any of the existing bonuses get changed, I'm suggesting that sensible, intelligent and cautious play should be rewarded with a decent bonus instead of a pathetic one.

And as I said, adding a flanking bonus the way you've suggested won't ONLY reward stealth play, it'll reward moderately careful runners just as much. Moderately carful running is flanking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Moderately careful running CAN be PART of flanking. It isn't a necessity for flanking, and it isn't the specific example of moderately careful running I was referring to. Not running at blend groups your target isn't in qualifies as moderately careful running. Looking around or changing direction or using abilities to find your pursuer when you hear whispers or otherwise suspect they're nearby all count as moderately careful running too. Even starting to run around in circles somewhere obvious while mashing the stun button and hoping for a Contested Kill is moderately careful running. And THAT kind of behaviour punishes a stealthy player hunting the moderately careful runner FAR more than such a player could punish the same opponent in ACB.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I provided a clear explanation for WHY the current state of the approach meter doesn't promote stealth. Just saying "yes it does" without actually backing that statement up won't change that. Try playing the game. It's not complicated. More points for being more stealthy = promoting stealth. There's nothign to explain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Advertising that the new detection meter promotes stealth means it does so better than the old one, which isn't true. And it punishes players for having non-stealthy TARGETS, even if that player is being stealthy themselves.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Advertising that the new detection meter promotes stealth means it does so better than the old one, which isn't true. And it punishes players for having non-stealthy TARGETS, even if that player is being stealthy themselves. The old meter didn't promote it at all, so anything is better.

And of course you can't get stealthy kills on running targets. Neither can you get hidden kills on targets not near a blend group, acrobatics on a target on the top of the highest roof, etc.

BigUrn
11-23-2011, 03:11 PM
Even if there is no playing but me I would still play training ground

true_gamer316
11-23-2011, 03:18 PM
okay now to prove a little on how ACR promotes more stealth than in ACB i will go to my own ACB playstyle


now in ACB i was probably one of the biggest runners you would ever see (crumplecorn can vouche for me on this) i could get 10k's and beat all star players


if i adapt this play style to ACR my super runner aggressive style i cant i can bring a runner style by using escapes and easy stuns and spots on the roofs however i still get more points being stealthy



so yes it does promote stealth if your target is not stealthy and you have to chase them that is not your fault it does not change what its promoting it is just somewhat effected by people not playing stealth even when i roof and get 6k


hope that was a decent thing to write for all of you and i hope it proves somewhat of a point

Collinwood01
11-23-2011, 03:26 PM
I think it will last but not be as popular as ACB MP. I must say Im very disappointed in the finished product called ACR MP. It has the same issues as the beta had...Like
1. Lag
2. Not being able to play on the same team as your friends
3. "Technical difficulties"
4. Having 8/8 players in a room then getting disconnected because they couldnt find the simulation you requested
5. Choosing a particular game mode then getting sent to one you didnt pick
6. Getting put into a game mode you didnt pick and having to start the game in order to quit
7. Constant ability failure(nothing new)

Im sure there is more to add but no matter how big the list, nothing will be done about it anyway. I guess if we dont like it, we just have to quit playing. I do think the basic concept of this MP game is great but I guess the problems that I mentioned above are to much to be fixed. If they didnt fix the problems in 1 game(ACB), How can they fix the problems in 2 games?

sirturmund
11-23-2011, 03:33 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I will still be playing ACR months from now. I love the AC multiplayer, and I am personally enjoying ACR more than I enjoyed ACB.

I expect the game to last a while, at least through March. I know lots of people who are getting the game for Christmas, and some who have not tried the multiplayer yet because they have been playing single player or something.

I personally have had no problem finding matches, and the activity never goes to low on my screen (except for the simple deathmatch, that is always on low/medium). Then again, I was one of the few that almost never in my months of playing ACB experienced a waiting time of more than 10mins for a match, only times I did was when looking for Alliance matches.

Even if the ACB "core" fanbase leaves ACR and stays with ACB, I expect a new ACR "core" fanbase that will keep the game running.

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Advertising that the new detection meter promotes stealth means it does so better than the old one, which isn't true. And it punishes players for having non-stealthy TARGETS, even if that player is being stealthy themselves. The old meter didn't promote it at all, so anything is better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It uses the same rules as ACR's meter does to determine stealth. If ACB's meter doesn't promote stealth at all, neither does ACR's. So changing between two systems that work on the same principles, even if they have different specific details, won't make any difference to you. Which means my suggestion shouldn't either. (no, this part of my response to you isn't entirely serious. Which makes it infinitely more serious than the comment I'm replying to)


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
And of course you can't get stealthy kills on running targets. Neither can you get hidden kills on targets not near a blend group, acrobatics on a target on the top of the highest roof, etc.
If you're running past me, I should be able to get a stealthy kill on you. You never see me coming until you're dead, because I'm NOT coming to you, YOU'RE coming to ME.

Also, in ACB, I got Acrobatic kills on people standing on the top of the tower in Pienza. If you're in the process of climbing up onto the roof as you kill, you get the Acrobatic bonus, but only if you enter the kill animation before your feet touch down so you're jumping onto them straight from the wall. It has longer reach than a Drop Kill, so you can do it when they're standing outside where they think you can reach.

And I can see the logic behind a pursuer missing the top-tier level of stealth because of a running target, but I don't see why allowing Silent kills for flanking or to punish a stupid target would be so unbearable to you.

Crumplecorn
11-23-2011, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
It uses the same rules as ACR's meter does to determine stealth. Did you even play the beta?


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
If you're running past me, I should be able to get a stealthy kill on you. You never see me coming until you're dead, because I'm NOT coming to you, YOU'RE coming to ME. Having someone run into you isn't stealth.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Also, in ACB, I got Acrobatic kills on people standing on the top of the tower in Pienza. If you're in the process of climbing up onto the roof as you kill, you get the Acrobatic bonus, but only if you enter the kill animation before your feet touch down so you're jumping onto them straight from the wall. It has longer reach than a Drop Kill, so you can do it when they're standing outside where they think you can reach. Ok.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
And I can see the logic behind a pursuer missing the top-tier level of stealth because of a running target, but I don't see why allowing Silent kills for flanking or to punish a stupid target would be so unbearable to you. Flanking bonus would be more elegant.

persiateddy95
11-23-2011, 07:51 PM
This is so fun to watch.

In the end the same players will do the same things as they did in ACB and be successful as well. I see it happening.

Zoidberg747
11-23-2011, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by persiateddy95:
This is so fun to watch.

In the end the same players will do the same things as they did in ACB and be successful as well. I see it happening.

Especially in assassinate. tbh I play more fast paced in ACR.

Taekwonthis
11-23-2011, 09:15 PM
[/QUOTE]Having someone run into you isn't stealth.

I disagree with you there, its not about what the opponent does that determines my stealthiness in my play. If you dont know where I am and you run towards the blend group I am in and do not know I am there and as your running past I am able to kill you from the hidden group that to me is stealth. You didnt know where I was, I was hidden in a mix of npc's and you didnt suspect I was there presumably because well your running towards me and this is under the assumption that I do get the hidden kill as you didnt know I was in the group which I have gotten on running targets several times in this scenario. I understand your idea of if the target is running towards you you did not necessarily have to stalk them much but that is not always the case.

Zoidberg747
11-23-2011, 09:32 PM
^^^ So Taekwonthis, would it not make more sense to start at silent when you are hidden in a blend group?

Schweevy
11-23-2011, 09:36 PM
i sure hope so

Taekwonthis
11-23-2011, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Zoidberg747:
^^^ So Taekwonthis, would it not make more sense to start at silent when you are hidden in a blend group?

To automatically start like right when you get in and touch a blend group absolutely not. I like the meter i think it is harder and I enjoy that.

Taekwonthis
11-23-2011, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Taekwonthis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoidberg747:
^^^ So Taekwonthis, would it not make more sense to start at silent when you are hidden in a blend group?

To automatically start like right when you get in and touch a blend group absolutely not. I like the meter i think it is harder and I enjoy that. I also believe that just because your running around and just as you want to get your kill
you pop into a blend group real quick is not stealthy and should not be rewarded. so i like that it takes a little time. it doesnt that that much time to move up the meter in my opinion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

obliviondoll
11-23-2011, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
It uses the same rules as ACR's meter does to determine stealth. Did you even play the beta? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you're high profile, meter decreases. When you're not, it increases. That applies for both games. The means the basic rules haven't changed. Have you played both games? Sure doesn't sound like it right now.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
If you're running past me, I should be able to get a stealthy kill on you. You never see me coming until you're dead, because I'm NOT coming to you, YOU'RE coming to ME. Having someone run into you isn't stealth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Someone running into you isn't stealth. Your behaviour while they do might be. If you're running around, then no, it's not stealthy. If you're sitting in a blend group and only move at the last second to catch and kill, then yes, it IS stealth. More specifically, it's a perfect example of what the Assassin's Creed series has always called "social stealth."


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
And I can see the logic behind a pursuer missing the top-tier level of stealth because of a running target, but I don't see why allowing Silent kills for flanking or to punish a stupid target would be so unbearable to you. Flanking bonus would be more elegant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And disagreed again. Because as I keep saying, a flanking bonus would also benefit runners. Starting the meter from Silent wouldn't be as much of a benefit to a runner as it would to a decent stealth player, which means the change would "promote stealth" instead of helping everyone who can get to their target fast enough to pick up their flanking bonus. Working within the existing mechanics and bonuses to achieve a better result is more elegant than adding something new that probably won't achieve the same result as effectively.

frostythecat
11-23-2011, 11:49 PM
As long as I can't play the game with one or two of my friends, the answer is no. I feel this to be worse for the ACR community then the DLC split was for the ACB community.

We could argue until cows come home about any other single feature of ACR, but in the end that will be largely irrelevant to the question at hand.

ACRUINATION
11-24-2011, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chernzobog:


The stun range is much larger than kill range

No it's not. They're equal.

edit: Unless you were recently knifed or contested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its not equal the range of stun and kill depend entirely on what angle your camera is facing theres a certain map i like to hide in a group in a certain place because i can both kill and stun before my attacker gets the prompt i only figured this out because it was done to me several times

if a player approaches from behind a slight shift in direct left to right means stun is prompted before kill again e-zekial you dont play the game enough to know wot your talking about

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Taekwonthis:
I disagree with you there, its not about what the opponent does that determines my stealthiness in my play. No, it's about what you do. And if you do nothing, you should not be rewarded for it.

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
When you're high profile, meter decreases. When you're not, it increases. That applies for both games. The means the basic rules haven't changed. Have you played both games? Sure doesn't sound like it right now. Oh look! A small subset of the rules they are based on are the same! Therefore they are there same!

Please, come back when you understand equality.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Someone running into you isn't stealth. Your behaviour while they do might be. If you're running around, then no, it's not stealthy. If you're sitting in a blend group and only move at the last second to catch and kill, then yes, it IS stealth. More specifically, it's a perfect example of what the Assassin's Creed series has always called "social stealth." It is. And using social stealth to approach your target is rewarded. But standing around with a bunch of people, and managing to mash a button if/when the compass fills up, is neither what AC is about, nor should it be rewarded as much.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
And disagreed again. And again, it would make no difference.

E-Zekiel
11-24-2011, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by ACRUINATION:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by E-Zekiel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chernzobog:


The stun range is much larger than kill range

No it's not. They're equal.

edit: Unless you were recently knifed or contested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its not equal the range of stun and kill depend entirely on what angle your camera is facing theres a certain map i like to hide in a group in a certain place because i can both kill and stun before my attacker gets the prompt i only figured this out because it was done to me several times

if a player approaches from behind a slight shift in direct left to right means stun is prompted before kill again e-zekial you dont play the game enough to know wot your talking about </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was assuming people had their cameras facing each other. Acting like it's some kind of grand revelation and/or secret that you'll be disadvantaged with a bad camera angle kind of goes without saying.

They're equal. Camera angles are another matter; you're confusing your issues.

obliviondoll
11-24-2011, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Oh look! A small subset of the rules they are based on are the same! Therefore they are there same!
Oh look! The specific subset of the rules I'd been saying were the same are the same! Therefore what I said was true!

Glad you finally agree with me.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
It is. And using social stealth to approach your target is rewarded. But standing around with a bunch of people, and managing to mash a button if/when the compass fills up, is neither what AC is about, nor should it be rewarded as much.
Because there's no requirement to pick the target out and lock on before "mashing the button when the compass fills up" and you certainly don't need to worry about watching for any pursuers trying to kill you, or other pursuers who might possibly beat you to your target. Nope, not at all. You can definitely just mash the kill button as soon as the compass fills up and guarantee the right person will die every time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
And again, it would make no difference.
And again, you disagree without referring to my reasoning OR providing any attempt at explaining your position.

At first, your argument seemed like you were actually thinking it through, but now I don't think you're bothering to look at either side of the argument, and are just telling yourself you've already made your mind up and don't need to listen to anyone else OR try and help them understand why you don't agree. You should know by now that I'm one of the few people on these forums who is actually willing to re-evaluate their opinions when given good reason to do so. So far, you're not doing that. You started with adequately referenced points, but haven't bothered to try and defend them when I've been poking holes in your logic, and have also failed (so far at least) to poke any holes in my argument while you're at it.

EDIT: If you want to keep this discussion going, provide something to discuss. I'll only respond to you if you provide me with something that actually deserves a response. Thanks.

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Glad you finally agree with me. Come back when you understand equality.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Because there's no requirement to pick the target out and lock on before "mashing the button when the compass fills up" and you certainly don't need to worry about watching for any pursuers trying to kill you, or other pursuers who might possibly beat you to your target. Nope, not at all. You can definitely just mash the kill button as soon as the compass fills up and guarantee the right person will die every time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And how much of that has to do with the approach?


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
And again, you disagree without referring to my reasoning OR providing any attempt at explaining your position. You are saying one bonus would work better than another, when they would do exactly the same thing. What is there for me to explain?


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
You started with adequately referenced points, but haven't bothered to try and defend them when I've been poking holes in your logic, and have also failed (so far at least) to poke any holes in my argument while you're at it. Poking holes? You've been talking nonsense. "The meters are the same". "Standing around is a stealthy approach". "Flanking someone and approaching them unseen at high speed are two different things". You expect me to 'defend' against this?

obliviondoll
11-24-2011, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Because there's no requirement to pick the target out and lock on before "mashing the button when the compass fills up" and you certainly don't need to worry about watching for any pursuers trying to kill you, or other pursuers who might possibly beat you to your target. Nope, not at all. You can definitely just mash the kill button as soon as the compass fills up and guarantee the right person will die every time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And how much of that has to do with the approach? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is the distance between you and your target decreasing? If so, you are approaching your target, whether they're moving or you are. If you're stealthy about getting close to your target, whether you're actively moving towards them or taking advantage of their direction of movement is irrelevant.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
You are saying one bonus would work better than another, when they would do exactly the same thing. What is there for me to explain?
I'm saying they WOULDN'T do the exact same thing, and have provided an example where they wouldn't do the exact same thing twice, and you're yet to provide any explanation for why I'm wrong and can only say "my way is more elegant" when it's actually more complex and has visible flaws.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:Poking holes? You've been talking nonsense. "The meters are the same" (Never said that. I said the basic mechanics behind both meters were the same. High profile = meter drops, low profile = meter rises). "Standing around is a stealthy approach" (It can be part of a stealthy approach within the context of getting close to your target). "Flanking someone and approaching them unseen at high speed are two different things" (Also never said that. Flanking someone doesn't necessarily require speed, and keeping that speed up once you're in line of sight would be rewarded by your suggested fix but not rewarded by mine). You expect me to 'defend' against this?
I expected you to be intelligent enough to understand it. Apparently I was wrong. Now that I've provided more explanation, does what I ACTUALLY said make sense, or are you going to continue to create your own imaginary arguments and attribute them to me?

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Is the distance between you and your target decreasing? If so, you are approaching your target, whether they're moving or you are. If you're stealthy about getting close to your target, whether you're actively moving towards them or taking advantage of their direction of movement is irrelevant. By 'taking advantage of their direction of movement' I assume you are referring to standing still and hoping they come to you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
I'm saying they WOULDN'T do the exact same thing, and have provided an example where they wouldn't do the exact same thing twice, and you're yet to provide any explanation for why I'm wrong and can only say "my way is more elegant" when it's actually more complex and has visible flaws. Yes, you provided an example of someone running around a corner into their target. An instance of flanking which your bonus would fail to cover, if I understand correctly.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
"The meters are the same" (Never said that. I said the basic mechanics behind both meters were the same. They aren't. I was paraphrasing. Both statements are equally wrong.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
"Standing around is a stealthy approach" (It can be part of a stealthy approach within the context of getting close to your target). Oh, so you are seriously going to defend the idea of not moving being an appoach to something?


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
"Flanking someone and approaching them unseen at high speed are two different things" (Also never said that. Flanking someone doesn't necessarily require speed, and keeping that speed up once you're in line of sight would be rewarded by your suggested fix but not rewarded by mine) Sounds like your bonus needs work then. And, if desired, the flanking bous could trivially be tweaked to not apply to high profile kills. Wow, that was hard.

Grazel69
11-24-2011, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Zoidberg747:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigUrn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">core fan What is the core? People that you think are the core? Cause your definition of core might vary from person 2 person. People seem 2 think just cause they want the game a certain way than anything other than that is a fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know anyone that thinks the 15k score limit and team matchmaking are not problems with ACR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really think the 15k is a problem because I know I'll never get that high of a score. but I do think it's kind of useless the only thing that will bring is leaderboards filled with people with 14950

obliviondoll
11-24-2011, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
By 'taking advantage of their direction of movement' I assume you are referring to standing still and hoping they come to you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I'm talking about when you can see they ARE coming to you, actually, which most players WILL do if you place yourself right.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Yes, you provided an example of someone running around a corner into their target. An instance of flanking which your bonus would fail to cover, if I understand correctly.
If you haven't slowed down before coming into line of sight, you broke stealth. Obviously. Be less stupid, and you get rewarded for it. Break stealth, and you don't. That makes my suggestion promote stealth, where yours doesn't. I don't see how you're missing this point.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
They aren't. I was paraphrasing. Both statements are equally wrong.
Nice of you to cut out the specific explanation which proves me right while you're quoting that part. Ignoring the clarification of my point really helps your denial look more legitimate.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Oh, so you are seriously going to defend the idea of not moving being an appoach to something?
In the context of when they're moving towards you, YES, it IS a PART of the approach (not an approach on its own, but PART of the process of getting close).


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Sounds like your bonus needs work then. And, if desired, the flanking bous could trivially be tweaked to not apply to high profile kills. Wow, that was hard.
Sounds like your bonus needs more work to be viable than mine would. Changing the point at which an existing meter starts = maybe as much as one whole line of code. Altering the rules for how the meter responds to 2 or 3 specific situations might require another line of code to be added, or (if they actually designed the code WELL) might be doable by adjusting a few variables that already exist within the code. Adding a new bonus and either rules for how it acts in different situations or ways to adjust how it works would require the addition of multiple lines of code and the rewriting of elements of several others. And that's before you account for the fact that your suggested new bonus would be just that - a NEW BONUS. Something else to count up towards variety. Which adjusts the impact of variety bonuses. Changing that as well would require even more alteration to existing code. Pretty sure a solution that already works almost identically to the new version of your suggestion but takes less work to implement is the "more elegant" one.

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I'm talking about when you can see they ARE coming to you, actually, which most players WILL do if you place yourself right. Which is flanking, not approach, and thus should not be on the approach meter anyway.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
If you haven't slowed down before coming into line of sight, you broke stealth. Obviously. Be less stupid, and you get rewarded for it. Break stealth, and you don't. That makes my suggestion promote stealth, where yours doesn't. I don't see how you're missing this point. Flanking isn't stealth. That's why it's called flanking. Not stealth. The RDM already promotes stealth. Now you want an addition to promote flanking (i.e. running). That's fine, but don't then go off on a tangent about stealth.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Nice of you to cut out the specific explanation which proves me right while you're quoting that part. Ignoring the clarification of my point really helps your denial look more legitimate. But you aren't right. That there is an intersection in their functionality does not mean that they are the same, or even follow the same basic rules. Which they don't.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
not an approach on its own Thank you.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Changing the point at which an existing meter starts = breaking the meter. Moving it down to Discreet as the starting point is part of what makes the approach meter an approach meter.

My bonus wouldn't break the approach meter to reward runners.

obliviondoll
11-24-2011, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Which is flanking, not approach, and thus should not be on the approach meter anyway.
At this point, you're arguing semantics, not logic.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
Flanking isn't stealth. That's why it's called flanking. Not stealth. The RDM already promotes stealth. Now you want an addition to promote flanking (i.e. running). That's fine, but don't then go off on a tangent about stealth.
Flanking can be a stealthy action, if it's done correctly. Approaching properly is a part of stealth. I never said flanking was the only stealthy approach, just that it CAN BE one.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
But you aren't right. That there is an intersection in their functionality does not mean that they are the same, or even follow the same basic rules. Which they don't.
I explained what I define as the basic rules of how the meters function. You still haven't provided any explanation for why you're disagreeing. For all I know, you're only disagreeing with me to be contrary and you may as well not even be reading my posts for all the relevance your reply to this point has contained since I made it.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
not an approach on its own Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're willing to admit that waiting for your target to be close before moving is a more stealthy way to get close to them than rushing in? Good.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Changing the point at which an existing meter starts = breaking the meter. Moving it down to Discreet as the starting point is part of what makes the approach meter an approach meter.

My bonus wouldn't break the approach meter to reward runners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The impact on runners will be minimal, the impact on stealth players will be a significant benefit. Giving stealth a large boost and running a tiny one isn't "breaking the meter to reward runners" - in fact it's the exact opposite. To get a decent score, the runners still have to slow down before getting close. They have a slight chance of getting a slightly less pathetic score for their kill with the new system, but it won't make high scoring kills much easier for runners. It WILL make high scoring kills easier for stealth players though.

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Flanking can be a stealthy action, if it's done correctly. Approaching properly is a part of stealth. I never said flanking was the only stealthy approach, just that it CAN BE one. Flanking involves running around trying to cut off your target. If you don't have to run around a bit, you're not really flanking, they're just coming to you.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
I explained what I define as the basic rules of how the meters function. You still haven't provided any explanation for why you're disagreeing. Because you're wrong. You keep naming just one small aspect. The most fundamental rule of the ACB meter is to stay out of sight. For ACR, it's to be in sight but unnoticed. Practically opposites.


Originally posted by obliviondoll:
So you're willing to admit that waiting for your target to be close before moving is a more stealthy way to get close to them than rushing in? Good. Sure. But what does it have to do with anything? Whatever you do before the final move in to your target (or their final unlucky move towards you) is not taken into account by the game anyway.


Originally posted by Crumplecorn:[QUOTE]Originally posted by obliviondoll:
The impact on runners will be minimal, the impact on stealth players will be a significant benefit. Hardly. Starting at high points is the single biggest flaw in the ACB meter. I'd love if they moved it back up to Silent; I could go back to running around the rooftops nonstop.

deadly_thought
11-24-2011, 09:03 AM
oh you two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Crumplecorn
11-24-2011, 09:12 AM
http://k.crumplecorn.com/src/1322151119417.png

MrKnox122
11-24-2011, 12:29 PM
It be honest it really depends on Community if Revelation MP last. Sometimes I play ACB for my doctor and WANTED and I play ACR for DM with no doctor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

BeCk41
12-03-2011, 08:10 AM
yeah it might last for a little while then decrease as the game gets a bit older and when ppl level up to 50. With the few new maps it has, it seemed to grow tiresome (Ubi could have made more maps xD) just like Brohood. I personally think that this game was created to hold peoples appeal until AC3 comes out if you want my honest opinion, and to expand on the multiplayer aspect to get people interested again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

deadly_thought
12-03-2011, 08:17 AM
i walked away and came back after the patch but im still only playing deathmatch it seems to be the more popular mode if that gets tired (some say it already has) then theyre in trouble my new opinion only the die hards will be around in a few months and new players will become available as the game gets cheaper

marq08
12-03-2011, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by deadly_thought:
new players will become available as the game gets cheaper

Uplay Passport will kill that

BeCk41
12-03-2011, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by deadly_thought:
i walked away and came back after the patch but im still only playing deathmatch it seems to be the more popular mode if that gets tired (some say it already has) then theyre in trouble my new opinion only the die hards will be around in a few months and new players will become available as the game gets cheaper

yep, also new people who get the game around the holidays will be flooding in I hope. But some modes I haven't played yet soley because I can't find anyone playing them. and when people quit, it seems like the game doesn't find people to fill the slots like it used to. But like you said, it will be popular for a while then die down. :/

demFroG
12-03-2011, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by marq08:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deadly_thought:
new players will become available as the game gets cheaper

Uplay Passport will kill that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank EA for that......

Yes the games sales died after day one so by january it will be twenty bucks at gamestop.Very few people will pay 10 more dollars just for an mp the games fans arent even playing.

obliviondoll
12-03-2011, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by marq08:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deadly_thought:
new players will become available as the game gets cheaper

Uplay Passport will kill that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When NEW copies see a price drop, ACR will start picking up new players.

deadly_thought
12-03-2011, 10:04 AM
i did mean new copies yes ive seen reviews online already warning people off buying a uplay passport on its own but i agree that things will pick up and die off again after christmas be a shame to see deathmatch gone if the MP doesnt last im really enjoying it atm

ARIANit_
12-03-2011, 10:06 AM
why! Why can't we be friends? :c

<span class="flash-video"><object codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"
height="315"
width="560"
><param name="wmode"
value="transparent"
></param><param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="never"
></param><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dx0Shn5Hvpc?version=3&hl=en_GB"
name="movie"
/><param value="true"
/><param value="always"
/><embed wmode="transparent"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
allowScriptAccess="never"
height="315"
width="560"
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dx0Shn5Hvpc?version=3&hl=en_GB"
/></object></span>