PDA

View Full Version : Guards need more Combat Skills



crash_1232015
03-16-2016, 11:34 AM
Hello all,

We are no strangers to the topic of making combat more challenging and interesting, but quite often it is from the assassin's perspective that combat has been changed throughout the games. All the while, the various opponents/enemies/guards (basically the people you fight :P) are being neglected, being given no extra skills. For the majority of the AC games, the elite guards/opponents have simply been tougher, without really having that many more skills. and have therefore been predictable and just as easy and arguably more boring to kill as they take longer to defeat. I personally am sick of mashing the attack button while the guard keeps flinching multiple times until he/she dies.

AC1 had the right idea - each level of guard had a range of skills that were all put to use totally randomly so you never knew if you were going to be dodged, blocked, deadly-countered, fake-attacked or have your guard broken - it was all very exciting, especially when facing multiple Templar opponents.

So the point I am trying to make is that all opponents in future AC games should have a range of skills - not just one particular skill which makes combat predictable. The developers need to get rid of Archetypes and make return to AC1 style combat. By this I mean more skills for the opponents if not more than you the assassin during at least the first half of the game and those skills all get put to use randomly. Combat needs to be unpredictable and therefore more exciting which will encourage us to be more stealthy, like a proper assassin.

Hope that made sense! what are your thoughts? :)

SixKeys
03-16-2016, 12:12 PM
Agreed. I prefer more skills over archetypes. Archetypes make things too easy because you have at least one foolproof method for disabling each type. Having more unpredictability is more realistic and challenging.

crash_1232015
03-16-2016, 12:43 PM
Agreed. I prefer more skills over archetypes. Archetypes make things too easy because you have at least one foolproof method for disabling each type. Having more unpredictability is more realistic and challenging.

Here are a couple of videos which I think sum up quite well both our points.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYqUE2FmSAk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Il5GIBscE

Notice how the guards just flinch in response to Ezio's attacks and how they just don't really do anything to counter Ezio's seemingly unstoppable barrage of attacks = predictable and boring combat, not because of what the assassin can do but because of the lack of skills the guards have.

The second video, notice how easy it is to keep attacking the guards - they are elite guards and yet the only thing that makes them 'elite' is the fact that they take ages to defeat and yet the assassin gets barely a scratch. Give the guards more skills developers! Please :)

MikeFNY
03-16-2016, 01:26 PM
In all fairness it's not just the combat skill, it's the design that is broken.

It makes no sense to approach a guard behind his back, he turns, sees you, but pretends as if nothing happened just because you hide behind a box.

For instance I like the idea of the watcher introduced in Syndicate, a watchman whose job is just to raise the alarm if he spots something unusual.

But such design should be expanded to all guards. If in the middle of combat a guard is hurt, then he should be able to escape to call reinforcements.

AC1 and Unity had tough combat, they put you in a position where the stealth approach was the best one.

But in the other games of the series combat is too easy and this means that there is no point in opting for stealth since combat, as you correctly said, is just "mashing the attack button" and all guards are dead.

Make no mistake, I don't want combat to become extremely difficult and frustrating, resulting in the player deciding not to engage in it. I avoid it but I understand many like to engage in combat.

I'm just saying that it should be smarter, more clever.

crash_1232015
03-16-2016, 01:57 PM
In all fairness it's not just the combat skill, it's the design that is broken.

It makes no sense to approach a guard behind his back, he turns, sees you, but pretends as if nothing happened just because you hide behind a box.

For instance I like the idea of the watcher introduced in Syndicate, a watchman whose job is just to raise the alarm if he spots something unusual.

But such design should be expanded to all guards. If in the middle of combat a guard is hurt, then he should be able to escape to call reinforcements.

AC1 and Unity had tough combat, they put you in a position where the stealth approach was the best one.

But in the other games of the series combat is too easy and this means that there is no point in opting for stealth since combat, as you correctly said, is just "mashing the attack button" and all guards are dead.

Make no mistake, I don't want combat to become extremely difficult and frustrating, resulting in the player deciding not to engage in it. I avoid it but I understand many like to engage in combat.

I'm just saying that it should be smarter, more clever.

I agree, it could be useful to introduce difficulty settings that can be changed at any point during a single player campaign so players of different levels of experience can tailor the game to their preferences?

And yes I am amazed that my square (attack) button hasn't already broken, it has been severely over used in AC combat! What we need is a more in depth skill set given to the opponents we face so that we don't have to keep mashing the attack button! :P

cawatrooper9
03-16-2016, 03:23 PM
For what it's worth, I think guards were best handled in AC Revelations. Janissaries proved to be quite a challenge, and their numbers across the city increased as the game went on. The polearm guys were pretty tough, too. Then, there were the sniper bunkers, and a good variety of guards (with two factions that could be pitted against each other.

The thing is, as much as increased guard difficulty is great, we do need some cannon fodder. If every guard is as skilled or more skilled than the Assassin, it kinda disrupts the illusion and makes you feel like a chump. That was a pretty big issue with Unity for me. Sure, it was great that it emphasized stealth in events like big parties where there were hundreds of guards, but it also made some other sillier scenarios where combat was unnecessarily difficult, such as fights with just one or two higher leveled guards.

MikeFNY
03-16-2016, 04:52 PM
For what it's worth, I think guards were best handled in AC Revelations. Janissaries proved to be quite a challenge, and their numbers across the city increased as the game went on. The polearm guys were pretty tough, too. Then, there were the sniper bunkers, and a good variety of guards (with two factions that could be pitted against each other.
Exactly, seeing three-four Janissaries approaching could only mean one thing, "Run away". I could be wrong but if I remember correctly they also couldn't be killed with an air assassination. Or maybe that was when they spotted you.

Fact is that as we mentioned in another thread, Revelations had the best balance in respect to guards and how powerful they were.


The thing is, as much as increased guard difficulty is great, we do need some cannon fodder. If every guard is as skilled or more skilled than the Assassin, it kinda disrupts the illusion and makes you feel like a chump. That was a pretty big issue with Unity for me. Sure, it was great that it emphasized stealth in events like big parties where there were hundreds of guards, but it also made some other sillier scenarios where combat was unnecessarily difficult, such as fights with just one or two higher leveled guards.

Unity is about patience, patience and even more patience. I understand your conclusion about looking like a novice but ultimately you're fighting against what is supposed to be an equally-strong enemy, the Templars, I don't see it as such a big problem considering who the enemy is.

Clearly, it's all about balance.

Those who approached Unity the wrong way - like myself when I played it the first time - will find difficult enemies incredibly frustrating but if approached in the right way, strong opposition can be a refreshing experience.

cawatrooper9
03-16-2016, 05:16 PM
Exactly, seeing three-four Janissaries approaching could only mean one thing, "Run away". I could be wrong but if I remember correctly they also couldn't be killed with an air assassination. Or maybe that was when they spotted you.


I believe you can air assassinate them, but I could be wrong. I know for a fact that they're prone to other assassination methods, including hiding space.


Unity is about patience, patience and even more patience. I understand your conclusion about looking like a novice but ultimately you're fighting against what is supposed to be an equally-strong enemy, the Templars, I don't see it as such a big problem considering who the enemy is.

Clearly, it's all about balance.

Those who approached Unity the wrong way - like myself when I played it the first time - will find difficult enemies incredibly frustrating but if approached in the right way, strong opposition can be a refreshing experience.
From a gameplay perspective, I get it.
The problem is, it's the 8th main game in the series (or 9th, depending on if you played Rogue first/consider it a main game) and the series has generally used guards as cannon fodder.

Now, what they should have done is really played up the idea that Arno is a novice Assassin. Make it seem as if his skills were unrefined, make his gear (even top tier) look a little raggedy, and just make him a sort of "right place in the right time" kind of guy.

Instead, marketing focused on literally calling him the "deadliest Assassin", and the game made him seem like yet another chosen one trope.


And yes, I get that the guards are Templars (or, more accurately, working with the Templars), but so were the Byzantines in ACR. In fact, that's why both games have multiple guard factions. As an in-universe explanation, I guess that works as a band-aid, but it's quite a gaudy one.

MikeFNY
03-16-2016, 06:13 PM
Now, what they should have done is really played up the idea that Arno is a novice Assassin. Make it seem as if his skills were unrefined, make his gear (even top tier) look a little raggedy, and just make him a sort of "right place in the right time" kind of guy.

Instead, marketing focused on literally calling him the "deadliest Assassin", and the game made him seem like yet another chosen one trope.
Yes, you're spot on there, which is why of all the new features I hope to see in the next game, starting from square one(together with multiple cities) is at the top of the list.

Meet the assassin when he's very young, intensive training in the early stages and build up as the game progresses. It would therefore make sense that you take a beating or two when you're still in the early stages.

I believe AC3 was like that, we meet Ratonhnhaké:ton when he's still a child, shame the game was too buggy for me to play it.

If multiple cities are re-introduced we could also see different enemies for different cities. I'm now doing what others have done in other threads(asking AC to be like [insert game here]) but RPGs do this to perfection. The enemies you meet and their levels depends on where you are on the map, this adds variety to the game and it would be a nice addition.

BananaBlighter
03-16-2016, 06:15 PM
I definitely agree, and feel that AC1 nailed the enemies. Fights felt more varied and rewarding, something I no longer get, even with something like AC3's system which has by far the most satisfying animations IMO.

Instead of giving us different archetypes, who give the illusion of variety, but still feel very formulaic, in the sense that there is always one approach to defeat each one, we need enemies who will act unpredictably. At least give each archetype a variety of skills to make them somewhat unpredictable.


For what it's worth, I think guards were best handled in AC Revelations. Janissaries proved to be quite a challenge, and their numbers across the city increased as the game went on. The polearm guys were pretty tough, too. Then, there were the sniper bunkers, and a good variety of guards (with two factions that could be pitted against each other.

The thing is, as much as increased guard difficulty is great, we do need some cannon fodder. If every guard is as skilled or more skilled than the Assassin, it kinda disrupts the illusion and makes you feel like a chump. That was a pretty big issue with Unity for me. Sure, it was great that it emphasized stealth in events like big parties where there were hundreds of guards, but it also made some other sillier scenarios where combat was unnecessarily difficult, such as fights with just one or two higher leveled guards.

I think that we can still feel like skilled assassin's while maintaining high difficulty. Let us perform awesome moves (like multi counter kills) and let us control when they occur, but just make them harder to pull off. Then we will feel truly involved in the combat (rather than button mashing) and that our skill is paying off.

I think that something like For Honor's Art of Battle, where you have to match with the direction of the enemy's attack to deflect it, would work well to add that extra level of challenge. That way we can see the return of the awesome counter kills, but they wouldn't have to be as OP. And for those who struggle to match their opponent when countering can simply tap 'B'/'circle' instead to pull off a normal parry.

With this system, we would still be able to feel like a skilled assassin, if not even more so, because it would feel that we, the players, are the ones with the skill when we pull off awesome moves.

Jessigirl2013
03-16-2016, 10:20 PM
In all fairness it's not just the combat skill, it's the design that is broken.

It makes no sense to approach a guard behind his back, he turns, sees you, but pretends as if nothing happened just because you hide behind a box.

For instance I like the idea of the watcher introduced in Syndicate, a watchman whose job is just to raise the alarm if he spots something unusual.

But such design should be expanded to all guards. If in the middle of combat a guard is hurt, then he should be able to escape to call reinforcements.

AC1 and Unity had tough combat, they put you in a position where the stealth approach was the best one.

But in the other games of the series combat is too easy and this means that there is no point in opting for stealth since combat, as you correctly said, is just "mashing the attack button" and all guards are dead.

Make no mistake, I don't want combat to become extremely difficult and frustrating, resulting in the player deciding not to engage in it. I avoid it but I understand many like to engage in combat.

I'm just saying that it should be smarter, more clever.

^THIS

It made it more important to prevent being seen to start with.:cool:

Ureh
03-17-2016, 12:54 AM
When it comes to AC1 combat I'm interested in knowing how many of the players actually remembered what those tutorials taught them about escaping guard breaks, doing breaks yourself, escaping grabs, etc. On the other hand how many players just relied on the counter kill strategy where most of the guards' special abilities don't really matter. The devs are gathering all these player statistics and they must have some kind of reason for making combat easier. But then again what might be easy for longtime players might be difficult for new players.



The thing is, as much as increased guard difficulty is great, we do need some cannon fodder. If every guard is as skilled or more skilled than the Assassin, it kinda disrupts the illusion and makes you feel like a chump. That was a pretty big issue with Unity for me. Sure, it was great that it emphasized stealth in events like big parties where there were hundreds of guards, but it also made some other sillier scenarios where combat was unnecessarily difficult, such as fights with just one or two higher leveled guards.

I think one of the main problems with Unity combat is that it's locked by the diamond system and it lets low rank players go anywhere at anytime. So let's say someone is trying to fight a lvl 5 guard with any weapon that is less than or equal to lvl 3 then it's going to take awhile. So those that don't keep with the weapon upgrades will face lengthier fights (less damage, and smaller time frame to parry). With any lvl 5 weapon, you can take down almost all lvl 5 enemies in 2 hits or less - except for the Defender which takes one extra hit unless you include a ranged weapon in the combo or a heavy weapon. It's probably a good idea to award better equipment as the players progress through the story so that the best weapons aren't locked behind huge price tags (or paywalls); similar to how AC1 did it.

Another thing that makes archetypes useless in ACU combat is during co-op because players will just overwhelm the handful of guards and/or spam smoke bombs. If you play solo, then dodge is pretty much the answer to everything when a player chooses not to smoke bomb. If a solo player takes on 14+ red enemies then the archetypes don't really use their special attacks all that much since half of them will switch to guns to overwhelm Arno, at which point he'll just dodge to avoid the gunfire. If you fight 8 or less red guard enemies, they'll start using their special abilities more frequently but most players should come to realise that they just need to dodge to avoid all of it. Whereas when a player tries to fight 14+ blue guards by themselves, they all act similarly with the exception of Officers who have a regular strong attack... which can be dodged. As for the Raiders, their rocks are difficult to dodge since there's no hud indicator but if a player equips the Coat of Franciade then that just makes all the raiders ordinary.

Where ACU's combat starts to shine a little bit is when you're facing 15+ enemies, but the only place where we can initiate that kind of fight is in Invalides.




But such design should be expanded to all guards. If in the middle of combat a guard is hurt, then he should be able to escape to call reinforcements.
.

It sounds like the drummer guys in AC3 fit exactly into that role.

crash_1232015
03-17-2016, 12:56 AM
^THIS

It made it more important to prevent being seen to start with.:cool:

And that is exactly what assassins should be all about, being hidden in plain sight. Make the combat more dangerous

MikeFNY
03-17-2016, 11:29 AM
And that is exactly what assassins should be all about, being hidden in plain sight. Make the combat more dangerous

The first time I played AC, AC1 that is, I was under the impression that the game is all about stealth and that combat should be avoided as much as possible.

Such as:

1. Blending when riding your horse
2. Using scholars to enter a city
3. Finding a quiet spot before assassinating informers
4. The extremely tough combat (at least when I was still a novice)
5. The analysing situations from the top

You know, the "hide in plain sight" tenet.

But it's fair to say, as correctly pointed out elsewhere (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1406920-I-want-AC-to-be-more-like-MGSV-than-The-Witcher?p=11479464&viewfull=1#post11479464), that the game didn't really evolve around this tenet so it would be unfair for those who like combat more than stealth to force them into adopting a strategy they don't like to adopt.

And this is coming from a 100% stealth player.

I mean the game has evolved in two directions, stealth and combat and focusing on one by making the other extremely difficult would indeed be unfair on those players who prefer the latter to the former.

crash_1232015
03-17-2016, 04:53 PM
The first time I played AC, AC1 that is, I was under the impression that the game is all about stealth and that combat should be avoided as much as possible.

Such as:

1. Blending when riding your horse
2. Using scholars to enter a city
3. Finding a quiet spot before assassinating informers
4. The extremely tough combat (at least when I was still a novice)
5. The analysing situations from the top

You know, the "hide in plain sight" tenet.

But it's fair to say, as correctly pointed out elsewhere (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1406920-I-want-AC-to-be-more-like-MGSV-than-The-Witcher?p=11479464&viewfull=1#post11479464), that the game didn't really evolve around this tenet so it would be unfair for those who like combat more than stealth to force them into adopting a strategy they don't like to adopt.

And this is coming from a 100% stealth player.

I mean the game has evolved in two directions, stealth and combat and focusing on one by making the other extremely difficult would indeed be unfair on those players who prefer the latter to the former.

I believe the guards should be given better pursuit skills so that when you are still a novice you may find yourself in situations where you have no option but to fight - this can be used a tutorials earlier on in the game and this should be a consequence of not being stealthy enough and getting yourself surrounded by opponents. Its not just combat skills which the guards are lacking but also pursuit and free running skills which would make escaping a lot more exciting, dangerous and interesting

Jessigirl2013
03-18-2016, 02:57 PM
And that is exactly what assassins should be all about, being hidden in plain sight. Make the combat more dangerous
Precisely.:)

The first time I played AC, AC1 that is, I was under the impression that the game is all about stealth and that combat should be avoided as much as possible.

Such as:

1. Blending when riding your horse
2. Using scholars to enter a city
3. Finding a quiet spot before assassinating informers
4. The extremely tough combat (at least when I was still a novice)
5. The analysing situations from the top

You know, the "hide in plain sight" tenet.

But it's fair to say, as correctly pointed out elsewhere (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1406920-I-want-AC-to-be-more-like-MGSV-than-The-Witcher?p=11479464&viewfull=1#post11479464), that the game didn't really evolve around this tenet so it would be unfair for those who like combat more than stealth to force them into adopting a strategy they don't like to adopt.

And this is coming from a 100% stealth player.

I mean the game has evolved in two directions, stealth and combat and focusing on one by making the other extremely difficult would indeed be unfair on those players who prefer the latter to the former.

I do think future titles need to be more stealth focused though...
IMO we need more missions which desync if you are seen.


I believe the guards should be given better pursuit skills so that when you are still a novice you may find yourself in situations where you have no option but to fight - this can be used a tutorials earlier on in the game and this should be a consequence of not being stealthy enough and getting yourself surrounded by opponents. Its not just combat skills which the guards are lacking but also pursuit and free running skills which would make escaping a lot more exciting, dangerous and interesting

I think this sounds good in theory but in game it could easily be done sloppily.
Why don't they do more stealth focused side missions, That's way people who prefer combat can just not play the stealth side missions if they wanted.

cawatrooper9
03-18-2016, 03:20 PM
I do think future titles need to be more stealth focused though...
IMO we need more missions which desync if you are seen.

I like how open ended and adaptive missions have become (though, honestly, I think they can do even more), but I think this works well in certain contexts. For instance, something like "don't be seen, or the Templars will destroy this sensitive information/kill x innocent person". But even in those cases, it only works if the information or person is the mission. Otherwise, you should just need to find another way to fulfill your mission.

MikeFNY
03-18-2016, 03:43 PM
Why don't they do more stealth focused side missions, That's way people who prefer combat can just not play the stealth side missions if they wanted.
I disagree.

One of the features I like the most about AC is that you have an option in how to approach missions. Putting aside the "hide in plain sight" tenet for a moment, especially since it can be cancelled out by the "everything is permitted" maxim, the game allows you to either go stealth or engage in combat.

Forcing the player to adopt a strategy that s/he doesn't want to adopt is a big no-no in my book.

I admit it, I hate combat, having to engage in combat, especially when stealth is an option, makes my blood boil. So I believe it's the other way round for some who dislike stealth :)


For instance, something like "don't be seen, or the Templars will destroy this sensitive information/kill x innocent person".
Yet I agree with this.

I understand it may sound like a contradiction, but why not the best of both worlds?

A mission where indeed the Templars are guarding an important document that you have to steal without being seen. The first part of the mission can be tackled in both ways but when you get closer to the document you have to go stealth. Engaging in combat would result in the Templars taking action, not necessarily destroying the document as that would have an impact on the story(although I do like this to be honest) but maybe running away to a different hiding place, meaning that you have to battle/stealth your way past more enemies before stealing it.

What doesn't make sense is what I described in another thread, Templars defending an important document yet when they spot you they simply ignore you after you hide behind a box.

Destroying it and changing the story or running away with the document, however, would make a lot of sense. It's the behaviour I would expect from the guards.

crash_1232015
03-18-2016, 05:47 PM
The missions in the next game definitely need to be more open ended and make us think for ourselves more about how we approach each objective.

I think also that many A games have been so easy that we have had no need of many of the skills and equipment that are given to us when the guards have so few. For example, the many varieties of bombs in AC Revelations seemed initially like a really fun and interesting addition to the game, however, the guards (even the Janissaries) were not challenging enough to warrant us spending time going into detail crafting the perfect bomb for the job at hand.

I believe also that some elite guards should be more immune to things like smoke bombs and poison darts as those pieces of equipment cancel out any resistance that any guard can put up which makes the assassin we play as, seem even more unstoppable

Jessigirl2013
03-19-2016, 01:15 PM
I like how open ended and adaptive missions have become (though, honestly, I think they can do even more), but I think this works well in certain contexts. For instance, something like "don't be seen, or the Templars will destroy this sensitive information/kill x innocent person". But even in those cases, it only works if the information or person is the mission. Otherwise, you should just need to find another way to fulfill your mission.

As I've said before IMO it messes with lore.
The whole "we relieve memories, not make them"
I find it more irritating is they haven't had an explanation in MD, Even something as simple as Rebecca upgrading something or whatever...

I disagree.

One of the features I like the most about AC is that you have an option in how to approach missions. Putting aside the "hide in plain sight" tenet for a moment, especially since it can be cancelled out by the "everything is permitted" maxim, the game allows you to either go stealth or engage in combat.

Forcing the player to adopt a strategy that s/he doesn't want to adopt is a big no-no in my book.

I admit it, I hate combat, having to engage in combat, especially when stealth is an option, makes my blood boil. So I believe it's the other way round for some who dislike stealth :)


Yet I agree with this.

I understand it may sound like a contradiction, but why not the best of both worlds?

A mission where indeed the Templars are guarding an important document that you have to steal without being seen. The first part of the mission can be tackled in both ways but when you get closer to the document you have to go stealth. Engaging in combat would result in the Templars taking action, not necessarily destroying the document as that would have an impact on the story(although I do like this to be honest) but maybe running away to a different hiding place, meaning that you have to battle/stealth your way past more enemies before stealing it.

What doesn't make sense is what I described in another thread, Templars defending an important document yet when they spot you they simply ignore you after you hide behind a box.

Destroying it and changing the story or running away with the document, however, would make a lot of sense. It's the behaviour I would expect from the guards.


The missions in the next game definitely need to be more open ended and make us think for ourselves more about how we approach each objective.

I think also that many A games have been so easy that we have had no need of many of the skills and equipment that are given to us when the guards have so few. For example, the many varieties of bombs in AC Revelations seemed initially like a really fun and interesting addition to the game, however, the guards (even the Janissaries) were not challenging enough to warrant us spending time going into detail crafting the perfect bomb for the job at hand.

I believe also that some elite guards should be more immune to things like smoke bombs and poison darts as those pieces of equipment cancel out any resistance that any guard can put up which makes the assassin we play as, seem even more unstoppable

I find it somewhat bizarre though its not like AC is famed for its great combat, IMO its way to easy and its one of the reason I prefer stealth as its a challenge.
If they stopped changing the combat every game and stop it being ridiculously easy as it is in Syndicate then having it combat focused makes sense...
I'm biased as hell as I love stealth but I feel like people over exaggerate how many people like combat when in reality people who loved combat were disappointed with Syndicates drastic difficulty change from Unity...:rolleyes:

Like I said above IMO they need to explain how we had suddenly deviate drastically between objectives when in Ezios time we got synced in we went outside the mission area...:rolleyes:

crash_1232015
03-19-2016, 04:38 PM
As I've said before IMO it messes with lore.
The whole "we relieve memories, not make them"
I find it more irritating is they haven't had an explanation in MD, Even something as simple as Rebecca upgrading something or whatever...



I find it somewhat bizarre though its not like AC is famed for its great combat, IMO its way to easy and its one of the reason I prefer stealth as its a challenge.
If they stopped changing the combat every game and stop it being ridiculously easy as it is in Syndicate then having it combat focused makes sense...
I'm biased as hell as I love stealth but I feel like people over exaggerate how many people like combat when in reality people who loved combat were disappointed with Syndicates drastic difficulty change from Unity...:rolleyes:



Like I said above IMO they need to explain how we had suddenly deviate drastically between objectives when in Ezios time we got synced in we went outside the mission area...:rolleyes:

I get the 100% sync as it makes us play as the assassin lived those memories but I still prefer open ended missions with no constraints. The missions should force you to be more creative and think carefully what the approach will be - this can be aided by giving the guards moire skills and making them more challenging to take on if you just run in all guns blazing

AC1, ACR and ACU I would say are the top 3 games for combat in terms of challenge and progression. AC3 was fluid and fast but way to easy which makes it boring after a while.
I think some missions should de-sync you for being seen, however I also think that missions should also be able to continue if you get seen and you just have to change tactics in response to your initial mess up

Jessigirl2013
03-20-2016, 03:25 PM
I get the 100% sync as it makes us play as the assassin lived those memories but I still prefer open ended missions with no constraints. The missions should force you to be more creative and think carefully what the approach will be - this can be aided by giving the guards moire skills and making them more challenging to take on if you just run in all guns blazing

AC1, ACR and ACU I would say are the top 3 games for combat in terms of challenge and progression. AC3 was fluid and fast but way to easy which makes it boring after a while.
I think some missions should de-sync you for being seen, however I also think that missions should also be able to continue if you get seen and you just have to change tactics in response to your initial mess up

I think a way around this is to make the unique kill an objective for full sync.
As the unique kills are generally assumed as the way that they had actually killed their targets.

I think they should just make the unique kills more challenging and make the optional objectives for full sync.
Either that or they could bother to mention why this is now allowed in the MD lore.:rolleyes: