PDA

View Full Version : Customisation in AC Empire



ladosefan
09-20-2016, 07:44 PM
Having participated in the For Honor Alpha,i fell in love with the deep and vast customisation available for both weapons and armor.Do you guys think it is possible to see a similar one in AC Empire?

SixKeys
09-20-2016, 08:32 PM
Armor/outfits: yes, though I'd argue AC already had an extremely robust customization system in Unity, which was sadly massively pared down for Syndicate. I would love for them to bring back Unity's depth. I don't see the point in weapon customization TBH.

BananaBlighter
09-20-2016, 09:52 PM
Agree with SixKeys. I'd like something along the lines of Unity's customization, which is very similar to how For Honor did it except that there wasn't weapon customization, just weapon choice, which TBH I think I'd prefer.

The only other difference is that in For Honor you could apply the cosmetic of one piece of gear onto another piece of gear of the same type, a mechanic which I would welcome, as many had issues with trying to find gear that both looked good and had decent stats in Unity.

However it can look a bit silly if apply the cosmetic of a very thin garment onto gear which has very high defense stats, so maybe in this case it wouldn't be such a good idea. In AC there is more variance in playstyle (going from complete stealth to complete tank) and so the gear is more varied in both stats and hence appearance. Within each class in For Honor, the stats barely differ due to each hero having their own unique playstyle, and so gear style doesn't need to either.

I was very sad that Syndicate got rid of Unity's customization. That and the coop.

Fatal-Feit
09-21-2016, 04:01 AM
Agree with SixKeys. I'd like something along the lines of Unity's customization, which is very similar to how For Honor did it except that there wasn't weapon customization, just weapon choice, which TBH I think I'd prefer.

I agree with you both; Unity's customization was already robust. For Honor's weapon customization doesn't need to exist since AC offers a variety of the same weapon. lol

Something that I'd like to see is some kind of crafting and loot system be implemented somehow. I wouldn't mind a lack of equipment variety if the game was a bit like Diablo and made me want to grind certain missions or side quests for specific materials or gear to create the best set for myself, kind of like in FH.


The only other difference is that in For Honor you could apply the cosmetic of one piece of gear onto another piece of gear of the same type, a mechanic which I would welcome, as many had issues with trying to find gear that both looked good and had decent stats in Unity.

I think my craft/loot system would work well with this. You can essentially have the lowest tier-looking item have the best stat or something.


However it can look a bit silly if apply the cosmetic of a very thin garment onto gear which has very high defense stats, so maybe in this case it wouldn't be such a good idea.

I mean, it's a video game. You don't need that level of realism if it impacts gameplay in such a way.


In AC there is more variance in playstyle (going from complete stealth to complete tank) and so the gear is more varied in both stats and hence appearance. Within each class in For Honor, the stats barely differ due to each hero having their own unique playstyle, and so gear style doesn't need to either.

I've put about 100 hours into For Honor and I've seen a variety of sets, so I disagree with this. Each hero has their own unique playstyle and moveset, but there isn't only one way to play them. For example, you can have a Berserker that focuses more on throw distance since his deflect and throw is very good for ledges and walling. Or, you can have a Berserker that's made for tanking more damage to take advantage of the immunity of their risk/reward high stance heavy attacks. Both are very viable and different methods of playing them. Another example would be the Orochi. One player could focus solely on beefing their attack damage and become offensive, or they can focus on a build that fills their Revenge meter quicker and focus on being defensive and countering with Revenge mode instead. There are also the matter of feats that changes the way you play Dominion. My Warden has two different sets for feats. The first one is for solely handling zone B, where the armies are. My build is focused on reducing feat cooldown and I have feats that boost the minions attack and defense and gives me regeneration when killing enemy soldiers. Another build is for taking care of the other zones like an Assassin hero, which I equip myself with self healing, grenades, and such.

I don't think it's lacking variance at all, it's just more detailed and intricate due to focusing solely on the combat system.

LoyalACFan
09-21-2016, 06:46 AM
Was going to post in here earlier but my "I" key wasn't working and it was too much of a hassle to deal with :p

Now that I've dusted out my keyboard... For Honor also needs a deeper customization system to differentiate between players otherwise everyone ends up appearing the same and it gets confusing. AC doesn't have that problem so much so it's all just for aesthetics.

ladosefan
09-21-2016, 12:35 PM
Unity had a great variety of weapons but most of them felt useless after some playtime because of their bad stats.Personally i only bought and used like 20% of the available weapons because the other 80% either didnt look good to me or were not worth the extra money since their stats were barely good.I would prefer to have a few basic weapon types with upgradeable stats(by upgrading for example the material from an iron sword to a steel one)and more customisation options in colous,hilts and other cosmetics.

m4r-k7
09-21-2016, 02:51 PM
If Empire is a reboot type game and it takes influence from open world RPG's such as The Witcher etc, I would expect it to have Unity type customisation.

For me personally, I don't mind as long as there is a good amount of outfits to choose from :)

cawatrooper9
09-21-2016, 02:54 PM
Unity had a great variety of weapons but most of them felt useless after some playtime because of their bad stats.Personally i only bought and used like 20% of the available weapons because the other 80% either didnt look good to me or were not worth the extra money since their stats were barely good.I would prefer to have a few basic weapon types with upgradeable stats(by upgrading for example the material from an iron sword to a steel one)and more customisation options in colous,hilts and other cosmetics.


Yeah, Unity (and Syndicate) had the issue with weapons in that some were objectively better than the rest- and among the higher tier weapons, there was little variety.

For instance, once you have enough money to buy a weapon that costs 25,000, there's no reason to ever purchase any other weapon that's cheaper. There is almost no advantage that they'd offer- even though weapons had some stat bars, weapons of a higher tier were typically just better across the board. Then, weapons on the same tier were practically identical, with cosmetic differences only.

Gear had better customization, for sure.

D.I.D.
09-21-2016, 02:57 PM
Unity had a great variety of weapons but most of them felt useless after some playtime because of their bad stats.Personally i only bought and used like 20% of the available weapons because the other 80% either didnt look good to me or were not worth the extra money since their stats were barely good.I would prefer to have a few basic weapon types with upgradeable stats(by upgrading for example the material from an iron sword to a steel one)and more customisation options in colous,hilts and other cosmetics.

Very hard to get a range of stats into AC weapons that you can actually feel. Combat is either a long slog or you're going through the enemy like a knife through butter. It's hard to feel the gradations in between.

Gun games are easier because you get a straight mathematic response: first shot with the old gun might have taken off the enemy's helmet, then taken two shots to put the enemy down. Next gun takes just two headshots. Next, only one headshot. A later gun might kill with a single shot to any body location. AC's combat is about how long enemies take to kill, with a little extra variety about some weapons having unblockable attacks.

m4r-k7
09-21-2016, 04:00 PM
Yeah, Unity (and Syndicate) had the issue with weapons in that some were objectively better than the rest- and among the higher tier weapons, there was little variety.

For instance, once you have enough money to buy a weapon that costs 25,000, there's no reason to ever purchase any other weapon that's cheaper. There is almost no advantage that they'd offer- even though weapons had some stat bars, weapons of a higher tier were typically just better across the board. Then, weapons on the same tier were practically identical, with cosmetic differences only.

Gear had better customization, for sure.

Yeah, the problem with buying good weapons is that it makes the game WAY too easy. I mean if we use Unity as a clear example, when you have the sword of eden (I think thats what its called) you can kill enemies in literally one or two hits, whereas when you start out with a normal weapon you actually have to use skill to defeat enemies. IMO, it should always be a challenge to kill enemies, even when you have a good weapon. Rather than weapons dealing more damage, they should only be better at defending and speed etc. Still to this day I think on the whole AC 1 has had the best combat system for this reason. I mean you do get better weapons that (granted) kill the basic enemies very easily, but the harder enemy types (especially the Templars) always take longer to kill whereas in AC 3 - Syndicate, the hardest enemies always have one (and easy) way to kill them. In AC 1 you had counter, dodge, defend, different striking patterns that did different things etc and it all made the combat much more believable.

LoyalACFan
09-22-2016, 11:22 PM
The problem with weapon upgrades is that it encourages a combat system where the difficulty comes from numerical damage points with gradually increasing enemy health bars, rather than skill and strategy. I mean, in Unity, it's almost impossible to beat a group of 5-star enemies with a 1-star sword; not because they're any smarter or tougher than 1-star enemies, but because you basically seem to be hitting them with a swimming pool noodle for all the good it does.

m4r-k7
09-23-2016, 11:54 AM
The problem with weapon upgrades is that it encourages a combat system where the difficulty comes from numerical damage points with gradually increasing enemy health bars, rather than skill and strategy. I mean, in Unity, it's almost impossible to beat a group of 5-star enemies with a 1-star sword; not because they're any smarter or tougher than 1-star enemies, but because you basically seem to be hitting them with a swimming pool noodle for all the good it does.

Exactly. They need to scrap this system and take it back to AC 1 style where enemies were not based on "levels" but rather different archetypes that could always be defeated even with a crappy weapon. Ideally, I would like a combat system kind of like the Arkham games (albeit a more gritty and realistic one) where you are always able to take down any enemies, but you can buy new combos/skills etc.

Farlander1991
09-23-2016, 12:53 PM
They need to scrap this system and take it back to AC 1 style where enemies were not based on "levels" but rather different archetypes that could always be defeated even with a crappy weapon.

But in AC1 they were based on levels. You had 4 levels of enemies (basic guard, seargeant, captain, Templar). Each level had different moves available to them. Each level had a certain HP amount. You also had 4 sword levels that you'd get throughout the game. Each sword would do more damage to the enemy. A successful combo (in case you're not hitting the enemy directly) does damage based on the sword level. So if the sword level is high enough then you can kill an enemy with one combo. If not, more combos are required. I'm not sure, but I think when an enemy deflects a hit, it's still considered as damage (though smaller), but can't prove that.

There are two big differences between AC1 and ACU system:
1. In AC1 the numbers are a bit more closer to each other than in ACU.
2. In AC1 the numbers aren't actually provided to the player.

Still, I think that number 2 is the big factor. I'm pretty sure if AC1 would have shown health bars, then fighting Templars would feel as annoying as fighting 5-star enemies with a 1-star weapon, because really the damage you do to Templars with the basic sword is not that high.

cawatrooper9
09-23-2016, 05:00 PM
But in AC1 they were based on levels. You had 4 levels of enemies (basic guard, seargeant, captain, Templar). Each level had different moves available to them. Each level had a certain HP amount. You also had 4 sword levels that you'd get throughout the game. Each sword would do more damage to the enemy. A successful combo (in case you're not hitting the enemy directly) does damage based on the sword level. So if the sword level is high enough then you can kill an enemy with one combo. If not, more combos are required. I'm not sure, but I think when an enemy deflects a hit, it's still considered as damage (though smaller), but can't prove that.

There are two big differences between AC1 and ACU system:
1. In AC1 the numbers are a bit more closer to each other than in ACU.
2. In AC1 the numbers aren't actually provided to the player.

Still, I think that number 2 is the big factor. I'm pretty sure if AC1 would have shown health bars, then fighting Templars would feel as annoying as fighting 5-star enemies with a 1-star weapon, because really the damage you do to Templars with the basic sword is not that high.

You make a pretty good case. I do think that an "out of sight, out of mind" principle does apply here. However, I'd also note how the difference in basic combat mechanics also applies to this- in AC1, enemies were mostly only close ranged, and weren't as aggressive as those in Unity. Combat typically revolved around defensive 1v1 rotating fights, in which Altair's best option was to wait for an attacker, then counter. Countering would result in an animation that usually killed the target- in other cases, if not fatal, would still result in a huge damage scored.

In Unity, combat was more centered around parrying and dodges. Sure, there was a sort of counter available, but it was nothing more than a well timed parry followed by a few jabs, typically not fatal unless done against low level enemies. I think this ties in with your point #1, in that the difference were (admittedly more than a "bit") closer in AC1.

I think that thematically, though, I still prefer how AC1 handled it. In AC1, the Templar Knights were imposing brutes decked out in full plate armor- compare this to the typical guard with a bow and a little bit of chain mail, and it actually kind of makes sense that it would take more damage to take down a Templar (we see this in AC2 as well, though I did find the "brute" class to be a little over the top in that).

In Unity, we could have two guards that are otherwise identical except that one is a much higher level, and therefore their bare skin is able to sustain far more stabbings. In that context, it does seem a little more ridiculous.

m4r-k7
09-23-2016, 05:07 PM
Still, I think that number 2 is the big factor. I'm pretty sure if AC1 would have shown health bars, then fighting Templars would feel as annoying as fighting 5-star enemies with a 1-star weapon, because really the damage you do to Templars with the basic sword is not that high.

The reason I loved fighting Templars were because in some aspects they felt like mini bosses. They weren't actually sponges - they would actually only take around 5 - 7 'proper' hits or counters to kill them. The reason they were difficult was because they countered you, they parried, they defended etc. Whilst AC 1 enemy archetypes were based on levels in some regards, it felt more natural where the larger guards had more armour etc and as you say the numbers were more close together. In Unity, hitting a level 5 enemy with a level 1 sword 1000 times and the enemy still not dying is a huge design flaw IMO as at the end of the day we as the player are Assassins - We are meant to be strong, not invincible, but strong and this is what I think AC 1 did very well.

cawatrooper9
09-23-2016, 08:40 PM
... at the end of the day we as the player are Assassins - We are meant to be strong, not invincible, but strong and this is what I think AC 1 did very well.

That too.

I think it's strange when an Assassin has trouble with a single high level guard- even a novice should be able to defeat a guard, those guys should comparatively be scrubs. On the other hand, a Templar Knight should actually be a match for an Assassin, especially in open combat.

Maybe I'm adhering to the Conservation of Ninjitsu (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjutsu), but it's kind of like Star Wars. A Jedi should be able to take on a huge force of Stormtroopers, but a single sith should be a challenge for them.

ladosefan
09-23-2016, 10:53 PM
So what we are all saying is we should not overcome the fight challenges by higher damaging weapons but by outsmarting the AI,which in most cases is not the most brilliant one :rolleyes:

BananaBlighter
09-23-2016, 11:41 PM
I've put about 100 hours into For Honor and I've seen a variety of sets, so I disagree with this. Each hero has their own unique playstyle and moveset, but there isn't only one way to play them. For example, you can have a Berserker that focuses more on throw distance since his deflect and throw is very good for ledges and walling. Or, you can have a Berserker that's made for tanking more damage to take advantage of the immunity of their risk/reward high stance heavy attacks. Both are very viable and different methods of playing them. Another example would be the Orochi. One player could focus solely on beefing their attack damage and become offensive, or they can focus on a build that fills their Revenge meter quicker and focus on being defensive and countering with Revenge mode instead. There are also the matter of feats that changes the way you play Dominion. My Warden has two different sets for feats. The first one is for solely handling zone B, where the armies are. My build is focused on reducing feat cooldown and I have feats that boost the minions attack and defense and gives me regeneration when killing enemy soldiers. Another build is for taking care of the other zones like an Assassin hero, which I equip myself with self healing, grenades, and such.

I don't think it's lacking variance at all, it's just more detailed and intricate due to focusing solely on the combat system.

Oh no I don't think that For Honor is lacking variety in playstyle. Not at all.

What I was trying to explain was why applying cosmetics would work in For Honor but not in AC. I meant that within each hero/class there isn't much variance with the gear's appearance or stat changes because the gear for each hero is built around that hero, and each hero has their own playstyle. In Unity, the gear's appearance and stat changes vary greatly because you are customizing one assassin, who's playstyle could range from complete stealth, to complete tank.

So I was saying that because some pieces of gear are so different to others, it wouldn't make sense to be able to apply cosmetics from other pieces of gear. For example, how silly would it look if you applied the appearance of the Sans-Cullottes gear (don't remember how it's spelt) to the medieval gear. In the same way, it would be silly to be able to apply the cosmetic of the Conquerer's armour onto an Orochi, because their gear looks and functions completely differently, not only to suit their faction, but their different playstyles too. It makes perfect sense to be able to apply the cosmetic of one piece of Warden gear on to another, because there isn't much variance in how they look or function and so there won't be inconsistencies with the stats and appearance.

m4r-k7
09-24-2016, 12:13 AM
That too.

I think it's strange when an Assassin has trouble with a single high level guard- even a novice should be able to defeat a guard, those guys should comparatively be scrubs. On the other hand, a Templar Knight should actually be a match for an Assassin, especially in open combat.

Maybe I'm adhering to the Conservation of Ninjitsu (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjutsu), but it's kind of like Star Wars. A Jedi should be able to take on a huge force of Stormtroopers, but a single sith should be a challenge for them.

Yes exactly. I would love for them to bring back proper Templar Knights (of some kind) in the open world :)

Ureh
09-25-2016, 03:11 AM
The problem with weapon upgrades is that it encourages a combat system where the difficulty comes from numerical damage points with gradually increasing enemy health bars, rather than skill and strategy. I mean, in Unity, it's almost impossible to beat a group of 5-star enemies with a 1-star sword; not because they're any smarter or tougher than 1-star enemies, but because you basically seem to be hitting them with a swimming pool noodle for all the good it does.

Only if the player doesn't use staggering strike (or long weapon mastery), ground execution, and/or ranged weapons when enemies are grounded. Any lvl 1 weapon/ranged can perform those thingies.

Sushiglutton
09-25-2016, 10:01 AM
I'm with Loyal, would really dislike a combat system centered around stats. Should be "physical" mainly, that is to say based around using various moves correctly. Some hidden stats are fine, but the way it looked in Syndicate with enemy levels above their heads and a healthbar is very gamey and not my cup of tea.

You can still gate off some hideouts by having archetypes that require some unlockable technique to combat efficiently.

I have a feeling Empire will have tons of customization, given recent trends in gaming.

Fatal-Feit
09-25-2016, 04:18 PM
Stats are not the issue; the problem is how they design the mechanics of the combat system. Ever since AC1, it's been primarily QTE/archetype based and so there is no room for skills, only numbers. Unity's combat system, despite its attempt at delivering difficulty, was mainly just that. The enemy archetypes are all simplistic and follow the same pattern. Dodge or block 3 attacks from an elite for a free combo; rinse and repeat. Once you've fought one brute, you've seen it all. Therefore, your damage output is the only thing that matters. Ever since AC become more like Arkham, the combat system just got more and more dull.

The reason why AC1's combat system stands out, comparatively, is because each fight is unpredictable and offers a variety of different outcomes. The enemies (or specifically Templars, since you guys want to focus on them) have just as much moveset as you do, and so the conflict becomes more intimate and the difference in stats doesn't effect our impression as much as trying to out maneuver their feints and grabs does, time and time again. Stats do make a considerable difference, but it was never the main deciding factor of a fight. There is never one way, one button to continuously beat a Templar. They adapt to counterattacks, they adapt to grabs, etc.

Imo, they should keep stats. I love stats in video games. It's my favorite way of feeling a sense of progression. All they need to do is focus on developing mechanics that isn't solely based on 'press button B to beat enemy archetype B'.


Oh no I don't think that For Honor is lacking variety in playstyle. Not at all.

What I was trying to explain was why applying cosmetics would work in For Honor but not in AC. I meant that within each hero/class there isn't much variance with the gear's appearance or stat changes because the gear for each hero is built around that hero, and each hero has their own playstyle. In Unity, the gear's appearance and stat changes vary greatly because you are customizing one assassin, who's playstyle could range from complete stealth, to complete tank.

So I was saying that because some pieces of gear are so different to others, it wouldn't make sense to be able to apply cosmetics from other pieces of gear. For example, how silly would it look if you applied the appearance of the Sans-Cullottes gear (don't remember how it's spelt) to the medieval gear. In the same way, it would be silly to be able to apply the cosmetic of the Conquerer's armour onto an Orochi, because their gear looks and functions completely differently, not only to suit their faction, but their different playstyles too. It makes perfect sense to be able to apply the cosmetic of one piece of Warden gear on to another, because there isn't much variance in how they look or function and so there won't be inconsistencies with the stats and appearance.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for explaining it to me.