PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer Kills? Questions...



tjbyrum1
11-03-2010, 04:44 PM
In Multiplayer, I have seen people brutally assassinate, but never fighting.

Do you only assassinate like in the trailers, or are you able to fight as if you were playing the actual game?

Also one other question, say you're hunted by the Harlequin (example), would you be able to kill YOUR hunter, or would you be penalized for it? Basically, could you kill your hunter?

The Zoo Boy
11-03-2010, 04:47 PM
Ur first question I am not suree about, although I am leaning towards no. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

For ur second question, sadly it is ano, u can not kill ur hunter, this was confirmed by UbiGabe in a YouTube Q & A video (sorry, I do not know which one). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

X10J
11-03-2010, 05:35 PM
1 no

2 no, but you can humiliate(punch or slap) them, making them lose their contract on you.

zomgcookie
11-03-2010, 05:46 PM
No way to implement a fair combat system in an AC game. Would just be counter or hack and slash. Plus, why do that when you can sneak up behind them, whisper rest in peace, and stab them in the spine?

MT4K
11-03-2010, 05:52 PM
the fighting system would be a horrible idea to implement as it is right now for multiplayer

who wants to play basically a staring contest, nobody will ever attack each other for fear of getting counter-killed; they would have to change the way the whole fighting system works for it to be a feasible inclusion into multiplayer

bmic31
11-03-2010, 06:23 PM
Sword fighting in the multiplayer would ruin it anyways. Imagine you were slashing around with your opponent and someone was stalking either one of you. He could just find a nice aerial place to plop down on you while you're pre-occupied.

The assassination, although does take time and has caused complaints because of it, is much much faster than a sword fight.

There are counters and smoke bombs that allow you to defeat pursuers though.

tjbyrum1
11-03-2010, 07:01 PM
Nice.

Aight then. Cannot WAIT.

Assassin's Creed takes its predecessors and only improves them, unlike most games.

obliviondoll
11-04-2010, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by zomgcookie:
No way to implement a fair combat system in an AC game. Would just be counter or hack and slash. Plus, why do that when you can sneak up behind them, whisper rest in peace, and stab them in the spine?

Originally posted by MT4K:
the fighting system would be a horrible idea to implement as it is right now for multiplayer

who wants to play basically a staring contest, nobody will ever attack each other for fear of getting counter-killed; they would have to change the way the whole fighting system works for it to be a feasible inclusion into multiplayer
I'm sorry, you're both horribly, horribly wrong. Especially if the combat system is based on AC1.
You sit there blocking, waiting for me to attack so you can counter.

I step in and attack. This is a guard-break, which can't be countered. I follow-up with a second attack, then time the third press of the button to turn it into a combo kill.

You died by waiting for the counter. If you'd seen this coming, you could have sidestepped, and flanked me, hoping to land your attack before my follow-up, if I don't react in time.

The guards never did this because the game had terrible AI. Players don't.

The problem with implementing AC combat online isn't the combat system being broken/unbalanced. it's the fact that lag would make it totally unplayable. It's timing-based, and anything which puts that timing off is going to screw gameplay beyond any hope of salvation.

So no, they didn't make a combat-based multiplayer mode. The only way they could is if they made it so you can fight on one system in an arena-type setting. Online AC combat isn't workable.

As for the killing your hunter thing, no. You can stun them, as mentioned previously, and that stops them from being your hunter, but it's not a kill. I actually prefer it, myself. Just... don't expect it to work as a counter. It's not one. Unless they changed it more than we all think (I hope not. So do those of us who actually worked out how it's meant to be used)