PDA

View Full Version : Difficulty



crash3
04-19-2011, 03:21 PM
Ive seen various comments on the difficulty in the AC games and i thought it would be good to try and group everyones views together

i personally think the game overall is too easy and any "hard" parts are just frustrating and annoying not genuinely hard to the extent where you feel good after completing a mission as it was hard to achieve

ChaosxNetwork
04-19-2011, 04:40 PM
It's not a game that is meant to be hard, yes the difficulty should be ramped up, but not to a point were you can't do anything.
I want it to be to the point were you cant just kill all the guards and so are forced to flee and
so use more of the free running techniques.

Blind2Society
04-19-2011, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by xHITx_Chaos:
I want it to be to the point were you cant just kill all he guards and so are forced to flee
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lilbacchant
04-19-2011, 06:00 PM
I didn't do the poll because the question is way too broad.

AC1 was relatively well balanced.

AC2 was too easy; progressively so as the game went on.

AC:B was way too easy from the beginning to the end when the player was able to make their own decisions. And in most cases, any restrictions were either a non-factor, annoying, or frustrating.

Simple way to satisfy everyone = difficulty settings.

(But apparently the developers like a challenge and think that'd be too easy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif)

GunnarGunderson
04-19-2011, 10:43 PM
combat in AC should only get you so far, as in you can only take on 2 to 3 guys at a time before you get overwhelmed. There should be less health and no medicine (though health would regenerate outside of combat) and fall damage should realistic.

Just my thoughts

Blind2Society
04-19-2011, 10:52 PM
I'm not a big fan of fall damage to be honest, though I don't think it needs to be removed.

What ticks me off to no end is not being able to step off high roofs and thin ledges of any height like I can in multiplayer. It so badly gets on my nerves when I have to drop and grab the edge before I can drop down.... I think I should go post this where someone from Ubi may see it because I am about to pull my hair out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

bveUSbve
04-19-2011, 11:32 PM
Simple way to satisfy everyone = difficulty settings.
Yes.

misterB2001
04-20-2011, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by bveUSbve:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Simple way to satisfy everyone = difficulty settings.
Yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yes too. Difficulty settings will be directly related to Enemy AI.

I loved AC1 for the epic chases after an assassination, they were genuinely scary as the guards didn't let up and would chase you for over half the map.

Please Ubi, bring in difficulty settings, its the ONLY way to keep everyone happy!

crash3
04-20-2011, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by BradKinn:
combat in AC should only get you so far, as in you can only take on 2 to 3 guys at a time before you get overwhelmed. There should be less health and no medicine (though health would regenerate outside of combat) and fall damage should realistic.

Just my thoughts

exactly how i would want it, i would say in terms of medicine you shouldnt carry any on you, instead you visit a doctor and see a quick cinematic of him/her fixing you up and you see bandages and medicine used within that then you heal gradually (say take a few minutes) as wounds dont dont magically disappear, so you have to stay out of combat or dont fall off roofs for a few minutes

falling should be more realistic-i thought ACB almost defied gravity, ezio was virtually unharmed from like 10metre falls it was stupid. anyway we can use parachutes for high jumps now

TheMusingMoose
04-20-2011, 05:42 AM
If you want extreme realism, play COD. It's impossible to talk about realism in AC. Any realism added is immediately squashed when you jump off a three story roof and kill two guards.

El_Sjietah
04-20-2011, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by JonnyQuickShot:
If you want extreme realism, play COD.

CoD is the best example of realism you can come up with? Really?

Cephsus
04-20-2011, 06:13 AM
Dont really see a way for them to make combat any harder without removing some of the "neat" features such as chain fighting/killing, counter one-shot ect(?). While i felt ACB combat wasnt any harder from AC2 it did feel like Ezio had grown all up and was now a full-fledge killing machine. =P

Gues there could be more parry from the enm, but had to be in a way so it dosnt stop the flow of combat.

Maurice_Wijma
04-20-2011, 06:24 AM
I find the AC games too easy, with AC1 as the hardest, AC2 as the most challenging at the first few chapters, and AC:B as way too easy.

This is not bad, but a lot of players want a good challenge.
A difficulty setting is a very good idea. This must involve the detection and strenght of NPC's.
Also a more puzzle like gameplay, or more ways to do stuff. Like when you need to kill a target, you can run to him, and kill him, getting you into trouble with guards. Or you can watch his movement, wait untill he goes to a safer location, or a location with a better route to flee, and kill him there. This must bring in some more skill by the player.

The difficulty setting is nice, because very much players play AC games more then once. It is nice to follow the story in a easy mode, and later to play it back at a harder mode, just to enjoy the game itself.

What made AC:B very easy, is the option to call other assassins to help. You can just get to a large group of guards, and let them be killed by your followers.
It might be better to let you deside how much followers you can bring on your mission, and let them also be able to refuse a big fight, or flee in the middle of it, if you (the big leader) don't fight with them.

The falling damage gives me soewhat a wrong feeling. How can one guy fall from greater heights when he is wearing a better armor? Maybe it is better to do a health bar for the body (which doesn't change with armor, but maybe with training), and a health bar for combat/armor damage (giving resistance to damage of combat).
It is somewhat there already, but the armor damage is really something to laugh about. I never really get my armor damaged enough to get the red squares, because I have enough money to fix it, whenever I want. And before I ge a red square, I must have got really freakingly damaged, and didn't repear for a long time.

Also what would be nice, is to see a real cripple system. As your health gets lower, the character wil get slower, and has more difficulty to move around. Maybe even on body parts that get hit. As when you get an arrow in your arm, you get loss of usage of that arm for a bit.

These are just ideas from what I could think about. By no means is this a rant, because I love the games already as they are now. I just hope it is usefull for new ideas.

crash3
04-20-2011, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by The_Thorn_MJ:
I find the AC games too easy, with AC1 as the hardest, AC2 as the most challenging at the first few chapters, and AC:B as way too easy.

This is not bad, but a lot of players want a good challenge.
A difficulty setting is a very good idea. This must involve the detection and strenght of NPC's.
Also a more puzzle like gameplay, or more ways to do stuff. Like when you need to kill a target, you can run to him, and kill him, getting you into trouble with guards. Or you can watch his movement, wait untill he goes to a safer location, or a location with a better route to flee, and kill him there. This must bring in some more skill by the player.

The difficulty setting is nice, because very much players play AC games more then once. It is nice to follow the story in a easy mode, and later to play it back at a harder mode, just to enjoy the game itself.

What made AC:B very easy, is the option to call other assassins to help. You can just get to a large group of guards, and let them be killed by your followers.
It might be better to let you deside how much followers you can bring on your mission, and let them also be able to refuse a big fight, or flee in the middle of it, if you (the big leader) don't fight with them.

The falling damage gives me soewhat a wrong feeling. How can one guy fall from greater heights when he is wearing a better armor? Maybe it is better to do a health bar for the body (which doesn't change with armor, but maybe with training), and a health bar for combat/armor damage (giving resistance to damage of combat).
It is somewhat there already, but the armor damage is really something to laugh about. I never really get my armor damaged enough to get the red squares, because I have enough money to fix it, whenever I want. And before I ge a red square, I must have got really freakingly damaged, and didn't repear for a long time.

Also what would be nice, is to see a real cripple system. As your health gets lower, the character wil get slower, and has more difficulty to move around. Maybe even on body parts that get hit. As when you get an arrow in your arm, you get loss of usage of that arm for a bit.

These are just ideas from what I could think about. By no means is this a rant, because I love the games already as they are now. I just hope it is usefull for new ideas.

Love the idea of losing abilities as you get more wounded/damaged from combat or from falling during free-running. i really couldnt understand how in ACB you see ezio limping around from a shot to the shoulder and yet the rest of the game he just loses 2 health squares from bullets-unrealistic.

i like the morale idea-if you send in assassins or mercenaries to fight to create a diversion you might want hurry up in your mission or else they may lose their morale and flee leaving you to deal with more guards

also you shouldnt be desynched from being detected-one mission its a 100% sync thing not to be detected, then in another misssion you get fully desynched for being detected that is one of the frustrating/annoying aspects of the games difficulty-you should get desynched from being physically killed which is the consequence of being detected if you get me

detection and combat should be more unpredictable-some guards wil be more skilled/cleverer than others

also if you stay hanging in the same place for too long whilst climbing you should lose your grip as you get tired out so you have to keep moving which would make stealthy missions harder as you may have to move to a lees discreet spot just to hang on to a building

lilbacchant
04-20-2011, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by The_Thorn_MJ:
A difficulty setting is a very good idea. This must involve the detection and strenght of NPC's.

I don't even care if they tweak the AI (though it'd be cool if they did) if having to do so is their justification for not doing difficulty settings.

I'd be happy if they just tweaked the players/guards attack and health to match the setting. Heck, if that's too much work, just bump up the number of guards that appear. ANYTHING at this point in the series would be welcome.


The difficulty setting is nice, because very much players play AC games more then once. It is nice to follow the story in a easy mode, and later to play it back at a harder mode, just to enjoy the game itself.

EXACTLY!

My first playthru of AC1 I struggled towards the end after I got to Arsuf. But in subsequent playthrus, especially once I learned to use dodge to deal with guard-breaks, the game doesn't present much of a general challenge until you get to Arsuf -- primarily because you actually have to pay attention.

(No real reason to even mention AC2 or AC:B since if you've played a previous game, they're both too easy from beginning to end in the first playthru.)

Anyway, the point is that, as you said, wouldn't it be great if there was a difficulty setting to keep it challenging for subsequent plays.

If they're worried about noobs or casual gamers finding the game too difficult, just make the default setting "Easy" or whatever.

Unfortunately, though, the community has been requesting difficulty settings since the first game and they've ignored it, so at this point I'd only be surprised if they DO put it in the next game.

bitebug2003
04-20-2011, 08:56 PM
I hated AC1's gameplay with a passion, so if it's anything like it or as unbalanced as it was (IMO), then I won't buy the sequel.

I agree that detection shouldn't amount to auto desync (die) or 100% sync failure.

[SPOILER]
Freeing Caterina from Sant'Angelo, I got detected by one of the two guards just outside her cell (the daggers didn't hit both of them). Failed the 100% Sync which ticked me off.
[END SPOILER]

Make it a challenge and rewarding, not purely by trial and error.

Incidentally, was it my imagination, but did the guards tend to grab you more in AC:B than in AC2?

lilbacchant
04-20-2011, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by bitebug2003:
I hated AC1's gameplay with a passion, so if it's anything like it or as unbalanced as it was (IMO), then I won't buy the sequel.

If you don't mind me being curious, what about AC1 did you find "unbalanced"?


Incidentally, was it my imagination, but did the guards tend to grab you more in AC:B than in AC2?

I don't think it's your imagination. They certainly seemed to have bumped up the guard's aggression a bit (e.g., they're more likely to attack vs. just stand and block). In fact, I think the frequency of grabs in AC:B is closer to what it was in AC:1. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ureh
04-21-2011, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by bitebug2003:
I hated AC1's gameplay with a passion, so if it's anything like it or as unbalanced as it was (IMO), then I won't buy the sequel.

[/b]I agree that detection shouldn't amount to auto desync (die) or 100% sync failure.[/b]

[SPOILER]
Freeing Caterina from Sant'Angelo, I got detected by one of the two guards just outside her cell (the daggers didn't hit both of them). Failed the 100% Sync which ticked me off.
[END SPOILER]

Make it a challenge and rewarding, not purely by trial and error.

Incidentally, was it my imagination, but did the guards tend to grab you more in AC:B than in AC2?

I'm the opposite: I hope they keep missions where you must remain undetected or else desync will result. And hopefully increase the number of mission with this condition. I don't think the game should be made easier than it already is. And I don't feel like I am set back by much if I do get desynced.

And I guess you mean AC1, because I don't know remember guards grabbing Ezio in AC2.

El_Sjietah
04-21-2011, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by lilbacchant:

I don't think it's your imagination. They certainly seemed to have bumped up the guard's aggression a bit (e.g., they're more likely to attack vs. just stand and block). In fact, I think the frequency of grabs in AC:B is closer to what it was in AC:1. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It is.

Only difference is that in AC1, it was genuinly annoying. In ACB it's a free combostarter.

crash3
04-21-2011, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by bitebug2003:
I hated AC1's gameplay with a passion, so if it's anything like it or as unbalanced as it was (IMO), then I won't buy the sequel.

I agree that detection shouldn't amount to auto desync (die) or 100% sync failure.

[SPOILER]
Freeing Caterina from Sant'Angelo, I got detected by one of the two guards just outside her cell (the daggers didn't hit both of them). Failed the 100% Sync which ticked me off.
[END SPOILER]

Make it a challenge and rewarding, not purely by trial and error.

Incidentally, was it my imagination, but did the guards tend to grab you more in AC:B than in AC2?

i really didnt get the grabbing in AC2/ACB it seemed unrealistic especially the one where you grab a guard and slit his throat during combat. the AC1 grabs were MUCH better/realistic where you grab and throw your opponent

you should only be able to grab a guard and slit his throat if you are doing a stealth assassination