PDA

View Full Version : Combat Difficulty (Petition/Suggestion)



SorrowHatebreed
06-12-2012, 04:46 AM
When I saw the E3 gameplay footages of AC3, I noticed that the enemies are easier than ever, almost never attacking Connor and being defeated easily in a single attack.

While this passivity sinergizes with Ubisoft's new wishes of catering to wider crowds, It REALLY deprives from the inmersion to the other players.

I'm not asking to return to the formula of AC1, where some soldiers could combo more than a quarter of your sync bar (thing I see as positive), but Ubi could just augment the aggresivity of the enemies (attack speed) just to make it more inmersive, a little bit more challenging, and just improving the overall fun.


In Brotherhood we saw an improvement on the combat system, making the enemies more aggresive and even attacking you while the killing animation was playing (forcing you to quickly dodge or counterattack, which was FUN and engaging.

Why don't just do something similar now? This should be easy to code and would make a LOT of users happier, while also encouraging the AC formula of hiding and running after the kill, instead of confronting 15 soldiers like a berserk.



P.D: Make Connor able to die, in Revelations Ezio could stand in front of a rifleman and it would NEVER kill him: His health regenerates faster than the soldier's rate of fire.

ProletariatPleb
06-12-2012, 04:51 AM
Yeah, I hope it was for demo purpose only, they did say that there are more enemy archetypes that were not shown and since we won't have medicine/regenerative health in combat, that should toughen up the combat a bit.

obliviondoll
06-12-2012, 05:07 AM
What we know so far (from various sources):

1. No "guard" option where you can hold a button down and be immune to 90% of attacks.
2. Counters are timing-based - no word on whether this is original AC timing based or AC2+ "button mashing is fine" timing-based.
3. Once you initiate a "counter" you don't automatically attack, just evade the initial attack the game goes into momentary slow-mo, during which time you have a window to change Connor's reaction. Certain enemy types will knock you away or deal damage if you choose the wrong option for dealing with them, even if you've landed the timing of the counter correctly.

It's possible that enemies will be more dangerous than the (probably dumbed down for show) demos have indicated. Point 2 is particularly important for me. It's been specifically stated that defending against attacks is now timing-based, but the details aren't there (yet). If it still works like counters did in AC2, ACB and ACR, then you'll be able to just mash the button like crazy and have slow-mo kick in every time. I'm hoping there's enough of an animation delay, or some kind of other punishment to prevent this from working. In the first game, if you (on PS3) hold R1 to block, and mash square (the counter button), there's a "dead zone" during the counter animation, where you're left open to attack for a moment. If enemies time their attacks for that window of opportunity, you get hit. In AC2 and the games since, hitting the square button during that "window" will let you interrupt the animation and counter anyway. If they keep a similar system to the original, that will add a huge amount of potential to the new system, if they use the later style, it will make combat more repetitive and generic than the AC series has seen so far.

As with almost everything about AC3, I'm cautiously optimistic about it... but it's still too early to call it either way.

Calvarok
06-12-2012, 05:23 AM
Tbh from what we've seen the combat difficulty against regular mooks looks about arkham city level. Which is not a bad level at all. They attack more than they did before. The player in the video is just very skilled at countering. they even attack at the same time, which requires a different type of counter and results in the classic cinematic angle for the double counter. This is an entirely new combat system. we don't know everything about it yet. chill.

Evenesque
06-12-2012, 06:08 AM
I'm gonna go ahead and post what I've already said in another thread complaining about the combat. Again.


People don't seem to understand the concept behind this game, or the franchise. Assassins aren't supposed to sit there and fight a guy in the middle of the street like it's a duel. Sorry, you aren't. That's an Ezio fantasy before he became an assassin, when he was an Italian renaissance 20-something. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basic concept of an assassin if you think you're supposed to get in a scrap with some guys who are SEVERELY underclassed just by you being in their vicinity. I don't know if you've all noticed, but the Assassins we get to play these games as are not newcomers. They're top tier, master assassins, one of them founded an entire new style of Assassin order that incorporated brotherhoods aiding and abetting a master assassin in the field. They don't **** around people. Seals don't train to get into firefights and skirmishes where they take pot-shots until the guy starves to death. You're basically complaining that a Navy SEAL isn't employing the fighting tactics of an Army grunt. They get trained to end the fight as quickly as possible, but more importantly, to make sure a fight never happens. Complaining that, as an assassin, your primary means of battling someone is to kill them as quickly is possible is like arguing that guns make a SEALS job too easy.

Assassins work the same way. They're creatures of opportunity. They strike to kill, they don't strike to dance. You aren't supposed to kill a guy, then have to fight his 17 friends because you were sloppy enough to do it in a market square and spend 15 minutes fighting for your life. That's a ****ty assassin. You're supposed to kill the guy, then dispatch his enforcers in one, fluid movement, so as to make sure you don't have any opposition. That's the whole point behind chain kills and streaks and counters. This isn't a game where you're supposed to get into Dark Souls style fights. Your purpose on the battlefield is to END the battle, not participate in it. Ubi is showing this to you more frequently than they should have to. Just watch the latest trailer. Connor isn't trained to line up and use a musket. He's trained to walk into a firefight, completely ignore it, and kill the head of the other side. That's what you do the ENTIRE GAME.

People who want a combat system that isn't so 'easy' don't seem to understand that this game never has been and never will be about straight up fighting difficulty between you and some fool wearing a skirt and brandishing a woodcutting axe. It's about setting a mark, casing a fort, climbing whatever you have to to get the vantage point, and then swooping in like an eagle to end the mark in 1 strike. The whole philosophy behind every single assassin in this universe is 1 chance, 1 kill. Back when AC1 was released they told us Altair was modeled after an eagle. Eagles don't fight ****, people. They spend their time waiting, looking, and waiting some more. When they see a target, they throw everything they have into one swoop, kill it, and take off. It's one movement. It's fluid, it's efficient, and they make **** sure it's effective. The same concept has been applied to the assassins from day one.

This philosophy was least apparent in AC1. Whether or not it was the 'best combat' so far in the series is your own subjective opinion. It was the least analogous to what the Assassins are trying to be. Each installment has moved the combat closer to what the franchise has been aiming to put them as. If that's not what you want, you're pretty SOL then, because Ubi owns this IP and has every right to refine the combat system into what they told us it should have been from day one. You started out as a clunky turtle man in a glorified priest outfit who's only way out of a fight was either running, or getting hit until you saw a very rough opening. That evolved into waiting until you have a chance to completely turn the battle the other direction and keep hacking away. That evolved into not having to battle at all, and just winding your way through your challengers after having built up enough momentum to finish a fight. That, in turn, has evolved into this; using your momentum to literally kill on the run and make yourself as elusive a target as possible. AC3's combat system us what the franchise has been aiming for since the games started, and personally I applaud them for maintaining such a consistent evolutionary approach to how their combat works, especially considering how many hands have been in charge of it. Truthfully, if you think about it, you should be ecstatic that the games you play to enjoy have stayed as similar as they have, because it could have taken a turn as sharp as the splinter cell franchise. Who knows what you would get to ***** about if that had happened.

The combat has never been about mass market appeal. It's been about moving the style of the player's strategy towards that of the concept they're moulded on. Ubi's been moving it toward that steadily and this is as close as they've gotten so far. What you've seen, to this point, is a developer who's played the demo countless times, so he's obviously really good at it. Hutchinson told us straight up that the fights aren't about winning or losing. They're about mastering how to do it skillfully, in one movement, and making it efficient while looking as badass as possible. That's the direction they've been going in since day one.

Accept it, move on, and try, for god's sake, to enjoy it for the achievement that it is, not the one that you disagree with because you've played the games and feel like that makes your opinion matter more than the people who's lives revolve around the production of this game.

BATISTABUS
06-12-2012, 08:58 AM
It makes sense for our Assassins to be able to take out all of these grunts, but that's not the problem. The reason people often ask for harder enemies is because there is no incentive for being stealthy. Unless you're going for 100% Sync or the mission specifically states "Don't Be Detected", you can ALWAYS fight your way through enemies more easily and more quickly than you can sneak by them. If enemies are harder to beat, players hope there will be a reason for them to actually play like an assassin. Like with the multiplayer, the fans want to play stealthily, but it just isn't given the polish that the other "Pillars" are.

BBALive
06-12-2012, 09:06 AM
When I saw the E3 gameplay footages of AC3, I noticed that the enemies are easier than ever, almost never attacking Connor and being defeated easily in a single attack.

While this passivity sinergizes with Ubisoft's new wishes of catering to wider crowds, It REALLY deprives from the inmersion to the other players.

I'm not asking to return to the formula of AC1, where some soldiers could combo more than a quarter of your sync bar (thing I see as positive), but Ubi could just augment the aggresivity of the enemies (attack speed) just to make it more inmersive, a little bit more challenging, and just improving the overall fun.


In Brotherhood we saw an improvement on the combat system, making the enemies more aggresive and even attacking you while the killing animation was playing (forcing you to quickly dodge or counterattack, which was FUN and engaging.

Why don't just do something similar now? This should be easy to code and would make a LOT of users happier, while also encouraging the AC formula of hiding and running after the kill, instead of confronting 15 soldiers like a berserk.



P.D: Make Connor able to die, in Revelations Ezio could stand in front of a rifleman and it would NEVER kill him: His health regenerates faster than the soldier's rate of fire.

The enemies will still attack you mid-animation, and they'll also attack you more than one at a time. They aren't going to go a step back in terms of enemy AI.

Also, no regenerating health inside of combat, so no more being nigh-invincible like in Revelations.

Like somebody else mentioned, there's no block button anymore, just counter. So you have to be spot on with your counters or you'll be hit. It looks like it'll take around 5 hits to kill you. The player in the video(s) is obviously skilled and has had a lot of time with the game, so he makes it look easy.

I also hope guns are either 1 or 2 shot kills. Firing lines should definitely be a 1 hit kill.

Finally, they've introduced a tier-system. The Assassin emblem on the HUD has three stars underneath, each one represents another level of enemy difficulty.

Noble6
06-12-2012, 09:40 AM
The enemies will still attack you mid-animation, and they'll also attack you more than one at a time. They aren't going to go a step back in terms of enemy AI.

Also, no regenerating health inside of combat, so no more being nigh-invincible like in Revelations.

Like somebody else mentioned, there's no block button anymore, just counter. So you have to be spot on with your counters or you'll be hit. It looks like it'll take around 5 hits to kill you. The player in the video(s) is obviously skilled and has had a lot of time with the game, so he makes it look easy.

I also hope guns are either 1 or 2 shot kills. Firing lines should definitely be a 1 hit kill.

Finally, they've introduced a tier-system. The Assassin emblem on the HUD has three stars underneath, each one represents another level of enemy difficulty.
Good post and I'm now finally starting to believe this game will have some difficulty. I hope there will be lots of drummers so before you kill them there is almost infinite number of soldiers against you and with new health system...This will be fun:cool:.

BATISTABUS
06-12-2012, 09:46 AM
Make a mode where bullets severely incapacitate you until you go to a doctors, or kill you instantly. Problem solved.

SixKeys
06-12-2012, 11:33 AM
Make a mode where bullets severely incapacitate you until you go to a doctors, or kill you instantly. Problem solved.

^ This. I'm fine with guns not being very accurate in this game as they historically weren't, but when you DO get shot, you should only be able to take one or at most two bullets before desynchronizing.

obliviondoll
06-12-2012, 12:14 PM
Wow, Sabiox. Excellent post, and I agree with you on almost everything you said. ONE point that I'll argue though... well, kind of.


Whether or not it was the 'best combat' so far in the series is your own subjective opinion.

Firstly, nobody's claimed that AC has the "best combat" in an objective sense. Secondly, I make a point of saying that the original game had the most BALANCED combat when I'm bringing up a comparison, and that's a PROVABLE FACT, not a subjective opinion. I can also mention that the animations in the first game flow more smoothly than they do in later titles, which is also a provable fact.

ACB and ACR, with the killstreak system, are the most true (so far) to the concept of how an Assassin should fight, but my opinion (NOT provable fact) is that it would have been better to add that killstreak system to the original game's timing-based and balanced combat system than AC2's broken masher-friendly system, or ACB's and ACR's equally-unbalanced variant of the AC2 system.

MT4K
06-12-2012, 12:19 PM
^ This. I'm fine with guns not being very accurate in this game as they historically weren't, but when you DO get shot, you should only be able to take one or at most two bullets before desynchronizing.

I'd say 2 or 3. it would be a pain in the arse to get shot once by a rooftop guard and get desyncronised.

crash3
06-12-2012, 03:28 PM
1.As amazing as the more fluid combat looks, I fear that like in ACB/ACR it will be possible to just counter your way to victory. I hope guards can actually overwhelm you if you stop being aggressive in combat.

2.I like how there is no medicine and sync regenerates like in AC1 only when your hidden again so you cant heal during combat and it looks like it only takes 3-5 hits before you are killed not 20 like the Ezio trilogy so thats good as its more realistic

3.Its annoying how soldiers which are trained primarily to shoot muskets seem to keep missing and yet Connor never missses with his pistols-I hope they dont automatically reload, I hope we have to escape combat then press a button to manually reload our ONE-SHOT PISTOLS so we cant go on a rampage with them

4. I hope opponents become much more challenging as we progress in the game like in AC1 every time Altair got new equipment/abilities, the guards would become more numerous, more aggressive and have more abilities/combat skills

5. An elite guard in AC1 could dodge, counter-grab, lethally counter your atacks and break your defense, all at random unpredictable times. This element of unpredictability needs to return to combat. In the Ezio trilogy we knew what abilities each archetype was capable of so we knew exactly how to fight them which made combat really easy. I noticed in the frontier demo, only the big Scottish guy countered Connors attack by headbutting him, but it didnt do any damage (reduce sync) enemy counters really need to be lethal again, possibly followed by combos like in AC1 that took away large portions of sync

6. One element of combat in ACR that I thought was really good was elite guards not dying from just one chain attack which I hope is part of AC3 combat as well, so elite soldiers should take multiple attempts to kill

7. Basic soldiers need more skills, I remember in AC1 even the basic soliders could dodge and block attacks. If AC3 wants to be historically accurate, even the basic British line infantry soldiers need to have a certain amount of abilities and not just be cannon fodder for connor to slaughter

8. Connor shouldnt be able to take on more than 10 enemies at a time or else there will be no point in being stealthy-from what I saw of the Boston demo there wasnt reallly any need to be stealthy at all, he just massacred all in his path with relative ease

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 03:41 PM
8. Connor shouldnt be able to take on more than 10 enemies at a time or else there will be no point in being stealthy-from what I saw of the Boston demo there wasnt reallly any need to be stealthy at all, he just massacred all in his path with relative ease
Oh for god`s sake, Its not a "NEED" for stealth, its the freedom. the BLOODY choice of being stealthy or not..
If people cannot understand and give the stupid excuse of "The game doesn't give you a reason to be stealthy" then that is the players` faults and not the game`s..

SorrowHatebreed
06-12-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and post what I've already said in another thread complaining about the combat. Again.


People don't seem to understand the concept behind this game, or the franchise. Assassins aren't supposed to sit there and fight a guy in the middle of the street like it's a duel. Sorry, you aren't. That's an Ezio fantasy before he became an assassin, when he was an Italian renaissance 20-something. I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basic concept of an assassin if you think you're supposed to get in a scrap with some guys who are SEVERELY underclassed just by you being in their vicinity. I don't know if you've all noticed, but the Assassins we get to play these games as are not newcomers. They're top tier, master assassins, one of them founded an entire new style of Assassin order that incorporated brotherhoods aiding and abetting a master assassin in the field. They don't **** around people. Seals don't train to get into firefights and skirmishes where they take pot-shots until the guy starves to death. You're basically complaining that a Navy SEAL isn't employing the fighting tactics of an Army grunt. They get trained to end the fight as quickly as possible, but more importantly, to make sure a fight never happens. Complaining that, as an assassin, your primary means of battling someone is to kill them as quickly is possible is like arguing that guns make a SEALS job too easy.

Assassins work the same way. They're creatures of opportunity. They strike to kill, they don't strike to dance. You aren't supposed to kill a guy, then have to fight his 17 friends because you were sloppy enough to do it in a market square and spend 15 minutes fighting for your life. That's a ****ty assassin. You're supposed to kill the guy, then dispatch his enforcers in one, fluid movement, so as to make sure you don't have any opposition. That's the whole point behind chain kills and streaks and counters. This isn't a game where you're supposed to get into Dark Souls style fights. Your purpose on the battlefield is to END the battle, not participate in it. Ubi is showing this to you more frequently than they should have to. Just watch the latest trailer. Connor isn't trained to line up and use a musket. He's trained to walk into a firefight, completely ignore it, and kill the head of the other side. That's what you do the ENTIRE GAME.

People who want a combat system that isn't so 'easy' don't seem to understand that this game never has been and never will be about straight up fighting difficulty between you and some fool wearing a skirt and brandishing a woodcutting axe. It's about setting a mark, casing a fort, climbing whatever you have to to get the vantage point, and then swooping in like an eagle to end the mark in 1 strike. The whole philosophy behind every single assassin in this universe is 1 chance, 1 kill. Back when AC1 was released they told us Altair was modeled after an eagle. Eagles don't fight ****, people. They spend their time waiting, looking, and waiting some more. When they see a target, they throw everything they have into one swoop, kill it, and take off. It's one movement. It's fluid, it's efficient, and they make **** sure it's effective. The same concept has been applied to the assassins from day one.

This philosophy was least apparent in AC1. Whether or not it was the 'best combat' so far in the series is your own subjective opinion. It was the least analogous to what the Assassins are trying to be. Each installment has moved the combat closer to what the franchise has been aiming to put them as. If that's not what you want, you're pretty SOL then, because Ubi owns this IP and has every right to refine the combat system into what they told us it should have been from day one. You started out as a clunky turtle man in a glorified priest outfit who's only way out of a fight was either running, or getting hit until you saw a very rough opening. That evolved into waiting until you have a chance to completely turn the battle the other direction and keep hacking away. That evolved into not having to battle at all, and just winding your way through your challengers after having built up enough momentum to finish a fight. That, in turn, has evolved into this; using your momentum to literally kill on the run and make yourself as elusive a target as possible. AC3's combat system us what the franchise has been aiming for since the games started, and personally I applaud them for maintaining such a consistent evolutionary approach to how their combat works, especially considering how many hands have been in charge of it. Truthfully, if you think about it, you should be ecstatic that the games you play to enjoy have stayed as similar as they have, because it could have taken a turn as sharp as the splinter cell franchise. Who knows what you would get to ***** about if that had happened.

The combat has never been about mass market appeal. It's been about moving the style of the player's strategy towards that of the concept they're moulded on. Ubi's been moving it toward that steadily and this is as close as they've gotten so far. What you've seen, to this point, is a developer who's played the demo countless times, so he's obviously really good at it. Hutchinson told us straight up that the fights aren't about winning or losing. They're about mastering how to do it skillfully, in one movement, and making it efficient while looking as badass as possible. That's the direction they've been going in since day one.

Accept it, move on, and try, for god's sake, to enjoy it for the achievement that it is, not the one that you disagree with because you've played the games and feel like that makes your opinion matter more than the people who's lives revolve around the production of this game.


I completely understand what are you telling us, but It's a lie to think that all the dumbing down in the series is due to the skills and nature of the characters we control.

For example, in AC 1 we couldn't stab an enemy if he had detected us: In the moment they were aware of our presence, they blocked the hidden blade and threw Alta´r away.

I n AC 2, we could stab FOUR guards that had detected us in sequence. That is just plain dumbing down.


It is true that master assassin's are incredibly capable fighters, thing that Ubi has shown us in the latest fighters, but guards that barely make an effort to bring us down is simply uninmersive.

As I previously explained in the OP, In Brotherhood the guards began to attack Ezio consistently, which required you to be more precise with the timing and dodges, as well as being MUCH more meaty, fun inmersive, and relatively realistic.

Being ABLE to slaughter a squad of enemies is, as you said, a pure example of the Assassin's skill.

The game being dumbed down so that the only thing possible is to kill everyone with absolutely minimal effort is wanting to majorly eliminate the fun.

MT4K
06-12-2012, 04:10 PM
I always like the idea of combat in games being "easy to do. hard to master" and in the realms of ac combat i'd like to believe only players who have spent considerable time playing the game can pull off fluid constant counters with almost zero problems from the enemies like we seen the devs do in ac3 gameplay... unfortunately in the previous games almost anybody could perform more-less flawlessly after just a few hours.

The devs have said that ac3 combat will be easy to do but hard to become flawless with basically. which sounds good in my book. hopefully it actually works as i'm hoping though.

somebody who has only spent a few hours on the game should be able to dispatch guards quickly, but it should definitely keep them on their toes and be more scrappy in look and performance.

Evenesque
06-12-2012, 04:35 PM
I completely understand what are you telling us, but It's a lie to think that all the dumbing down in the series is due to the skills and nature of the characters we control.

For example, in AC 1 we couldn't stab an enemy if he had detected us: In the moment they were aware of our presence, they blocked the hidden blade and threw Alta´r away.

I n AC 2, we could stab FOUR guards that had detected us in sequence. That is just plain dumbing down.


It is true that master assassin's are incredibly capable fighters, thing that Ubi has shown us in the latest fighters, but guards that barely make an effort to bring us down is simply uninmersive.

As I previously explained in the OP, In Brotherhood the guards began to attack Ezio consistently, which required you to be more precise with the timing and dodges, as well as being MUCH more meaty, fun inmersive, and relatively realistic.

Being ABLE to slaughter a squad of enemies is, as you said, a pure example of the Assassin's skill.

The game being dumbed down so that the only thing possible is to kill everyone with absolutely minimal effort is wanting to majorly eliminate the fun.


Except you have no idea how much effort it takes to pull off what you've seen so far. I definitely understand that it looks really simple, and when the combat is one stroke of chainkills and every dies, then it can be unfun for some people. To me, personally though, I love it. I don't play the game to be challenged. I've never played AC games for a challenge. I play them for the fantasies they bring to life. The fantasy of being a badass who doesn't HAVE to sit there and dance with a guard because he got caught. He can just kill him, because that's what he was trained to do. Personally, saying it's a 4th wall issue because it's 'easy,' is like watching a Bourne movie and comlaining that because he always wins, it's not fun to watch. That's just how it comes across to me. I understand that everyone has different definitions of fun, and I definitely respect that. But personally, I've come to understand and love the AC games for what I think they've clearly tried to be from the beginning; Fantasy Engines, not game engines. Ubi seems to have had this idea for how their protagonists should operate in this universe, and they've gotten closer to it in every iteration. In AC3, the demo we've seen, connor has to actively block in what I would roughly guess to be 3/4ths of the kills he executes. Watch the frontier gameplay demo where he starts the fight with the ropedart, and you'll see that he could have gotten killed many times if he hadn't blocked in the middle of killing another guy. I think what we're seeing is a bigger inclusion of animation transitions and fluidity when the player blocks, making it just look better. All those times Connor didn't raise his tomahawk to block a bayonette, his health probably would've gone down a third or so (based on the hits he takes in Boston) so that would've killed him. In my opinion, Hutchinson is talking about this when he says the challenge for players is to fight fluidly and beautifully. He hasn't made a combat system that's necessarily difficult, but you can still die. The challenge is surviving the fight while looking like it was never in question. To me, that's awesome. The turtle fighting from AC1 and the aggressiveness from enemies just to be aggressive in Brotherhood was wonky and forced enough to break me out of my sense of being in the game. To me, I've accepted the fantasy of these Assassins being able to do what they do in their fighting style rather easily. To me, AC3 is just a complete refinement of the ethos Ubi's put in front of how Assassins try to fight their way out of things. Assassins aren't really supposed to fight people in the street like we've been doing for 4 games. Ubi understands that this is going to happen anyway in a wide open world where the player can do as they wish, so at this point, to me, it just feels like they sharpened the tools we have to get us out of those situations so it looks and feels more like you planned it, and not like it was a struggle.

Also, with the current system of how the players health regenerates and there's no health potions, that's an invitation for harder difficulty modes. I would be very surprised if the game didn't give you a choice in that regard now.

ProletariatPleb
06-12-2012, 04:43 PM
Oh for god`s sake, Its not a "NEED" for stealth, its the freedom. the BLOODY choice of being stealthy or not..
If people cannot understand and give the stupid excuse of "The game doesn't give you a reason to be stealthy" then that is the players` faults and not the game`s..
^What he said.

SorrowHatebreed
06-12-2012, 04:51 PM
^What he said.

The problem is not the incentive to being stealthy, only that the more aggresive option is the one who is more rewarding and efficient, making the stealth feel forced.

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 04:53 PM
The problem is not the incentive to being stealthy, only that the more aggresive option is the one who is more rewarding and efficient, making the stealth feel forced.
Nope..
That type of factor doesnt even exist in the AC series. Combat and stealth are both equally rewarded and equally efficient. If one can`t use either and is better at either then, again, that is the player`s fault not the game`s

lothario-da-be
06-12-2012, 04:58 PM
the difficulty problem can be solved VERY easy, make a difficulty setting. players who just want to enjoy the game and slaughter everyone can play on easy and those who want to be a 'real' assassin and have to run and use stealth can play on hard. problem solved.

Evenesque
06-12-2012, 05:00 PM
the difficulty problem can be solved VERY easy, make a difficulty setting. players who just want to enjoy the game and slaughter everyone can play on easy and those who want to be a 'real' assassin and have to run and use stealth can play on hard. problem solved.

Like i said, I think previous games couldn't do that because of how we could spam potions and the AI was kind of one dimensional. Now, with Connor's health system and a combat system we know very little about, I think it's very possible we'll get a difficulty setting.

Azurefeatherfly
06-12-2012, 05:02 PM
I am genuinely curious about the opinions of this forum regarding a system of difficulty settings.

What are the flaws or disadvantages of difficulty settings regarding damage and enemy AI such as this:

Very Hard
Hard
Normal
Easy
Very Easy

Would this not solve all the complaints regarding combat?

MT4K
06-12-2012, 05:04 PM
I've never had any problems doing a majority of missions in previous ac games stealthily. The only exceptions being really those few missions where it literally IS forced on you to get into a fight.

Evenesque
06-12-2012, 05:05 PM
I am genuinely curious about the opinions of this forum regarding a system of difficulty settings.

What are the flaws or disadvantages of difficulty settings regarding damage and enemy AI such as this:

Very Hard
Hard
Normal
Easy
Very Easy

Would this not solve all the complaints regarding combat?

Depends on how the AI responds in those settings. We really wouldn't know until we tried all of them whether it helps people's complaints or not.

dxsxhxcx
06-12-2012, 05:37 PM
Oh for god`s sake, Its not a "NEED" for stealth, its the freedom. the BLOODY choice of being stealthy or not..
If people cannot understand and give the stupid excuse of "The game doesn't give you a reason to be stealthy" then that is the players` faults and not the game`s..

if the game doesn't provide enough challenge during the combat is not the players fault, it's the game fault, there's no reward/point in being stealthy when you can easily defeat all your enemies without problems, and this is a problem with the game and not the player, I agree with you when you say the player should have the freedom to play the way he wants but an agressive aproach (killing everyone in your way) is way more rewarded than playing stealthy because even if we play stealthy we know that the enemies will be weak if we fail at that, making an stealth aproach pointless, IMO what the players who prefer to be stealthy want is feel the danger of the consequences of failing at being stealthy, if you fail there will be a high chance for you to die, what doesn't happen now (at least in the previous games) because the enemies can be killed easily and don't offer any kind of danger to the player...

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 05:39 PM
if the game doesn't provide enough challenge during the combat is not the players fault, it's the game fault, there's no reward/point in being stealthy when you can easily defeat all your enemies without problems, and this is a problem with the game and not the player, I agree with you when you say the player should have the freedom to play the way he wants but an agressive aproach (killing everyone in your way) is way more rewarded than playing stealthy because even if we play stealthy we know that the enemies will be weak if we fail at that, making an stealth aproach pointless, IMO what the players who prefer to be stealthy want is feel the danger of the consequences of failing at being stealthy, if you fail there will be a high chance for you to die, what doesn't happen now (at least in the previous games) because the enemies can be killed easily and don't offer any kind of danger to the player...
This post is the very definition of the excuse "The game doesn't give you a reason to be stealthy" albeit longer..

dxsxhxcx
06-12-2012, 05:56 PM
This post is the very definition of the excuse "The game doesn't give you a reason to be stealthy" albeit longer..

the reasons, at least my reason for the subject is the one I posted above, if you don't feel the same or have a different opinion, don't try to invalidate other people's opinion just because you think the opinion is not good enough for you...

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 06:02 PM
the reasons, at least my reason for the subject is the one I posted above, if you don't feel the same or have a different opinion, don't try to invalidate other people's opinion just because you think the opinion is not good enough for you...
I did not invalidate your opinion; I just disagree with it..

Noble6
06-12-2012, 07:04 PM
I did not invalidate your opinion; I just disagree with it..
Oh come on! I don't mean to offend but you are starting sound like Like LightRey." Nothing is wrong with the game and your opinion just your opinion".Would the harder difficulty be so awful thing? I mean it really gives more atmosphere to stealth aspect of the game and especially running away from the soldiers is then more fun for me at least.

I think if there would be difficulty settings they would have already said so. Kinda sad but it really seems that combat is a bit more harder this time.

UrDeviant1
06-12-2012, 07:10 PM
^ This. I'm fine with guns not being very accurate in this game as they historically weren't, but when you DO get shot, you should only be able to take one or at most two bullets before desynchronizing.

This. I said the same thing In a thread a while back.

True_Assassin92
06-12-2012, 07:12 PM
*Sigh* Maybe mr Shade could hear out on his little buddies at ubisoft to give us a little more knowledge about the difficulty of combat? Whether it was that easy for demo purposes only, or that it will be like that in the finale game...:o Appreciate it :D

Noble6
06-12-2012, 07:15 PM
This. I said the same thing In a thread a while back.
I would love that but I don't believe they will do this but maybe some kind of hardcore mode or nextgame+?

MT4K
06-12-2012, 07:19 PM
I would love that but I don't believe they will do this but maybe some kind of hardcore mode or nextgame+?

i think hutchinson was lobbying for a newgame+ but he didn;t promise anything. only that he likes the idea of it and was hoping to maybe get it in the game. I believe it was on that long podcast styled interview a while back.

Let's hope he succeeds :D.

BBALive
06-12-2012, 07:21 PM
I'd say 2 or 3. it would be a pain in the arse to get shot once by a rooftop guard and get desyncronised.

Guards didn't patrol rooftops in those times.

Noble6
06-12-2012, 07:31 PM
i think hutchinson was lobbying for a newgame+ but he didn;t promise anything. only that he likes the idea of it and was hoping to maybe get it in the game. I believe it was on that long podcast styled interview a while back.

Let's hope he succeeds :D.
He did?Oh now I remember. It would be awesome if he succeeded. I really liked nextgameplus in Arkham city and think it's something AC really needs.

SixKeys
06-12-2012, 07:59 PM
I would love that but I don't believe they will do this but maybe some kind of hardcore mode or nextgame+?

The only problem is, nextgame+ tends to be easier than the first runthrough, since you will have all your weapons and skills right from the start.

misterB2001
06-12-2012, 08:21 PM
i would love a difficulty option, even if it was only unlocked by completing the game at the difficulty the devs wanted it to be completed at.

A hardcore mode with more agressive guards, more damage taken from hits, less time to complete the 'race' kind of missions (if there are any) etc etc would really help the replayability. Of course the stronger and more deadly the guards are, the more you will be forced to do things stealthily.

Yes please!

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 08:25 PM
i would love a difficulty option, even if it was only unlocked by completing the game at the difficulty the devs wanted it to be completed at.

A hardcore mode with more agressive guards, more damage taken from hits, less time to complete the 'race' kind of missions (if there are any) etc etc would really help the replayability. Of course the stronger and more deadly the guards are, the more you will be forced to do things stealthily.

Yes please!

Exactly my point, I don't want to be "forced" to be stealthy, I want to be stealthy because I want to, not because I have to..
Why is this hard for people to understand ?

Sushiglutton
06-12-2012, 08:36 PM
I think variety and the potential to get better by practicing is more important than difficulty. I like the idea of easy to survive, but hard to do it flawlessly as Hutchinson has stated as the philosophy behind it.

I think the Arkham series has the perfect combat system for a game like this. It's super easy to a grasp of, yet it's really hard to master (if u're going for high scores you need to do a lot of planning). The killstreaks introduced in Brotherhood was a rip-off of Arkham Asylum, only Ubi had so few moves to choose from once in the killstreak that it became too hollow/repetetive.What I think Ubi should do is simply go all in and rip-off a ton more and then add their own little spin on it. Make it less over the top and a bit more gruesome, more suitable for this franchise (no combo counter for example).

There should be around 10 different moves that can be done within a streak. One move for positioning, one counter, one avoid, one for grappling enemies, one for quickfiring pistols etc. For some enemies you should need a certain combination of 2-3 moves to take down (break defence, than attack, or perhaps three attacks in a row etc). Within such a mini combo u may be interupted by enemies forcing u to counter. There should also be a few different defensive mini-combos for different enemies.

Getting shot should drain a lot of health. This would force u to keep track of armed enemies and take actions to prevent them for firing at u. For example by grappling an enemy as cover, or rolling in the right second, or simply quickfiring ur pistols.

dxsxhxcx
06-12-2012, 08:51 PM
The only problem is, nextgame+ tends to be easier than the first runthrough, since you will have all your weapons and skills right from the start.

I don't think new game + are supposed to be difficult, but to give you the opportunity to play in determined sequences of the game with weapons/abilities you wouldn't have until later in the game, but since AC gives you the possibility to replay every mission any time you want, I don't really see a point for a new game + (I don't remember now if when we replay a mission we have access to all the gadgets we already unlocked throught the game) in AC...


Exactly my point, I don't want to be "forced" to be stealthy, I want to be stealthy because I want to, not because I have to..
Why is this hard for people to understand ?

and why is so hard for some people to understand that all some people want is a difficulty setting to not force you to play the way you don't want and also please us? Unless you think a difficulty setting would affect the way you play the game, even if you play in the difficulty you are used to play...

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 09:00 PM
I don't think new game + are supposed to be difficult, but to give you the opportunity to play in determined sequences of the game with weapons/abilities you wouldn't have until later in the game, but since AC gives you the possibility to replay every mission any time you want, I don't really see a point for a new game + (I don't remember now if when we replay a mission we have access to all the gadgets we already unlocked throught the game) in AC...



and why is so hard for some people to understand that all some people want is a difficulty setting to not force you to play the way you don't want? Unless you think a difficulty setting would affect the way you play the game, even if you play in the difficulty you are used to play...
I do not mind a difficulty setting, however; Game design is based on balance and there are types of balances. Assassins Creed is just going with the Nontraditional one. The most commonly-used difficulty settings are self-descriptive: Easy, Normal, and Hard. However, sometimes stylizations are used to better fit them within the theme of the game. For example, in Doom 3, the settings are Recruit, Marine, Veteran, and Nightmare, while in Diablo II, the settings are Normal, Nightmare, and Hell. Balancing goals shift dramatically when players are contending with the game's environment and/or non-player characters. Such player versus environment games are usually balanced to tread the fine line of regularly challenging players' abilities without ever producing insurmountable or unfair obstacles. This turns balancing into the management of dramatic structure,generally referred to by game designers as "pacing".
Pacing is also a consideration in competitive games, but the autonomy of players makes it harder to control.In order to maximize the player experience, the difficulty of a game should be uniformly balanced, making it both, not necessarily challenging but enjoyable. This technique has been used successfully by Sid Meier. His philosophy is to always keep the pace of the game moving and to keep it fun. If designers should be able to keep the players at an optimal level of challenge and maintain player engagement throughout every stage, their games should be enjoyable. Keeping in mind the diversity of play styles and player types, computer games should provide various challenges that should be achievable, adjustable, consistent, and believable.Game designers can adjust the difficulty of a game dynamically or they can leave the choice to players, providing static difficulty levels. These two techniques can be applied separately or jointly, but the most important design issue is to keep these adjustments believable and maintain their consistency throughout the game. Challenges should also be in harmony with the feel of the game and the pace of the storyline. Quests can be linear or nonlinear but players should be encouraged to face worthy opponents. Challenge Rating system of AD&D is a good example that acts as an auto-control mechanism, forcing the players to engage in encounters that match their skills.Character progression in RPGs may be skill-based or experience-based, but it should be entertaining and meaningful. Skill-based progression is partially vulnerable to player abuse; for example, players in Oblivion can throw fireballs at the sky and level up due to continuous usage of a major skill although there is neither challenge nor role playing in this action. Also keep in mind that progression should conform to a difficulty curve that is not linear. Leveling up should be easier in the earlier stages and it should be more difficult towards the end of the game. The difficulty curve of AD&D system may be used as a reference for game studies but future researches on difficulty levels and game challenges will provide better insights on the nature of the difficulty curve, giving the opportunity to define the best curve for maximum player enjoyment.

MT4K
06-12-2012, 09:07 PM
The only way newgame+ would really work in ac though is if they put a unique spin of some kind on it. Simply giving us the ability to start with all the weapons ect would be pretty pointless overall, but the devs are creative people. if they do bother to put it in i'm sure they will make it actually worth while and fun

crash3
06-12-2012, 09:12 PM
There should be a NEED to be stealthy, what happened to the idea that the Assassins and Templars war was fought "behind the scenes of history", as cool as the Cinematic trailer was, it just showed Connor revealing himself in front of thousands of soldiers and also in the Demos he just casually kills guards and there didnt seem to be any consequences for it. Also why has the emphasis on following the Creed disappeared? Especially the rule about not compromising the Brotherhood. This issue would be solved so quickly if the developers just made Combat more difficult and in turn making the stealthy approach feel more satisfying as you have evaded guards that can actually kill you! Imagine that!

UrDeviant1
06-12-2012, 09:16 PM
This issue would be solved so quickly if the developers just made Combat more difficult and in turn making the stealthy approach feel more satisfying as you have evaded guards that can actually kill you! Imagine that!

I agree.

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 09:16 PM
There should be a NEED to be stealthy, what happened to the idea that the Assassins and Templars war was fought "behind the scenes of history", as cool as the Cinematic trailer was, it just showed Connor revealing himself in front of thousands of soldiers and also in the Demos he just casually kills guards and there didnt seem to be any consequences for it. Also why has the emphasis on following the Creed disappeared? Especially the rule about not compromising the Brotherhood. This issue would be solved so quickly if the developers just made Combat more difficult and in turn making the stealthy approach feel more satisfying as you have evaded guards that can actually kill you! Imagine that!
I`d really hate the game if you were the developer..

Assassin_M
06-12-2012, 10:35 PM
Sorry for double posting, but this might be a good example of the game`s combat difficulty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLEJEAE2Bk

crash3
06-12-2012, 10:54 PM
Sorry for double posting, but this might be a good example of the game`s combat difficulty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLEJEAE2Bk

The video is encouraging, the guy playing seemed to try to take a more defensive/cautious approach which we could have done in previous games but he lost a lot of sync, but as soon as he went offensive, he began to dominate the combat, little annoyed however that the big Scottish guys seem to go down just as easily as the basic Line Infantry guys. But overall it loks like we cant just counter our way to victory anymore which is good so thanks for posting that vid

Would be good to see more stealth elements and interactions with the brotherhood though

Sushiglutton
06-12-2012, 11:06 PM
At 1:24 in M's video, when they open the inventory. What are the two things to the lower righ? Looks like three golf clubs (but I doubt they are :) ) and then a ball with a chain? It's pretty blurry. Both currently at zero. And Mr M you are right that is pretty promising footage :).

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 01:32 AM
At 1:24 in M's video, when they open the inventory. What are the two things to the lower righ? Looks like three golf clubs (but I doubt they are :) ) and then a ball with a chain? It's pretty blurry. Both currently at zero. And Mr M you are right that is pretty promising footage :).

I think the golf clubs are arrows. I've no idea what that thing under them is though. It looks like his bow under a ball or circle of some sort.

Anyway, that's awesome footage. The animation Connor has at 1:56 when he's running under the cloth, as simple as it is, makes me really excited because that's detailed animation. I remember in the official Wii U demo, he wasn't running and he just bowed his head a little. When he's running, his animation is more of a running duck to get under the cloth which i think looks very organic.

Also, whoever's playing isn't nearly as good at combat (on this demo anyway) as the official Wii U demo, and you can tell not just by watching the combat, but that section made this demo take a minute longer than the official one. He got hit a lot. It might just be pure speculation, but I think it's possible that Connor's health bar takes more damage the lower it gets. It feels like because the health bar is wider when it's full he can take a bit more punishment, but the lower it gets, the more it seems the hits deplete it. I can't tell if it's an illusion of mass conservation or not, but it just looks like it doesn't go based off of how full the bar is vertically, but literally how much health is left in the bar that reacts to how hurt Connor gets the more he gets hit.

You can also see more of how the regeneration works. When he's actively swinging, no regeneration. When he's being chased and within line of sight, it regens to what looks like only half health and stays there, and once he breaks line of sight, it goes up, but very slow. When he completely escapes, the health bar regens back to full much faster than it had been.

Azurefeatherfly
06-13-2012, 01:41 AM
I think the golf clubs are arrows. I've no idea what that thing under them is though. It looks like his bow under a ball or circle of some sort.


The golf clubs are definitely something else. You can see the amount of ammo for each tool you have: 25 / 99 for pistols, 25 for arrows, and 12 for rope darts. Connor certainly has some peculiar tools at his disposal with those two unknown ones at the bottom.

That footage does provide a lot of insurance as far as CQC goes.

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 01:45 AM
The golf clubs are definitely something else. You can see the amount of ammo for each tool you have: 25 / 99 for pistols, 25 for arrows, and 12 for rope darts. Connor certainly has some peculiar tools at his disposal with those two unknown ones at the bottom.

That footage does provide a lot of insurance as far as CQC goes.

EDIT: Just figured it out. The Golf Clubs are Hidden Blade poison. Crank the video to 1080, fullscreen it, and you can see the detail in the blade, which is also Connor's knife. Stuff at the bottom is poison dripping out.

Still no idea about what's under that though. It looks kind of like a piece of Eden, or a bomb.

Azurefeatherfly
06-13-2012, 01:54 AM
EDIT: Just figured it out. The Golf Clubs are Hidden Blade poison. Crank the video to 1080, fullscreen it, and you can see the detail in the blade, which is also Connor's knife. Stuff at the bottom is poison dripping out.

Still no idea about what's under that though. It looks kind of like a piece of Eden, or a bomb.

You know what, I am going say that those golf clubs are Connor's version of throwing knives. I think Alex did say that they are back in AC3. I am also willing to say the thing right under the golf clubs are smoke bombs, which have been confirmed for a return.

If my speculations are correct, then his choice of ranged weaponry is insane.

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 02:06 AM
You know what, I am going say that those golf clubs are Connor's version of throwing knives. I think Alex did say that they are back in AC3. I am also willing to say the thing right under the golf clubs are smoke bombs, which have been confirmed for a return.

If my speculations are correct, then his choice of ranged weaponry is insane.

See edited post above.

Gespenst1246
06-13-2012, 02:08 AM
i wonder if they will bring back the combo kill

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 02:34 AM
i wonder if they will bring back the combo kill


.....

Gespenst1246
06-13-2012, 02:43 AM
im talking about the AC1 version

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 02:48 AM
im talking about the AC1 version

What is this I don't even....

Gespenst1246
06-13-2012, 03:07 AM
can someone get sabiox to the hospital? he seems to be having a brain aneurysm.

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 03:52 AM
can someone get sabiox to the hospital? he seems to be having a brain aneurysm.

I don't know what you mean by combo kill. That's a really generic term.

InfamousQ1987
06-13-2012, 05:10 AM
I always like the idea of combat in games being "easy to do. hard to master" and in the realms of ac combat i'd like to believe only players who have spent considerable time playing the game can pull off fluid constant counters with almost zero problems from the enemies like we seen the devs do in ac3 gameplay... unfortunately in the previous games almost anybody could perform more-less flawlessly after just a few hours.

The devs have said that ac3 combat will be easy to do but hard to become flawless with basically. which sounds good in my book. hopefully it actually works as i'm hoping though.

somebody who has only spent a few hours on the game should be able to dispatch guards quickly, but it should definitely keep them on their toes and be more scrappy in look and performance.

^This^
That's how I feel like Batman Arkham City. It's easy/fun to do, but take some time to master. I hope AC3 has fluid gameplay with enemies being able to counter you like in AC1, or even the Janissary from ACR.

Gespenst1246
06-13-2012, 05:48 AM
in the first one it was when the instant your blade hits an enemys sword you press x again to immediantly kill them not like it was in ACB and ACR where it was the chain kill

Sushiglutton
06-13-2012, 06:36 AM
I think the golf clubs are arrows. I've no idea what that thing under them is though. It looks like his bow under a ball or circle of some sort.

Yeah I think u're right it's likely arrows. But since it says 25 next to the bow they are not normal arrows. Makes me think there are different arrowheads to chose from.

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 07:12 AM
Yeah I think u're right it's likely arrows. But since it says 25 next to the bow they are not normal arrows. Makes me think there are different arrowheads to chose from.

It's Hidden Blade poison. Edited my post earlier and no one seems to have seen it.

Sushiglutton
06-13-2012, 10:43 AM
It's Hidden Blade poison. Edited my post earlier and no one seems to have seen it.

That sounds spot on. Good catch!

BBALive
06-13-2012, 03:30 PM
I think variety and the potential to get better by practicing is more important than difficulty. I like the idea of easy to survive, but hard to do it flawlessly as Hutchinson has stated as the philosophy behind it.

I think the Arkham series has the perfect combat system for a game like this. It's super easy to a grasp of, yet it's really hard to master (if u're going for high scores you need to do a lot of planning). The killstreaks introduced in Brotherhood was a rip-off of Arkham Asylum, only Ubi had so few moves to choose from once in the killstreak that it became too hollow/repetetive.What I think Ubi should do is simply go all in and rip-off a ton more and then add their own little spin on it. Make it less over the top and a bit more gruesome, more suitable for this franchise (no combo counter for example).

There should be around 10 different moves that can be done within a streak. One move for positioning, one counter, one avoid, one for grappling enemies, one for quickfiring pistols etc. For some enemies you should need a certain combination of 2-3 moves to take down (break defence, than attack, or perhaps three attacks in a row etc). Within such a mini combo u may be interupted by enemies forcing u to counter. There should also be a few different defensive mini-combos for different enemies.

Getting shot should drain a lot of health. This would force u to keep track of armed enemies and take actions to prevent them for firing at u. For example by grappling an enemy as cover, or rolling in the right second, or simply quickfiring ur pistols.

I don't see how killstreaks were taken from/inspired by Arkham Asylum. Arkham Asylum didn't have killstreaks.


in the first one it was when the instant your blade hits an enemys sword you press x again to immediantly kill them not like it was in ACB and ACR where it was the chain kill

That has technically been in every Assassin's Creed game, although they were much easier to pull off in 2, Brotherhood and Revelations(Rather than being a timed button press, the kill occurred after you landed a string of attacks).

I also noticed that the game seems to have god mode turned on. His ammo never depletes, he never has to reload his pistols, and the max ammo count is huge.

What is the item assigned to d-pad down?

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 03:57 PM
I don't see how killstreaks were taken from/inspired by Arkham Asylum. Arkham Asylum didn't have killstreaks.



That has technically been in every Assassin's Creed game, although they were much easier to pull off in 2, Brotherhood and Revelations(Rather than being a timed button press, the kill occurred after you landed a string of attacks).

I also noticed that the game seems to have god mode turned on. His ammo never depletes, he never has to reload his pistols, and the max ammo count is huge.

What is the item assigned to d-pad down?

Arkham had killstreaks, you just had to work for them. When your multiplier gets to a critical point, then you can killstreak your way around the room. But it's not being ripped off by AC, just no.

And ammo count being huge or infinite is because it's a demo. If it depleted, Ubi would have to either let the player do a few things to get them back, which they might not want us seeing yet, or Ubi would have to spend their own time refilling, which could make the demo longer to develop. No idea about the dpad

BBALive
06-13-2012, 04:09 PM
Arkham had killstreaks, you just had to work for them. When your multiplier gets to a critical point, then you can killstreak your way around the room. But it's not being ripped off by AC, just no.

And ammo count being huge or infinite is because it's a demo. If it depleted, Ubi would have to either let the player do a few things to get them back, which they might not want us seeing yet, or Ubi would have to spend their own time refilling, which could make the demo longer to develop. No idea about the dpad

I already pointed out that the game had god mode turned on...

I wouldn't consider the critical hits from Arkham Asylum to be killstreaks, to be honest.

ezio2411
06-13-2012, 04:15 PM
i agree because in real life you would most likely die in one to two shots

Sushiglutton
06-13-2012, 05:16 PM
I don't see how killstreaks were taken from/inspired by Arkham Asylum. Arkham Asylum didn't have killstreaks.

Yes it does, the entire system is built around it. In fact there is nothing but killstreaks in AA. In Brotherhood there are three moves within a killstreak. you can attack which is performed by holding the stick in the direction of the enemy you want to attack and press square. You can tap counter when an icon flashes above an enemies head. And once you have killed a few enemies in a row you can perform a more powerful "takedown". This is taken from Asylum I am 100% sure of that.

Assassin_M
06-13-2012, 05:37 PM
Yes it does, the entire system is built around it. In fact there is nothing but killstreaks in AA. In Brotherhood there are three moves within a killstreak. you can attack which is performed by holding the stick in the direction of the enemy you want to attack and press square. You can tap counter when an icon flashes above an enemies head. And once you have killed a few enemies in a row you can perform a more powerful "takedown". This is taken from Asylum I am 100% sure of that.
Only problem is that Arkham`s Combat would work waaaaay better in Assassins Creed if it was also implemented in the hand-to-hand combat, albeit with less over the top moves..

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 05:55 PM
I already pointed out that the game had god mode turned on...

I wouldn't consider the critical hits from Arkham Asylum to be killstreaks, to be honest.

Sure, because they're not at all analogous to AC's move, hit, kill, move, hit, kill system at all.


Oh wait.


Yes they are.

Assassin_M
06-13-2012, 06:08 PM
I believe this video may explain the Combat system in a clearer way..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdmZUVpaJjA

BBALive
06-13-2012, 06:20 PM
Yes it does, the entire system is built around it. In fact there is nothing but killstreaks in AA. In Brotherhood there are three moves within a killstreak. you can attack which is performed by holding the stick in the direction of the enemy you want to attack and press square. You can tap counter when an icon flashes above an enemies head. And once you have killed a few enemies in a row you can perform a more powerful "takedown". This is taken from Asylum I am 100% sure of that.

Arkham City's combat system isn't built around killstreaks, in fact, Batman doesn't even kill anybody throughout the game.

Omni-directional free-flow combat != killstreaks

SixKeys
06-13-2012, 06:36 PM
I believe this video may explain the Combat system in a clearer way..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdmZUVpaJjA

I do like the fact that enemies seem more aggressive this time around. That was especially apparent in the Boston demo but you also see the "dual counter" in this vid. It's still possible to block them both, but it looks like it requires more skill than previously. Still not entirely sure how the counter window is supposed to work. Apparently you have the option to either kill or throw the enemies within that window, but when Connor already has his tomahawk raised, will he just awkwardly transition from an attack move into a non-lethal throw? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Grazel69
06-13-2012, 06:41 PM
What they should do is make different difficulty modes
make the game how it is now the easy or very easy mode depending on how many variations they would want to implement, then make a normal and hard with actual smart enemies that you have to be aware of in a fight and that can attack you at any time so that maybe we'd have a use for our dodge button for once(only reason I ever used that was just for the lolz)
you're an assassin you're supposed to get in quickly, kill your target and gtfo, you should be afraid of the giant mob of 300 redcoats that are surrounding you not just running in and ****ing spamming the **** out of counter(which was made even easier when they implemented the dual counter system, that's not what we meant with make the enemies attack with two at a time ubisoft -_-')

MAKE THE COMBAT HARDER NOT EASIER YOU ******S!!!

Assassin_M
06-13-2012, 06:43 PM
What they should do is make different difficulty modes
make the game how it is now the easy or very easy mode depending on how many variations they would want to implement, then make a normal and hard with actual smart enemies that you have to be aware of in a fight and that can attack you at any time so that maybe we'd have a use for our dodge button for once(only reason I ever used that was just for the lolz)
you're an assassin you're supposed to get in quickly, kill your target and gtfo, you should be afraid of the giant mob of 300 redcoats that are surrounding you not just running in and ****ing spamming the **** out of counter(which was made even easier when they implemented the dual counter system, that's not what we meant with make the enemies attack with two at a time ubisoft -_-')

MAKE THE COMBAT HARDER NOT EASIER YOU ******S!!!
That wasn't very Civilized..
It was very disrespectful and uncalled for. even if anyone agreed with you, they`re just gonna be nauseated by your attitude..

Sushiglutton
06-13-2012, 07:06 PM
Arkham City's combat system isn't built around killstreaks, in fact, Batman doesn't even kill anybody throughout the game.

Omni-directional free-flow combat != killstreaks

Ok if u wanna play word games...sigh. The killstreaks in AC:B is a system heavily inspired (stolen) from Arkham Asylum. Wether u kill or knock ur opponents out with ur fists is completely irrelevant, it's just different animations. I'm sure u understand that.

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 07:59 PM
I do like the fact that enemies seem more aggressive this time around. That was especially apparent in the Boston demo but you also see the "dual counter" in this vid. It's still possible to block them both, but it looks like it requires more skill than previously. Still not entirely sure how the counter window is supposed to work. Apparently you have the option to either kill or throw the enemies within that window, but when Connor already has his tomahawk raised, will he just awkwardly transition from an attack move into a non-lethal throw? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I think his throw is actually when he hookes the tomahawk into the other person and pulls them around him. Im thinking he just digs the spike into their coat and pulls them around.

BBALive
06-13-2012, 10:10 PM
Ok if u wanna play word games...sigh. The killstreaks in AC:B is a system heavily inspired (stolen) from Arkham Asylum. Wether u kill or knock ur opponents out with ur fists is completely irrelevant, it's just different animations. I'm sure u understand that.

But they're nothing alike. I could say that the combat system in Arkham City/Asylum was stolen from something like Rise to Honor/Honour (Just an example, quite a lot of games have used this type of melee system). They both feature free-flow combat systems that let you attack in every direction.

I just can't see the similarities. Arkham Asylum/City's combat system doesn't have the cinematic takedowns (It has cinematic camera angles, but the moves themselves aren't cinematic) that the killstreaks have. KIllstreaks are a sure thing, whereas it took you quite a few hits in Arkham Asylum/City to take down an enemy, I could continue listing the differences, but I'll stop for now.

I honesty can't see where you're coming from.


I think his throw is actually when he hookes the tomahawk into the other person and pulls them around him. Im thinking he just digs the spike into their coat and pulls them around.

I think that's the "break defense" move.

Evenesque
06-13-2012, 10:30 PM
I think that's the "break defense" move.

Could be. Seems entirely possible, but for me it just seems like Connor's approach to defense breaking, based on his fighting style, would be to open the target up instead of putting himself behind them.

Black_Widow9
06-13-2012, 10:52 PM
Hey Assassins,

The Open Conflict fight you see in the demo was designed to demonstrate speed, agility, new animations, and overall slickness and is not meant to show off combat difficulty.

ACIII has more archetypes than previous AC titles that dynamically adjust to your behaviour, i.e. higher notoriety, tougher archetypes and more of them. Remember that you are fighting an organized, very capable military outfit, and they will act accordingly.


There you are. ;) Knowing is half the battle.

Assassin_M
06-13-2012, 10:55 PM
There you are. ;) Knowing is half the battle.
PRAISE THE LORD !!
Where have you been ?

Sushiglutton
06-13-2012, 11:01 PM
But they're nothing alike. I could say that the combat system in Arkham City/Asylum was stolen from something like Rise to Honor/Honour (Just an example, quite a lot of games have used this type of melee system). They both feature free-flow combat systems that let you attack in every direction.

I just can't see the similarities. Arkham Asylum/City's combat system doesn't have the cinematic takedowns (It has cinematic camera angles, but the moves themselves aren't cinematic) that the killstreaks have. KIllstreaks are a sure thing, whereas it took you quite a few hits in Arkham Asylum/City to take down an enemy, I could continue listing the differences, but I'll stop for now.

I honesty can't see where you're coming from.

There are tons of differences between the combat systems obv. Ubi just took the core ideas of Asylums combat and transformed that into killstreak. As u say Asylum had another level of depth (and width I might add with nine moves). Ubi just took the most simplified version of the system and implemented it as killstreaks. How cinematic the takedowns are is completely irrelevant as it is just animations that plays out.

The systems are both based around maintaining flow with one attack button and one counter button (well technically AC:B uses two buttons for counter). When it's time to tap the counter is indicated by an icon that flashes above the enemies heads. If u think this is all coincidence and Ubi just had a revelation (a little over a year after that Arkham Asylum was released), than I think we just gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm totally confident Ubi took inspiration from the immensely successful Arkham Asylum.

Calvarok
06-13-2012, 11:50 PM
They have mentioned it was an inspiration, but the mechanics of how it works in AC3 is actually really different from Arkham.

obliviondoll
06-14-2012, 12:06 AM
The core concept that Arkham Asylum's combat is built around is one which was previously done best in a game called "Assassin's Creed" - I don't know, but maybe some of you have heard of it?

That core concept was the idea that they should make all the animations actually flow together smoothly.

In that respect, the Arkham games are better successors than AC2, ACB and ACR were, because in the later AC games, the animations break down a LOT more than the first, or the Arkham games.

But the focus in Arkham is on challenging combat. The focus for Assassin's Creed has NEVER been about that. The first game was specifically promoted with lines like "the combat system is designed so you feel like you're directing the actions of a skilled swordsman" not so you have to be an epic god of precision timing to get that feeling. The core definition of how the game plays out is that the character is good at fighting, so you don't have to be.

The real problem isn't a lack of difficulty, it's that as you play, your capabilities scale FAR too much from beginning to end, without anywhere near the appropriate increase in threat from your enemies.

It sounds like that's going to be addressed to some extent in AC3.

In the first game, you unlock a few extra moves as you go, but nothing truly game-changing past the first couple of major unlocks. You also get increased "synchronisation" from EVERYTHING you do, meaning huge amounts of added health, which regenerates constantly, but at a higher rate outside combat. More aggressive enemies would have been good, but preventing health regen in open conflict would have been better. That way, if you're not good with the combat system, getting a large enough crowd would still be a threat even in the end-game stages.

Unfortunately, that would have made the epic Templar battle near the end of the first game more of a nasty cheap move than it was in-game, but they could have implemented temporary regen for that one fight, with an explanation that because it was a staged battle Altair actually fought, continuing to fight will maintain synchronisation.

Problem with difficulty levels is two-fold though. Adjusting AI based on difficulty means that easy mode players are usually cheated out of seeing a lot of the actions taken by the AI, while adjusting enemy health and damage levels feels like "cheating" in most cases.

In a series which has never been about overly-challenging combat, and more about flow, I'm liking what I see so far.

EzioAssassin51
06-14-2012, 06:38 AM
I think people also neglect to realise that the whole point of being an assassin is being stealthy. People complain that the game isn't stealthy enough then complain that combat is too easy. But think for a second... We've discussed on this forum before that being an assassin, you would be trained to dispatch enemies and get out of the situation as quickly as possible, especially while trying to kill someone and being discovered! So what's so bad about easy combat? It makes sense of Ezio/Conor to be able to kill all their enemies as quickly as possible to get the hell out of there and back to being hidden, don't you think?

In short, it makes sense for them to be able to quickly and easily kill people!

Doesn't mean I'm not all for more difficulty though, I'm just saying. Honestly, I prefer it a bit easier, like killing easy guards, it's a lot more flowy and less tedious than having to face against a Janissary, which breaks flow and takes an extra two minutes to kill after they stop your chain! :P

Evenesque
06-14-2012, 07:18 AM
I think people also neglect to realise that the whole point of being an assassin is being stealthy. People complain that the game isn't stealthy enough then complain that combat is too easy. But think for a second... We've discussed on this forum before that being an assassin, you would be trained to dispatch enemies and get out of the situation as quickly as possible, especially while trying to kill someone and being discovered! So what's so bad about easy combat? It makes sense of Ezio/Conor to be able to kill all their enemies as quickly as possible to get the hell out of there and back to being hidden, don't you think?

In short, it makes sense for them to be able to quickly and easily kill people!

Doesn't mean I'm not all for more difficulty though, I'm just saying. Honestly, I prefer it a bit easier, like killing easy guards, it's a lot more flowy and less tedious than having to face against a Janissary, which breaks flow and takes an extra two minutes to kill after they stop your chain! :P


Basically been trying to ram this point home for days now.

We play assassins. They kill people really fast.

They're supposed to.

ProletariatPleb
06-14-2012, 07:30 AM
There you are. ;) Knowing is half the battle.
Where is this from?

"Hey Assassins,

The Open Conflict fight you see in the demo was designed to demonstrate speed, agility, new animations, and overall slickness and is not meant to show off combat difficulty.

ACIII has more archetypes than previous AC titles that dynamically adjust to your behaviour, i.e. higher notoriety, tougher archetypes and more of them. Remember that you are fighting an organized, very capable military outfit, and they will act accordingly. "

EzioAssassin51
06-14-2012, 08:13 AM
Also, in M's video the commentator also mentions there are three ways to get in the fortress, with this one being the stealthy 'from the back' one. So obviously we can be stealthy and there is a lot more freedom for the player in AC3!!

Noble6
06-14-2012, 09:20 AM
I think people also neglect to realise that the whole point of being an assassin is being stealthy. People complain that the game isn't stealthy enough then complain that combat is too easy. But think for a second... We've discussed on this forum before that being an assassin, you would be trained to dispatch enemies and get out of the situation as quickly as possible, especially while trying to kill someone and being discovered! So what's so bad about easy combat? It makes sense of Ezio/Conor to be able to kill all their enemies as quickly as possible to get the hell out of there and back to being hidden, don't you think?

In short, it makes sense for them to be able to quickly and easily kill people!

Doesn't mean I'm not all for more difficulty though, I'm just saying. Honestly, I prefer it a bit easier, like killing easy guards, it's a lot more flowy and less tedious than having to face against a Janissary, which breaks flow and takes an extra two minutes to kill after they stop your chain! :P
Maybe so but for me easiness is not just immersion breaker but also spoils fun partly.I hope that new combat system succees to balance fast, flowy and effective combat with new health system, high number of enemmies etc. Hopefully enemmies with guns are deathly if you don't do correct things when facing them.

Black_Widow9
06-14-2012, 10:08 AM
Where is this from?

"Hey Assassins,

The Open Conflict fight you see in the demo was designed to demonstrate speed, agility, new animations, and overall slickness and is not meant to show off combat difficulty.

ACIII has more archetypes than previous AC titles that dynamically adjust to your behaviour, i.e. higher notoriety, tougher archetypes and more of them. Remember that you are fighting an organized, very capable military outfit, and they will act accordingly. "
Your Community Developers. ;)

ProletariatPleb
06-14-2012, 10:29 AM
Your Community Developers. ;)
I guess that must be UbiGabe, Thanks Black.

UbiGabe
06-14-2012, 04:25 PM
Actually, no... that came from UbiDii, hehe. He's the combat expert! ;D

(And he'd better be, he was a Dev Tester for... what was it, like three years off and on?)

freddie_1897
06-14-2012, 04:30 PM
Actually, no... that came from UbiDii, hehe. He's the combat expert! ;D

(And he'd better be, he was a Dev Tester for... what was it, like three years off and on?)
he escaped from Ubisoft's dungeon?

wow

ProletariatPleb
06-14-2012, 04:31 PM
Actually, no... that came from UbiDii, hehe. He's the combat expert! ;D

(And he'd better be, he was a Dev Tester for... what was it, like three years off and on?)
Oh, okay, nice to see you here after a long time(atleast for me) seeing recent pics without the beard and all :P

freddie_1897
06-14-2012, 04:32 PM
Oh, okay, nice to see you here after a long time(atleast for me) seeing recent pics without the beard and all :P
yeah, better change your profile pic to keep up with it!

NOELITO1234
06-14-2012, 05:27 PM
Also, in M's video the commentator also mentions there are three ways to get in the fortress, with this one being the stealthy 'from the back' one. So obviously we can be stealthy and there is a lot more freedom for the player in AC3!!

In the gameplay you can see at the right before sliding a log in the ground, it seems to be "climbable". Sorry for my English.

crash3
06-15-2012, 02:20 PM
I hope sword combat is as amazing as the tomahawk combat. I hope that different close combat weapons show clear differences in fighting style and do damage in different ways if you get me. Cant wait to see some enemy archetypes wielding swords like captains or something-so far we havent really seen any really challenging archetypes. One thing I really hope doesnt return is the dual wielding of Swords and Pistols like the Janissaries and Papal Guards had, as that really messed up the flow of combat

Finally Ill just emphasize one thing which im really worried about in combat which is:

The developers have said so much about how bad guns were in 1700s, they only fire once and take ages to reload enabling us to get into close cmbat which is fair enough, HOWEVER, I have seen in multiple demos, during combat, Connor firing both his pistols more than once. I really hope that gets fixed as connor wouldnt have time to reoad his pistols in a fight, by the looks of it, the pistols automatically reloaded which is bad because it would make combat way to easy as we go on a rampage with our pistols

Heres how it should be:

Each pistol should only fire ONCE as they should do during combat so Connor can kill a maximum of two enemies with his pistols during combat. Then Connor should run for safety if then we can press a reload button, so we manually reload each pistol which would be realistic

Who agrees? Or would you rather have automatic reloading during combat?

ProletariatPleb
06-15-2012, 02:31 PM
I hope sword combat is as amazing as the tomahawk combat. I hope that different close combat weapons show clear differences in fighting style and do damage in different ways if you get me. Cant wait to see some enemy archetypes wielding swords like captains or something-so far we havent really seen any really challenging archetypes. One thing I really hope doesnt return is the dual wielding of Swords and Pistols like the Janissaries and Papal Guards had, as that really messed up the flow of combat

Finally Ill just emphasize one thing which im really worried about in combat which is:

The developers have said so much about how bad guns were in 1700s, they only fire once and take ages to reload enabling us to get into close cmbat which is fair enough, HOWEVER, I have seen in multiple demos, during combat, Connor firing both his pistols more than once. I really hope that gets fixed as connor wouldnt have time to reoad his pistols in a fight, by the looks of it, the pistols automatically reloaded which is bad because it would make combat way to easy as we go on a rampage with our pistols

Heres how it should be:

Each pistol should only fire ONCE as they should do during combat so Connor can kill a maximum of two enemies with his pistols during combat. Then Connor should run for safety if then we can press a reload button, so we manually reload each pistol which would be realistic

Who agrees? Or would you rather have automatic reloading during combat?
It was a demo, so I supposed that's why it had stuff like infa-ammo, because so far almost every article about ACIII says they are one-time use pistols.

Assassin_M
06-15-2012, 02:33 PM
It was a demo, so I supposed that's why it had stuff like infa-ammo, because so far almost every article about ACIII says they are one-time use pistols.
This

crash3
06-15-2012, 02:34 PM
It was a demo, so I supposed that's why it had stuff like infa-ammo, because so far almost every article about ACIII says they are one-time use pistols.

Thats a relief to know, cheers

Also I cant wait to see what fighting native americans is like: Tomahawk vs Tomahawk. I can imagine an Apocalypto style fight sequence happening there!

ProletariatPleb
06-15-2012, 02:39 PM
Thats a relief to know, cheers

Also I cant wait to see what fighting native americans is like: Tomahawk vs Tomahawk. I can imagine an Apocalypto style fight sequence happening there!
I hope you're right, that would be awesome, so far, this is the only Native they've shown:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120614131112/assassinscreed/images/e/e8/Killing_a_native_american_%28i_think%29.jpg

crash3
06-15-2012, 02:42 PM
I hope you're right, that would be awesome, so far, this is the only Native they've shown:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120614131112/assassinscreed/images/e/e8/Killing_a_native_american_(i_think).jpg

Wow I havent seen that before, is that part of a vid or is it just a pic?

ProletariatPleb
06-15-2012, 02:46 PM
Wow I havent seen that before, is that part of a vid or is it just a pic?
It's part of a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjtX7qpdMg

crash3
06-15-2012, 03:06 PM
Those soldiers looked like Ghurkas/foreign auxilliary soldiers from other British (or French) colonial territories, shame we only got a split second look at them