PDA

View Full Version : ACIII: It's still too easy [Difficulty discussion]



LordWolv
01-01-2013, 09:36 PM
Hey, I'm back. Thought I'd kick it off with a thread which I haven't seen, apologies if it's been posted before.

Firstly, lets look at the combat updates since ACR. There's been quite a few. Of course to begin with there's the weapons, which are now very different, needing new kill animations. I don't have a problem with that, it's a new time period, they need new weapons. There's also new controls which have both been simplified and added new layers to combat. Here's where my problem comes in. It's still easy, if not more easy, to kill ridiculously large numbers of guards in too small an amount of time.

Let me stress, firstly, that I loved the implemented fast assassinations where you can run and carry on running while killing two guards. I like how, if you do it correctly, you can kill four in a few short moments. This simply adds to stealth, efficiency and speed as an assassin. What I'm making a point about is the fact you can kill twenty guards almost as easily as you can kill four, with just a couple of additional gameplay implements like the human shield. This is unrealistic and, quite frankly, stupid.

Let me remind you that in this game you are an assassin, so you should never really be up against twenty soldiers; but if you like, in most missions you can just run in completely ruthlessly and face every guard in a large radius and beat them all. This shouldn't be the case. They shouldn't prevent you from going completely notorious, but it should be extremely difficult, almost impossible in fact, to beat a level by taking on the whole fleet of guards within it. For a game with Assassin in it's name, it doesn't encourage you enough to be stealthy; if combat against a lot of people was almost impossible then it would discourage overly notorious actions and bring AC back into the realm of being an Assassin.

I think Ubisoft need to focus less on creating fancy kill animations and concentrate on improving and (in some cases) fixing the stealth system; after all, that's what AC is meant to be about.

Your ideas on this, please.

SixKeys
01-01-2013, 09:50 PM
I kind of disagree on the combat aspect. I totally agree that stealth needs to be improved, but I don't mind the combat as it is in AC3. It's still easy, yes, but the fancy kill animations make up for the lack of challenge IMO. They weren't enough to cover up the flaws in the Ezio games because there wasn't much variety to the kill moves, but while I often found myself frustrated due to failing stealth and having to fight guards again, I have to admit that coming out looking like a total badass after the skirmish always made me smile.

If they wanted to make the combat more difficult, they could make it so that more and more difficult archetypes will arrive in huge numbers after you've slain a number of soldiers, like in the E3 Boston demo. Another option would be to include quick-time events in combat like when you're fighting animals, though I think that would become annoying real fast.

ProletariatPleb
01-01-2013, 10:11 PM
It is quite easy, now it's just about remembering the right movies for right archetypes.

CC1138
01-01-2013, 10:16 PM
AC's never been about a stealth-only game. That's where it contrasts with series like Splinter Cell or Metal Gear, you can go all loud. But yeah, I agree both should offer the same amount of challenge so that you can always choose how you want to address a situation. I think every mission (where it makes sense to include it) should add an "undamaged" condition, as well as an unseen or perfect chain kill condition depending on the way you handled the mission (full stealth or full combat) to fulfill the 100% sync. But the latter would be impossible in AC III because, like I said on another topic, the combat system is not designed so that every player can always maintain his killstreak, and the system has way too many situations where it breaks your combo... so it's literally flawed.

TheHumanTowel
01-01-2013, 10:21 PM
I think the combat's become ridiculous since chain killing was introduced in ACB. It suddenly became a cake walk to kill twenty guards in a row and not to mention looked stupid as every guard just waited as Ezio moved to his next kill animation. That said I think AC3 did a good job of using the archetypes to break up the flow of chain killing so it was harder to chain long combos together. I thought time slowing down giving you 2 seconds to counter every single time was a bit much. Reducing the time zone to counter and increasing the damage enemies do to you would make combat a bit more rewarding IMO.

CC1138
01-01-2013, 10:36 PM
I think the combat's become ridiculous since chain killing was introduced in ACB. It suddenly became a cake walk to kill twenty guards in a row and not to mention looked stupid as every guard just waited as Ezio moved to his next kill animation. That said I think AC3 did a good job of using the archetypes to break up the flow of chain killing so it was harder to chain long combos together. I thought time slowing down giving you 2 seconds to counter every single time was a bit much. Reducing the time zone to counter and increasing the damage enemies do to you would make combat a bit more rewarding IMO.

Chain killing did not make the game easier, it just made the combat faster. The difficulty of the combat throughout the series never really varied that much since the first game: in any Assassin's Creed you can easily win every fight by just waiting for a counter opportunity (it could get very long though). I even think the killstreaks in Brotherhood made the combat a little more challenging since with those moves, you took the risk of going offensive and leave your defense vulnerable. With the ridiculous amount of health in Brotherhood and those stupid miracle potions, it certainly didn't make very much of a difference in the game, but it was more evident in the flawless challenge of the VR training where 1 hit = death.
I'm all for tricky archetypes that makes you chain your kills or assassinations (whatever it's called) harder, but the problem in AC III was that certain archetype don't allow AT ALL to carry out your chain. If a grenadier throws you a grenade, you have to run and you lose your killstreak. For a Jager, the only way to kill him is to do a special counter so unless it attacks you while you're having your killstreak, well you're f*cked. In a game like Batman Arkham City, you can chain your combo on any archetypes with only your basic attacks but that didn't make the thing easier (moreover, their archetypes are more weapon-based than AI-based, meaning that even if you got rid of a certain annoying archetype, someone else could grab its special weapon right after you beat it which is quite vicious).

DELTA Kristian
01-01-2013, 10:48 PM
I agree it needs to be harder. I finished the campaign in few hours.

Sushiglutton
01-01-2013, 11:12 PM
Combat in AC has never been hard. Sometimes while playing AC1 I held the controller in one hand and sipped on a drink while tapping square anytime a guard attacked. It was boring and tedious, but not difficult. I don't think making the combat system boring is a good incentive for making people play stealthy. AC3 has the right challenge idea, namely that the difficult part should not be to survive, but to perfect. That way the game can be enjoyed by people of all skill levels. Stealth can still be forced by the desynch-mechanic which I think is fine. Or perhaps by making the target escape if you are discovered.

That said, the combat in AC must become a bit more complex to be really enjoyable. It's too much flash and too little substance. There are tons of different animations, weapons and tools that do systemically the exact same thing. The combat system is too shallow at this point. But to me the direction is the right one.

Gi1t
01-02-2013, 01:03 AM
I kind of disagree on the combat aspect. I totally agree that stealth needs to be improved, but I don't mind the combat as it is in AC3. It's still easy, yes, but the fancy kill animations make up for the lack of challenge IMO. They weren't enough to cover up the flaws in the Ezio games because there wasn't much variety to the kill moves, but while I often found myself frustrated due to failing stealth and having to fight guards again, I have to admit that coming out looking like a total badass after the skirmish always made me smile.

.

That's really the key issue I see is that you try to employ stealth, but it's so easy for it to fall apart and then it's extremely easy to engage in OPEN combat and win. I don't want the game to auto-fail me for not being perfectly stealthy, but I also don't want to screw up being stealthy once and get stuck fighting wave after wave of bozos because it's actually less of a pain to kill them all than it is to let myself die. XD (It takes a lot less time.) I don't mind being able to take out multiple guards stealthily, but in open combat I'd like them to be tough enough that escape is usually the better tactic. (Maybe kill one or two, knock someone down and then use your acrobatic skills to escape open combat and disappear. You could even draw off tough guards and then lose them and beat them back to their post to get past them.)

CC1138
01-02-2013, 12:29 PM
I think it eventually comes down to a matter of variable: how much health we have and/or how much damage the enemy deals, how many special archetypes do we have to fight at the same time. Varying and tweaking those parameters alone should make the combat tougher or easier.

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 12:34 PM
Combat in AC has never been hard. Sometimes while playing AC1 I held the controller in one hand and sipped on a drink while tapping square anytime a guard attacked. It was boring and tedious, but not difficult. I don't think making the combat system boring is a good incentive for making people play stealthy. AC3 has the right challenge idea, namely that the difficult part should not be to survive, but to perfect. That way the game can be enjoyed by people of all skill levels. Stealth can still be forced by the desynch-mechanic which I think is fine. Or perhaps by making the target escape if you are discovered.

That said, the combat in AC must become a bit more complex to be really enjoyable. It's too much flash and too little substance. There are tons of different animations, weapons and tools that do systemically the exact same thing. The combat system is too shallow at this point. But to me the direction is the right one.
Agreed. Oh and about AC1, the real fun is combo kills, any man and his dog can counter, but combo kills are the most fun.

CC1138
01-02-2013, 12:38 PM
Agreed. Oh and about AC1, the real fun is combo kills, any man and his dog can counter, but combo kills are the most fun.

By "combo-kill" do you mean hitting the attack button while your blade hit the enemy's? That's was pretty hard indeed.

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 12:45 PM
By "combo-kill" do you mean hitting the attack button while your blade hit the enemy's? That's was pretty hard indeed.
Yep, I had a LOT of fun with it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yC5WMz3rwE

MT4K
01-02-2013, 12:45 PM
By "combo-kill" do you mean hitting the attack button while your blade hit the enemy's? That's was pretty hard indeed.

Hard? No. Just took a bit of practice to get used to the timing.

Harder than any future game? Yes. But that's because the games got popular and people would coimplain it was hard i guess.... I mean some people think the Jagers in AC3 are "tough" or "hard"... Sigh.

CC1138
01-02-2013, 12:49 PM
Hard? No. Just took a bit of practice to get used to the timing.

Harder than any future game? Yes. But that's because the games got popular and people would coimplain it was hard i guess.... I mean some people think the Jagers in AC3 are "tough" or "hard"... Sigh.

Well the Jager can only be killed one way (with a special counter) so they're annoying yes (not hard though). It would really be more challenging to initiate the offensive "takedown" with the technique of the first game instead of mashing the attack button 3 times in a row.

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 12:50 PM
Hard? No. Just took a bit of practice to get used to the timing.

Harder than any future game? Yes. But that's because the games got popular and people would coimplain it was hard i guess.... I mean some people think the Jagers in AC3 are "tough" or "hard"... Sigh.
and that`s why we have to face it. So long as those Idiots exist, we`ll never get challenging combat..

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 12:51 PM
Well the Jager can only be killed one way (with a special counter) so they're annoying yes (not hard though). It would really be more challenging to initiate the offensive "takedown" with the technique of the first game instead of mashing the attack button 3 times in a row.
There`s more than one way to take down Jagers without Counter AND not breaking your kill streak..

EzioAssassin51
01-02-2013, 01:04 PM
I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. It makes sense for an Assassin to be able to mow through enemies. Assassins are trained killers. They're not trained 'Oh yeah use this, stab them in the neck, if anything else happens, see you later', they are trained to fight if anything goes wrong. If we're looking at this realistically, you're not always going to be able to be stealthy and sometimes you might be discovered. What would you do then? Have to run halfway across the city to lose them then run all the way back? Where's the fun in that?

As an Assassin you would be trained to mow down your enemies if you were spotted to prevent further detection. Kill them as quickly as possible and run/get back to hiding. It makes sense and it's fun, so what's there to complain about? Would you rather have long, tedious fights whenever you are discovered that result in certain death or a long time to get out of?


Also, AC3 had the hardest combat for me, rivaled only by AC1, and I'm not a crappy player if I may say so myself. It's mostly the firing line that gets me, if I can't get a human shield in time, or accidentally pushing square towards a Grenadier, Captain or Jaeger in the heat of the moment.

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 01:17 PM
I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. It makes sense for an Assassin to be able to mow through enemies. Assassins are trained killers. They're not trained 'Oh yeah use this, stab them in the neck, if anything else happens, see you later', they are trained to fight if anything goes wrong. If we're looking at this realistically, you're not always going to be able to be stealthy and sometimes you might be discovered. What would you do then? Have to run halfway across the city to lose them then run all the way back? Where's the fun in that?

As an Assassin you would be trained to mow down your enemies if you were spotted to prevent further detection. Kill them as quickly as possible and run/get back to hiding. It makes sense and it's fun, so what's there to complain about? Would you rather have long, tedious fights whenever you are discovered that result in certain death or a long time to get out of?


Also, AC3 had the hardest combat for me, rivaled only by AC1, and I'm not a crappy player if I may say so myself. It's mostly the firing line that gets me, if I can't get a human shield in time, or accidentally pushing square towards a Grenadier, Captain or Jaeger in the heat of the moment.

Oh yeah, the Assassins are trained killers while the soldiers are a bunch of pansies that have picked up a weapon the first time in their life, it's not like it's their job or something.

lothario-da-be
01-02-2013, 01:25 PM
Hey, I'm back. Thought I'd kick it off with a thread which I haven't seen, apologies if it's been posted before.

Firstly, lets look at the combat updates since ACR. There's been quite a few. Of course to begin with there's the weapons, which are now very different, needing new kill animations. I don't have a problem with that, it's a new time period, they need new weapons. There's also new controls which have both been simplified and added new layers to combat. Here's where my problem comes in. It's still easy, if not more easy, to kill ridiculously large numbers of guards in too small an amount of time.

Let me stress, firstly, that I loved the implemented fast assassinations where you can run and carry on running while killing two guards. I like how, if you do it correctly, you can kill four in a few short moments. This simply adds to stealth, efficiency and speed as an assassin. What I'm making a point about is the fact you can kill twenty guards almost as easily as you can kill four, with just a couple of additional gameplay implements like the human shield. This is unrealistic and, quite frankly, stupid.

Let me remind you that in this game you are an assassin, so you should never really be up against twenty soldiers; but if you like, in most missions you can just run in completely ruthlessly and face every guard in a large radius and beat them all. This shouldn't be the case. They shouldn't prevent you from going completely notorious, but it should be extremely difficult, almost impossible in fact, to beat a level by taking on the whole fleet of guards within it. For a game with Assassin in it's name, it doesn't encourage you enough to be stealthy; if combat against a lot of people was almost impossible then it would discourage overly notorious actions and bring AC back into the realm of being an Assassin.

I think Ubisoft need to focus less on creating fancy kill animations and concentrate on improving and (in some cases) fixing the stealth system; after all, that's what AC is meant to be about.

Your ideas on this, please.
Were are already asking more stealth since ac2 but there didn't changed much.I hope the we will have more stealth in ac4. I don't think they will make Connor less strong in a next game with him.

Lass4r
01-02-2013, 03:28 PM
I would agree it could be a bit harder. But after watching a few lets plays, people suck. They rage at the combat for being too hard, and I understand that the combat was made for those people, and definitely won't be getting much harder.

hasonmare
01-02-2013, 03:59 PM
it's just about remembering the right movies for right archetypes.http://www.dvxs.info/a129.jpg

CC1138
01-02-2013, 04:16 PM
There`s more than one way to take down Jagers without Counter AND not breaking your kill streak..

How do you do that? I've never managed to kill them offensively unless they're the 2nd target of a "gadget" killstreak.

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 04:41 PM
How do you do that? I've never managed to kill them offensively unless they're the 2nd target of a "gadget" killstreak.
Yes M what are you referring to? I've killed them in killstreaks sometimes, like when they get distracted by the violence, then sometimes they can be killed instantly. Or just use bow&arrow/pistol to kill them and counter, but it's hard to include them in chain.

CC1138
01-02-2013, 04:44 PM
Maybe it's not the Jager I'm talking about but a different archetype, but there is one that you can't carry your killstreak directly (weapon or object), nor you can do your special attack (A on Xbox and X on PS). It fights with a saber and throw grenades so maybe it's the grenadier but you just can't kill it by attacking, you have to wait for a counter. I've just tested it, and I killed a kid in the process...

AjinkyaParuleka
01-02-2013, 04:47 PM
I hate Jagers,i try to make massacre at a city video and i end up dead.

Megas_Doux
01-02-2013, 04:55 PM
Still easy, and yet many people complained about it, hard to please everyone........However I can say it is the MOST funny one in the series to date.

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 05:00 PM
Maybe it's not the Jager I'm talking about but a different archetype, but there is one that you can't carry your killstreak directly (weapon or object), nor you can do your special attack (A on Xbox and X on PS). It fights with a saber and throw grenades so maybe it's the grenadier but you just can't kill it by attacking, you have to wait for a counter. I've just tested it, and I killed a kid in the process...
That's probably Jagers, these green guys right?

http://i.minus.com/ib2DCwfhtzQ3j2.png

lothario-da-be
01-02-2013, 05:03 PM
That's probably Jagers, these green guys right?

http://i.minus.com/ib2DCwfhtzQ3j2.png
wow, pc graphics are good!

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 05:10 PM
wow, pc graphics are good!

Err, not exactly, lol I'm just using the mod I made, makes a lot of difference:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/728927-Assassin-s-Creed-III-PC-color-mod-Forums

CC1138
01-02-2013, 06:06 PM
Wow, your mod surely looks good, I may try it! Yeah, those are the ones I was talking about, the green ones with their army things on their shoulder.

ACfan443
01-02-2013, 06:10 PM
That's probably Jagers, these green guys right?

http://i.minus.com/ib2DCwfhtzQ3j2.png

That looks really good, great mod :D

LordWolv
01-02-2013, 06:31 PM
and that`s why we have to face it. So long as those Idiots exist, we`ll never get challenging combat..
There's something that addresses that problem. Something that almost every game includes. Difficulty settings, and I still haven't been given a good reason why AC doesn't incorporate it.


Oh yeah, the Assassins are trained killers while the soldiers are a bunch of pansies that have picked up a weapon the first time in their life, it's not like it's their job or something.
Good point. If anything, the guards should be much more trained in combat than the assassin. If someone trained in stealth can use a rifle better than someone trained to use a rifle, then something's horribly wrong.


I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. It makes sense for an Assassin to be able to mow through enemies.
An assassin that needs to be trained in mowing down enemies doesn't sound like a very good assassin to me. One of the main points is to not compromise the brotherhood, and leaving a pile of twenty bodies and a lake of blood where you'd just been is quite strongly suggesting you'd just been there. Hm. I think even one of the guards would notice something is wrong, and they're dumb as a stone (at least seems it when they carry on their patrol after finding a dead body).

Also, people are talking about grenadiers.. at no point in the game have I ever had a grenade thrown at me. I think I'm killing them too quickly to give them a chance.

TreFacTor
01-02-2013, 06:47 PM
Hey, I'm back. Thought I'd kick it off with a thread which I haven't seen, apologies if it's been posted before.

Firstly, lets look at the combat updates since ACR. There's been quite a few. Of course to begin with there's the weapons, which are now very different, needing new kill animations. I don't have a problem with that, it's a new time period, they need new weapons. There's also new controls which have both been simplified and added new layers to combat. Here's where my problem comes in. It's still easy, if not more easy, to kill ridiculously large numbers of guards in too small an amount of time.

Let me stress, firstly, that I loved the implemented fast assassinations where you can run and carry on running while killing two guards. I like how, if you do it correctly, you can kill four in a few short moments. This simply adds to stealth, efficiency and speed as an assassin. What I'm making a point about is the fact you can kill twenty guards almost as easily as you can kill four, with just a couple of additional gameplay implements like the human shield. This is unrealistic and, quite frankly, stupid.

Let me remind you that in this game you are an assassin, so you should never really be up against twenty soldiers; but if you like, in most missions you can just run in completely ruthlessly and face every guard in a large radius and beat them all. This shouldn't be the case. They shouldn't prevent you from going completely notorious, but it should be extremely difficult, almost impossible in fact, to beat a level by taking on the whole fleet of guards within it. For a game with Assassin in it's name, it doesn't encourage you enough to be stealthy; if combat against a lot of people was almost impossible then it would discourage overly notorious actions and bring AC back into the realm of being an Assassin.

I think Ubisoft need to focus less on creating fancy kill animations and concentrate on improving and (in some cases) fixing the stealth system; after all, that's what AC is meant to be about.

Your ideas on this, please.
Firsties!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724166-laughably-easy-(sigh)

... but yeah i agree far too easy and the combat is extremely sluggish.

LordWolv
01-02-2013, 06:49 PM
Firsties!!! forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/724166-laughably-easy-(sigh)/page3

... but yeah i agree far too easy and the combat is extremely sluggish.
Hehe, sorry, I did a quick search but I didn't find anything. Hope you don't mind. ;D

CC1138
01-02-2013, 07:00 PM
I think it's okay, we get also scolded when we dig up old threads so^^

I think the reason there's not a difficulty setting is because it's open world... that sounds stupid but many open world game doesn't have difficulty settings. But you have 100% sync conditions since Brotherhood and I think that could be considered a kind of difficulty setting. Also, they could use adaptive AI that would have more sharpened reflexes and/or that makes more damage but I don't think a standard difficulty setting would be the good solution.

LordWolv
01-02-2013, 07:04 PM
I think it's okay, we get also scolded when we dig up old threads so^^

I think the reason there's not a difficulty setting is because it's open world... that sounds stupid but many open world game doesn't have difficulty settings. But you have 100% sync conditions since Brotherhood and I think that could be considered a kind of difficulty setting. Also, they could use adaptive AI that would have more sharpened reflexes and/or that makes more damage but I don't think a standard difficulty setting would be the good solution.
100% sync makes a game that's already too linear more linear, I honestly ignore it the first time around. I like to play the game how I like to play it; only replaying the memories afterwards because it does offer more of a challenge. It's true that it does make the game harder to follow full sync, but it's also very restraining, which a game like this shouldn't be.
At the very least, a difficulty setting could do something simple like reduce your health or add more jagers into the game - swap the easy guards with harder ones. I don't see why this would be even difficult, and offer an option to both the newbies and the experienced.

UncappedWheel82
01-02-2013, 08:12 PM
I wish I could ignore that bright red text...but I can't.

The combat in AC3 is a good starting point, what is needed is more variety in the way that enemies are implemented and how they are taken down. AC3's combat is more rhythm and timing than skill, which is fine to a degree, but the fact that you can spam attack and/or counters with reckless abandon is why its a problem. It would be better if you were forced to vary attacks more or maybe they just tightened up the timing to make it more rewarding for more experienced players.

As someone else said though, games like these are made for the common denomonator - the less skilled; if it's too hard people won't want to play.

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 08:30 PM
Yes M what are you referring to? I've killed them in killstreaks sometimes, like when they get distracted by the violence, then sometimes they can be killed instantly. Or just use bow&arrow/pistol to kill them and counter, but it's hard to include them in chain.
Rope Darts..

When you have no one else to continue the streak on, but Jagers, pull out your dart, put him to the ground, tomahawk to the back, repeat until a Jager attacks so you can disarm him..

CalgaryJay
01-02-2013, 08:36 PM
I enjoyed combat, ya it could still be harder, but its the toughest its been yet.

One area I'd say where the game needs to ease up to make it more challenging is getting rid of all the QTE events & prompts. Predators have been harped on enough, but when in naval I don't need to be alerted to hit X every time a wave gets close. Tell us the first couple ever times, then don't mention it again unless the player gets crushed by a wave a couple times in a row without hitting X/square.

Too much handholding in this series with stuff like that.

CC1138
01-02-2013, 08:47 PM
Rope Darts..

When you have no one else to continue the streak on, but Jagers, pull out your dart, put him to the ground, tomahawk to the back, repeat until a Jager attacks so you can disarm him..

Well yeah, it's the only way of taking him down offensively but that breaks your killstreak since you have to wait until when you use your rope dart, it won't be a special rope dart attack (which will be blocked) but a standard one that pulls him out.

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 08:52 PM
Well yeah, it's the only way of taking him down offensively but that breaks your killstreak since you have to wait until when you use your rope dart, it won't be a special rope dart attack (which will be blocked) but a standard one that pulls him out.
Nope. doesn't break your streak. It continues on non-Jagers who`ll not block your streaks...

ProletariatPleb
01-02-2013, 09:19 PM
Rope Darts..

When you have no one else to continue the streak on, but Jagers, pull out your dart, put him to the ground, tomahawk to the back, repeat until a Jager attacks so you can disarm him..
-_- that I do anyway, but that doesn't put him in the chain

Gi1t
01-02-2013, 09:31 PM
I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. It makes sense for an Assassin to be able to mow through enemies. Assassins are trained killers. They're not trained 'Oh yeah use this, stab them in the neck, if anything else happens, see you later', they are trained to fight if anything goes wrong. If we're looking at this realistically, you're not always going to be able to be stealthy and sometimes you might be discovered. What would you do then? Have to run halfway across the city to lose them then run all the way back? Where's the fun in that?

As an Assassin you would be trained to mow down your enemies if you were spotted to prevent further detection. Kill them as quickly as possible and run/get back to hiding. It makes sense and it's fun, so what's there to complain about? Would you rather have long, tedious fights whenever you are discovered that result in certain death or a long time to get out of?


Also, AC3 had the hardest combat for me, rivaled only by AC1, and I'm not a crappy player if I may say so myself. It's mostly the firing line that gets me, if I can't get a human shield in time, or accidentally pushing square towards a Grenadier, Captain or Jaeger in the heat of the moment.

But should it be stupidly easy to do? Should you be able to just sit there and kill dozens of soldiers one by one and brealy even be at risk of dying?

Yeah, killing is easy for an assassin, but that doesn't mean it's actually easy, especially when you consider what sidspyker24 said about soldiers being trained as well. (That's one of my biggest peeves in games is enemies that are pathetic fighters even though they should be more than capable when it comes to combat.) And no, I don't think an assassin would be trained to mow down dozens of enemies in open combat without ever bothering to move from that spot. The more sensible thing to do would be to kill enemies that are in the way and then escape from combat and disappear. You say you'd have to run halfway across the city? Of course not. You merely break that line of sight and then hide either in a hiding place or in a crowd. That's the POINT of Assassin's Creed. XD And what I'm saying is that escape should be LESS problematic than staying where you are and killing people.

Players are asking to experience more of the challenge of being an assassin for themselves. They want combat to be more interesting than just kill this guy... kill that guy...kill the next guy...wrince-repeat. Right now it's just too simplistic and awkward. It takes way too much to kill you. People want there to be some real risk in combat whether you choose to fight often or prefer to minimize open battle.

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 09:37 PM
-_- that I do anyway, but that doesn't put him in the chain
It does..

When you kill him on the ground, it continues the chain...

CC1138
01-02-2013, 09:56 PM
It does..

When you kill him on the ground, it continues the chain...

Yes, but in order to use the rope dart this way you NEED to break your chain once first. Else, it will do a special rope dart that would kill 2 enemies at once but this attack is blocked by the Jagers (and even brutes).

Assassin_M
01-02-2013, 10:01 PM
Yes, but in order to use the rope dart this way you NEED to break your chain once first. Else, it will do a special rope dart that would kill 2 enemies at once but this attack is blocked by the Jagers (and even brutes).
It never occured with me. With the Jagers It always initiates the rope dart tool attack normally...

LordWolv
01-02-2013, 10:31 PM
But should it be stupidly easy to do? Should you be able to just sit there and kill dozens of soldiers one by one and brealy even be at risk of dying?

Yeah, killing is easy for an assassin, but that doesn't mean it's actually easy, especially when you consider what sidspyker24 said about soldiers being trained as well. (That's one of my biggest peeves in games is enemies that are pathetic fighters even though they should be more than capable when it comes to combat.) And no, I don't think an assassin would be trained to mow down dozens of enemies in open combat without ever bothering to move from that spot. The more sensible thing to do would be to kill enemies that are in the way and then escape from combat and disappear. You say you'd have to run halfway across the city? Of course not. You merely break that line of sight and then hide either in a hiding place or in a crowd. That's the POINT of Assassin's Creed. XD And what I'm saying is that escape should be LESS problematic than staying where you are and killing people.

Players are asking to experience more of the challenge of being an assassin for themselves. They want combat to be more interesting than just kill this guy... kill that guy...kill the next guy...wrince-repeat. Right now it's just too simplistic and awkward. It takes way too much to kill you. People want there to be some real risk in combat whether you choose to fight often or prefer to minimize open battle.
Exactly. AC1 was the closest we ever had to this (AC2 too, actually), where it would actually be easier to break the LOS and find a hiding spot. Now I find that actually it's easier to kill everyone who attacks me. That's crazily unrealistic.

EzioAssassin51
01-03-2013, 03:50 AM
Oh yeah, the Assassins are trained killers while the soldiers are a bunch of pansies that have picked up a weapon the first time in their life, it's not like it's their job or something.

Well it's perfectly possible that soldiers aren't as well trained as an Assassin, at least some. I mean it makes sense for there to be lesser soldiers without as much training, since back then a lot of soldiers WEREN'T trained, as they were just farmers helping to fight the war. While some were doesn't mean they're trained to fight off every threat. They can't help it if someone's better than them! They're not as well trained as today! And there are soldiers that are a lot stronger and can best Connor (Jaegers, Grenadiers and Captains).



An assassin that needs to be trained in mowing down enemies doesn't sound like a very good assassin to me. One of the main points is to not compromise the brotherhood, and leaving a pile of twenty bodies and a lake of blood where you'd just been is quite strongly suggesting you'd just been there. Hm. I think even one of the guards would notice something is wrong, and they're dumb as a stone (at least seems it when they carry on their patrol after finding a dead body).

Yes, I agree that they shouldn't compromise the Brotherhood, but it's not always up to the Assassin whether or not they're spotted. If a guard sees you and attacks you, you can't (as an Assassin), tell them 'Oh sorry, I'm not trained, can you just turn around while I hide again?' You'd have to be trained for an emergency such as that, and again you can't help it if you're fighting one guard and another five attack you cause they see you too. If you don't like mowing through guards then don't fight them, how's that?



But should it be stupidly easy to do? Should you be able to just sit there and kill dozens of soldiers one by one and brealy even be at risk of dying?

Yeah, killing is easy for an assassin, but that doesn't mean it's actually easy, especially when you consider what sidspyker24 said about soldiers being trained as well. (That's one of my biggest peeves in games is enemies that are pathetic fighters even though they should be more than capable when it comes to combat.) And no, I don't think an assassin would be trained to mow down dozens of enemies in open combat without ever bothering to move from that spot. The more sensible thing to do would be to kill enemies that are in the way and then escape from combat and disappear. You say you'd have to run halfway across the city? Of course not. You merely break that line of sight and then hide either in a hiding place or in a crowd. That's the POINT of Assassin's Creed. XD And what I'm saying is that escape should be LESS problematic than staying where you are and killing people.

Players are asking to experience more of the challenge of being an assassin for themselves. They want combat to be more interesting than just kill this guy... kill that guy...kill the next guy...wrince-repeat. Right now it's just too simplistic and awkward. It takes way too much to kill you. People want there to be some real risk in combat whether you choose to fight often or prefer to minimize open battle.


But there is a risk of dying. It's not impossible to die in AC3, like it had been in AC2 and B (R was good in difficulty for me), it's the hardest AC game yet IMO! I didn't say you'd had to, I'm saying would you rather do that than fight?

Oh yeah then you guys would complain hiding's too easy cause all you'd have to do is run around the corner, hop in a haystack and never be searched. It can actually be harder to escape in AC3 with lots of guards running after you and seeing you, which is, as you guys want, very realistic!!

And combat is more interesting than that! It's fun with some challenge (having to change tactics for different guards). I'll say again, it's a lot easier to die in this game too!

F0RTY SEVIN
01-03-2013, 05:02 AM
I kind of disagree on the combat aspect. I totally agree that stealth needs to be improved, but I don't mind the combat as it is in AC3. It's still easy, yes, but the fancy kill animations make up for the lack of challenge IMO. They weren't enough to cover up the flaws in the Ezio games because there wasn't much variety to the kill moves, but while I often found myself frustrated due to failing stealth and having to fight guards again, I have to admit that coming out looking like a total badass after the skirmish always made me smile.

If they wanted to make the combat more difficult, they could make it so that more and more difficult archetypes will arrive in huge numbers after you've slain a number of soldiers, like in the E3 Boston demo. Another option would be to include quick-time events in combat like when you're fighting animals, though I think that would become annoying real fast.

How can the ease of combat not bother you? yeah it looks nice but I might as well be watching a movie... I'm sorry but the OP is right, a game about being an assassin shouldn't encourage players to be so reckless! I feel like I'm playing a decent version of Dynasty Warriors when I play this game.