PDA

View Full Version : Combat... TOOOOOOO easy...



romesvonwolf
11-26-2013, 10:17 AM
Just bought IV, I didn't play III, and I quit II because combat was too easy...

looks like exactly the same thing again in IV... I mean, it's cool that you can sneak around and avoid guards and all that ****, but what's the point, when you can massacre an entire army and barely lose a hit point.

I looked around for a difficult setting, couldn't find one.

So, again, gotta quit, 'cause this otherwise very cool game is too ****ing easy. What the hell, like... why is it so damn easy... challenge is fun... slaughter without opposition - that aint fun,

did I miss a difficulty setting somewhere?

pacmanate
11-26-2013, 10:22 AM
Nope, AC games have never been difficult, Imo its not about difficulty, but the ride it takes you on.

ProletariatPleb
11-26-2013, 10:33 AM
AC games are baby tier, there is no difficulty. The combat is basically full of ego stroking HURR YOU'RE AN EXCEPTIONAL WARRIOR.

So nah, I don't think you'll enjoy this franchise.

silvermercy
11-26-2013, 11:45 AM
They're usually quite easy. The most difficult thing was actually 100% sync. At least for me...

(I think this easiness could probably derive from all those data statistics that are collected anonymously. It may mean that the majority of players do not find it as easy? I don't know.)

AssassinHMS
11-26-2013, 11:56 AM
AC became a casual franchise for the people who don't know how to play games and who are too afraid to use their brains. It makes them feel badass. Like sidspyker24 said, it's all about boosting their egos and their egos are so small that they can't even handle games where they aren't the absolute winners or where everything isn't handed on a plate.

I don't buy AC games anymore for that same reason (among others) so I am in a similar situation. However, I still think Ubisoft will, someday, realize that challenge is necessary.

MT4K
11-26-2013, 12:20 PM
I have high hopes in the future they will include difficulty settings. It would be such an easy way to please more people. At least depending on how the difficulty setting would actually effect the gameplay. Just giving a standard HP boost would be a little disappointing. Great now every guard takes forever to still kill easily...

AssassinHMS
11-26-2013, 12:36 PM
I have high hopes in the future they will include difficulty settings. It would be such an easy way to please more people. At least depending on how the difficulty setting would actually effect the gameplay. Just giving a standard HP boost would be a little disappointing. Great now every guard takes forever to still kill easily...

I agree, Ubisoft needs to remake the combat system instead of simply boosting HP. Pressing buttons to trigger violent cutscenes where the assassin performs Hollywood action stunts isnít an actual combat system.

I donít think the hidden blade should work as a weapon and, unless the assassin has other weapons with him at the time, it should only allow for some blocks with the bracer. As for sword combat it should be a matter of tiring the opponent (depleting a stamina bar) and catching him off guard (with swift and unexpected moves). In order to deplete the stamina bar the player would have to clash his swords with the opponentís and keep attacking using diversion moves (such as kicks, quick steps and maybe even a few punches). Once the stamina bar nears its depletion, the opponentís moves will be slower and weaker and the chance of a critical attack (such as a stab with a knife or an impalement with a sword) will increase. Also, combat needs to be much harder or else the whole game will suffer for it. And notice that, just because fighting more than 3 enemies at once is hard and more than 6 almost impossible, doesnít mean the game is difficult or that you will die a lot. Navigation, in the form of escape, is the answer in such dire situations.

MT4K
11-26-2013, 12:46 PM
I Navigation, in the form of escape, is the answer in such dire situations.

Ahh you reminded me of AC1 again haha...

Not because it was difficult when surrounded by guards, but it was just so much more thrilling after an assassination to actually try and escape by running away with the whole city in chaos and the bells ringing and everything. It felt awesome that i would often prefer to try to run and escape rather than just standing their tediously killing everyone.

It's a good point really that you have these awesome navigational skills and yet you don't truly ever need to use them in a situation where they should be your biggest advantage... Escaping after performing a kill.

ace3001
11-26-2013, 01:28 PM
Nope, AC games have never been difficult, Imo its not about difficulty, but the ride it takes you on.
This. The AC series is not for those looking for a challenge.

xCHEMISTx
11-26-2013, 01:29 PM
think this easiness could probably derive from all those data statistics that are collected anonymously. It may mean that the majority of players do not find it as easy? I don't know.

Funnily enough I have been having a conversation on the X-Box forums with some players who are finding this AC harder then previous ones. The addition of the Legendary Ships gives players abit of a combat challenge even if it is not hand to hand (or sword to sword in this game).

AssassinHMS
11-26-2013, 01:31 PM
Ahh you reminded me of AC1 again haha...

Not because it was difficult when surrounded by guards, but it was just so much more thrilling after an assassination to actually try and escape by running away with the whole city in chaos and the bells ringing and everything. It felt awesome that i would often prefer to try to run and escape rather than just standing their tediously killing everyone.

It's a good point really that you have these awesome navigational skills and yet you don't truly ever need to use them in a situation where they should be your biggest advantage... Escaping after performing a kill.

Exactly! Infiltration (filled with tension that comes from the fear of being caught), Assassination (the suspense and the calm before striking with the hidden blade) and Escape (the thrill of running for your life). A harder combat system would really help this formula and add a lot more tension and thrill.

Youíre right! Navigation is the bridge between combat and stealth. It's all there, but it needs to be less automatic and become the primary answer in difficult situations. The ability to kill everyone if something goes wrong or just for fun, ruins both the experience and the immersion (as far as I can see).

dxsxhxcx
11-26-2013, 01:37 PM
Funnily enough I have been having a conversation on the X-Box forums with some players who are finding this AC harder then previous ones. The addition of the Legendary Ships gives players abit of a combat challenge even if it is not hand to hand (or sword to sword in this game).

but the naval mechanic will eventually go away, the land combat continue easy as **** like the previous games and the enemy AI (on combat) still is dumb as hell taking ages to attack you... the only difference I noticed is that you find groups with mixed archetypes more often (what's good), but the rest is pretty much the same...

xCHEMISTx
11-26-2013, 01:49 PM
but the naval mechanic will eventually go away, the land combat continue easy as **** like the previous games and the enemy AI (on combat) still is dumb as hell taking ages to attack you... the only difference I noticed is that you find groups with mixed archetypes more often (what's good), but the rest is pretty much the same...

I agree. The AI could definitely be slightly more intelligent but a lot of players have become accustomed to AC being an 'easy' game.

Farlander1991
11-26-2013, 02:06 PM
I really don't understand statements that 'AC became casual', because, to be honest, it never wasn't casual, i.e. it always was.

Sure, AC was SUPPOSED to be at a certain point in time a game where you die out of one hit of a sword and where HUD doesn't exist at all (that's why it was designed around HUD-less gameplay), but, well, it wasn't. They changed it before the game was even released. AC1 is casual and atmospheric. Its combat system, while I think is really good overall (though counter is totally broken), isn't that much more challenging than of the later games, with the challenge being mostly in some totally optional things like countering with hidden blades if you feel like it (but it's absolutely optional, like the legendary ships in AC4, for example), or some other little things that you want to try and to accomplish, but challenge was never at the CORE. If you fail at stealth, there is no problem to run away or to just kill everything in sight. And if you're running away, chases aren't brutal, as breaking line of sight and finding a hiding spot takes little amount of time.

What AC1 has always had going for it, is its insane atmosphere. It wasn't a stealth game at heart. It created thrill without huge danger or challenge requirement being there. And it gave you choice, lots of it. That's what AC1 became at release. You may not like it, but if you expect the series to move towards the pre-alpha AC1 principles, then, to be frank, you're just wasting your time.

I'm not saying that Ubisoft is going to abandon challenge or that I don't want there to be something that requires more skill, like the Virtual Training in ACB and Legendary Ships in AC4, or robbing a warehouse without alarms raised in same AC4 to reap more rewards, or, well, Templars in AC1, I hope Ubisoft will continue in that direction of infusing in things that require a lot more skill, but those things are not going to become a part of the core.

ze_topazio
11-26-2013, 03:02 PM
Easy or not i doubt many of you can kick as much *** as this person.

http://seanpatrickkennedy.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ac4_slaying.gif?w=642

Sushiglutton
11-26-2013, 03:41 PM
Overall I wish combat had a bit more meat to it. Not necessarily that difficult, but giving the player more options and control. There are a number of reasons why I don't feel it's that big of an issue in AC4 though:



This is the most (on land) stealth focused AC game imo. There are tons of missions encouraging stealth and the vast majority of side activities do it too. Combat is really only there to clean up the mess when you screw up. To then have a fairly simple and straightforward system so you can go back to stealth (the hive mind is gone) has its benefits imo. It makes stealth less brittle which is nice.
Naval is the primary action mechanic in this game. There you can find any level of challenge you want by taking on groups of high level ships when yours is low. Again this means combat takes a bit of a backseat this time.
Boarding is a messy affair. There are so many enemies and NPCs cramped in a very small space. Going for a complex combat system in this enviroment could have been a disaster imo. It would also risk making the entire ship overtaking take too long time as it is a combination of naval and melee.


I have actually done very little combat (except for when boarding) and I haven't got a great feel for the entire system. But to me it seems a bit unresponsive at times. Particulary when Edward attacks a guard and, while the animation is playing out, another one attacks Ed. Sometimes you can block the incoming attack but sometimes you can't. I will do some experiments with the HUD on, it may be that the counter window is shorter than I think it is and you need to tap way before you are hit. Curious to hear some opinions on this.

ProletariatPleb
11-26-2013, 03:57 PM
The combat controls are unresponsive a lot of times, counters don't register it's happened too many times to me. That said AC combat doesn't rely on player feedback at all.

Sushiglutton
11-26-2013, 04:02 PM
The combat controls are unresponsive a lot of times, counters don't register it's happened too many times to me. That said AC combat doesn't rely on player feedback at all.

That's comforting to hear I was afraid I just sucked lol. This is probably also a reason to keep it simple and easy. The harder a gameplay system gets the more precise it needs to be. By making it really easy they can cover up some of its shortages.

egriffin09
11-26-2013, 04:55 PM
I don't understand why people complain about the combat in AC games, it has always been the weakest system in the game since AC1. I don't think the combat in AC was ever intended or designed to be challenging or hard, even since AC1. You could always tell that the combat was basically a system implemented into AC1 just to get you out of a situation if you screwed a mission up, nothing more. AC has always been reliving a part of history, the adventure of just going through a part of history told from a fresh prospective.

All Ubisoft would have to do to make combat harder is an option to remove the counter indicator in options menu, then the combat would be significantly harder. Just as an option to satisfy the "I want harder combat" fans. Then guess what? Those players would turn the counter indicator back on, because guess why?? Combat would be TOO HARD.

All Ubisoft needs to do to combat is just continue to try to make it more fluid.

pacmanate
11-26-2013, 05:13 PM
That's comforting to hear I was afraid I just sucked lol.


You do, and so does Sid.

Yes it's true, were you expecting a "JUST KIDDING"?

Sushiglutton
11-26-2013, 05:29 PM
You do, and so does Sid.

Yes it's true, were you expecting a "JUST KIDDING"?

You evil monster! First you refuse to send me some of your birthday cake and now this! You are on my blacklist now :mad:!

pacmanate
11-26-2013, 05:40 PM
You evil monster! First you refuse to send me some of your birthday cake and now this! You are on my blacklist now :mad:!

I hope it's your Splinter Cell one, hehehehe

ProletariatPleb
11-26-2013, 05:56 PM
That's comforting to hear I was afraid I just sucked lol. This is probably also a reason to keep it simple and easy. The harder a gameplay system gets the more precise it needs to be. By making it really easy they can cover up some of its shortages.
Yeah, AC4 is the only game where it happens.

And partly I also blame the narrow FOV, seriously what genius had the idea of having the camera so close to Edward, how the hell will I see where the attack is coming from? Really hate the combat camera in AC4 and broken counter

SpiritMuse
11-26-2013, 06:10 PM
Yeah, AC4 is the only game where it happens.

And partly I also blame the narrow FOV, seriously what genius had the idea of having the camera so close to Edward, how the hell will I see where the attack is coming from? Really hate the combat camera in AC4 and broken counter

Yeah, I did notice that sometimes I'd get attacked unexpectedly from off-screen. Especially in boarding combat this happens as it's so chaotic.

shobhit7777777
11-26-2013, 06:51 PM
I dislike the combat because it doesn't have much space for aggression or fluidity.

The entire system hinges on counter attacks. This is inherently a defensive tactic and slows down the pace. Mashing gets you kills but not the stylish ones that counters give you. Everything feeds into this...from the frequency and pattern of enemy attacks to Edward's combat animations.

The game does have a killstreak feature but again ****s up due to lack of foresight. The kill animations are inconsistent in length and for the most part are TOO LENGTHY and elaborate...with Edward stabbing, slashing and kicking a guy far too many times to get a kill - Bullshizz.

This hampers the flow of the combat as there is no effective or consistent cue which marks the end of the kill and thereby allows you to move onto the next guy....and the length of the animations leaves the player twiddling his thumbs for far too long. Not good in a combat scenario.

Its a very poorly thought out and designed system....which has been implemented very well and as such is OK to watch. But holy hell is it boring.

The Ezio games did it best. Nothing too challenging but it was far more fun.

AssassinHMS
11-26-2013, 07:03 PM
Just because Assassinís Creed was pretty much always (excluding the original idea) casual, doesnít mean it shouldnít become less casual. Since AC1, the games became a lot more casual so, I donít see why not start making the opposite evolution. I am not asking for the franchise to be hardcore for the sake of being hardcore, or challenging, or difficult, or whatever. I am asking AC to become less casual because I think it can become a lot better. Itís not even about becoming more hardcore, itís about following its own premises, about showing its true identity. What happened was the opposite, the franchise became more casual and, consequently, lost its personality. It was diluted.

ACís combat is meant to be harder as it was first intended. And why do I say it is meant? Because it intensifies the experience, it is needed to improve AC. Toning down combat only tones down the rest of the gameplay that is directly related (stealth and navigation). If you have an easy combat system, you must have an easy stealth system and an easy navigation system as well, otherwise they lose their precious balance. Actually, now that I think about it, THIEF had a very simplistic (almost non-existing) combat system at first and a complex stealth system so there wasnít any balance there. Then again, both stealth and combat were difficult to pull off. However, while that may work for THIEF, it doesnít work for AC. So yeah, if combat is simple and easy, then stealth needs to be simple and easy as well. Problem is, if they are all easy, it doesnít make sense for them to become more complex (to evolve). Why make stealth more complex if enemy AI is simple and the situations never require the use of the more complex stealth? Why make a combat system with all sorts of additions and special moves if enemies can be taken down easily with basic combat skills? Itís pointless and it only makes it more confusing. There needs to be a challenge in order to evolve. Itís the law of nature. If there isnít a difficult situation to overcome, then evolution wonít happen. If the enemies and the situations donít offer challenge, then there is no reason for the core mechanics to evolve.
This is why there needs to be challenge, so that there is a reason to evolve the core mechanics, to evolve AC. This is why combat needs to be challenging, as well as the missions and the situations we face, so that stealth has a reason to become more complex and precise, so that navigation has a more important role as a bridge between the two.
Itís simple. This is the proof that AC needs to become more challenging or, if you want to call it that way, less casual.

MnemonicSyntax
11-26-2013, 09:23 PM
For those of you on PC, there's a guy who made a custom mod that ups the "difficulty" of the combat, ie, if you get hit, you're done for.

dxsxhxcx
11-27-2013, 12:18 AM
why people always assume that someone who wants the game to be more challenging wants the combat to punish the player with a 1HKO scenario? I doubt anyone (or at least most people) who wants an increase in challenge want that to be the case with AC (at least not without having the option to lower the difficulty)...

AC1 wasn't hard, but IMO if compared with all AC's it was the hardest, since AC2 they've been dumbing down the combat difficulty more and more and little to nothing (for a 6~7 year old franchise) was made to (AT LEAST) balance the scales...


I wonder what some people here think of the Batman Arkham's games, because assuming from many things I read here, BA combat system might be one of the hardest things in the world since in that game the possibility to die exist and can happen quite often depending of your approach...

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 12:32 AM
why people always assume that someone who wants the game to be more challenging wants the combat to punish the player with a 1HKO scenario? I doubt anyone (or at least most people) who wants an increase in challenge want that to be the case with AC (at least not without having the option to lower the difficulty)...

AC1 wasn't hard, but IMO if compared with all AC's it was the hardest, since AC2 they've been dumbing down the combat difficulty more and more and little to nothing (for a 6~7 year old franchise) was made to (AT LEAST) balance the scales...


I wonder what some people here think of the Batman Arkham's games, because assuming from many things I read here, BA combat system might be one of the hardest things in the world since in that game the possibility to die exist and can happen quite often depending of your approach...

Not sure if you're responding to me, but there's not much you can do with a hex editor on hard coded script. I was just posting this because it's "something."

Megas_Doux
11-27-2013, 01:59 AM
Easy or not i doubt many of you can kick as much *** as this person.

http://seanpatrickkennedy.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ac4_slaying.gif?w=642

" I've seen him clear the deck of a Spanish galleon like it were nothing. Fighting like a devil, dressed as a man".......

dxsxhxcx
11-27-2013, 06:40 AM
Not sure if you're responding to me, but there's not much you can do with a hex editor on hard coded script. I was just posting this because it's "something."

no, it wasn't directed at you, your post just reminded me of it... :)

phoenix-force411
11-27-2013, 06:52 AM
That's disgraceful to skip ACII just because you didn't like the combat.

Landruner
11-27-2013, 07:51 AM
The combat controls are unresponsive a lot of times, counters don't register it's happened too many times to me. That said AC combat doesn't rely on player feedback at all.

You are right, it seems that they are time to time some latencies when players press command and Edward's response(s), and the camera moves also a bit too fast around while fighting, which was not the case with the previous games.

xCHEMISTx
11-27-2013, 07:52 AM
Easy or not i doubt many of you can kick as much *** as this person.

http://seanpatrickkennedy.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ac4_slaying.gif?w=642

I think it's this sort of ability to just chain stomp noobs that appeals to the masses.

pacmanate
11-27-2013, 07:55 AM
I think it's this sort of ability to just chain stomp noobs that appeals to the masses.

It does look freaking cool though

Landruner
11-27-2013, 08:02 AM
Easy or not i doubt many of you can kick as much *** as this person.

http://seanpatrickkennedy.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ac4_slaying.gif?w=642

....The worse is that that person is perhaps a 12 years old kid LOL! ;)

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 02:46 PM
So, I just heard there is an outfit in AC4 BFF that makes bullets bounce off and, therefore, makes the player immune to gunshots. Wow! The games are made for babies as they are but they still feel the need create additions to make them even easierÖ

Why are people so scared of challenge? When did gamers became such chickens?

xCHEMISTx
11-27-2013, 02:50 PM
So, I just heard there is an outfit in AC4 BFF that makes bullets bounce off and, therefore, makes the player immune to gunshots.

You can't unlock that outfit until sequence 11 though. The story is pretty much done by then so it's only useful for side missions. Perhaps Ubisoft's way of encouraging players to play more than just the story?

ProletariatPleb
11-27-2013, 02:55 PM
Why are people so scared of challenge? When did gamers became such chickens?
2007-8, when "gamer" became any guy with a console who plays games for weekend fun.

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 02:57 PM
You can't unlock that outfit until sequence 11 though. The story is pretty much done by then so it's only useful for side missions. Perhaps Ubisoft's way of encouraging players to play more than just the story?

On top of that, if it's anything like 3's Kidd's Treasure Ring Shield thing, it's not 100%.bulletproof.

And honestly AssassinHMS, it's completely optional. If's giving players a choice and while it's not YOUR choice, I think having choices is a great step in the right direction.

It would be great if you didn't insult others based on your opinion though. Not everyone thinks like you do, and people just want to have fun. It's fun to board ships and kick arse like that gif image. But you can also sneak on board ships and take them out without doing the entire boarding process. It's optional, up to the player.

Again, it's a step in the right direction. You have people on the boards saying combat is too hard, hacking is too hard, and the fact is, it's all relative. You really can't insult someone because they think differently or enjoy different things than you do man.

SpiritMuse
11-27-2013, 03:02 PM
So, I just heard there is an outfit in AC4 BFF that makes bullets bounce off and, therefore, makes the player immune to gunshots. Wow! The games are made for babies as they are but they still feel the need create additions to make them even easierÖ

Why are people so scared of challenge? When did gamers became such chickens?

Since most people aren't GAMING GODS like you. ACIV is plenty difficult for an average gamer, and if you give it to a gaming noob they likely won't even make it through the tutorial. Besides, most people prefer their games to actually be fun instead of frustrating. A lot of people play games to relax, not to end up throwing controllers across the room because the game forces them to use every last bit of skill they have and then still end up failing because something unforeseen happens.

If you want HARDCORE!!! difficulty you need to play a different game, you won't find it here. It's just not how AC rolls, and never was.

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 03:11 PM
You can't unlock that outfit until sequence 11 though. The story is pretty much done by then so it's only useful for side missions. Perhaps Ubisoft's way of encouraging players to play more than just the story?

I don't know how that would encourage someone to play more. If anything, it would only take even more fun and immersion out of the experience. It's like when you're trying to immerse yourself in a movie but then there's this action scene that is so unrealistic, so over-the-top that it breaks immersion altogether. It's when a game stops taking itself seriously that it starts feeling like a game and the immersion dies.
Even if that outfit can only be unlocked after sequence 11, there are still the health upgrades and whatnot.

Assassin’s Creed is just another of these gamey games that are made for people who don’t like games.

Farlander1991
11-27-2013, 03:15 PM
So, I just heard there is an outfit in AC4 BFF that makes bullets bounce off and, therefore, makes the player immune to gunshots. Wow! The games are made for babies as they are but they still feel the need create additions to make them even easier…

Why are people so scared of challenge? When did gamers became such chickens?

For ****'s sake. It's an optional outfit that can't be accessed until almost end-game (and you need to collect items all over the map to get it), for some minor conveniences of not getting shot while climbing or not having to worry about snipers, IF you as a player want to do it. I don't care about the outfit and I'm not going to wear it, but if you're seriously trying to push its existance as some kind of an argument for your "true vision" of AC, then it's just petty.

EDIT: Btw, just in case, don't try to use some kind of "you don't like challenge" statement against me, I'm the kind of person who has spent six months trying to beat FTL on normal (do you know how insane it is to try and beat FTL on normal, btw?) until I finally did it. I embrace challenge.

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 03:25 PM
I don't want to offend anyone. But it is true that games require a lot less brain activity now. I still remember when one of the biggest rewards in a game was a more challenging mode. Gamers have become chickens. If a game is challenging, fewer people buy it. If they even hear about challenge or not being a piece of cake, most gamers run off. Proof of this are current games. I'm not telling lies or offending people, I'm simply calling things for what they are.

Also, I'm not a GAMING GOD, I'm simply not a chicken. I like challenge. It's not even real life challenge. It's a game, a game that tests my abilities, where I can evolve. Challenging is not about losing or dying. Your confusing challenge with punishment. A game can be challenging without being punishing.

Do you know why students are bored when they already know everything about what the teacher is saying? Do you know why killing ants isn't thrilling or fun? Because there is no challenge. This is why Assassin's Creed isn't thrilling and is quite boring. Because there is no challenge.

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 03:29 PM
I don't know how that would encourage someone to play more. If anything, it would only take even more fun and immersion out of the experience. It's like when you're trying to immerse yourself in a movie but then there's this action scene that is so unrealistic, so over-the-top that it breaks immersion altogether. It's when a game stops taking itself seriously that it starts feeling like a game and the immersion dies.
Even if that outfit can only be unlocked after sequence 11, there are still the health upgrades and whatnot.

Assassin’s Creed is just another of these gamey games that are made for people who don’t like games.

Because in-game, Edward doesn't know what he's getting when he collects the objects to unlock it. He's told it's a "treasure" from long ago. As a pirate, that sounds enticing and hardly "breaks immersion."

The more you type, the more I think that you'll never be satisfied with any sort of Assassin's Creed game, as you'll always find something to nitpick about.

"Oh there's an optional piece of armor that you don't have to get? Well that's not hardcore or purist for me, so therefore this isn't a "real" Assassin's Creed game!"

Seriously mate, they're trying to please a crowd with different tastes. That's why you can go about missions and such in 4 in so many different ways.

Megas_Doux
11-27-2013, 03:33 PM
Although I agree, to a certain extent, with AssassinHMS that ACīs combat is way to easy, well I find funny how he tries to make a case about AC I being a challenge!!!!!!!

I mean, in AC I you have a HUGE health bar that relies on how much you have completed the game ,the more you play and collect, the BIGGER your "synch" is, easy peasy. To the point that I have NEVER been killed in AC I, also he always says, "there was a thrill way back when about not being discovered during a mission blah blah" ...For crying out loud!!!!! "Thrill" in sitting in a bench, just to listen to a static individual giving a speech???????????

The way he writes that, seems that he is talking about God of war II on TITAN mode with no upgrades, and the upper stealth levels of Hitman or Metal Gear solid, those ARE a challenge, not beating up a target.....


PD The only AC in which I have killed in combat, is AC III....

Farlander1991
11-27-2013, 03:44 PM
It's a game, a game that tests my abilities, where I can evolve. Challenging is not about losing or dying. Your confusing challenge with punishment. A game can be challenging without being punishing.

Previously you kept complaining on these forums how AC combat is not challenging, that there is no threat of losing and dying and because of that it removes the thrill from the stealth sections, and now you say that challenging is not about losing or dying? Make up your mind already.

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 03:49 PM
Although I agree, to a certain extent, with AssassinHMS that ACīs combat is way to easy, well I find funny how he tries to make a case about AC I being a challenge!!!!!!!

I mean, in AC I you have a HUGE health bar that relies on how much you have completed the game ,the more you play and collect, the BIGGER your "synch" is, easy peasy. To the point that I have NEVER been killed in AC I, also he always says, "there was a thrill way back when about not being discovered during a mission blah blah" ...For crying out loud!!!!! "Thrill" in sitting in a bench, just to listen to a static individual giving a speech???????????

The way he writes that, seems that he is talking about God of war II on TITAN mode with no upgrades, and the upper stealth levels of Hitman or Metal Gear solid, those ARE a challenge, not beating up a target.....


PD The only AC in which I have killed in combat, is AC III....

You have been holding that post back for a while, haven't you?

AC1 is easy and casual when compared to other games like Thief. AC1 is pretty hardcore when compared to other AC games like AC3. Remember the mission in the graveyard in AC1? I would like to see you defeat those enemies like you do in AC3.
Everything is relative. AC1 is both casual and hardcore, depending on what you're comparing it with.

If you had read other posts of mine, you would know I don't find the simple act of sitting on a bench and listening to people, to be thrilling and you would also know about my ideas on improving investigation missions.

ProletariatPleb
11-27-2013, 03:52 PM
The kind of audience Assassin's Creed goes for should give us an idea.

http://i.minus.com/ibuGh11v2ujSw4.jpg

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 03:54 PM
You have been holding that post back for a while, haven't you?

AC1 is easy and casual when compared to other games like Thief. AC1 is pretty hardcore when compared to other AC games like AC3. Remember the mission in the graveyard in AC1? I would like to see you defeat those enemies like you do in AC3.
Everything is relative. AC1 is both casual and hardcore, depending on what you're comparing it with.

If you had read other posts of mine, you would know I don't find the simple act of sitting on a bench and listening to people, to be thrilling and you would also know about my ideas on improving investigation missions.

Which mission is this? It's been a while since I've played.

And once I get the Counter Ability back, I'm golden. I can do the same stuff in 3 (besides the dual counters) that I can do in one. It's a matter of waiting for them to attack and patience.

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 03:55 PM
The kind of audience Assassin's Creed goes for should give us an idea.

http://i.minus.com/ibuGh11v2ujSw4.jpg

LOL. Truth.

Though, they're optional and I enjoy the thrill of the hunt anyway.

SpiritMuse
11-27-2013, 03:55 PM
Challenging is not about losing or dying. Your confusing challenge with punishment. A game can be challenging without being punishing.

And a game can be fun without being challenging.

The problem is the line between "challenging" and "punishing" is different for everyone. You think it's fun to repeat the same five minutes of a level over and over and over again until you finally attain the skill (or foreknowlegde) needed to beat it. I think that's boring and repetitive. I like to just get on with the game without being held up every five minutes by my "lack of skill" (which really usually means lack of knowledge of the level layout), because that's what kills immersion for me.

In AC, I do like to sit in stealth and try to puzzle my way through an area, but unfortunately that doesn't always work, so sometimes I have no choice but to give up on stealth and simply slaughter my way through the sea of guards until I get to the end of the level, just so I can get on with the rest of the game. Which is kind of satisfying in its own way.


It's when a game stops taking itself seriously that it starts feeling like a game and the immersion dies.

Um? Isn't the whole point of Assassin's Creed that it is essentially a game within a game? So it's supposed to feel like a game? I never have immersion problems in AC, not even when I'm pulled out of the Animus. Especially not then - AC never feels more "real" to me than when I'm out of the Animus.

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 04:01 PM
Previously you kept complaining on these forums how AC combat is not challenging, that there is no threat of losing and dying and because of that it removes the thrill from the stealth sections, and now you say that challenging is not about losing or dying? Make up your mind already.

You have to think a little bit harder. Yes, I want to feel the fear of dying, to be motivated to remain hidden, to avoid getting caught (the thrill). How do you do this? By having a challenging combat system where you can't defeat more than 4 enemies at once. But is it necessarily punishing? Does this mean you will die a lot, that the game will punish you if you get caught? No.

And here is the trick. Navigation. Yes, you were caught by a group of enemies. What to do? Murder them all? No, you can't (that would remove the thrill and the point of stealth). You run for your life. You use navigation, in the form of escape, you jump, you roll, and you slide. Watch AC1's trailer and see how Altair escapes. Now imagine a responsive and complex navigation system like that (instead of the automatic one we have). With navigation you can lose your pursuers and go back to being stealthy. Navigation is the bridge between combat and stealth. Stealth is challenging, combat is challenging and navigation is challenging (not too much though, I donít want extremes) but the game isnít punishing and you still get to feel the thrill and the tension.

Megas_Doux
11-27-2013, 04:01 PM
As I said, I have NEVER been killed in combat while playing AC I, however if you are fully notorious, sorrounded by jagers and grenadiers, and choose NOT to use anything but the tomahawk, sword there is a chance you may die in AC III. Yes! there is the chaing killing thing, but unlike AC I, the health bar is small, if you miss a parry or try to run while in open combat against a jager you are in trouble.

By the way, those two are my favorite games in terms of having fun killing guards in open combat.

And in regards of stealth, MORE of the same, what is the "thrill" on sitting on a bench just to listen a guy yealing about how William of montferrat is the right guy???? And then beat him..... My point is that you write about AC I being on a "whole another level" in comparison with the other games in the series, which I do not think it is.

ProletariatPleb
11-27-2013, 04:04 PM
f you miss a parry against a jager
Which never happens. And I say this as a person who plays AC games without hud elements or baby tier "tool" kills just to add layers to challenge.

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 04:08 PM
You have to think a little bit harder. Yes, I want to feel the fear of dying, to be motivated to remain hidden, to avoid getting caught (the thrill). How do you do this? By having a challenging combat system where you can't defeat more than 4 enemies at once. But is it necessarily punishing? Does this mean you will die a lot, that the game will punish you if you get caught? No.

And here is the trick. Navigation. Yes, you were caught by a group of enemies. What to do? Murder them all? No, you can't (that would remove the thrill and the point of stealth). You run for your life. You use navigation, in the form of escape, you jump, you roll, and you slide. Watch AC1's trailer and see how Altair escapes. Now imagine a responsive and complex navigation system like that (instead of the automatic one we have). With navigation you can lose your pursuers and go back to being stealthy. Navigation is the bridge between combat and stealth. Stealth is challenging, combat is challenging and navigation is challenging (not too much though, I don’t want extremes) but the game isn’t punishing and you still get to feel the thrill and the tension.

But if you kill them all, then they can't alert other guards. What's the point of stealth if they know you're still around somewhere?

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 04:13 PM
And a game can be fun without being challenging.
More or less. You see, the ďmovie partĒ of the game (the one that is visual and doesnít have anything to do with challenge) may be fun and stunning, but the interactive part of the game (the gameplay) needs challenge to be fun. There is a very small challenge behind AC, that is why it isnít completely bad, but compare it with a challenging gameplay and youíll see the difference.


The problem is the line between "challenging" and "punishing" is different for everyone. You think it's fun to repeat the same five minutes of a level over and over and over again until you finally attain the skill (or foreknowlegde) needed to beat it. I think that's boring and repetitive. I like to just get on with the game without being held up every five minutes by my "lack of skill" (which really usually means lack of knowledge of the level layout), because that's what kills immersion for me.
That is punishing the player. The game can be challenging without ever forcing the player to die or repeat the same level, without being actually difficult. See my post where I replied to Farlander1991. Youíre still mixing the two.
Challenge is fun.

Farlander1991
11-27-2013, 04:14 PM
You have to think a little bit harder. Yes, I want to feel the fear of dying, to be motivated to remain hidden, to avoid getting caught (the thrill). How do you do this? By having a challenging combat system where you can't defeat more than 4 enemies at once. But is it necessarily punishing? Does this mean you will die a lot, that the game will punish you if you get caught? No.

So, it is about losing and dying then ;) :p

Challenge doesn't exist without failure state. It can be some kind of a perpetual passive failure state, like in an adventure game if you don't solve a puzzle (the challenge) you don't progress through the game (perpetual failure state, though it doesn't mean you die). In a stealth scenario, the challenge is to complete the goal undetected, failure state - get detected (which leads to a combat scenario). In the combat scenario you're proposing there's also a failure state, but in this case - death. Because what you refer to as 'not getting punished or not dying a lot' is changing the scenario altogether, which is not the same thing.

Hans684
11-27-2013, 04:19 PM
You have been holding that post back for a while, haven't you?

AC1 is easy and casual when compared to other games like Thief. AC1 is pretty hardcore when compared to other AC games like AC3. Remember the mission in the graveyard in AC1? I would like to see you defeat those enemies like you do in AC3.
Everything is relative. AC1 is both casual and hardcore, depending on what you're comparing it with.

If you had read other posts of mine, you would know I don't find the simple act of sitting on a bench and listening to people, to be thrilling and you would also know about my ideas on improving investigation missions.

To fight all the guards in the graveyard mission is easy, it also depends on my mod if i want to kill every one or run. And the combat is 'harder' then the other AC's but i have also been using 'human shields' since AC1, making it a lot more easy, just gett one guard betten you and the archer.

AssassinHMS
11-27-2013, 04:20 PM
But if you kill them all, then they can't alert other guards. What's the point of stealth if they know you're still around somewhere?

What do you mean? Like in good stealth games such as Thief, after seeing you, enemies will keep looking for you because they know you're still there (in the shadows, in a bale of hay,etc.) However, after a while, depending on the situation, they might think you run off and will eventually give up. Perhaps they will send a courier to inform the target or to ring a bell alerting everyone. If that is the case then you must move throught the shadows and silently kill the courier or else every guard will be looking for you which will make the mission more difficult. However this last option is a slight punishment to give incentive. Anyway, I don't think I understand your question very well...

Megas_Doux
11-27-2013, 04:21 PM
Which never happens. And I say this as a person who plays AC games without hud elements or baby tier "tool" kills just to add layers to challenge.

I do the same, no hud, never use the strongest swords, pistols and armor, no gadgets, just the "default" weapon and that is it! As I say, ALL ACīs are offenders, it is not like AC I is not and in fact I have seen "casuals" struggling with that scenario I wrote in AC III more than with the other games in the franchise.

That is my brother, he is pretty "good" in shooters, and he is a casual for AC, he just enjoys freeroaming and cause some trouble, and I have seen him cursing about those "green guys" more than with the other "ultimate" soldier archetypes in the saga.

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 04:21 PM
This is the Robert De Sable mission, right?

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 04:27 PM
What do you mean? Like in good stealth games such as Thief, after seeing you, enemies will keep looking for you because they know you're still there (in the shadows, in a bale of hay,etc.) However, after a while, depending on the situation, they might think you run off and will eventually give up. Perhaps they will send a courier to inform the target or to ring a bell alerting everyone. If that is the case then you must move throught the shadows and silently kill the courier or else every guard will be looking for you which will make the mission more difficult. However this last option is a slight punishment to give incentive. Anyway, I don't think I understand your question very well...

But this isn't Thief

Let's say you round a corner and four guards spot you. Even if the gameplay mechanic isn't there (but it is, especially in later games) if you don't kill all four of those guards, one will run off and get more. That's from a role play perspective. "Crap, I've been spotted" better kill these guys before they get more guys."

And what you just posted above, with the guards looking for you, the bell ringing, the stealth, all that happens in 4. The alert dynamics have changed so much since 1 and 2. Hell, even 3. Snipers will see you and shout "sound the alarm!" and an agile will go and do it.

ProletariatPleb
11-27-2013, 04:28 PM
I do the same, no hud, never use the strongest swords, pistols and armor, no gadgets, just the "default" weapon and that is it! As I say, ALL ACīs are offenders, it is not like AC I is not and in fact I have seen "casuals" struggling with that scenario I wrote in AC III more than with the other games in the franchise.
Not my argument tho. But since you did bring up AC1 I'll have a go at that.

Hard wouldn't be the word I use to describe AC combat in any of the games, but I prefer AC1's combat because of a few reasons - it wasn't full of flashy BS animations, NO KILLSTREAK CRAP, enemies attacked in random patterns, there wasn't a 'defined' way how X 'archetype' would attack and can be countered it could even fail at times for example when enemies did strong attacks it required even more precise timing than usual, they could randomly counter attack, randomly grab you. (Cannon fodder guards are exempted from doing advanced stuff for the most part)

AC1 was 'tough' initially, until you mastered the controls. Then you can be a combo killing god but that still requires timing. Alternatively if you just feel lazy you can do hidden blade counters and kill everyone easily. Alternatively you can just stand there and counter everything lol but that's boring.

SpiritMuse
11-27-2013, 05:09 PM
That is punishing the player. The game can be challenging without ever forcing the player to die or repeat the same level, without being actually difficult. See my post where I replied to Farlander1991. Youíre still mixing the two.
Challenge is fun.
I still don't understand how you separate the two. I've read your post to Farlander, and what I understand is this:
1. Combat should be difficult enough that you can't take on more than 4 guards and survive
2. The solution to dying in combat is running away

But you're assuming that you'll be successful in running away. If you fail running away, you'll end up in combat and still die. I don't understand how this is not still "punishing" for failure.

MnemonicSyntax
11-27-2013, 05:14 PM
Because the stealth is supposed to be so amazing, that you cannot be found, I guess.

Gi1t
11-27-2013, 06:35 PM
I still don't understand how you separate the two.I've read your post to Farlander, and what I understand is this:
1. Combat should be difficult enough that you can't take on more than 4 guards and survive
2. The solution to dying in combat is running away

But you're assuming that you'll be successful in running away. If you fail running away, you'll end up in combat and still die. I don't understand how this is not still "punishing" for failure.

Well, the difference between punishing the player and real difficulty, as I see it, is that punishment is increasing the penalty for making a mistake (AFTER you've made the mistake, this kicks in.) The alternative is making the actual tasks more complex and difficult to do; in other words, making mistakes more likely/frequent. So in a fight, challenge is your opponent having more moves/ways to do damage to you/break your guard and stuff which makes the actual task of fighting them more difficult, where punishment is just saying "now when you take a hit, you take twice as much damage." Challenge is improving the game, where punishment is just changing the rules within the existing system.

I don't see why it would be difficult to run away from a fight though unless the game was poorly designed. But what I've said before is that I don't think it's just about the running, but about the
'escape', meaning your transition back to stealth. I think AC really needs to focus on making it possible to accidentally get caught in a fight you don't want to be in and instead of killing the enemies, shove one or two aside and disappear, then go back to your stalking. I think that switching between combat and stealth should be the easy part because then you don't feel like you're stuck with one or the other and the two can finally coexist in peace. :)

Landruner
11-27-2013, 06:42 PM
What do you mean? Like in good stealth games such as Thief, after seeing you, enemies will keep looking for you because they know you're still there (in the shadows, in a bale of hay,etc.) However, after a while, depending on the situation, they might think you run off and will eventually give up. Perhaps they will send a courier to inform the target or to ring a bell alerting everyone. If that is the case then you must move throught the shadows and silently kill the courier or else every guard will be looking for you which will make the mission more difficult. However this last option is a slight punishment to give incentive. Anyway, I don't think I understand your question very well...

Hello HMS! - Yep! that is good description of a stealth concept that could be made in application for a nice AC with deeper and immersive environment stealth - I saw that people wrote that the blowpipe made the game easier, well with the type of AI used in that game it is true...

But imagine that if you use the blowpipe with a sleeping dart for a target that blocks your way for instance, and after your action and your target sleeping another guard discovers your sleeping target instead of guarding, well with a better AI that guard will think that something is suspicious in seeing his colleague sleeping and start looking for you or better calling for close by reinforcement or going away to run to ring the alert. The difficulty is up for a better balance and gameplay and the blowpipe won't have ever makes the things easier neither, it would have a tool that players have at their disposition in order to use wisely because its impact and use can change the odds in your play.

Now guards know that someone id there and no matter what they look for the player, or be more alert.
The same type of AI could be done for the social stealth as well...

Also, about the combat being easy, well it actually is, since I can get way and kick their butts with assurance any archetype foe armed to the teeth with just the character's bear hand - I mean as long as guards are coming after me, they get kick off! - and I am not better than anyone there, I just apply the game automatism, and it became as an automatic second nature - And it should not be this way for an AC or any game.

My point if I can do it so easy without having to use any weapon, well some serious question about the fighting being easy in AC4 my be asked? Note: I could do the same with AC3 ( fight bear hand) , but the previous ones, well it was a bit harder especially ACR.

Rugterwyper32
11-27-2013, 06:56 PM
Not my argument tho. But since you did bring up AC1 I'll have a go at that.

Hard wouldn't be the word I use to describe AC combat in any of the games, but I prefer AC1's combat because of a few reasons - it wasn't full of flashy BS animations, NO KILLSTREAK CRAP, enemies attacked in random patterns, there wasn't a 'defined' way how X 'archetype' would attack and can be countered it could even fail at times for example when enemies did strong attacks it required even more precise timing than usual, they could randomly counter attack, randomly grab you. (Cannon fodder guards are exempted from doing advanced stuff for the most part)

AC1 was 'tough' initially, until you mastered the controls. Then you can be a combo killing god but that still requires timing. Alternatively if you just feel lazy you can do hidden blade counters and kill everyone easily. Alternatively you can just stand there and counter everything lol but that's boring.

I can actually agree with this. Timing really was the key in AC1, and enemies weren't just based on the idea of archetypes but would use a variety of moves regardless to make things more complicated from you. Some advanced guards could counter, but they wouldn't always do that. They would also dodge, use power attacks to throw you off balance, break your defense if you were just defending throughout, grab you, break your grabs, try taunting you or get scared and leave an opening if you attacked them while they were at that... I feel that worked for the sake of variety in the game. It was fun. If you just sat there and countered, it was easy but tedious and running was a preferable option if you didn't want to deal with that. Or if you had played enough and gotten the hang of how combat worked, you could move on the offensive, but going on the offensive could prove risky as you need good timing, good reflexes and you leave more openings while fighting. And of course, there was the combo kill which was all about timing, and for harder enemies it would weaken them rather than kill them on the first one or two attacks.
Man combat in AC1 could be pretty fun. It was easy to learn, could take some time to actually master (mainly regarding being an offensive player) and it had a nice sense of progression as you obtained new moves that would actually help you deal with other kinds of enemies.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 12:42 AM
Well, the difference between punishing the player and real difficulty, as I see it, is that punishment is increasing the penalty for making a mistake (AFTER you've made the mistake, this kicks in.) The alternative is making the actual tasks more complex and difficult to do; in other words, making mistakes more likely/frequent. So in a fight, challenge is your opponent having more moves/ways to do damage to you/break your guard and stuff which makes the actual task of fighting them more difficult, where punishment is just saying "now when you take a hit, you take twice as much damage." Challenge is improving the game, where punishment is just changing the rules within the existing system.

I don't see why it would be difficult to run away from a fight though unless the game was poorly designed. But what I've said before is that I don't think it's just about the running, but about the
'escape', meaning your transition back to stealth. I think AC really needs to focus on making it possible to accidentally get caught in a fight you don't want to be in and instead of killing the enemies, shove one or two aside and disappear, then go back to your stalking. I think that switching between combat and stealth should be the easy part because then you don't feel like you're stuck with one or the other and the two can finally coexist in peace. :)
This!


Hello HMS! - Yep! that is good description of a stealth concept that could be made in application for a nice AC with deeper and immersive environment stealth - I saw that people wrote that the blowpipe made the game easier, well with the type of AI used in that game it is true...

But imagine that if you use the blowpipe with a sleeping dart for a target that blocks your way for instance, and after your action and your target sleeping another guard discovers your sleeping target instead of guarding, well with a better AI that guard will think that something is suspicious in seeing his colleague sleeping and start looking for you or better calling for close by reinforcement or going away to run to ring the alert. The difficulty is up for a better balance and gameplay and the blowpipe won't have ever makes the things easier neither, it would have a tool that players have at their disposition in order to use wisely because its impact and use can change the odds in your play.

Now guards know that someone id there and no matter what they look for the player, or be more alert.
The same type of AI could be done for the social stealth as well...

Also, about the combat being easy, well it actually is, since I can get way and kick their butts with assurance any archetype foe armed to the teeth with just the character's bear hand - I mean as long as guards are coming after me, they get kick off! - and I am not better than anyone there, I just apply the game automatism, and it became as an automatic second nature - And it should not be this way for an AC or any game.

My point if I can do it so easy without having to use any weapon, well some serious question about the fighting being easy in AC4 my be asked? Note: I could do the same with AC3 ( fight bear hand) , but the previous ones, well it was a bit harder especially ACR.
Exactly! I really like your blowpipe idea!



AC’s combat needs to be much harder. Combat should be hard. What should be easier is the transition from combat to navigation (escape) to stealth. However, all the core mechanics need to be challenging. Stealth must require observation, thought and momentum; navigation must require precision, quick reaction and imagination; combat must require skill, timing and assertiveness. However, they can’t be all-powerful on their own. They can’t always be a viable option, they have to depend and rely on each other. Most missions should encourage a mix of stealth, combat and navigation. But that doesn’t mean that the player should be allowed to defeat a battalion or more than 4 enemies at once, or else the game is letting combat steal navigation’s role and both the tension and the fear quickly vanish along with the immersion.
Challenge is different than punishment. The challenge can be great while the punishment is set to minimum. The punishment of failing at stealth is being detected (which is not quite the same as being dead), when stealth fails there are two options, fighting or running. If the player decides to fight but realizes he is no match against the enemies he can still escape (minimum punishment), however if the player fights, is severely wounded and keeps fighting then he will die (maximum punishment for foolishness). As for escaping, as long as the player keeps running, he won’t die, what matters here is the player’s reflexes which determinate how well he can adapt to the terrain (slide, roll or jump) and both his creativity and decisions (take left or right, evasive maneuvers, bump into civilians to make them drop their merchandise that serves as obstacles for nearby pursuers). If the player makes a good use of the navigation system, he will escape and resume stealth quickly while the player who keeps running in a straight line will take longer to lose their pursuers. This is how AC can be challenging and fun but without being punishing or frustrating.

This is what AC needs to improve. Evolution requires challenge.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 12:44 AM
So what about those that want to have a pile of bodies on the floor and just kill 'em all?

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 12:55 AM
So what about those that want to have a pile of bodies on the floor and just kill 'em all?

Those may have a cheat for that. Either that, or you kill groups of, no more than, four enemies until you have your red carpet. Anyway, I have to say that carnage (especially in big doses) doesn't mix well with AC and not just because one of the tenants dictates that you stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 01:02 AM
Those may have a cheat for that. Either that, or you kill groups of, no more than, four enemies until you have your red carpet. Anyway, I have to say that carnage (especially in big doses) doesn't mix well with AC and not just because one of the tenants dictates that you stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent.

But yet AC has been doing that since day one. How can you say what doesn't mix well when it's been done since it's inception?

And enemy soldiers, shooting or attacking you. "Nah, you guys are innocent, just keep shooting me and hitting me while I run away."

Why should I "cheat" just to kill "more than 4 people?" Most of the Assassin's are trained for Close Quarters Combat anyway, the only one that really isn't is Edward with the hidden blades. As a pirate, he obviously knows how to use his swords though.

I think your idea punishes people who want to be the badass. I don't know why you just can't run away, the option is there for you to do so already.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2013, 01:08 AM
Those may have a cheat for that. Either that, or you kill groups of, no more than, four enemies until you have your red carpet. Anyway, I have to say that carnage (especially in big doses) doesn't mix well with AC and not just because one of the tenants dictates that you stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent.

The tenants are contradictory anyway. First off, like you said, all the assassins including Altair have killed legions of enemies at one point or time(battle of Arsuf if you can't remember), yet they are just as 'innocent' as the Assassin's themselves - both kill for the greater good/what they think is justified.

Secondly, whose to say the assassins are more innocent than the actual Templars? Both have known to be corrupt and, once again, think their fight is justified. So how do you define a non-innocent? Well, according to the Creed, you cannot. After all 'nothing is true'.

Whether you kill guards in their dozens, or weed out your sole target. You are murdering someone - who are the assassins to define who is innocent? It's not as black and white as some may think.

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 01:15 AM
Honestly, I still think difficulty settings IS the way to go. Not only it is something that is pretty much universal, with very few cases not having that (for instance, in the case of platformers where there's more of a natural progression of difficulty with harder levels that require more precision and whatnot). To explain, the only games beside the Assassin's Creed series that I own for the Xbox360 that don't have difficulty settings are Prince of Persia 2008 (platformer, though known for being pretty damn easy thanks to the no dying thing), SKATE 2 (which has a nice difficulty curve in challenge progression) and all 3 Sonic games (platformers, 06 which plain old sucks and is difficulty out of bad level design, Unleashed which has a difficulty curve that goes nuts because of unforgiving level design later on and Generations which is rather easy but still keeps a nice difficulty curve). The rest all have some sort of difficulty setting in some way. For RDR it's the aiming mode, for The Elder Scrolls and Fallout it's the difficulty slider which makes enemies more durable and your damage threshold lower, but those have a simpler combat system. And then New Vegas has Hardcore Mode which is a fantastic idea. And so on.
This series CAN do with a higher difficulty setting. Normal, which keeps it as it is right now, and hard which makes guards more vigilant and capable, more aggressive with fighting, maybe it could even remove the killstreaks and make the counter window that much smaller. Things like that. It could work for both audiences, I'm thinking.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 01:18 AM
But yet AC has been doing that since day one. How can you say what doesn't mix well when it's been done since it's inception?And enemy soldiers, shooting or attacking you. "Nah, you guys are innocent, just keep shooting me and hitting me while I run away." Yes, they are as innocent as civilians. What AC tells since day one, is that the assassin must avoid unnecessary deaths. You kill a guard if you think you really need to, because you have to deal with the consequences (a dead body that enemies may spot, a dead body that you must now take your time to hide leaving you exposed). This way the player will think twice before killing a guard, especially if combat is harder and enemy AI smarter (like: “This guy is missing. Where is him?”)



Why should I "cheat" just to kill "more than 4 people?" Most of the Assassin's are trained for Close Quarters Combat anyway, the only one that really isn't is Edward with the hidden blades. As a pirate, he obviously knows how to use his swords though. A trained Assassin can kill 4, maybe 5 enemies at once (with a lot of luck). More than that and it just becomes stupid and immersion breaking. It takes way any thrill or tension and the whole gameplay experience becomes soulless and, eventually boring. That’s just the way it is, I have proven several times in my posts that this is true.



I think your idea punishes people who want to be the badass. I don't know why you just can't run away, the option is there for you to do so already.Nope. My idea punishes the player who wants to be a GOD and kill all immersion. Treat a game like a game and your experience will be severally inferior.
On the other hand, my idea improves the whole AC experience and AC’s core altogether.
Besides, there would still be a cheat for those who want to ruin their immersion, thrill and tension for the sake of feeling like a “badass”.
This is what AC needs.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 01:36 AM
Yes, they are as innocent as civilians. What AC tells since day one, is that the assassin must avoid unnecessary deaths. You kill a guard if you think you really need to, because you have to deal with the consequences (a dead body that enemies may spot, a dead body that you must now take your time to hide leaving you exposed). This way the player will think twice before killing a guard, especially if combat is harder and enemy AI smarter (like: “This guy is missing. Where is him?”)

If there's a bunch of guards attacking you, because you... oh, ran into a corner and there wasn't a place to hide, then what?

I'm not talking about killing a guard just to kill him. On that we agree on. I'm talking when worse comes to worse and you need to fight your way out, and running is NOT an option.



A trained Assassin can kill 4, maybe 5 enemies at once (with a lot of luck). More than that and it just becomes stupid and immersion breaking. It takes way any thrill or tension and the whole gameplay experience becomes soulless and, eventually boring. That’s just the way it is, I have proven several times in my posts that this is true.

But these are trained Assassins who are killing more than that. You think it's boring or immersive breaking, but you haven't proved anything except an opinion. I'm proof that it's NOT boring or immersive breaking, and actually quite satisfying. That gif where Edward boards the boat and "fights like a devil?" That's amazing.

I think that the enemies need to become less predictable. Maybe you CAN disarm a Brute, in this fight, but the next one it won't happen. Or, break their guard. But even then, it should be somewhat noticeable as to what they're planning next. In martial arts, we were taught to watch the stomach and hips and you can gauge what can happen based on that. Since AC can't do that, the icon above the head or the glowy target thing works too. I'm not saying don't change up the combat, but make it so those that are good at it remain good at it. We're supposed to be Assassin's not your run of the mill rent-a-guard, which in Connor's time, that's what many were.



Nope. My idea punishes the player who wants to be a GOD and kill all immersion. Treat a game like a game and your experience will be severally inferior.
On the other hand, my idea improves the whole AC experience and AC’s core altogether.
Besides, there would still be a cheat for those who want to ruin their immersion, thrill and tension for the sake of feeling like a “badass”.
This is what AC needs.

Look at you! Deciding what AC "needs to be" as if it's already going to happen. Again, AC has been about being a badass since day one.

And how else would you treat a game? I immersive myself into the game, and come up with rules for myself, such as in 4 not upgrading the Jackdaw until you're actually on land at a Harbormaster. I don't use fast travel. I role play the character and try to think and feel how the character would also think and feel.

Again, why should I "cheat" because you think that killing a bunch of people and have dead bodies around you, something that AC has done since day 1, just because it doesn't suit you.

If AC goes the way you want, and we're not able to be a badass anymore, then I'm out. And I can assure you, Ubisoft would lose sales. Cheat or not. You're trying to make AC something it isn't, and continue to speak matter of factly when it's all still your opinion. PROOF.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 01:40 AM
The tenants are contradictory anyway. First off, like you said, all the assassins including Altair have killed legions of enemies at one point or time(battle of Arsuf if you can't remember), yet they are just as 'innocent' as the Assassin's themselves - both kill for the greater good/what they think is justified.

Secondly, whose to say the assassins are more innocent than the actual Templars? Both have known to be corrupt and, once again, think their fight is justified. So how do you define a non-innocent? Well, according to the Creed, you cannot. After all 'nothing is true'.

Whether you kill guards in their dozens, or weed out your sole target. You are murdering someone - who are the assassins to define who is innocent? It's not as black and white as some may think.
The same goes the other way, you know? Who is to say guards arenít innocent and citizens are? Who is to say killing a guard is justified?
Nothing is true. Both the Assassins and the Templars fight for what they think is right. So how to know what is true and right and what isnít? There is no way, however, the more open-minded and the more you reflect and accept that what you consider to be true may end up being wrong, the bigger the chance that, what you consider to be right, actually is.
In the end you canít know if killing that guard that was about to spot you or that has already spotted you is the right thing to do. What we know is that, the more you avoid killing and the more you avoid to have to choose (by remaining undetected and refusing to kill anyone but the target), the less you have to worry about. This is why Assassins should stay their blade from the flesh of an innocent (whoever that may be).




Honestly, I still think difficulty settings IS the way to go. Not only it is something that is pretty much universal, with very few cases not having that (for instance, in the case of platformers where there's more of a natural progression of difficulty with harder levels that require more precision and whatnot). To explain, the only games beside the Assassin's Creed series that I own for the Xbox360 that don't have difficulty settings are Prince of Persia 2008 (platformer, though known for being pretty damn easy thanks to the no dying thing), SKATE 2 (which has a nice difficulty curve in challenge progression) and all 3 Sonic games (platformers, 06 which plain old sucks and is difficulty out of bad level design, Unleashed which has a difficulty curve that goes nuts because of unforgiving level design later on and Generations which is rather easy but still keeps a nice difficulty curve). The rest all have some sort of difficulty setting in some way. For RDR it's the aiming mode, for The Elder Scrolls and Fallout it's the difficulty slider which makes enemies more durable and your damage threshold lower, but those have a simpler combat system. And then New Vegas has Hardcore Mode which is a fantastic idea. And so on.
This series CAN do with a higher difficulty setting. Normal, which keeps it as it is right now, and hard which makes guards more vigilant and capable, more aggressive with fighting, maybe it could even remove the killstreaks and make the counter window that much smaller. Things like that. It could work for both audiences, I'm thinking.

Wish it was that simple. The problem is that the core mechanics canít evolve if combat doesnít become more challenging. If combat is easy, then stealth must be easy as well and so is navigation for the sake of balance. It doesnít make any sense to have a hard stealth system while combat is easy as hell or the opposite. But, if everything is easy then the mechanics canít evolve. Make them more complex, add elements but they will not fit if there isnít challenge, if there isnít a reason for them. If stealth becomes more complex but enemy AI and the situations can be overcame with basic stealth skills, stealth improvements become redundant. The same can be said for all the core mechanics. Challenge (from enemy AI and enemy positioning) is what fuels the evolution of stealth.
This means that, in order for the core mechanics to evolve, the game needs to be more challenging. This is why difficulty levels wonít work.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2013, 01:55 AM
The guards are usually serving under a powerful Templar, so they are affiliated with the Templars and work against the assassins goals, whether they know it for not. Therefore, I'm pretty sure Assassin's do not consider killing guards against that particular tenant(flesh of an innocent bla bla), but would just prefer to avoid recklessness to carry out their duties more effectively.

I'm just saying, it doesn't make sense to use that tenant as an argument against the games combat - because none of the assassins regard their enemies (targets, guards - whatever) as innocent. So they kill as much as they please(A whole god damn lot), during story missions as well. You might think this is not just and that the assassins should behave differently BUT they don't. That's the truth.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 01:55 AM
If there's a bunch of guards attacking you, because you... oh, ran into a corner and there wasn't a place to hide, then what?
I'm not talking about killing a guard just to kill him. On that we agree on. I'm talking when worse comes to worse and you need to fight your way out, and running is NOT an option.

Smoke bomb + escape.



But these are trained Assassins who are killing more than that. You think it's boring or immersive breaking, but you haven't proved anything except an opinion. I'm proof that it's NOT boring or immersive breaking, and actually quite satisfying. That gif where Edward boards the boat and "fights like a devil?" That's amazing.
Sure, but at what cost? Guns, badass, kill streaks, etc. itís all good when it works, but when you are shot multiple times and survive, when enemies wait for you to attack and are no match for your Hulk powers (when the game puts you in a pedestal away from other NPCs that should be in the same level as you), immersion is broken, it feels like a game. Life doesnít work that way. You shoot and you kill but if you get shot, you die. You donít get to kill everyone in direct combat when in a tight spot, you are forced to think and plan a response or just run for your life. The fact that you canít win every situation and that not every option is viable adds tension and thrill. When a game doesnít follow this simple rules of life, it feels like a gamey game.
Also combat shouldnít steal navigationís role. Plus, combat, stealth and navigation need to be challenging (without being punishing) in order for AC to evolve. Itís all here, Iíve explained these points. Iím not going to repeat myself, if you disagree or donít understand read my previous posts until you understand that they are more than an opinion.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 02:01 AM
The guards are usually serving under a powerful Templar, so they are affiliated with the Templars and work against the assassins goals, whether they know it for not. Therefore, I'm pretty sure Assassin's do not consider killing guards against that particular tenant(flesh of an innocent bla bla), but would just prefer to avoid recklessness to carry out their duties more effectively.

I'm just saying, it doesn't make sense to use that tenant as an argument against the games combat - because none of the assassins regard their enemies (targets, guards - whatever) as innocent. So they kill as much as they please(A whole god damn lot), during story missions as well. You might think this is not just and that the assassins should behave differently BUT they don't. That's the truth.

Sure, I don't even remember why I was having this argument in the first place. All I'm saying is that all core mechanics need to be challenging.

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 02:01 AM
Nope. My idea punishes the player who wants to be a GOD and kill all immersion. Treat a game like a game and your experience will be severally inferior.
On the other hand, my idea improves the whole AC experience and AC’s core altogether.
Besides, there would still be a cheat for those who want to ruin their immersion, thrill and tension for the sake of feeling like a “badass”.
This is what AC needs.

While I agree with harder combat and whatnot, I have to talk about this. If you treat it like a game, there's no reason your experience should be inferior, because you know, it's a GAME. It's not an interactive movie, it's not a simulator, it's not a virtual reality experience that aims to make you experience how fighting as someone skilled enough during those times would have actually been. It is a game, and while from person to person it can be more or less immersive, it doesn't change the fact that at core it's a game and having fun with it is the final purpose. EDIT: I should also say, the moment that you add the sync system that has been around since AC1 you can throw part of that element out of the window. Because according to that, Altair was not hurt even once, and you getting hurt was a mistake that Altair didn't make. The sync system makes it possible to take such amounts of damage, and it allows for that gameyness which, in my opinion, works perfectly.
Some people aim to simply go ahead and kill countless guards for no reason whatsoever simply because it can be fun to just exterminate whole armies by yourself, others would prefer using options given within the game to make their experience something more immersive and whatnot (like removing the HUD, keeping the most basic equipment and so on). Having to get a cheat for being able to do what the entire series has been able to do would actually hurt sales more than anything and probably drive people away from it. Nevermind chances are reviewers would complain about the difficulty being too high even if it was just slightly higher than it currently is.

I still believe, and I probably always will, that difficulty settings are the answer to this. It's the best possible compromise, even though, as you pointed out in a later post (glad I have two tabs open) mechanics need to evolve. Changing the system so it's more easily scalable sounds to me like the best possible idea, and I do think it is possible. Combat that for people who want to prefer keeping it as last resort and prefer tension can actually be taken to a higher level of difficulty with ease, yet for people who would prefer a more relaxed experience it can be simplified enough. Stealth that for the player who wants the tension of planning and avoiding has guards who are more active and prepared, yet for people who want an easier experience has more passive guards. And navigation that remains in the middle and works as a bridge, well made for both sides. For those who wants a more tense experience it would be well designed enough to have enough moves to keep it as the desired bridge between both combat and stealth, yet simple enough for those who simply want to mess around running through rooftop. Saying it won't work is simply giving up and saying "there's no other way". But there always is. It's not that it won't work. It's that it can, but it needs to be well thought out.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 02:03 AM
Oh no, I've seen your posts. Why stop repeating yourself now?

But more to the point, you keep talking like it's the solution. It's YOUR solution. Not everyone's solution. That's MY point.

Do you understand this? I'd respect your posts more if you didn't act like you're Ubisoft's only customer.

You've said in previous posts that a "hidden blade" is enough. But, uh.. .smoke bombs? And Altair didn't have smoke bombs.

Lastly, games are meant to be fun, not go out and "live real life."

Here's something that's a fact though, that happens in real life: Games aren't meant to be played like real life. Most people who play games like that, do it on their own terms. Like in Skyrim, there's a group of people who "Live one life." If you die, that's it for that character. Time to make a new one.

Games are an escape from real life. They're for enjoyment. They're not meant to emulate real life at all. By this logic, anytime any of these Assassin's kill anyone, they need to go to trial before a jury of their peers, get the chair, life in prison, lethal injection, or whatever such a sentence may be outside the US.

That's really a piss poor argument, and if that's your angle man... wow.

Landruner
11-28-2013, 02:10 AM
Wish it was that simple. The problem is that the core mechanics can’t evolve if combat doesn’t become more challenging. If combat is easy, then stealth must be easy as well and so is navigation for the sake of balance. It doesn’t make any sense to have a hard stealth system while combat is easy as hell or the opposite. But, if everything is easy then the mechanics can’t evolve. Make them more complex, add elements but they will not fit if there isn’t challenge, if there isn’t a reason for them. If stealth becomes more complex but enemy AI and the situations can be overcame with basic stealth skills, stealth improvements become redundant. The same can be said for all the core mechanics. Challenge (from enemy AI and enemy positioning) is what fuels the evolution of stealth.
This means that, in order for the core mechanics to evolve, the game needs to be more challenging. This is why difficulty levels won’t work.

It makes sense that fighting has to be adapted to a deeper stealth concept - If fact, combat should be the last alternative to get away from situations that required environmental stealth or Social stealth.
The problem I have with the two last ACs (AC3/AC4) is that from the beginning the character(s) can easily beat any foe in the game, which is turning to be genetic (carnage/rampage) since whatever happen players know they can get away by resolving the all situation by a fight - (Only constraint players have if not being desynchronized for not doing the things or condition the games told them to do) - It should not be this way, fighting skills should be involved and progressive in order to get players to be concentered or focused on their own responsibilities toward their own play.

Example: (During an Assassination mission)/

You get detected, well you try to escape and hide, and you have to do it well because now the guards know you are there and they are looking for you and they are reading for you and you have to be skilled enough to remind hidden, and move your way without being caught again.

You get caught again, and you have no escape or no way to hide again, no other solution but just fighting, well you do at your own risk since guards are full of surprise and very smart and you have 50/50 to survive the fight. (Something like that depending of the skill's level of your character)

If you did well and made your way, you try to get closer to your target, but since guards had been alerted by your fights, well now you have guards around your target to protect it and/or your target is now hiding somewhere and you have to find it.

I know it makes the things harder for some, but honestly, if it is done well, bring some reward to the players, it can fun and worth the challenge, and brings more satisfaction for the players as well since players could feel they have accomplish something.

adventurewomen
11-28-2013, 02:17 AM
With a thread title such as this I'm more inclined to believe. that the OP found the game too difficult leading to them quitting the game. Then deciding to post of the forums about it. tbh.

Only one post from the OP, says it all really.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 02:18 AM
I wanted to add that if we're talking "real life", most gamers are male, ages 18-35. You know what they're doing? Going to college, and/or working full time/part time. Sitting down to play a game is supposed to be enjoyable, not stressful. That's real life.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 02:20 AM
Oh no, I've seen your posts. Why stop repeating yourself now?

But more to the point, you keep talking like it's the solution. It's YOUR solution. Not everyone's solution. That's MY point.

Do you understand this? I'd respect your posts more if you didn't act like you're Ubisoft's only customer.

You've said in previous posts that a "hidden blade" is enough. But, uh.. .smoke bombs? And Altair didn't have smoke bombs.

Lastly, games are meant to be fun, not go out and "live real life."

Here's something that's a fact though, that happens in real life: Games aren't meant to be played like real life. Most people who play games like that, do it on their own terms. Like in Skyrim, there's a group of people who "Live one life." If you die, that's it for that character. Time to make a new one.

Games are an escape from real life. They're for enjoyment. They're not meant to emulate real life at all. By this logic, anytime any of these Assassin's kill anyone, they need to go to trial before a jury of their peers, get the chair, life in prison, lethal injection, or whatever such a sentence may be outside the US.

That's really a piss poor argument, and if that's your angle man... wow.
Treat it like a game or more than that, but being an absolute winner is no fun. How can a game without challenge be fun? In fact, challenge is part of the definition of game. What is so fun about being able to kill everyone? Where is the balance in that? What is stealth and navigation for, if you can kill everyone in combat?
See, there is no balance.
How can the core mechanics improve if there isnít a challenge that requires them to improve?

Without this AC canít improve whether you like it or not.



While I agree with harder combat and whatnot, I have to talk about this. If you treat it like a game, there's no reason your experience should be inferior, because you know, it's a GAME. It's not an interactive movie, it's not a simulator, it's not a virtual reality experience that aims to make you experience how fighting as someone skilled enough during those times would have actually been. It is a game, and while from person to person it can be more or less immersive, it doesn't change the fact that at core it's a game and having fun with it is the final purpose. EDIT: I should also say, the moment that you add the sync system that has been around since AC1 you can throw part of that element out of the window. Because according to that, Altair was not hurt even once, and you getting hurt was a mistake that Altair didn't make. The sync system makes it possible to take such amounts of damage, and it allows for that gameyness which, in my opinion, works perfectly.
Some people aim to simply go ahead and kill countless guards for no reason whatsoever simply because it can be fun to just exterminate whole armies by yourself, others would prefer using options given within the game to make their experience something more immersive and whatnot (like removing the HUD, keeping the most basic equipment and so on). Having to get a cheat for being able to do what the entire series has been able to do would actually hurt sales more than anything and probably drive people away from it. Nevermind chances are reviewers would complain about the difficulty being too high even if it was just slightly higher than it currently is.

I still believe, and I probably always will, that difficulty settings are the answer to this. It's the best possible compromise, even though, as you pointed out in a later post (glad I have two tabs open) mechanics need to evolve. Changing the system so it's more easily scalable sounds to me like the best possible idea, and I do think it is possible. Combat that for people who want to prefer keeping it as last resort and prefer tension can actually be taken to a higher level of difficulty with ease, yet for people who would prefer a more relaxed experience it can be simplified enough. Stealth that for the player who wants the tension of planning and avoiding has guards who are more active and prepared, yet for people who want an easier experience has more passive guards. And navigation that remains in the middle and works as a bridge, well made for both sides. For those who wants a more tense experience it would be well designed enough to have enough moves to keep it as the desired bridge between both combat and stealth, yet simple enough for those who simply want to mess around running through rooftop. Saying it won't work is simply giving up and saying "there's no other way". But there always is. It's not that it won't work. It's that it can, but it needs to be well thought out.

Itís not about difficulty, itís about challenge. These are different things. AC needs to offer more challenge to evolve. As for the difficulty itself, sure, there can be difficulty levels.

The point is the balance. By allowing to kill everyone, combat is doing navigationís role. By being able to kill everyone, escape and stealth become pointless. This is something that canít be ignored. There needs to be a balance because, right now, the only real core mechanics in AC is combat and navigation (minus escape). Stealth and escape are simply alternatives to combat, implements. They donít have their own place since combat is always a viable option.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 02:30 AM
Navigation does it's role when I get tired of fighting and run away. You can run away at any time. There's a balance already because not everyone is going to have the same play style. This is fact, whether you like it or not.

It's up to you how you play! That's the beauty of this series. Forcing me to run because I'm outmanned isn't fun. That's not what I want to do.

It's like everything you complain about, is already present in Assassin's Creed. Have you played 4 yet?

Even Splinter Cell Blacklist has three different playstyles (Ghost, Panther and Assault) the games can be played out in any way you like and nothing is changed for each mode. The same applies for Assassin's Creed, especially 4.

Sushiglutton
11-28-2013, 02:37 AM
Treat it like a game or more than that, but being an absolute winner is no fun. How can a game without challenge be fun? In fact, challenge is part of the definition of game. What is so fun about being able to kill everyone? Where is the balance in that? What is stealth and navigation for, if you can kill everyone in combat?
See, there is no balance.
How can the core mechanics improve if there isn’t a challenge that requires them to improve?

Without this AC can’t improve whether you like it or not.




It’s not about difficulty, it’s about challenge. These are different things. AC needs to offer more challenge to evolve. As for the difficulty itself, sure, there can be difficulty levels.

The point is the balance. By allowing to kill everyone, combat is doing navigation’s role. By being able to kill everyone, escape and stealth become pointless. This is something that can’t be ignored. There needs to be a balance because, right now, the only real core mechanics in AC is combat and navigation (minus escape). Stealth and escape are simply alternatives to combat, implements. They don’t have their own place since combat is always a viable option.

Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

Shahkulu101
11-28-2013, 02:42 AM
Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

Quite.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 02:44 AM
Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

+1

Landruner
11-28-2013, 02:46 AM
Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

I Like Sushi!!!! ;) AC does not need a Hardcore combat, but a better AI and a better balance in the gameplay fight.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 02:49 AM
Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

You people just don't get it. Did you at least read all my posts in this thread?



Navigation does it's role when I get tired of fighting and run away. You can run away at any time. There's a balance already because not everyone is going to have the same play style. This is fact, whether you like it or not.

Haha...you think that is navigation's role? Do you think Assassins escape because they are bored of fighting? You're just proving my point.



I'm tired of explaining the same points over and over again. AC's only real core mechanic is combat. I've shown the importance of having a balanced gameplay, but it is useless. I've reached the conclusion that this debate is pointless, either you get it or you don't. Have your way, have all these AC games made for babies, it seems the time for real games is over anyway.

Landruner
11-28-2013, 02:58 AM
The funny part is that even 10 and 12 years old kids think the game is too easy and the fight too easy! seriously I am not joking this time, So, I believe something as to be done. Either Prevent kids from playing a M rated game, or just change the rating for an E (Everyone) Rating. LOL!:rolleyes:

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 03:00 AM
No, you didn't prove anything. Because again, I'm making the CHOICE to flight and not fight. That's the whole point of the game. Choice. That's the whole principle behind the actual Assassin's Creed. Choice!

There are plenty of times I've ran away because I was about to die, or because I wanted a quick escape.

And stop insulting us. We're not babies just because we have a choice. It's what you do with that choice that defines what kind of person you are. The fact that you're insulting those that disagree with you over a play style CHOICE and you have ALL the answers constantly reminds me more of Templar behavior. Maybe that's the game for you instead "Templar's Creed."

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 03:48 AM
Haha...you think that is navigation's role? Do you think Assassins escape because they are bored of fighting? You're just proving my point.

I'm tired of explaining the same points over and over again. AC's only real core mechanic is combat. I've shown the importance of having a balanced gameplay, but it is useless. I've reached the conclusion that this debate is pointless, either you get it or you don't. Have your way, have all these AC games made for babies, it seems the time for real games is over anyway.

See, here's the thing. I appreciate some of your ideas, you really do have some good ones. But the way you're handling this is very much a "my way or the highway" attitude and thinking that this is the only way things can work. Choice is something that has been a part of the series from the get go. The idea of choice has been part of the series from inception, and while you do have some good ideas, the moment you deal with this being an open world game and a game that can certainly be considered pretty mainstream you need to keep that much into account. But this show of elitism won't help your cause, you're just acting "woe is me, real gaming is dead" and overall going the wrong way about it. It's a vocal minority who wants as much as the sort of stuff you're asking for, but it seems the majority is actually doing fine with it, and honestly so long as that's the case (which probably will be a long time) such big changes are far from likely. And as it stands with these changes not sounding likely, if you being one of that vocal minority keep acting this way, that will just make a bad impression which has influence regarding this. I think it's been said devs do read the forums, they get feedback from the mods, and acting like this is just gonna lead them to dismiss it.

Landruner
11-28-2013, 04:22 AM
See, here's the thing. I appreciate some of your ideas, you really do have some good ones. But the way you're handling this is very much a "my way or the highway" attitude and thinking that this is the only way things can work. Choice is something that has been a part of the series from the get go. The idea of choice has been part of the series from inception, and while you do have some good ideas, the moment you deal with this being an open world game and a game that can certainly be considered pretty mainstream you need to keep that much into account. But this show of elitism won't help your cause, you're just acting "woe is me, real gaming is dead" and overall going the wrong way about it. It's a vocal minority who wants as much as the sort of stuff you're asking for, but it seems the majority is actually doing fine with it, and honestly so long as that's the case (which probably will be a long time) such big changes are far from likely. And as it stands with these changes not sounding likely, if you being one of that vocal minority keep acting this way, that will just make a bad impression which has influence regarding this. I think it's been said devs do read the forums, they get feedback from the mods, and acting like this is just gonna lead them to dismiss it.

For replying to what you wrote to HMS:

I think that it is more a question of being exhausted from repeating the same explanation and a result of some frustrations of not being totally understood in his description of what he has in mind that pushes him to sound like this.

As for your posts that I follow for the past weeks, because you have wonderful ideas as well, I read almost all his posts and most of the time he has to re-explain himself over & over and then; turning bitter in his replies - He has very nice and very interesting ideas and he just try to communicate them the best he can, and perhaps, it is not always easy to describe in this forum what we have in mind and try to give the best description of it.

One think is sure, I do not want the AC games turn into a frustrating Dark Soul hardcore gameplay experience, and I am sure that AssassinHMS does not want that neither, and I am sure you don't too. HMS does not want to turn the future games into the only way he likes, a lot of people mentioned there that AI, combat system, social stealth, environment stealth and mission designs have to be improved or re-worked, and it is also the general consensus about that franchise anyhow.

Like we talked together other the 2 past weeks on some other threads including this one, he, like you an I just want the gameplay being a bit more complex, enhanced with deeper concepts and we provided some ideas, suggestions and certainly some solutions for this for the past weeks. Are they the best? I don't know, but at least we tried to propose something.

ProletariatPleb
11-28-2013, 05:46 AM
The funny part is that even 10 and 12 years old kids think the game is too easy and the fight too easy!
It's true, lol my younger brother. I let him play AC when he was 7 and he had 0 problems after the first few minutes figuring out controls.

Gi1t
11-28-2013, 05:48 AM
Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

How does the "difficulty setting" aspect keep getting lost in these discussion though? I mean this is totally moot if there are separate options for them because it doesn't affect the players that don't want the other option. But it seems like every time this discussion comes up, the concept of separate settings just gets dropped randomly out of the conversation like this over and over again. -__-

It's hard to accuse someone of a "my way or the highway" attitude if you're unwilling to even allow for a separate setting, (which, again, you do not have to play), and I don't think anyone here is trying to do that. Shouldn't we be talking about the concept of having separate settings rather than what those settings are like? Because it's pretty obvious there isn't a middle ground on-size-fits-all option.

ProletariatPleb
11-28-2013, 05:55 AM
I can actually agree with this. Timing really was the key in AC1, and enemies weren't just based on the idea of archetypes but would use a variety of moves regardless to make things more complicated from you. Some advanced guards could counter, but they wouldn't always do that. They would also dodge, use power attacks to throw you off balance, break your defense if you were just defending throughout, grab you, break your grabs, try taunting you or get scared and leave an opening if you attacked them while they were at that... I feel that worked for the sake of variety in the game. It was fun. If you just sat there and countered, it was easy but tedious and running was a preferable option if you didn't want to deal with that. Or if you had played enough and gotten the hang of how combat worked, you could move on the offensive, but going on the offensive could prove risky as you need good timing, good reflexes and you leave more openings while fighting. And of course, there was the combo kill which was all about timing, and for harder enemies it would weaken them rather than kill them on the first one or two attacks.
Man combat in AC1 could be pretty fun. It was easy to learn, could take some time to actually master (mainly regarding being an offensive player) and it had a nice sense of progression as you obtained new moves that would actually help you deal with other kinds of enemies.
Someone who understands, and that pic!
http://i.minus.com/ib1ud5RyQhm0aS.jpg

Pretty much. It's the AC game I can play just for the combat. A progression of that system, more refined had the potential to be better, instead they threw it away as with almost everything AC1 did.
The tension of escaping after assassinating a target is something I don't feel in any of the AC games after the first, also dat music.

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 06:08 AM
Someone who understands, and that pic!
http://i.minus.com/ib1ud5RyQhm0aS.jpg

Pretty much. It's the AC game I can play just for the combat. A progression of that system, more refined had the potential to be better, instead they threw it away as with almost everything AC1 did.
The tension of escaping after assassinating a target is something I don't feel in any of the AC games after the first, also dat music.

Agreed. The way it was handled combined with the incredible atmosphere created by the combination of intense music, persistent guards, the ringing bells that wouldn't stop up to the point you got back to the bureau and seeing the Abstergo symbol with the constant flashing red gave you the idea that you had to make it.
Frankly, that makes me also realize that chases haven't ever gotten back to that level of intensity. The only chase that got anywhere near that was escaping right after Ezio's family was executed and even then Wetlands Escape isn't as intense of a theme for escaping and as soon as you lost the guards for the first time that was that.

itsamea-mario
11-28-2013, 06:30 AM
You know what else is too easy?

YOUR MUM


sorry

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 06:42 AM
For replying to what you wrote to HMS:

I think that it is more a question of being exhausted from repeating the same explanation and a result of some frustrations of not being totally understood in his description of what he has in mind that pushes him to sound like this.

As for your posts that I follow for the past weeks, because you have wonderful ideas as well, I read almost all his posts and most of the time he has to re-explain himself over & over and then; turning bitter in his replies - He has very nice and very interesting ideas and he just try to communicate them the best he can, and perhaps, it is not always easy to describe in this forum what we have in mind and try to give the best description of it.

One think is sure, I do not want the AC games turn into a frustrating Dark Soul hardcore gameplay experience, and I am sure that AssassinHMS does not want that neither, and I am sure you don't too. HMS does not want to turn the future games into the only way he likes, a lot of people mentioned there that AI, combat system, social stealth, environment stealth and mission designs have to be improved or re-worked, and it is also the general consensus about that franchise anyhow.

Like we talked together other the 2 past weeks on some other threads including this one, he, like you an I just want the gameplay being a bit more complex, enhanced with deeper concepts and we provided some ideas, suggestions and certainly some solutions for this for the past weeks. Are they the best? I don't know, but at least we tried to propose something.

You have a point there, though what I do believe is the best thing to do in this case is keep cool and try to be rational about it even if it's frustrating. This is a small group of people we're talking about trying to suggest changes, but if you let your temper get the best of you and lose your cool, posts start becoming more irrational and a bad attitude can easily make people disregard ideas and damage credibility. I want these suggestions to be at least taken into account, but to get things through as a vocal minority takes more patience and a lot more self control. We want improvements, but we have to be willing to compromise and see as many ways as possible to get such improvements done. The moment you give in to your emotions and stop being fully rational about things, it becomes more likely that you'll have a knee-jerk reaction which will just escalate and end up hurting more than helping. Keeping it together is the best way of going about this, frustrating as it might get.

Gi1t
11-28-2013, 06:54 AM
You have a point there, though what I do believe is the best thing to do in this case is keep cool and try to be rational about it even if it's frustrating. This is a small group of people we're talking about trying to suggest changes, but if you let your temper get the best of you and lose your cool, posts start becoming more irrational and a bad attitude can easily make people disregard ideas and damage credibility. I want these suggestions to be at least taken into account, but to get things through as a vocal minority takes more patience and a lot more self control. We want improvements, but we have to be willing to compromise and see as many ways as possible to get such improvements done. The moment you give in to your emotions and stop being fully rational about things, it becomes more likely that you'll have a knee-jerk reaction which will just escalate and end up hurting more than helping. Keeping it together is the best way of going about this, frustrating as it might get.

Rules to write by. :) Best to re-read your message before posting and weed out anything that might distract from your point by getting on someone's nerves. It really clears the air. Sometimes I'm surprise at how quickly it can change things.

EchoFiveKilo
11-28-2013, 08:03 AM
Some people like combat, some like stealth and some like the combination. What you want to do is to destroy the experience for the players who like combat just so that when you do your stealth kill, run away routine you will subconciously know that if you are caught it will be difficult to fight your way out. I just think it's a bit weird. If you want to sneak and parkour you can do that. Use your imagination to pretend that comabt is not an option. I don't see why the game needs to spoon feed you this scenario by having a hardcore combat system that you don't plan to ever participate in.

Agree with this comment 100%. It actually pisses me off how many people on this site cry for the combat system to be taken out of the game and demand stealth. Why can't people just choose either side and ignore the other? I like combat, and stealth, some people only like stealth - how about just have both systems for both players.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 08:09 AM
How does the "difficulty setting" aspect keep getting lost in these discussion though? I mean this is totally moot if there are separate options for them because it doesn't affect the players that don't want the other option. But it seems like every time this discussion comes up, the concept of separate settings just gets dropped randomly out of the conversation like this over and over again. -__-

It's hard to accuse someone of a "my way or the highway" attitude if you're unwilling to even allow for a separate setting, (which, again, you do not have to play), and I don't think anyone here is trying to do that. Shouldn't we be talking about the concept of having separate settings rather than what those settings are like? Because it's pretty obvious there isn't a middle ground on-size-fits-all option.

Because HMS has said before that a "difficulty level" won't work and it needs to be a certain way, that way being where you're not a badass CQC Assassin, but instead you rely on stealth and running, and if you do have combat, any more than 4 enemies at once is too much and if you don't run and hide, you're chances of survival are slim to none.

He believes that for people who want to be "a badass CQC Assassin", they can use a cheat to achieve that.

AC has never been about that. Not only are his posts insulting, but also condescending and pretentious. It really is "his way" or "AC is doomed."

I've been trying to get the point across that we have choices, and that's why the series is so great. You can do what you like, play how you like.

Again, VERY much like Splinter Cell Blacklist.

Farlander1991
11-28-2013, 08:34 AM
The thing about difficulty levels, is that... they are not easy to do, especially in an open world game. Games like Arkham City have pretty ****ty difficulty levels, to be honest. It is not enough to just push up the damage and health variables, push down the timer elements and add an algorithm that puts higher ranked enemies in mixes. Just doing that is an incredibly lazy way to do it.

A proper difficulty level in a game like Assassin's Creed should include things like adding additional (or removing) patrols and guard posts, have more or less intricate patrol routes (depending on the difficulty), enemies should not just be harder to kill because of health, their behavior/AI should be different in combat, and all the stuff that's just insanely hard to do in an open world game to make PROPER difficulty level differentiation.

Gi1t
11-28-2013, 08:38 AM
Agree with this comment 100%. It actually pisses me off how many people on this site cry for the combat system to be taken out of the game and demand stealth. Why can't people just choose either side and ignore the other? I like combat, and stealth, some people only like stealth - how about just have both systems for both players.

I think you might have misread some comments. I haven't seen anyone asking for the removal of the combat system. Some people just want more of a limit on how many guards one can feasibly take on at one time in the open.


Because HMS has said before that a "difficulty level" won't work and it needs to be a certain way, that way being where you're not a badass CQC Assassin, but instead you rely on stealth and running, and if you do have combat, any more than 4 enemies at once is too much and if you don't run and hide, you're chances of survival are slim to none.

He believes that for people who want to be "a badass CQC Assassin", they can use a cheat to achieve that.

AC has never been about that. Not only are his posts insulting, but also condescending and pretentious. It really is "his way" or "AC is doomed."

I've been trying to get the point across that we have choices, and that's why the series is so great. You can do what you like, play how you like.


I might have missed that part of the conversation, but I definitely think it needs separate settings to avoid stepping on peoples' feet. :D And I think that 'normal' setting should include the ability to fight as many guards as you want. The whole thing about only being able to fight a certain number of guards is perfect for a higher difficulty setting. People shouldn't need a cheat; they can just have a setting that's balanced more like the current layout.

I actually had a thought just now that one thing they could do is design a more complex control scheme and then make the normal controls do the work of two or three commands per one button press. In other words, an attack requiring three distinct actions would take three different button presses in the hardcore setting, but on the normal one, you could trigger that move with one button press instead. Honestly, that's the way some of the animations feel to me; like they're doing three moves for one button press. I was hoping AC would lean more toward the ability to use the 'puppeteer' control scheme to do different combos with the three main buttons (Weapon had, empty hand and legs). Actually, I'd like to be able to use the head button to maybe do a head-butt partially because it's be hilarious to try to use it on a knight who's wearing a helmet. XD I can just see Altair doing a combo and then suddenly doing a head-butt and just falling over backwards like 'that was a bad idea.' XD But it's fun to be able to make mistakes in combat sometimes as long as they're not caused by control issues.



The thing about difficulty levels, is that... they are not easy to do, especially in an open world game. Games like Arkham City have pretty ****ty difficulty levels, to be honest. It is not enough to just push up the damage and health variables, push down the timer elements and add an algorithm that puts higher ranked enemies in mixes. Just doing that is an incredibly lazy way to do it.

A proper difficulty level in a game like Assassin's Creed should include things like adding additional (or removing) patrols and guard posts, have more or less intricate patrol routes (depending on the difficulty), enemies should not just be harder to kill because of health, their behavior/AI should be different in combat, and all the stuff that's just insanely hard to do in an open world game to make PROPER difficulty level differentiation.

Absolutely agree! :D

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2013, 08:49 AM
The thing about difficulty levels, is that... they are not easy to do, especially in an open world game. Games like Arkham City have pretty ****ty difficulty levels, to be honest. It is not enough to just push up the damage and health variables, push down the timer elements and add an algorithm that puts higher ranked enemies in mixes. Just doing that is an incredibly lazy way to do it

But is MUCH better than what we currently have in AC and I bet that difficulty settings on the level of the Batman Arkham games would please a lot of people looking for a challenge, it would be at least a nice start to improve this aspect of the game that is being neglected for years, and while they're at it, they should take a lesson or two from BA on how to make combat fluid as well, make the guards stand there waiting to be slaughered and take ages to attack you certainly isn't the right thing to do, they had 6 games (6 games!) to do something about it (the guards passivity), nothing was done, hell, even double counters became something rare in AC4 (not that they were something hard to deal, but they at least made the guards don't look as stupid as they are)

EchoFiveKilo
11-28-2013, 09:36 AM
I think you might have misread some comments. I haven't seen anyone asking for the removal of the combat system. Some people just want more of a limit on how many guards one can feasibly take on at one time in the open.

It's pretty much the same thing. They want to destroy the experience for those who enjoy combat, purely so they can get their stealth fix.

Omegatr0n
11-28-2013, 09:42 AM
Agreed. The way it was handled combined with the incredible atmosphere created by the combination of intense music, persistent guards, the ringing bells that wouldn't stop up to the point you got back to the bureau and seeing the Abstergo symbol with the constant flashing red gave you the idea that you had to make it.
Frankly, that makes me also realize that chases haven't ever gotten back to that level of intensity. The only chase that got anywhere near that was escaping right after Ezio's family was executed and even then Wetlands Escape isn't as intense of a theme for escaping and as soon as you lost the guards for the first time that was that.

A big + 1 on this, i played AC1 again earlier this year and after a assassination it always got real intense. It was never brought back to this level. Now AC4 the combat system (and notority) is a joke. And combat after boarding a ship is a complete clusterf**ck. Imo the combatsystem has never been this bad in an AC game.

Sigv4rd
11-28-2013, 09:51 AM
A big + 1 on this, i played AC1 again earlier this year and after a assassination it always got real intense. It was never brought back to this level. Now AC4 the combat system (and notority) is a joke. And combat after boarding a ship is a complete clusterf**ck. Imo the combatsystem has never been this bad in an AC game.

I'm sorry but AC2 was the single worst combat system the series has ever known. There was little to no difficulty, all the archetypes were basically the same, and the combat relied entirely too much on countering!
Now if you'll excuse me I'll be hiding in a fortified bunker, because I just criticized AC2 which is apparently against the law...

Landruner
11-28-2013, 09:57 AM
Agree with this comment 100%. It actually pisses me off how many people on this site cry for the combat system to be taken out of the game and demand stealth. Why can't people just choose either side and ignore the other? I like combat, and stealth, some people only like stealth - how about just have both systems for both players.

Not one there wants the combat system to be removed and turn AC franchise into a Stealth game only? - Where did you pick that from? I think you misunderstood the previous pots....

Landruner
11-28-2013, 09:58 AM
I'm sorry but AC2 was the single worst combat system the series has ever known. There was little to no difficulty, all the archetypes were basically the same, and the combat relied entirely too much on countering!
Now if you'll excuse me I'll be hiding in a fortified bunker, because I just criticized AC2 which is apparently against the law...

Yep you better hide!!! LOL!!!:p

Gi1t
11-28-2013, 09:58 AM
It's pretty much the same thing. They want to destroy the experience for those who enjoy combat, purely so they can get their stealth fix.

Close to it, but even a little bit of exaggeration really muddies things up sometimes and I figured it'd be worth clearing up before the inevitable "rage" response popped up. But what do you think of having a different setting that doesn't affect the normal game mode?

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2013, 10:23 AM
Why can't people just choose either side and ignore the other?

the whole reason to choose a stealth playstyle is to have the sense of danger that if you're spotted, bad things might happen, but with a combat system that lacks challenge like AC's, the reason to play this way is gone, you're spotted, you kill the guards like if they were nothing and go back to your business, there's no danger, what's the fun in that? (rhetorical question)

Landruner
11-28-2013, 10:43 AM
But is MUCH better than what we currently have in AC and I bet that difficulty settings on the level of the Batman Arkham games would please a lot of people looking for a challenge, it would be at least a nice start to improve this aspect of the game that is being neglected for years, and while they're at it, they should take a lesson or two from BA on how to make combat fluid as well, make the guards stand there waiting to be slaughered and take ages to attack you certainly isn't the right thing to do, they had 6 games (6 games!) to do something about it (the guards passivity), nothing was done, hell, even double counters became something rare in AC4 (not that they were something hard to deal, but they at least made the guards don't look as stupid as they are)

That is true in AC4 they don't only wait for you to get kicked off, but some sometimes they just ignore you - I just replayed a mission in Seq 7 happening in Nassau (Won't spoil which one for the ones that did not play it yet) - I engaged a voluntary fight with some soldiers - during the fight some guards totally ignored me while I was rampaging their friends bear hands without any weapon, and they just followed their patrol paths like nothing was happening (?), of course they were easy to catch in just passing their way and the time they finally react to my presence - LOL, I mean something is wrong with the AI in AC4, anyhow.

ladyleonhart
11-28-2013, 11:53 AM
For me, the combat seemed more difficult on the ships than on land. Overall, the combat didn't feel as fluid as in earlier AC games.

Also, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it is possible to avoid upgrading Edward's armour which increases his health. Then, that may make it a little more difficult, unless, of course, you're a player that can prevent an enemy landing a hit on you at all.

africanos23
11-28-2013, 12:03 PM
Just bought IV, I didn't play III, and I quit II because combat was too easy...

looks like exactly the same thing again in IV... I mean, it's cool that you can sneak around and avoid guards and all that ****, but what's the point, when you can massacre an entire army and barely lose a hit point.

I looked around for a difficult setting, couldn't find one.

So, again, gotta quit, 'cause this otherwise very cool game is too ****ing easy. What the hell, like... why is it so damn easy... challenge is fun... slaughter without opposition - that aint fun,

did I miss a difficulty setting somewhere?


I agree, the concept of th game is wrong at the beginning. Instead of making guards with lesser count but improving their AI they spam the sh*it load of them with an AI that even a moron can defeat.
Where in the Gods name can you find guards walking around rooftops like an everyday activity?
Rooftops should be unpopulated, leaving you with some kind of a hideout. If you make a mess and you notoriety rises yes they are gonna start patrolling the rooftops, organizing and chasing you don like blood hounds., when it drops so do they. Thats how they should have implemented it.

Omegatr0n
11-28-2013, 12:15 PM
For me, the combat seemed more difficult on the ships than on land.

Seemed indeed, thats because the guards glitch a lot. one second they attack one of my crew members and then i get an attack out of nowhere from the same guard. Combat onboard it really horrible...imo. Also the camera angles didnt help either.

Megas_Doux
11-28-2013, 12:27 PM
I'm sorry but AC2 was the single worst combat system the series has ever known. There was little to no difficulty, all the archetypes were basically the same, and the combat relied entirely too much on countering!
Now if you'll excuse me I'll be hiding in a fortified bunker, because I just criticized AC2 which is apparently against the law...

This!!!!!!!!!!

Although I dislike ACB's even more.

africanos23
11-28-2013, 12:36 PM
This!!!!!!!!!!

Although I dislike ACB's even more.

ACb implemented poison darts and throwing knivesx3 which enabled some kind of stealth gameplay
AC2 and ACb lacks in AI difficulty there is no question about it, but it seems more forgivable because later sequels were just BAD in terms of story etc

eifere
11-28-2013, 02:04 PM
I want more legendary ships

Farlander1991
11-28-2013, 02:33 PM
But is MUCH better than what we currently have in AC and I bet that difficulty settings on the level of the Batman Arkham games would please a lot of people looking for a challenge, it would be at least a nice start to improve this aspect of the game that is being neglected for years, and while they're at it, they should take a lesson or two from BA on how to make combat fluid as well, make the guards stand there waiting to be slaughered and take ages to attack you certainly isn't the right thing to do, they had 6 games (6 games!) to do something about it (the guards passivity), nothing was done, hell, even double counters became something rare in AC4 (not that they were something hard to deal, but they at least made the guards don't look as stupid as they are)

Maybe it's just the designer speaking in me, but I'm against the 'better than nothing' principle. Besides, having difficulty levels like in Batman games may distract the devs from the problems with the very mechanics of the system itself, because it's not a fix, but it certainly gives an illusion that it is.

I prefer to get a more polished combat system with no difficulty levels, rather than sloppy difficulty levels with a clunky combat system.

Speaking of combat, btw, I see no reason why there can't be a progression system that's similar to what the guys have done in the naval (where even heftily upgraded, taking out legendary ships can be pretty hard). AC1 had a skill progression system (that would be given to you in a linear fashion, but still), so it's not like AC has not done it before. Enemies don't have to stay at the same level at all places.

dxsxhxcx
11-28-2013, 03:26 PM
Maybe it's just the designer speaking in me, but I'm against the 'better than nothing' principle. Besides, having difficulty levels like in Batman games may distract the devs from the problems with the very mechanics of the system itself, because it's not a fix, but it certainly gives an illusion that it is.

I prefer to get a more polished combat system with no difficulty levels, rather than sloppy difficulty levels with a clunky combat system.

I agree with you (in a perfect world your course of action would be the best), but since almost 7 years later barely anything was done to fix the problems AC's combat system has I doubt we'll see these problems being properly fixed the way you're suggesting now, and IMO Ubisoft already took the route of "better than nothing" with the franchise as a whole when the yearly releases began so difficulty settings that offer something similar to what BA does (that IMO is OK) would at least bring something more to the table...

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 04:37 PM
Just a thought. Why do you think stealth hasn't evolved nearly as much as it should since the beginning of the franchise?
Because it canít.


Dxsxhxcx, imagine youíre trying to make an AC game. You want stealth to improve. But, to improve stealth you need to improve enemy AI, right? Say you want shadow/light based stealth or that, perhaps, you want more complex and evolved social stealth mechanics. In order to do that, you need to make sure enemies are ďsmartĒ enough to respond to those mechanics. For example, in the social stealth example I gave (where the player is able to buy from a tailor accessories that conceal weapons) the enemies must be able to recognize if the player has his weapons concealed (a cape to conceal the crossbow, a knife inside a boot) or if the weapons are in plain sight and respond differently to those situations.

Anyway, the point is, in order to improve stealth, you need to make enemy AI smarter. Agree?

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 05:25 PM
The way I could see difficulty settings working is actually the following: Improve enemy AI overall and also make different types of AI for different areas (cities, military zones, forest patrols, etc.). I've mentioned in another topic how I'd prefer the money system to get canned and replacing that by crafing but that's another whole story, I still think your idea regarding weapon concealing for social stealth sounds rather good in any case. So we have that working. Good stealth and good navigation. The one part that remains, the balancing factor, is combat. I do think some changes for it could work (I, for one, believe something more timing and reflex based with a progression system like the one from AC1 is ideal). It's there where difficulty settings should work out chosen from the start of the game, maybe possible to change in mid-game so long as you're not currently in a mission: One that works similar to the current one, allowing the player who wants a more relaxed experience go ahead with it, a middle one which does things like lowering counter windows, making tougher varieties of soldiers more common (imagine guards like Tamir's bodyguards who take two counters before dying and can counter), and the highest one which would make guards have skillsets like the ones of toughest guards (say, templars and patrol leaders in AC1 who could use defense break, dodge, counter and their own version of combo kills), and that much more dangerous to fight making stealth the best possible option.
Now, my line of thinking here is that the idea of enemy archetypes has been around for a while in this series, so rather than having to adjust combat AI to be scalable or increasing or lowering damage inputs, make it based on changing your counter window (easy being ACB sword counter window, medium being AC1 sword counter window and hard being AC1 hidden blade counter window, for instance) and how common each enemy variety is. With simpler enemies who don't counter and don't break your defense being more common, going through them like butter would be the usual. Or you could have tough enemies which take at least 3 counters to take down, can actually counter your attacks, grab and throw you, break your defense... Yeah, remember how fighting all those templars at Arsuf went and how it would be if you hadn't mastered hidden blade counters? Now just add the hidden blade counter window to all your weapons and there you go, fun times. It'll take time if you know how to take them all on, and even then it won't be the best idea as combat AI overall could be more aggressive.
I'm not sure how well this could work but hey, just going ahead with possibilities.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 06:03 PM
The way I could see difficulty settings working is actually the following: Improve enemy AI overall and also make different types of AI for different areas (cities, military zones, forest patrols, etc.). I've mentioned in another topic how I'd prefer the money system to get canned and replacing that by crafing but that's another whole story, I still think your idea regarding weapon concealing for social stealth sounds rather good in any case. So we have that working. Good stealth and good navigation. The one part that remains, the balancing factor, is combat. I do think some changes for it could work (I, for one, believe something more timing and reflex based with a progression system like the one from AC1 is ideal). It's there where difficulty settings should work out chosen from the start of the game, maybe possible to change in mid-game so long as you're not currently in a mission: One that works similar to the current one, allowing the player who wants a more relaxed experience go ahead with it, a middle one which does things like lowering counter windows, making tougher varieties of soldiers more common (imagine guards like Tamir's bodyguards who take two counters before dying and can counter), and the highest one which would make guards have skillsets like the ones of toughest guards (say, templars and patrol leaders in AC1 who could use defense break, dodge, counter and their own version of combo kills), and that much more dangerous to fight making stealth the best possible option.
Yeah, that could work. But I’d rather if the difficulty came from the number of enemies instead of coming from different archetypes. Easier missions would have less enemies and they would be more scattered which means combat is, in most situations, viable while more difficult assassinations would imply a more tight security where combat alone isn’t the answer but where the player has to keep it to a minimum and rely a lot more on stealth and navigation.

On another note, I would like you to answer the question that I directed at dxsxhxcx in my last post.

HiddenBlaDe00
11-28-2013, 06:07 PM
I liked the structure of AC1. In AC1, you were assigned a contract. You had to perform recon and espionage in order to accumulate information about your target, local events, factions, environmental advantages/disadvantages, etc. This served as preparation which gave the player freedom of choice when it came to execution. In later games this idea seemed to be canned...

...I hoped for later games to be more about actual assassinations and design centered around methods of approach. For instance, you may choose between a stealthy approach or a full frontal assault. Each target would have a different personality which would influence the mission structure. Initial targets would be a cut and dry distinction between "stealth" and "action" but later targets would require a mix of the two and the player would be tested on his ability to perform as well as his ability to prepare, as before engaging in a mission the player would have to choose between a limited number of tools, gadgets and weapons to bring along with him...

...In order for something like this to work, the AI would have to be separated into two categories; a "stealth" AI and a "combat" AI. Stealth AI would be placed in restricted areas, while combat AI would only be called in the event of a raised alarm (in restricted areas only) or when combat is engaged. If the player tries to engage combat with stealth AI, their response would be to alert combat AI of a breach in security. Each AI type would have different archetypes. The combat AI's current archetypes are fine; you've got agiles, brutes, "normal" guards, and captains/elites. The stealth AI would need its own set of archetypes...

...perhaps "sentries" who are posted at various spots inside a given restricted area and whose patrol can be observed for openings. These would be the "common" archetype. Then you'd have maybe "gunsmen" who act as sentries only who are perched on guard towers/rooftops. These archetypes would have a larger range of vision due to their position. Then you'd have "searchers" who have no set post and who search various hiding spots in the area for the player, and finally "runners", who would be a form of sentries who are always semi alerted. This archetype would have faster response time and who would run to the nearest alarm if he sighted you.

Each stealth AI archetype would have their own response times and reactions. Maybe the sentries would notice you and request a two party team of combat AI to investigate a suspicious sighting, and if you were caught by the combat AI then you'd naturally be thrown into combat, while gunmen would request searchers to investigate unusual activity who then would search all nearby hiding spots. Runners would automatically run for the nearest alarm and try to alert the combat AI. All other forms of stealth AI would only raise the alarm if you were spotted...

...I've got more to say but I've got to think about it a bit more. I'll continue this post later...

EchoFiveKilo
11-28-2013, 08:20 PM
the whole reason to choose a stealth playstyle is to have the sense of danger that if you're spotted, bad things might happen, but with a combat system that lacks challenge like AC's, the reason to play this way is gone, you're spotted, you kill the guards like if they were nothing and go back to your business, there's no danger, what's the fun in that? (rhetorical question)

Like someone else mentioned, people should just imagine that it will happen - how about restarting checkpoint when you get detected like I do?

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 08:37 PM
Like someone else mentioned, people should just imagine that it will happen - how about restarting checkpoint when you get detected like I do?

What??.............................You're talking about punishment while he is talking about challenge. If you want to punish yourself that's fine, but what we want is to have fun with stealth and a real reason to use it. Right now, combat is doing both stealth's and navigation's job which means there is no real reason to use stealth. A challenging combat system would change this and balance the gameplay. Also, AC can't evolve with a combat system for babies.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 08:41 PM
What??.............................You're talking about punishment while he is talking about challenge. If you want to punish yourself that's fine, but what we want is to have fun with stealth and a real reason to use it. Right now, combat is doing both stealth's and navigation's job which means there is no real reason to use stealth. A challenging combat system would change this and balance the gameplay. Also, AC can't evolve with a combat system for babies.

Would you stop calling people babies? How old are you? You're acting the most immature out of everyone in this thread.

That's not how a discussion works. There's no need for insults just because you want a hardcore experience that takes away why most people play the game in the first place.

Seriously. Lay off the insults.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 08:46 PM
Would you stop calling people babies? How old are you? You're acting the most immature out of everyone in this thread.

That's not how a discussion works. There's no need for insults just because you want a hardcore experience that takes away why most people play the game in the first place.

Seriously. Lay off the insults.

I'm not insulting anyone. It is AC that insults players by treating them as babies with such an easy combat system. You should be mad at Ubisoft instead. A discussion requires thought, you know...so think.

Hans684
11-28-2013, 09:15 PM
The combat should be made deeper but also more connected and it's 'difficulty' should depend on the skills of the player.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 09:35 PM
The combat should be made deeper but also more connected and it's 'difficulty' should depend on the skills of the player.

Agreed.

But imagine youíre making an AC game. You want stealth to improve. Let's say you want shadow/light based stealth or that, perhaps, you want more complex and evolved social stealth mechanics. In order to do that, you need to make sure enemies are ďsmartĒ enough to respond to those mechanics.
My question is: Do you agree that, in order to improve stealth, you have to make enemy AI smarter?

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 10:06 PM
Yeah, that could work. But I’d rather if the difficulty came from the number of enemies instead of coming from different archetypes. Easier missions would have less enemies and they would be more scattered which means combat is, in most situations, viable while more difficult assassinations would imply a more tight security where combat alone isn’t the answer but where the player has to keep it to a minimum and rely a lot more on stealth and navigation.

On another note, I would like you to answer the question that I directed at dxsxhxcx in my last post.

In a way, what I was thinking here is a bit of both: Numbers of guards basically the same either way, but the archetypes different according to difficulty. Combat is still possible and even in the higher difficulty the easier missions relying on combat will be as easy as a hard difficulty level gets. The idea is this: For more relaxed or less skilled players, if it comes down to taking down a whole brigade, there's a difficulty for that. For those who want a certain degree of challenge but would prefer being able to handle things in combat with some practice if worst comes to worst, there's that. If a player prefers constant tension and trying to avoid combat for the most part unless it's manageable or absolutely necessary, then there's that option too.
And I do agree enemy AI overall needs to be smarter, but also more varied. City guards, fort guards and forest patrols should all work differently (to explain it as simple as possible). Guards in different areas should react differently to having seen something moving around, or hearing something, depending on their location. A guard in a forest location should be constantly vigilant as he could imagine some predator could come out from behind the bushes any moment from then and upon hearing something getting ready for anything that might come out. And so on. Stealth is also not going to be improved if guards react exactly the same in all environments. You can have a fantastic social stealth system for cities, but if when infiltrating forts or moving around the forests between cities guards remain the same, it's not going to work. And it's not just for guards: Civilians need to be more reactive to things too, I feel.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 10:14 PM
In a way, what I was thinking here is a bit of both: Numbers of guards basically the same either way, but the archetypes different according to difficulty. Combat is still possible and even in the higher difficulty the easier missions relying on combat will be as easy as a hard difficulty level gets. The idea is this: For more relaxed or less skilled players, if it comes down to taking down a whole brigade, there's a difficulty for that. For those who want a certain degree of challenge but would prefer being able to handle things in combat with some practice if worst comes to worst, there's that. If a player prefers constant tension and trying to avoid combat for the most part unless it's manageable or absolutely necessary, then there's that option too.
And I do agree enemy AI overall needs to be smarter, but also more varied. City guards, fort guards and forest patrols should all work differently (to explain it as simple as possible). Guards in different areas should react differently to having seen something moving around, or hearing something, depending on their location. A guard in a forest location should be constantly vigilant as he could imagine some predator could come out from behind the bushes any moment from then and upon hearing something getting ready for anything that might come out. And so on. Stealth is also not going to be improved if guards react exactly the same in all environments. You can have a fantastic social stealth system for cities, but if when infiltrating forts or moving around the forests between cities guards remain the same, it's not going to work. And it's not just for guards: Civilians need to be more reactive to things too, I feel.

Exactly! So, stealth can only evolve if enemy AI improves as well. By making enemy AI smarter and stealth more complex, we are making the stealth approach more challenging. So far so good but, if combat remains easy as always, then the stealth approach (now more complex and challenging) is discouraged severely. If combat is a super easy approach and stealth requires thought, time and skill, then there is no balance and no reason to choose stealth. The balance between the core mechanics is lost. The point is, how can you improve the core mechanics (by making them more complex) while one of them (combat) remains easy, without losing gameplay balance and the whole point of stealth and navigation? There is just no way. In order to improve stealth, you have to make combat more challenging so that all core mechanics are at the same level.

See? This is the proof that AC's core mechanics can only improve if combat becomes more challeging.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 10:20 PM
I'm not insulting anyone. It is AC that insults players by treating them as babies with such an easy combat system. You should be mad at Ubisoft instead. A discussion requires thought, you know...so think.

Think? How about you think about others beside yourself. There's no middle ground with you. It's either your way, or Assassin's Creed is a flop.

There are plenty of people that come here and also think that combat is too hard. I'm sorry you think it's easy, but your "flight or die" solution isn't a solution at all.

I've told you before that you'll have to compromise. Get used to it.

Sushiglutton
11-28-2013, 10:22 PM
Exactly! So, stealth can only evolve if enemy AI improves as well. By making enemy AI smarter and stealth more complex, we are making the stealth approach more challenging. So far so good but, if combat remains easy as always, then the stealth approach (now more complex and challenging) is discouraged severely. If combat is a super easy approach and stealth requires thought, time and skill, then there is no balance and no reason to choose stealth. The balance between the core mechanics is lost. The point is, how can you improve the core mechanics (by making them more complex) while one of them (combat) remains easy, without losing gameplay balance and the whole point of stealth and navigation? There is just no way. In order to improve stealth, you have to make combat more challenging so that all core mechanics are at the same level.

See? This is the proof that AC's core mechanics can only improve if combat becomes more challeging.

There is no chance what so ever that you would play a game in the way you think is the most fun?

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 10:22 PM
Maybe it's just the designer speaking in me, but I'm against the 'better than nothing' principle. Besides, having difficulty levels like in Batman games may distract the devs from the problems with the very mechanics of the system itself, because it's not a fix, but it certainly gives an illusion that it is.

I prefer to get a more polished combat system with no difficulty levels, rather than sloppy difficulty levels with a clunky combat system.

Speaking of combat, btw, I see no reason why there can't be a progression system that's similar to what the guys have done in the naval (where even heftily upgraded, taking out legendary ships can be pretty hard). AC1 had a skill progression system (that would be given to you in a linear fashion, but still), so it's not like AC has not done it before. Enemies don't have to stay at the same level at all places.

That's a great idea, except to improve, it might require better weapons and armor, which people "don't want" because they want to be a "blade in the crowd" and hide al their weapons if any besides a hidden blade.

Which means we're back at square one.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 10:24 PM
Exactly! So, stealth can only evolve if enemy AI improves as well. By making enemy AI smarter and stealth more complex, we are making the stealth approach more challenging. So far so good but, if combat remains easy as always, then the stealth approach (now more complex and challenging) is discouraged severely. If combat is a super easy approach and stealth requires thought, time and skill, then there is no balance and no reason to choose stealth. The balance between the core mechanics is lost. The point is, how can you improve the core mechanics (by making them more complex) while one of them (combat) remains easy, without losing gameplay balance and the whole point of stealth and navigation? There is just no way. In order to improve stealth, you have to make combat more challenging so that all core mechanics are at the same level.

See? This is the proof that AC's core mechanics can only improve if combat becomes more challeging.

Or you could just run away, because, you know, choice.

Rugterwyper32
11-28-2013, 10:35 PM
Exactly! So, stealth can only evolve if enemy AI improves as well. By making enemy AI smarter and stealth more complex, we are making the stealth approach more challenging. So far so good but, if combat remains easy as always, then the stealth approach (now more complex and challenging) is discouraged severely. If combat is a super easy approach and stealth requires thought, time and skill, then there is no balance and no reason to choose stealth. The balance between the core mechanics is lost. The point is, how can you improve the core mechanics (by making them more complex) while one of them (combat) remains easy, without losing gameplay balance and the whole point of stealth and navigation? There is just no way. In order to improve stealth, you have to make combat more challenging so that all core mechanics are at the same level.

See? This is the proof that AC's core mechanics can only improve if combat becomes more challeging.

And then comes the part I've disagreed with before: While challenge does need to improve, from the beginning of this series one thing has been a constant: The combat approach has to remain a possibility. And that's where I believe a certain sense of progression, the way AC1 worked, should be part of, and the more timing-based combat. Plus the idea of difficulty levels: The basic stealth would be thought with the highest difficulty level in mind, so it would be solid and players can take that approach only if they want to, while in higher difficulties unless you've managed to learn timing perfectly and think you're capable of handling high difficulty enemies in big amounts, then that option would be the one you'd rather avoid. The problem here is rather simple: There needs to be a compromise between both ends, or rather than the series becoming more attractive in the eyes of many chances are a big part of the current fanbase would say "**** it", sales would go down and Ubisoft would either abandon ship with the series as they did with Prince of Persia or go back to the style that sold lots.
Choice of either option should honestly remain possible, with options given on how much challenge you'd like to set for yourself. And you go doing things the way you see most fun. A skilled player who likes stealth could keep the higher difficulty that makes combat harder and would have a certain degree of more tension, but if you're a combat player going ahead and slaughtering everyone around should be an option, though in higher difficulties it would mean you've actually gotten the hang of combat and handle the timing and reactions no problem. Or just make your way above and around everyone constantly moving fast and fall right on top of your target killing him in front of everyone and flee just as fast making enemies wonder if Speedy Gonzales with a knife (or hidden blade, rather) just went through the place.
It all boils down to the idea of choice and preference.

Gi1t
11-28-2013, 10:35 PM
Like someone else mentioned, people should just imagine that it will happen - how about restarting checkpoint when you get detected like I do?

But the thing is, it's actually a great thing that AC isn't a game where you automatically die or fail for being detected (except in those dumb sequences where you desync for being seen even if they idiot who saw you didn't say anything before he died.) Once spotted, you can fight or disappear and go back to stealth. The problem is that, right now, if you get spotted, it's REALLY easy to just sit there and fight, no matter how many idiots show up to the dinner table. XD It's so easy that it's not even worth it to run away and vanish again because it just becomes a waste of time when a few button presses will clear them all out and let you move on. SO, people complaining basically aren't getting anything out of the combat and running away to resume stealth just becomes an overly-excessive ritual given how pathetic the guards are.

If they had a mode where fighting more than one guard was actually kind of intense and fighting more than three isn't feasible at all, that changes things because just getting mad and mowing everything down wouldn't work and that means that employing either advanced combat tactics or running away to vanish and resume stealth aren't a waste of time because they're necessary. I, for one, can't pretend that I'm playing hard mode by quitting every time I take one hit or get spotted or whatever. I can't do three-heart runs of Zelda games, because I know it's artificial; I'm making it up; I'm choosing to limit the number of hits I can take, but otherwise (and this is the important part) I'M STILL PLAYING THE SAME EXACT GAME. Like Farlander pointed out, just adjusting the damage isn't good enough to make a decent 'hard mode'. Now, one of the easiest thing they can do is to throw in a tougher version of an enemy or if you're fighting one tough guy, maybe have you fight two on a higher setting, or give the enemies you've got new moves. Those are really easy things they can do that really enhance and change the experience of a higher difficulty run.

That's one of the key things I think people are looking for in a challenge is a reason to stop holding back. I spend most games sitting on a massive pike of items I never use and saving my magic or ammo or whatever all the time just waiting for something to come along where I need to finally dig into those extra resources and abilities to win and those are always the most fun parts for me.

And again, I want to emphasize: talking about a different setting here, separate from the normal mode. NOT talking about changing the normal setting that everyone has to play on. If anyone else is, then I don't agree with that unless the changes don't make it any harder for the people that are just in it for the story, mostly.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 10:42 PM
Also, one more thing I wanted to point out. HMS wants "real life" Assassin's Creed. Where you get shot, you die, like in "real life." But if you did a swan dive off a 50 foot building into a wagon with hay in it, you'd die.

Can't really run from that, can you?

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 10:57 PM
Don't you get it? AC can't evolve, because the core mechanics can't evolve, until combat becomes much more challenging. If one of the core mechanics isn't challenging then the other two can't be challenging as well. And if a core mechanic can't be challenging then it can't evolve.

If combat isn't challenging, the player will be able to have mindless fun but AC, the franchise, won't evolve (the core mechanics won't evolve).

I will say this once again. Just because combat is challenging, that doesn't mean the game is difficult since you can always escape and resume stealth if things get too intense and you can still feel badass. The only thing that you won't feel is like an overpowered Hulk. This adds tension, thrill and meaning to stealth, combat and navigation. This allows AC to evolve. This brings balance to core mechanics and makes sure each one of them has its place. This matters more than mindless fun.
There is no going around this. AC can't evolve without becoming more challenging.

And I bet that, even after this, some people still won't get it.

Sushiglutton
11-28-2013, 11:07 PM
Don't you get it? AC can't evolve, because the core mechanics can't evolve, until combat becomes much more challenging.

False. AC can and has eveloved without making combat more challenging.


If one of the core mechanics isn't challenging then the other two can't be challenging as well. And if a core mechanic can't be challenging then it can't evolve.

False. There is no rule saying that all core mechanics needs to be balanced. A core mechanic can evolve witout altering its difficulty level (such as for example making it more responsive, precise, varied)



If combat isn't challenging, the player will be able to have mindless fun but AC, the franchise, won't evolve (the core mechanics won't evolve).

False, the core mechanics have and will continue to evolve.



I will say this once again. Just because combat is challenging, that doesn't mean the game is difficult since you can always escape and resume stealth if things get too intense and you can still feel badass.

True


The only thing that you won't feel is like an overpowered Hulk. This adds tension, thrill and meaning to stealth and navigation.

Subjective. This is not needed for me to make stealth/parkour feel thrilling.



This allows AC to evolve. This brings balance to core mechanics and makes sure each one of them has its place. This matters more than mindless fun.
There is no going around this. AC can't evolve without challenge.

False. AC has evolved.



And I bet that, even after this, some people still won't get it.

We don't get you because so much of what you are saying is utter nonsense.

MnemonicSyntax
11-28-2013, 11:09 PM
You don't get that people WANT to feel like "an overpowered Hulk." It's a choice, a playstile. That CHOICE has always been in every single AC game.


Please, just go. Find a game like "Thief" that is more to your tastes. What you want will not happen.

What's the point of being a killing machine if you cannot take out more than four guards? You know that people can do that in real life, right? Krav Maga is very much like most of the combat styles from Assassin's Creed. Using counters to not only take out your single enemy, but using the enemy to also take out another enemy.

This is a very real life martial art. People can take out multiple enemies (more than 4) and come out unscathed.

AssassinHMS
11-28-2013, 11:30 PM
False. AC can and has eveloved without making combat more challenging.
False. There is no rule saying that all core mechanics needs to be balanced. A core mechanic can evolve witout altering its difficulty level (such as for example making it more responsive, precise, varied)
False, the core mechanics have and will continue to evolve.
Wrong. Core mechanics have to be balanced. If stealth is easy to pull off but combat isn’t, then there is no reason to choose combat and it becomes a wasted mechanic. The same goes the other way around. If you make stealth more challenging so that it requires more thought, planning and skill while combat is easy as hell, then there is no point in using stealth, then combat becomes the only real core mechanic.

Oh really? More varied? More precise? Then let’s put that up to the test.
Let’s talk about stealth. If you don’t make this core mechanic more challenging that means you can’t make enemy AI smarter or have more challenging stealth situations. You say that, in this situation (without increasing challenge), you can make stealth more varied and more precise. Yes you can, but then what? You make stealth more complex but the enemy AI and the situations only require basic stealth (aren’t challenging). You make it more varied by adding shadow/light based stealth or by making social stealth more meaningful and deeper. But if the enemy AI isn’t smart enough (challenging enough) to react accordingly in these situations, these stealth implements and improvements become redundant. You can only improve stealth if you improve enemy AI first, that is a fact. If you don’t make situations more challenging, then making stealth more precise, more complex or whatever has no impact and no point. Get it? You can’t improve a core mechanic without increasing the challenge. The improvement of stealth is a response to the challenge of the situation. If a situation isn’t challenging then it doesn’t require more precise stealth, or more varied stealth or whatever. Notice that I’m talking about challenge, not punishment.




Subjective. This is not needed for me to make stealth/parkour feel thrilling.
Navigation in the form of escape. Escape and stealth can only be thrilling and filled with tension if combat is challenging (if the situation requires stealth or navigation). However, if combat is all-powerful then it is doing stealth’s and navigation’s jobs and they lose their point.





We don't get you because so much of what you are saying is utter nonsense.
Only if you’re one neuron short of a synapse. You have to think harder.

africanos23
11-28-2013, 11:37 PM
Like someone else mentioned, people should just imagine that it will happen - how about restarting checkpoint when you get detected like I do?

Because its not the point of making the game for our selves, we pay the money someone should do ti for us....

Sushiglutton
11-28-2013, 11:53 PM
Wrong. Core mechanics have to be balanced. If stealth is easy to pull off but combat isn’t, then there is no reason to choose combat and it becomes a wasted mechanic. The same goes the other way around. If you make stealth more challenging so that it requires more thought, planning and skill while combat is easy as hell, then there is no point in using stealth, then combat becomes the only real core mechanic.

The reason to choose stealth is because it's more fun. I play games for entertainment, so I play them in the way I consider to be the most enjoyable. That is the only reason I need. I'm sorry that you need assistance from the game to be able to play it in a way you enjoy.



Oh really? More varied? More precise? Then let’s put that up to the test.
Let’s talk about stealth. If you don’t make this core mechanic more challenging that means you can’t make enemy AI smarter or have more challenging stealth situations. You say that, in this situation (without increasing challenge), you can make stealth more varied and more precise. Yes you can, but then what? You make stealth more complex but the enemy AI and the situations only require basic stealth (aren’t challenging). You make it more varied by adding shadow/light based stealth or by making social stealth more meaningful and deeper. But if the enemy AI isn’t smart enough (challenging enough) to react accordingly in these situations, these stealth implements and improvements become redundant. You can only improve stealth if you improve enemy AI first, that is a fact. If you don’t make situations more challenging, then making stealth more precise, more complex or whatever has no impact and no point. Get it? You can’t improve a core mechanic without increasing the challenge. The improvement of stealth is a response to the challenge of the situation. If a situation isn’t challenging then it doesn’t require more precise stealth, or more varied stealth or whatever. Notice that I’m talking about challenge, not punishment.


AC4 has easier stealth than AC3. Yet it has better AI in many situations. The hive mind is gone and the AI no longer magically knows that there is a dead body behind them. So the AI has improved AND the game is easier. See how that works?

The blow pipe has been added which gives rise to many new strategies and scenarios. It makes stealth more varied AND easier, do you get it?

Making stealth more precise and more complex has a point even if it's easier. For example making the detection fair makes stealth more precise AND easier. It's a meaningful improvement, get it?

You can easily improve core mechanics without making them more challenging.


Navigation in the form of escape. Escape and stealth can only be thrilling and filled with tension if combat is challenging (if the situation requires stealth or navigation). However, if combat is all-powerful then it is doing stealth’s and navigation’s jobs and they lose their point.

Not true. The point is that stealth and navigation are enjoyable. The tension comes from a desire to not fail and shatter the immersion by getting detected. I do not need further punishment. I try to avoid getting detected anyway. And in close spots it's still thrilling.



Only if you’re one neuron short of a synapse. You have to think harder.

It's kind of pathetic how arrogant and full of yourself you are when you can't grasp a simple concept such as that gameplay can improve without becoming more challenging. If I was unable to understand something as trivial as that I would tone down the attitude substantially.

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 12:04 AM
The reason to choose stealth is because it's more fun. I play games for entertainment, so I play them in the way I consider to be the most enjoyable. That is the only reason I need. I'm sorry that you need assistance from the game to be able to play it in a way you enjoy.

AC4 has easier stealth than AC3. Yet it has better AI in many situations. The hive mind is gone and the AI no longer magically knows that there is a dead body behind them. So the AI has improved AND the game is easier. See how that works?

The blow pipe has been added which gives rise to many new strategies and scenarios. It makes stealth more varied AND easier, do you get it?

Making stealth more precise and more complex has a point even if it's easier. For example making the detection fair makes stealth more precise AND easier. It's a meaningful improvement, get it?

You can easily improve core mechanics without making them more challenging that you are uncapable of grasping a simple concept like that is mindblowing to me.

Not true. The point is that stealth and navigation are enjoyable. The tension comes from a desire to not fail and shatter the immersion by getting detected. I do not need further punishment. I try to avoid getting detected anyway. And in close spots it's still thrilling.

It's kind of pathetic how arrogant and full of yourself you are when you can't grasp a simple concept such as that gameplay can improve without becoming more challenging. If I was unable to understand something as trivial as that I would tone down the attitude substantially.


http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18n0znw097k1lgif/k-bigpic.gif

Sushiglutton
11-29-2013, 12:10 AM
GIF

All you have is an arrogant attitude and a confused belief that you are better than everyone else. That gameplay only can evolve by getting more challenging is simply a flawed idea. Since there are no good arguments for it, it's understandable that you chickened out and posted a GIF.

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 12:22 AM
All you have is an arrogant attitude and a confused belief that you are better than everyone else. That gameplay only can evolve by getting more challenging is simply a flawed idea. Since there are no good arguments for it, it's understandable that you chickened out and posted a GIF.

Haha, no. It's just that pathetic people are not worth my time :)

Farlander1991
11-29-2013, 12:30 AM
Haha, no. It's just that pathetic people are not worth my time :)

Nor are they worth ours, which is why I stopped arguing on the topic with you long ago :p

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 12:46 AM
Haha, no. It's just that pathetic people are not worth my time :)

And your game idea isn't worthy of Ubisoft's time. Because it won't make any money and will only please a niche market.

Because, you know, Ubi "sold out" yet the idea for making games is to make money, as a job.

Megas_Doux
11-29-2013, 02:29 AM
We all agree that we need a new revamped both combat and stealth mechanics, I would love difficulty settings and levels going beyond wielding the weakest weapons amd remove armor and gadgets via glitches, but not all of us believe WE only have the right ideas and the rest dont......

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 03:41 AM
We all agree that we need a new revamped both combat and stealth mechanics, I would love difficulty settings and levels going beyond wielding the weakest weapons amd remove armor and gadgets via glitches, but not all of us believe WE only have the right ideas and the rest dont......

Agreed, we need a balance. Customizable armor options and the "hood" issue will resolve a lot of problems with many players. The combat needs... something. I vote for "Enemy A only does Enemy A's Combat Animations" and instead may do Enemy B, C, D, E, etc. at any time.

I see a dude in a hat, and I know I just need to counter and then kick his nuts. If I see a dude with an axe, I know I have to break defense to get an attack in.

That's what makes it easy. I still don't mind being a badass and killing multiple people, or double counter "mini movies."

Landruner
11-29-2013, 03:49 AM
We all agree that we need a new revamped both combat and stealth mechanics, I would love difficulty settings and levels going beyond wielding the weakest weapons amd remove armor and gadgets via glitches, but not all of us believe WE only have the right ideas and the rest dont......

Agree with you, and I believe also they need to improve the AI as well, because the more I have been playing AC4 the more I think they seriously need to do something about it,,,,

Yoshack Fyre84
11-29-2013, 03:54 AM
Combat is more difficult in Black Flag than any other AC game. To effectively counter you have to hit the counter button a split second after you see it. If you wait too long, even if the counter indicator is still showing, you will FAIL in the counter and get hit. Also you have the least amount of health as any other AC game, you take more damage more quickly. Another thing, the weapons are weaker. In previous games you could get weapons with fully maxed out stats. In Black Flag you have to decide what's more important, your speed, combo, or damage. Sure it may still be "Too Easy" for some people, but you're really not supposed to be in much combat in the game anyway, it's meant to be played stealthily. If you want a harder game, unlock the cheats that let you customize some things. You're game won't save unfortunately. Some of the cheats they had should allow you to save as making the game more difficult doesn't benefit you at all.

Gi1t
11-29-2013, 04:45 AM
We all agree that we need a new revamped both combat and stealth mechanics, I would love difficulty settings and levels going beyond wielding the weakest weapons amd remove armor and gadgets via glitches, but not all of us believe WE only have the right ideas and the rest dont......

Yeah, really. I'm disappointed that this dissolved so much. I think people (AssassinHMS included, definitely :) ) had a ton of good suggestions for ways to make a higher difficulty setting, and there shouldn't be any reason why they can't make a separate difficulty setting. I think we've worked out a pretty reasonable scenario for that and I think it's time they gave it a shot. :)

Hans684
11-29-2013, 07:10 PM
Agreed.

But imagine youíre making an AC game. You want stealth to improve. Let's say you want shadow/light based stealth or that, perhaps, you want more complex and evolved social stealth mechanics. In order to do that, you need to make sure enemies are ďsmartĒ enough to respond to those mechanics.
My question is: Do you agree that, in order to improve stealth, you have to make enemy AI smarter?

Combat isn't my biggers concern even trough it's easy, my biggest concern is the sosial stealth. I agree that for it to improve the AI need to be smarter, but have you played Hitman? You can easely shoot everyone if you think it's more fun than sosial stealth, the Hitman games have proven that smarter AI is needed, but you can still choose kill everyone or do stealth.

The combat isn't the biggest problem, the Hitman games has a lot better sosial stealth than AC, yet you can kill em all. The way you want combat makes navigation and stealth take combats role. It's out of balance if you can kill just 4 becouse even more would be impossible. You should have option to go stealthy or kill em all, but does that stop the combat for getting harder or be challenging? No, as i said before it's 'difficulty' should depend on the skills of the player either it is combat, navigation & stealth.

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 07:19 PM
The way you want combat makes navigation and stealth take combats role. It's out of balance if you can kill just 4 becouse even more would be impossible. You should have option to go stealthy or kill em all, but does that stop the combat for getting harder or be challenging? No, as i said before it's 'difficulty' should depend on the skills of the player either it is combat, navigation & stealth.

What is the role of navigation in the form of escape? In other words, why do you escape?

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 07:50 PM
Because at times, the combat is nuts. Even as good as I am, especially in 4 there are times when I get my arse handed to me.

Hans684
11-29-2013, 07:57 PM
What is the role of navigation in the form of escape? In other words, why do you escape?

Navigation does mean more than escape you know. Tailing on the sea or on land, escaping on land or on the sea, when chacing someone, running around the city for fun, sailing while the crew sings ect. In AC1 i escape after killing the target becouse the combat takes to long, is boring and easy, in the other games i don't escape since i prefer to die with honor something that never happens but the combat is more fun then the original. Also doing this does not make it more relevant.

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 08:40 PM
Navigation does mean more than escape you know. Tailing on the sea or on land, escaping on land or on the sea, when chacing someone, running around the city for fun, sailing while the crew sings ect. In AC1 i escape after killing the target becouse the combat takes to long, is boring and easy, in the other games i don't escape since i prefer to die with honor something that never happens but the combat is more fun then the original. Also doing this does not make it more relevant.

So you're saying escape kicks in when combat becomes boring or, in other words, escape is an alternative to combat.

And what is the role of stealth?

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 08:49 PM
Jaysus, combat should always be first. Ship boarding proves this.

You ever play Mirror's Edge? That sounds like what you're needing. It's "more realistic."

Oh but be careful! You can be shot more than once and survive. Not sure if that'll work for you then.

Hans684
11-29-2013, 09:12 PM
So you're saying escape kicks in when combat becomes boring or, in other words, escape is an alternative to combat.

And what is the role of stealth?

It depends if just want to kill the target or i don't give a **** and i usually want to kill just the target. But i do stealth most as much as possible, combat and escape is always my last alternative. The point of stealth/sosial stealth is to be a blade in the shadows/crowd.

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 09:27 PM
The point of stealth/sosial stealth is to be a blade in the shadows/crowd.

Ok, and what is the point of being a blade in the shadows/crowd?



I also want to add that being a blade in the shadows, like you mentioned, would be quite interesting if we had a shadow/light stealth mechanic.

Hans684
11-29-2013, 09:36 PM
Ok, and what is the point of being a blade in the shadows/crowd?



I also want to add that being a blade in the shadows, like you mentioned, would be quite interesting if we had a shadow/light stealth mechanic.

When I say a blade in the 'shadows' i man when you are in stalking zones, hide doors, hay bayls ect. When you are not sosial but still stealthy.
When i say a blade in the crowds i means in crowds stealthy, seen but unseen(sosial stealth). Both allow you do go as stealthy as you can and reatch your goal.

And i have tought of having shadow/light stealth in AC before.

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 09:41 PM
"Social"

And, shadow/light isn't necessary, if it's meant to be social stealth. A blade in the crowd doesn't mean Sam Fisher.

HiddenKiller612
11-29-2013, 09:44 PM
A blade in the crowd: As in you hide in plain sight. You move in and out of the crowd while taking out your targets. Plain sight could also mean hay bales as well. I've done it with every assassination contract in AC4.

shobhit7777777
11-29-2013, 09:46 PM
What is the role of navigation in the form of escape? In other words, why do you escape?


So you're saying escape kicks in when combat becomes boring or, in other words, escape is an alternative to combat.

And what is the role of stealth?

I've been following your posts for a while now....and I have drawn the following conclusion:

You believe that AC is a social stealth-Assassin sim first and foremost....and should be focused on stealth. You believe that the franchise has lost its way. I largely agree with you...however I cannot subscribe to the solution you've been prescribing in order to provide a more stealth oriented experience - Make combat so difficult and challenging that the player is forced to use stealth.

See, Combat-Freerunning-Stealth are the pillars of the franchise...whether you like/accept it or not. AC has been an action-adventure game with stealth elements at the end of the day...and has only taken more steps in that direction.
I cannot get behind a solution which aims to enhance ONE pillar (Stealth) by taking a hammer and dynamite to the other (Combat)....not only is that a poor design choice but also a very disingenuous answer.

To answer your questions above -

Why Escape?

Simple...for fun.
For avoiding tedious combat
For getting back into the stealth loop
For enjoying the free-running mechanics
For taking the guards on a wild goose chase
Because - I want to.
Escaping in AC hinges on the character's amazing mobility and is a fun activity to do in and of itself. It DOESN'T need to be encouraged or showcased because it provides and intrinsic joy.

"But AC is a stealth game and the player should be punished for getting into combat to make the stealth more engaging" - I assume that would be your rebuttal (Just going on what I've been reading)

You are not taking into account 4 very important things which not only undermine your argument but also dismantle it:

1. Forced Stealth is Not Good -
The point of stealth is to provide a cunning alternative to a direct approach where lateral thinking and creativity is rewarded. It rewards the use of wit over brawn. For this to have ANY meaning the choice of going the sneakier route HAS to be CONSCIOUSLY made by the player. It is then that the player can enjoy the fantasy of being a blade in the crowd...not because he/she is forced to but because he/she chooses to.
Forcing the player to constantly avoid combat and aggressive action has a negative effect on the experience because not only it removes one viable approach to a problem in an open world game...but also makes Stealth an act of cowardice....a path chosen out of fear and weakness rather than a voluntary option taken because the player WANTS to do something smart and different.
It is inherently a disempowering experience in a game which is about Assassin's....a power fantasy from the get-go.

Stealth as an option is already an appealing one to those who are taken in by the predator fantasy. You don't need to kneecap combat


2. Removing Combat NEGATIVELY Impacts Stealth Gameplay:
Any stealth game - Any MODERN stealth game - has a robust stealth loop where the game encourages stealth by letting the player get back into the stealth loop as quickly and as engagingly as possible. You handicap combat and you are directly obstructing that effort.

Often times you get detected and escaping is not an option (The Restricted zones in the wilderness) and the best idea is to slay the group of 4-5 guards and get back into the stealth loop. Heck, it could be part of your plan to use stealth and surprise to intentionally attack those 5 guys. Making combat more difficult makes the act of dispatching pesky AI more difficult and in turn hampers a sneaky player's ability to back to incognito

What this does is that it makes ALL phases of stealth gameplay loop - Sneaking, detection, combat, evasion, sneaking - engaging and fun and in the larger scope of things.....it makes the STEALTH fun.

Farcry 3, Crysis, Blacklist, Dishonored etc. all provide combat as a viable means of taking on the AI and this only augments the stealth experience.



3. Enhanced, Empowering Combat Better for Open Ended Gameplay:
A combat system which is as empowering as Creed doesn't hamper stealth....on the contrary when coupled with a robust gameplay loop it complements it. You have many doors open now and you can use your stealth and combat skills in conjunction for a more comprehensive and tactically diverse experience.

I used stealth to sneak into a plantation....kill the sentries...plan an attack route....and then used the awesome combat to lure in and finish off the guards in groups of 4-5. It was a stealth action experience which was not only empowering but also creatively satisfying. This was made possible by the presence of an empowering combat system


4. The Assumption That Everyone Plays Stealth:
The above assumption is far from the truth IMO. Some people prefer direct combat and some stealthy attacks. The preference is entirely personal. Forcing any one of the approaches ticks off the other side and this is not good for a franchise's health where the core gameplay pillars are so deeply established.

You're assuming that if combat is nerfed people will taste stealth and enjoy it....but the likelihood of them getting PO'd is higher than them adopting an approach which is 180 to their natural tendencies.

If you feel that your stealth experience is being hampered because combat is easy......I can only say this - Play for intrinsic joy not extrinsic one. Immersion is a two way street.



I hope the above made sense

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 09:48 PM
When a blade in the 'shadows' is when you are in stalking zones, hide doors, hay bayls ect. When you are not sosial but still stealthy.
When i say a blade in the crowds i means in in crowds stealthy, seen but unseen. Both allow you do go as stealthy as you can and reatch your goal.

And i have tought of having shadow/light stealth in AC before.

I can't possibly disagree with that, and what is the point of reaching your goal (let's say the target) stealthy?

So did I. I can imagine awesome scenarios where the assassin uses shadows to play mind tricks on guards, or where he stalks unwary preys and whatnot. After all, assassins work in the dark to serve the light. Have you ever made a thread about that?

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 09:51 PM
I've been following your posts for a while now....and I have drawn the following conclusion:

You believe that AC is a social stealth-Assassin sim first and foremost....and should be focused on stealth. You believe that the franchise has lost its way. I largely agree with you...however I cannot subscribe to the solution you've been prescribing in order to provide a more stealth oriented experience - Make combat so difficult and challenging that the player is forced to use stealth.

See, Combat-Freerunning-Stealth are the pillars of the franchise...whether you like/accept it or not. AC has been an action-adventure game with stealth elements at the end of the day...and has only taken more steps in that direction.
I cannot get behind a solution which aims to enhance ONE pillar (Stealth) by taking a hammer and dynamite to the other (Combat)....not only is that a poor design choice but also a very disingenuous answer.

To answer your questions above -

Why Escape?

Simple...for fun.
For avoiding tedious combat
For getting back into the stealth loop
For enjoying the free-running mechanics
For taking the guards on a wild goose chase
Because - I want to.
Escaping in AC hinges on the character's amazing mobility and is a fun activity to do in and of itself. It DOESN'T need to be encouraged or showcased because it provides and intrinsic joy.

"But AC is a stealth game and the player should be punished for getting into combat to make the stealth more engaging" - I assume that would be your rebuttal (Just going on what I've been reading)

You are not taking into account 4 very important things which not only undermine your argument but also dismantle it:

1. Forced Stealth is Not Good -
The point of stealth is to provide a cunning alternative to a direct approach where lateral thinking and creativity is rewarded. It rewards the use of wit over brawn. For this to have ANY meaning the choice of going the sneakier route HAS to be CONSCIOUSLY made by the player. It is then that the player can enjoy the fantasy of being a blade in the crowd...not because he/she is forced to but because he/she chooses to.
Forcing the player to constantly avoid combat and aggressive action has a negative effect on the experience because not only it removes one viable approach to a problem in an open world game...but also makes Stealth an act of cowardice....a path chosen out of fear and weakness rather than a voluntary option taken because the player WANTS to do something smart and different.
It is inherently a disempowering experience in a game which is about Assassin's....a power fantasy from the get-go.

Stealth as an option is already an appealing one to those who are taken in by the predator fantasy. You don't need to kneecap combat


2. Removing Combat NEGATIVELY Impacts Stealth Gameplay:
Any stealth game - Any MODERN stealth game - has a robust stealth loop where the game encourages stealth by letting the player get back into the stealth loop as quickly and as engagingly as possible. You handicap combat and you are directly obstructing that effort.

Often times you get detected and escaping is not an option (The Restricted zones in the wilderness) and the best idea is to slay the group of 4-5 guards and get back into the stealth loop. Heck, it could be part of your plan to use stealth and surprise to intentionally attack those 5 guys. Making combat more difficult makes the act of dispatching pesky AI more difficult and in turn hampers a sneaky player's ability to back to incognito

What this does is that it makes ALL phases of stealth gameplay loop - Sneaking, detection, combat, evasion, sneaking - engaging and fun and in the larger scope of things.....it makes the STEALTH fun.

Farcry 3, Crysis, Blacklist, Dishonored etc. all provide combat as a viable means of taking on the AI and this only augments the stealth experience.



3. Enhanced, Empowering Combat Better for Open Ended Gameplay:
A combat system which is as empowering as Creed doesn't hamper stealth....on the contrary when coupled with a robust gameplay loop it complements it. You have many doors open now and you can use your stealth and combat skills in conjunction for a more comprehensive and tactically diverse experience.

I used stealth to sneak into a plantation....kill the sentries...plan an attack route....and then used the awesome combat to lure in and finish off the guards in groups of 4-5. It was a stealth action experience which was not only empowering but also creatively satisfying. This was made possible by the presence of an empowering combat system


4. The Assumption That Everyone Plays Stealth:
The above assumption is far from the truth IMO. Some people prefer direct combat and some stealthy attacks. The preference is entirely personal. Forcing any one of the approaches ticks off the other side and this is not good for a franchise's health where the core gameplay pillars are so deeply established.

You're assuming that if combat is nerfed people will taste stealth and enjoy it....but the likelihood of them getting PO'd is higher than them adopting an approach which is 180 to their natural tendencies.

If you feel that your stealth experience is being hampered because combat is easy......I can only say this - Play for intrinsic joy not extrinsic one. Immersion is a two way street.



I hope the above made sense

Bravo. You said everything I've been trying to say but with much more elegance and like a sir. Good show.

MnemonicSyntax
11-29-2013, 09:53 PM
I can't possibly disagree with that, and what is the point of reaching your goal (let's say the target) stealthy?

So did I. I can imagine awesome scenarios where the assassin uses shadows to play mind tricks on guards, or where he stalks unwary preys and whatnot. After all, assassins work in the dark to serve the light. Have you ever made a thread about that?

That's a figure of speech. It's part of the Ironies of the Creed. They kill (a bad thing) to serve the common man (a good thing.)

It doesn't literally mean that. Otherwise, what's the point of being a "blade in the crowd?"

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 09:59 PM
That's a figure of speech. It's part of the Ironies of the Creed. They kill (a bad thing) to serve the common man (a good thing.)

It doesn't literally mean that. Otherwise, what's the point of being a "blade in the crowd?"

What if there aren't people around, only shadows? Social stealth is only a branch of stealth. There are also stalking zones unless you consider hiding among bushes socializing (kidding). Assassins are masters of stealth but it wouldn't make sense for them not to use shadows or darkness as their ally.

AssassinHMS
11-29-2013, 11:52 PM
You believe that AC is a social stealth-Assassin sim first and foremost....and should be focused on stealth.
Hmm, no. I only seek balance, I want to make sure every core mechanic has a place of its own, a reason to be used. I like combat too, I simply donít like beating the crap out of ants and pretending there is a reason to escape or hide from ants.


You believe that the franchise has lost its way. I largely agree with you...however I cannot subscribe to the solution you've been prescribing in order to provide a more stealth oriented experience - Make combat so difficult and challenging that the player is forced to use stealth.
Perhaps, but notice that my point is to force the player to use a mix of all three core mechanics. Then, some players can use a lot more stealth and others a lot more combat. I feel youíre placing me on an extreme. I may seem that way, but that is only because the franchise is on the other extreme and I want the middle term.


I cannot get behind a solution which aims to enhance ONE pillar (Stealth) by taking a hammer and dynamite to the other (Combat)....not only is that a poor design choice but also a very disingenuous answer.
I am trying to improve them all. Iím doing this for combat too.


"But AC is a stealth game and the player should be punished for getting into combat to make the stealth more engaging" - I assume that would be your rebuttal (Just going on what I've been reading)
If you assume that would be my answer then you havenítí read my posts. I want challenge, not difficulty or punishment. Iíve explained the difference and how all these concepts can work in an AC game in this same thread.


Forcing the player to constantly avoid combat and aggressive action has a negative effect on the experience because not only it removes one viable approach to a problem in an open world game...but also makes Stealth an act of cowardice....a path chosen out of fear and weakness rather than a voluntary option taken because the player WANTS to do something smart and different.
Iím not even going to debate that, but how do you think stealth was ďinventedĒ in the first place? You call it cowardice, I call it having brains.


The point of stealth is to provide a cunning alternative to a direct approach where lateral thinking and creativity is rewarded. It rewards the use of wit over brawn.
And how exactly do AC games reward a playerís wit over brawn? How does ACís stealth reward the use of wit over brawn? If youíre going to say a money boost (like in AC4), then I have to say that is a poor excuse from Ubisoft.
Again, Iím not forcing anyone to be a blade in the crowd or to follow the stealth path.
I want combat, I want stealth and I want navigation. I simply want to feel tension and thrill. Escape is mainly used when youíre facing too many people to fight at once. People donít run for their lives like nuts, climbing walls because they suddenly found combat boring. They run for their lives because they are at stake. This creates tension and rush. Disagree with me but you canít say the thrill of the escape isnít real or that it isnít a lot of fun. Stealth feels more intense when there is tension, when there is sense of danger, etc. I donít want to punish players, I donít want to make AC harder. I simply want the core mechanics to evolve and become more challenging. This tension and thrill can only be felt if there is balance, if we arenít fighting ants, if combat isnít an all-powerful mechanic. Call me a coward when I run from a bunch of enemies or when I stick to the shadows but there is nothing more thrilling, to me, than this and, in the real world (were enemies arenít ants) the so called ďcowardsĒ are the ones who survive. Sorry if I donít like to be Hulk in a game or if I want to feel something when I escape, when I fight or when I use stealth. I know a lot of other people want this too, so itís not just me, Iím no Hitler here trying to ďkillĒ combat or an extremist that wants to alienate players. Iím open to different difficulty levels. I understand you escape when combat gets boring or to shake things up and that you use stealth as just another way to approach missions when you donít feel like fighting, but I donít work the same way. I want a realistic game, not one where youíre lord of options and where you are above the experience and not immersed in it. Immersion also means you let get carried away by it. I want that, but if I have every option available to me, if Iím always in control, then it becomes impossible to get carried away, to feel anything. I donít want to be God in AC and be above the rules because then, there is no immersion in that world since Iím not part of it, Iím not immersed in it, Iím above it.
I hope I was clear.

Vogue_77
11-30-2013, 12:26 AM
I only played AC I - which I really enjoyed back then, and now with Black Flag I am amazed. I love it. I can do anything I want, how I want it. From ground to sea, anything you can do just as you see fit, or improvising on the way as you go - like Jack Sparrow!

The great thing in AC IV is the mix of stealth, combat and parkour which all fit in, are given to the player at full strength and you're the only one deciding how much of each you use in every endeavor you take. You can put to sleep all guards on plantation, steal the key and enter the warehouse. You can berserk all guards until 1 man standing is left, then assassinate him and enter the warehouse. You can sneak around doing stealth kills, hiding bodies, pickpocket the key and go in and out unseen. You can run in guns blazing and swords drawn, and massacre everyone. You can bring all mademoiselles to distract all guards and steal the key.

The more you improvise and try new things, the more fun you will get out of the game. For example I haven't used a single smokebomb until Memory 03. Then I had a blast with what it offered me, same with throwing money, hiring drunken pirates etc. Sure you can kill everything just by countering, same as you can not kill anyone (except plot advancing kills), or you can just fight with your fists disarming and using their weapons, the options are there. Just because I have the blowpipe, doesn't mean I won't use rifles, swords, thrown knives, smoke bombs, pistols (love those) or my bare fists.

If you never died in AC 4 combat, then I feel sorry for you, must be really boring standing there waiting for someone to attack to counter, repeat over and over until everything is dead. It's a game, made to have fun, and I have immense fun by simply walking on streets, admiring my house garden, sailing at slow speed to clear a dock, hunting a shark or stalking a jaguar etc.

Gi1t
11-30-2013, 02:33 AM
I
If you never died in AC 4 combat, then I feel sorry for you, must be really boring standing there waiting for someone to attack to counter, repeat over and over until everything is dead. It's a game, made to have fun, and I have immense fun by simply walking on streets, admiring my house garden, sailing at slow speed to clear a dock, hunting a shark or stalking a jaguar etc.

I think it's a misinterpretation to think that the people demanding harder combat aren't enjoying any other part of the game. It's not like they're going to come here and jabber on about all the things they loved if they're here to talk about the need for tougher combat. They're just not bringing that stuff up. It doesn't mean they lack the capacity to enjoy it or any games that don't have intense combat. They're really just asking why the games can't include that intense combat too. Like I said, I certainly don't expect them to change the existing game difficulty, just add another setting in.

People keep saying: "just choose to experience it differently", but that's what everyone does naturally when they play the game. Outside the game, they're here thinking about what would make them enjoy it a lot more. And if something's really bothering someone, they can't just brush it off. They're trying to, sure, but something's distracting them and forcing them to think about the "game" instead of the experience. Just like how something preventing you from getting anywhere in a game can take you out of the experience, not being challenged or otherwise stimulated can take you out of the experience too because you keep questioning the reality the game is trying to project.

That's a big thing here, I think, because you have people with different opinions on what kind of reality AC is trying to project. Players interpret it differently, and that's why I think they really need different settings that adjust the feel of the game somewhat to suit different players. On one end of the spectrum you can look a it as a VR, real-looking world to play around with, and on the other end, you can see it as a game projecting a really tough, intense reality and the game within a game merely explains the fact that it functions like a game in some places. Most people fall somewhere between those extremes, but lean more toward one side than the other. Now, if people don't agree on the way the story is suppose to go then it kind of becomes a question of "is this the right game for you?" but if it's the gameplay, there should be a way to adjust that to suit different players who are all interested in the story. :)

MnemonicSyntax
11-30-2013, 02:50 AM
What if there aren't people around, only shadows? Social stealth is only a branch of stealth. There are also stalking zones unless you consider hiding among bushes socializing (kidding). Assassins are masters of stealth but it wouldn't make sense for them not to use shadows or darkness as their ally.

Sure it would. Hiding in the shadows isn't hiding in plain sight.


Perhaps, but notice that my point is to force the player to use a mix of all three core mechanics.

Some people don't want to use all three and they certainly don't want to become handicapped when their back is to the wall and they have no where to go and no "smoke bombs" as your solution provided.

You keep talking about "the challenge" but in your words, any more than four guards and it's time to flee. Because the AI and combat will have "improved" so much that it'll make stealth and navigation balanced, but to many people, that's not a challenge. That's a punishment. Forcing someone to run because the combat is too great is also cowardly, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with "brains."

The fact that you want the player to be forced into doing anything, is the problem. That's not choice.

Again, Splinter Cell Blacklist does it very well: Giving different playstyle options without changing anything. Could the enemy AI improve? Sure. Not everyone fights the same way. If you're a man in a red coat and you wear a black hat, I shouldn't know that I need to counter first and break defense won't work on you. It should be randomish.

Does stealth need to improve? Yes, I think a crouch... something needs to happen. Even if not a button, but keep the animation going while blending from stalking zone to stalking zone for a few seconds. Would a crouch button work? I don't know. I don't think that if you crouch down manually, you should also be hidden automatically. It would require an object. A short crate, a bush, something... perhaps the auto lean that happens when you peer around a corner, could apply to the crouch. I don't know, but I do know that going between two stalking zones that are in very close proximity of each other and doing this number: crouchcrouchcrouchcrouchSTANDSTRAIGHTUPcrouchcrouc hcrouch is just... not great at all.

I so don't want a light/dark scheme because it would have to be situational, and that wouldn't be fun. If it was an all the time thing, nah. I couldn't deal with that. I'd drop this franchise in a heartbeat.

It needs work, but what you're suggesting isn't fun for most of the people who play these games. It may be rewarding, but not exactly fun.

The first Community Challenge was to stealth assassinate at least 20 guards, and anywhere up to 20 million as a community. By your proposal, it would be very difficult to pull off and kill the point of the Community Challenges.

Landruner
11-30-2013, 03:21 AM
Why this topic about combat system is turning in circle? :rolleyes:

Rugterwyper32
11-30-2013, 03:30 AM
This topic is basically a case of tug of war, and the side that doesn't let go is the one sure to fall on their back. Problem is, neither side is budging.

Landruner
11-30-2013, 03:31 AM
This topic is basically a case of tug of war, and the side that doesn't let go is the one sure to fall on their back. Problem is, neither side is budging.


I agree with you and it does not make any sense now since pretty much everything had been said - The circle is spinning around for a while now and for nothing, and deplorably it goes nowhere...
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnYYgJ7-Hiy2dZwHpC1aAPqbX5NzeLotO8hASCQlALRiDwmnpr4g I believe that it is not necessary to start it again

Landruner
11-30-2013, 06:53 PM
I have to be honest!

The fight on the ships are not always easy since your character can be lost in the mass among his fighting crew and the foes, which turn to be confusing after a while since you don't exactly where the character is and you can get kicked out after a while.

So to me, combat is too easy on the land, but not so much after boarding a ship

I have two opinions about it - Once this too many NPCs fighting among them happens, well I can't see that Ed and just press repeatedly like an idiot the correct buttons in order the brake defense and slaughter the attacking foes, that is a mess, absolutely, and the good news is actually you don't kill your crew members, however; from some game design perspectives

First; it is not easy in game design to prevent this, it is almost impossible unless you script and sequence the all combat, you can't prevent this and can't prevent this with the way the AC are designed.

Example: You have about 25 foes on a ship, you board the ship and you start attacking some foes, only 3 to 5 foes comes after you, while your crew member start fighting on the background...you take care on this 3 to 5 foes, and you go to another group of 5 or 6 and your crew leave the place for you and goes attacking another group of foes, and you do the same process until you get the boss (captain or admiral).If you have specific and secondary objective such as sabotaging or taking the flag, well the design gets the foes to protect this place instead of leaving their post and going fighting your crew members over the ship. (A game that does this this a bit like I described above is the coming up Ryse son of Rome for BOX1)

I can only picture and rely on this scripted sequential method for specific some type of boarding scenarios, but for not for the all game fight.

Second, well I assume that during real big close combat battles, it was actually a mess for the fighter to make their way through the fighting crowds - Not easy to know who was who? I read a lot of books and else about antic, medieval or even Pirate battles, it was a total mess, and an odd accumulation of errors and trials for the fighters and often killing some of their owns - luckily we don't have to kill our allies or crew member in swinging our sword like it could have been in the reality.:p

Something good I noticed, and I glad that actually the AI works that way, when you attack for a close combat fight a Boss on the ships, his mates come after you to protect him, which is cool. Try it I will see what I meant.

So conclusion, I agree with the OP and with some other Posters, yes! combat is easy on land and sometimes too easy and something had to be done about the combat system, but on the ships, combat was not always that easy,