PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Else Think They Should Drop Killstreaks?



Wolfmeister1010
01-02-2014, 10:25 PM
My second and final thread today, and probably for a bit. Just something on my mind.

I feel like one of the things that plague AC's combat is killstreaks. It doesn't really add anything to the experience. For me at least, it is not fun at all, and most of the time I just blankly stare at the screen as I cut through each and every enemy so easily.

I wish that we could go back to AC1 style combat. Where there are no killstreaks, and combat actually requires some thought. Well, at least more thought than now. I like the AC3/4 style combat better than the ones in AC2, brotherhood, and revelations, but I feel the system is going in the wrong direction. We can come up with new little buts of upgrades to try to add to it to make it more "difficult" but the core of the system, streaks, is holding it back. It adds nothing to the experience, in my opinion, and makes all tactical thinking pretty much irrelevant.

At first I thought that it could work like batman, where there are streaks, but enemies don't die in one streak move. But then I realized it wouldn't work because unlike Batman, our assassins don't use fists, but deadly killing weapons. It would be really ridiculous if a guard could withstand multiple rounds of chops to the face.

So, I believe that it should go to a more AC1 style, or Witcher style of combat. Those are the only two 3rd person combat styles that I think would work better. There are no killstreaks, and yes, this makes combat a bit slower..but more.."tactical".

I feel like I am rambling, but I hope you guys get the gist of what I am saying. If any of you want to expand on what I said, feel free.

RinoTheBouncer
01-02-2014, 10:30 PM
I’m sorry but “doesn’t really add anything”? I think it adds a lot. When you’re surrounded by many, It’s good to be able to eliminate 4-5 of them fast and not just keep repeating the frustrating fighting steps on 15 different enemies attacking me almost at the same time.

SixKeys
01-02-2014, 10:36 PM
The kill streaks are the only thing that still keep the combat somewhat engaging. AC1 was fun because it felt more realistic, AC2's was boring because it was the exact same system but easier, ACB made it fun again due to the kill streaks. So they should stay.

Wolfmeister1010
01-02-2014, 10:37 PM
The kill streaks are the only thing that still keep the combat somewhat engaging. AC1 was fun because it felt more realistic, AC2's was boring because it was the exact same system but easier, ACB made it fun again due to the kill streaks. So they should stay.

But what I am saying is that we should go back to that AC1 style

SixKeys
01-02-2014, 10:40 PM
But what I am saying is that we should go back to that AC1 style

Never gonna happen.

MnemonicSyntax
01-02-2014, 10:52 PM
Agreed. Kill streaks are fun, but it's been mixed up to prevent everyone from being caught in that streak, which I like.

Kagurra
01-02-2014, 10:57 PM
They should rework them. You should only be able to killstreak kill like 2 dudes, maybe 3, and 4 MAX if you have a weapon that specializes in that but has bad other stats or something.

pacmanate
01-02-2014, 11:10 PM
Bring back the Janissaries!

Or at least an Archetype like them , or heck even 2 types of Jannisarrie type thing. I don't know if thats the right spelling cause im kinda drunk but you guys know what i mean.

inferno33222
01-03-2014, 02:40 AM
I agree. They make it far too simple and disengaging. Also, it's really strange for my assassin to be moving all across the screen, but having the guards just stand there and watch me move right past them to kill their friend. Guard response has always been a little strange in AC but at least in AC1/2 the guards were far enough away wear it made sense that they were hanging back. I always have people who have not seen AC before ask me "Why is that guy just standing there? Is he waiting to be killed?"

DinoSteve1
01-03-2014, 03:21 AM
meh, I'd prefer if they dropped the synch rate.

ACHILLES4713
01-03-2014, 04:28 AM
While I do enjoy killstreaks to some extent, they have made the combat way too easy once you know what you're doing. I've had this idea in my head for awhile that would help balance the killstreak system so it doesn't make every assassin an ULTRA KILLTACULAR WARRIOR ASSASSIN! The idea revolves around "earning" a "killstreak" or "one-hit kill", for every counter-kill that you do (Perhaps from every regular killing blow? I'm not sure exactly what would work best.) Anyway, the idea is that you kill Guard A, and then you can insta-kill Guard B. Or you kill Guards A and B by whatever means, and then you get the ability to insta-kill Guards C and D. That way, a player can't just slaughter 10 dudes in 5 seconds. You either choose to use 1 or 2 killstreak attacks throughout a fight, or you can save them up for the last few guys left in a group.

As it stands now, the combat system makes stealth pretty much irrelevant whenever you're not forced into staying hidden for a mission. Ubisoft did a good job with Black Flag in providing tools and environmental assets for stealth gameplay, but they need to make combat hard enough so that its almost a non-viable option for the player. This will give the player the incentive to play in a stealthy manner.

I liked how in AC1, you had to regain combat abilities little by little through the course of the game. Granted, from a logic standpoint it didn't make any sense that Altair would suddenly forget everything just because he was bumped down to a novice; but from a gameplay perspective it made sense. Until you unlocked the counter-kill ability, you had to be pretty wary of starting anything with the guards in that game!

mikeyf1999
01-03-2014, 04:32 AM
While I do enjoy killstreaks to some extent, they have made the combat way too easy once you know what you're doing. I've had this idea in my head for awhile that would help balance the killstreak system so it doesn't make every assassin an ULTRA KILLTACULAR WARRIOR ASSASSIN! The idea revolves around "earning" a "killstreak" or "one-hit kill", for every counter-kill that you do (Perhaps from every regular killing blow? I'm not sure exactly what would work best.) Anyway, the idea is that you kill Guard A, and then you can insta-kill Guard B. Or you kill Guards A and B by whatever means, and then you get the ability to insta-kill Guards C and D. That way, a player can't just slaughter 10 dudes in 5 seconds. You either choose to use 1 or 2 killstreak attacks throughout a fight, or you can save them up for the last few guys left in a group.

As it stands now, the combat system makes stealth pretty much irrelevant whenever you're not forced into staying hidden for a mission. Ubisoft did a good job with Black Flag in providing tools and environmental assets for stealth gameplay, but they need to make combat hard enough so that its almost a non-viable option for the player. This will give the player the incentive to play in a stealthy manner.

I liked how in AC1, you had to regain combat abilities little by little through the course of the game. Granted, from a logic standpoint it didn't make any sense that Altair would suddenly forget everything just because he was bumped down to a novice; but from a gameplay perspective it made sense. Until you unlocked the counter-kill ability, you had to be pretty wary of starting anything with the guards in that game!
Don't you mean until after about the first 20 mins of the game u unlock counter kill (if I'm correct) but what I liked about secret crusade is that Altair only lost weapons and armor not skill

LoyalACFan
01-03-2014, 04:33 AM
meh, I'd prefer if they dropped the synch rate.

THIS! Full sync needs to go, it just encourages linearity.

But on-topic... I like them. I honestly think AC3's combat was just about perfect, all it needed was more aggressive AI. They dumbed it down too much in AC4, though. The Jaegers were fine, but their replacements in AC4 sucked, since you can't properly counter them, just deflect and kick them in the balls. Pretty underwhelming, and definitely not any more challenging.

I seem to be the only person who despised AC1's combat because it was ludicrously slow-paced and the guards were idiots. I didn't find it remotely challenging either, Templar Knights notwithstanding.

mikeyf1999
01-03-2014, 04:35 AM
THIS! Full sync needs to go, it just encourages linearity.

But on-topic... I like them. I honestly think AC3's combat was just about perfect, all it needed was more aggressive AI. They dumbed it down too much in AC4, though. The Jaegers were fine, but their replacements in AC4 sucked, since you can't properly counter them, just deflect and kick them in the balls. Pretty underwhelming, and definitely not any more challenging.

I seem to be the only person who despised AC1's combat because it was ludicrously slow-paced and the guards were idiots. I didn't find it remotely challenging either, Templar Knights notwithstanding.
What mad Templar knights too easy was that I could just kill them when they taunted

LoyalACFan
01-03-2014, 04:37 AM
As it stands now, the combat system makes stealth pretty much irrelevant whenever you're not forced into staying hidden for a mission. Ubisoft did a good job with Black Flag in providing tools and environmental assets for stealth gameplay, but they need to make combat hard enough so that its almost a non-viable option for the player. This will give the player the incentive to play in a stealthy manner.

The incentive to play stealthily should be the exhilaration you get by clearing an area without being seen. Forcing the player to be stealthy is just as bad as forcing them to be aggressive a la AC3.

ACHILLES4713
01-03-2014, 05:18 AM
The incentive to play stealthily should be the exhilaration you get by clearing an area without being seen. Forcing the player to be stealthy is just as bad as forcing them to be aggressive a la AC3.

Sure. And you would get doable the exhilaration of stealthily taking down a bunch of guards if each one of those guards were dangerous foes that could mess you up by themselves.

LoyalACFan
01-03-2014, 05:24 AM
Sure. And you would get doable the exhilaration of stealthily taking down a bunch of guards if each one of those guards were dangerous foes that could mess you up by themselves.

Not really. Even if they're badasses in combat, that wouldn't make them any harder to sneak up on. Bottom line is, AC shouldn't force you to play stealthily or aggressively, there should always be a choice. I think people see AC1's stealth through rose-colored glasses to an extent, because combat (even against a whole slew of enemies) was always a viable option. AC has never been a hardcore stealth series, nor should it be.

mikeyf1999
01-03-2014, 05:28 AM
Not really. Even if they're badasses in combat, that wouldn't make them any harder to sneak up on. Bottom line is, AC shouldn't force you to play stealthily or aggressively, there should always be a choice. I think people see AC1's stealth through rose-colored glasses to an extent, because combat (even against a whole slew of enemies) was always a viable option. AC has never been a hardcore stealth series, nor should it be.
No it should be but they should make it where combat is the harder but not impossible to beat tactic while stealth is sneak by anybody and kill them only if necessary

LoyalACFan
01-03-2014, 05:49 AM
No it should be but they should make it where combat is the harder but not impossible to beat tactic while stealth is sneak by anybody and kill them only if necessary

If stealth is easier than combat, it sort of ruins the challenge of completing a sequence without breaking stealth, no? If it's the easiest way to go about it, it's not really that rewarding.

Stealth Gamer92
01-03-2014, 05:51 AM
YES YES YES! It feels like cheating to me. It takes absolutely no skill.

AdamPearce
01-03-2014, 05:52 AM
Not drop it completely, but limit it. Instead of killing 72 person in a row, limit it to one to begin with and extent it to two later in game. This you feel an eveolution and the combat aren't excessively easy nor hard.

As for the stealth, tey should be some Stealth mode, because it's clear that the combat is system is far more advanced than the stealth one and that is a major problem. You can't have a proper balanced gameplay between the two if they aren't equally developped. Because if one option is more pushed than another, then it is more enjoyable, and, therefore, a first pick up choice when it comes down to selecting how you want to do the mission.

Kagurra
01-03-2014, 05:52 AM
If stealth is easier than combat, it sort of ruins the challenge of completing a sequence without breaking stealth, no? If it's the easiest way to go about it, it's not really that rewarding.

This is why I'm excited for that "Massive rescope" they mentioned.

ACHILLES4713
01-03-2014, 05:59 AM
Not really. Even if they're badasses in combat, that wouldn't make them any harder to sneak up on. Bottom line is, AC shouldn't force you to play stealthily or aggressively, there should always be a choice. I think people see AC1's stealth through rose-colored glasses to an extent, because combat (even against a whole slew of enemies) was always a viable option. AC has never been a hardcore stealth series, nor should it be.

You're right about that. Though the first game did promote the use of stealth over fighting through various things like dialogue ("Hide in plain sight." "I'm a blade in the crowd.") and obtaining maps of different routs you could take to avoid guards, or similar advice from informants. Ever since then, its been the Italian Stallion, the Mohawk Terminator, and the "Devil dressed as a man" taking down the Templar menace one poor guard at a time. Yes, the amount of killing that occurs is up to the player; but the games since AC2 have been promoting the combat more and more by making the killing easier. This makes sneaking the tedious rout to go about things when you can just kill the guards in front of you.

I see this trend in Ubisoft's Splinter Cell series as well. You are told in the first Splinter Cell that your weapon should be your last resort, and that shadows were your ally. And every Splinter Cell game up until SC: Conviction and to a lesser extent SC: Blacklist promoted sneaking over combat.

AdamPearce
01-03-2014, 06:08 AM
I see this trend in Ubisoft's Splinter Cell series as well. You are told in the first Splinter Cell that your weapon should be your last resort, and that shadows were your ally. And every Splinter Cell game up until SC: Conviction and to a lesser extent SC: Blacklist promoted sneaking over combat.

They should really think about adapting SC gameplay to AC. Same base, but different gadget, would be really excellent.

Stealth Gamer92
01-03-2014, 06:09 AM
They should really think about adapting SC gameplay to AC. Same base, but different gadget, would be really excellent.

Elaborate mate. Now you got me interested. :cool:

ACHILLES4713
01-03-2014, 06:20 AM
They should really think about adapting SC gameplay to AC. Same base, but different gadget, would be really excellent.

I know! :) I've been wanting to see the light and shadow stealth mechanic from SC and the disguise system from Hitman in the AC games. Shadows would give new routs through an area along with the bushes; and disguises could be a tool to get rid of notoriety or sneak into guarded areas more easily or blend into crowds easier. And by blending into crowds easier, I mean it could make you less noticeable to guards and less likely to aggravate them.

LoyalACFan
01-03-2014, 06:22 AM
You're right about that. Though the first game did promote the use of stealth over fighting through various things like dialogue ("Hide in plain sight." "I'm a blade in the crowd.") and obtaining maps of different routs you could take to avoid guards, or similar advice from informants. Ever since then, its been the Italian Stallion, the Mohawk Terminator, and the "Devil dressed as a man" taking down the Templar menace one poor guard at a time. Yes, the amount of killing that occurs is up to the player; but the games since AC2 have been promoting the combat more and more by making the killing easier. This makes sneaking the tedious rout to go about things when you can just kill the guards in front of you.

I see this trend in Ubisoft's Splinter Cell series as well. You are told in the first Splinter Cell that your weapon should be your last resort, and that shadows were your ally. And every Splinter Cell game up until SC: Conviction and to a lesser extent SC: Blacklist promoted sneaking over combat.

The first game told you to be stealthy, but never enforced it. You could charge into any target's lair, murder his guards, and either chase him down or duel him, depending on his behavior. That's what AC1 really nailed; choice. I wouldn't say AC has begun forcing you to fight instead of sneak (with the exception of AC3) but there have been an increasing number of situations where combat is obviously what the mission was designed for rather than stealth, and vice versa. It limits what the player can do with the level, because if they choose the method the devs didn't intend, the mission design falls apart.

AdamPearce
01-03-2014, 06:47 AM
Elaborate mate. Now you got me interested. :cool:

Simple:

1) A proper crouching system. Actually, we have this cheap scripted bushes crouch, which is absolutely not effective. In SC, you can crouch whenever you want wherever you want. This alows you to be more silent and takedown enemy with discretion. This and a jogging stealth, so you can still be stealthy and move quickly. Also a rolling/ jumping crawl system to hide faster in case of danger.

2) A proper cover system. For now, we can only cover in corner via an automatic script. What we need is an manual cover system that permitts you to cover behind pretty much every elemet of the game. Can be walls, small walls, tables, colums, etc. And you can mix that to the crouch system by cover behind a small wall to pass undetected...or perform an elimination.

3) A proper AI. It is the key of everything, cheap AI = cheap experience. So, how upgrade the AI ?
a) different path, they must be changing, not always doing the same round. (2 is sufficent actually)
b) much more dept in searching. example, one of their partner is missing, automatically search the area and goes advice the others. The more people are killed or eliminated, the more the guards will be suspicious, but then it depends on the situation. If one man in a group of 5 is missing, it's not that bad. If a man in a group of 2 disapear, it's a disaster.
c) multiple reaction such as fear, rage, violence. example, you hide in bushes, the enemy n=knows you are somewhere is them. what he does? he burns it all. forcing you to get ou of our spot and stop him before he burn down the entire forest.
d) a sound system. running behind an enemy gets is attention. crouching and passing slowly won't, depending on the distance of course.
e) visual system based on lights and shadows. while in the shadow, you will be hardly spotted, even if an enemy passes in front of you (while you are cover to a wall of course, he will spot you if he turns in your direction) but, being in the light will affect you a lot.

4) A good arsenal. The only weapon that could be used would be daggers, bows, fists and hidden blade.

with 'only' this, we could have a pretty good stealth system.

dxsxhxcx
01-03-2014, 11:22 AM
I didn't vote because I don't think any option represents what I think about killstreaks.. IMO it doesn't need to be removed, but it MUST be balanced (like the entire combat) if they have the intention to keep it, at its current state is too overpowered, I already suggested this but I'll post it again:

they should make the chance of death during a killstreak based on the enemy's health percentage, enemies (no matter the archetype) with health below 20% (values can change, this is just an example) will be 1HKO by the next (killstreak) hit, above this value, let's say between 21% and 50%, the enemy will have a chance (that'll increase/decrease according to his current health percentage) to dodge/parry the attack or get hit, above 51%, the enemy will have a chance (values might vary depending of the archetype and the enemy's current health) of counter the protagonist attack and break the flow of the killstreak or just get hit by it (without dying)..



It would be really ridiculous if a guard could withstand multiple rounds of chops to the face.

this scenario already happens now (not with killstreaks of course) and it's something we need to live with because otherwise all enemies should be killed by 1 hit, I think it would make more sense for an enemy to "survive" a killstreak than a direct attack because during a killstreak the protagonist shouldn't be as focused as he is during a direct assault at a single enemy, so the chance to hit the character on vital places to kill him should be lower what IMO would make the scenario I described above a good option to balance the killstreaks.



and yes, this makes combat a bit slower..but more.."tactical".

what make the combat slower (at least one of the things) is the fact that enemies take ages to attack you, if AC1's enemies were faster I bet AC1's combat would've been more fluid...

oliacr
01-03-2014, 12:58 PM
My second and final thread today, and probably for a bit. Just something on my mind.

I feel like one of the things that plague AC's combat is killstreaks. It doesn't really add anything to the experience. For me at least, it is not fun at all, and most of the time I just blankly stare at the screen as I cut through each and every enemy so easily.

I wish that we could go back to AC1 style combat. Where there are no killstreaks, and combat actually requires some thought. Well, at least more thought than now. I like the AC3/4 style combat better than the ones in AC2, brotherhood, and revelations, but I feel the system is going in the wrong direction. We can come up with new little buts of upgrades to try to add to it to make it more "difficult" but the core of the system, streaks, is holding it back. It adds nothing to the experience, in my opinion, and makes all tactical thinking pretty much irrelevant.

At first I thought that it could work like batman, where there are streaks, but enemies don't die in one streak move. But then I realized it wouldn't work because unlike Batman, our assassins don't use fists, but deadly killing weapons. It would be really ridiculous if a guard could withstand multiple rounds of chops to the face.

So, I believe that it should go to a more AC1 style, or Witcher style of combat. Those are the only two 3rd person combat styles that I think would work better. There are no killstreaks, and yes, this makes combat a bit slower..but more.."tactical".

I feel like I am rambling, but I hope you guys get the gist of what I am saying. If any of you want to expand on what I said, feel free.

Killstreaks are the best thing they've done in ACIII. AC1's combat system is ... booring, waiting for attack, block, counter no. They should add more killstreaks.

silvermercy
01-03-2014, 01:33 PM
In AC3 I was able to tell there was a kill-streak as I could visually follow the killing sequence. In AC4, I'm not sure when that happened. lol I just seemed to kill them all very easily? Was that my kill-streak? I think it was but I still don't know 100%. lol Does anyone know of a video actually demonstrating this?

pacmanate
01-03-2014, 02:24 PM
In AC3 I was able to tell there was a kill-streak as I could visually follow the killing sequence. In AC4, I'm not sure when that happened. lol I just seemed to kill them all very easily? Was that my kill-streak? I think it was but I still don't know 100%. lol Does anyone know of a video actually demonstrating this?

What do you mean? That makes no sense. Killing easily is the killstreak, its just 1 hit kills.

silvermercy
01-03-2014, 03:08 PM
What do you mean? That makes no sense. Killing easily is the killstreak, its just 1 hit kills.
It just felt different from AC3, that's what I mean. In AC3 I think there was a slow-mo animation when you got the kill-streak. (or maybe I remember things wrong...)

ziljn
01-03-2014, 03:27 PM
I don't have a problem with kill streaks. They're fun and keep the action going. I found combat in AC1 to be annoyingly slow. Not challenging, just slow. I didn't find pushing the right buttons to kill your opponents one a time while everyone else stood around watching particularly challenging or tactically complex. The focus in a fight with multiple opponents should be how do I kill or disable as many as possible as quickly as possible, not how do I kill these guys one at a time. In either case, what I hate in the older and newer system is when you slash a guy 6 times while everyone else stands there watching.

I've never played it, but I like your batman reference. You shouldn't have to stab a guy 6 times to take them out of the fight, nor are you going to take the time to do so when 4 other people are attacking you. It's sufficient to bury your sword in someone's skull once and move to the next guy. You should be able to just disarm or wound someone within the streak and move on to the next. Not everyone needs to be pummeled repeatedly to death before moving to the next guy.

I found AC3 combat to flow pretty nicely. Not perfect, but probably the best of the series. Something got lost in AC4. I can't even go back to AC1 as it's just too slow and unsatisfying.

edit: To add to this, the idea should be to kill or disable as many as possible then escape. I agree that staying there and killing 40 guys in a row becomes boring.

AdamPearce
01-03-2014, 03:33 PM
Killstreaks are the best thing they've done in ACIII. AC1's combat system is ... booring, waiting for attack, block, counter no. They should add more killstreaks.

Congratulation, you don't know how to play Assassin's Creed. Here's your Trophy for biggest AC Noob of History, how you feel about it ? :rolleyes:

x___Luffy___x
01-03-2014, 03:33 PM
AC1 combat was good, im not a fan of kill streaks.its just too easy. and yes full sync needs to go. i hate it.

I-Like-Pie45
01-03-2014, 04:10 PM
The EyeCue solution

Remove combat altogether
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/41798_218186490201_926875_n.jpg

UncappedWheel82
01-03-2014, 04:15 PM
No, they shouldn't drop kill streaks, but they should flesh them out more / repeal them back to the ACB/ACR days. In those past games you HAD TO counter and dodge, and the opponents would block A LOT more. Now they have made them way more easy to pull off.

silvermercy
01-03-2014, 04:24 PM
The EyeCue solution

Remove combat altogether
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/41798_218186490201_926875_n.jpg

LOL!

Replace it with jedi mind tricks... or staring contests. :cool:

Hans684
01-03-2014, 06:36 PM
The EyeCue solution

Remove combat altogether
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/41798_218186490201_926875_n.jpg

That could work depending on the setting.

LoyalACFan
01-03-2014, 08:36 PM
Congratulation, you don't know how to play Assassin's Creed. Here's your Trophy for biggest AC Noob of History, how you feel about it ? :rolleyes:

Make fun of him all you want, but that's legitimately the best way to fight in AC1. I see "hardcore" fans reminiscing about AC1's "aggressive" combat all the time, but if we're being honest, it was always primitive at best. And you could win every single fight with one-shot hidden blade counters. Granted, the window was much smaller, but once you got in the groove, turtling up and counter-killing was the most efficient way to win AC1 fights, aggression be damned.

phoenix-force411
01-03-2014, 09:32 PM
ACIV's archetypes were annoying and boring. Engaging in combat was more dull than ever.They need to some how mesh up AC1's and the current combat system together. Only then would it feel engaging. And make it free flow combat.

roostersrule2
01-04-2014, 03:02 PM
I think they should legit make all guards easy as **** and you can have triple killstreaks, I'm actually being serious.

Fatal-Feit
01-04-2014, 03:50 PM
Killstreaks killed AC:B and AC:R's combat for me. AC:3 had a perfect flow allowing the players to strategize and plan their moves. AC:IV should not have kept killstreaks.

I'm 100% sure the combat in the future installments will be different so whether or not they have it doesn't matter until we actually get to play it.

pirate1802
01-06-2014, 01:59 PM
Bring back the Janissaries!

Yeah. Loved those mother****ers. The only enemy in the entire series, along with Templas from AC1 to actually have made me flee from combat :p


I seem to be the only person who despised AC1's combat because it was ludicrously slow-paced and the guards were idiots. I didn't find it remotely challenging either, Templar Knights notwithstanding.


The incentive to play stealthily should be the exhilaration you get by clearing an area without being seen. Forcing the player to be stealthy is just as bad as forcing them to be aggressive a la AC3.

Damn, agreed with these so much. :O

Kagurra
01-06-2014, 08:46 PM
I think they should legit make all guards easy as **** and you can have triple killstreaks, I'm actually being serious.

Good joke.

Kagurra
01-06-2014, 08:47 PM
ACIV's archetypes were annoying and boring. Engaging in combat was more dull than ever.They need to some how mesh up AC1's and the current combat system together. Only then would it feel engaging. And make it free flow combat.

Yeah.. the enemy archetypes in AC4 and even in 3 are just black and white obvious and only do a couple certain things that only that archetype does. There's no fluidity like I feel there was in the older games.


Make fun of him all you want, but that's legitimately the best way to fight in AC1. I see "hardcore" fans reminiscing about AC1's "aggressive" combat all the time, but if we're being honest, it was always primitive at best. And you could win every single fight with one-shot hidden blade counters. Granted, the window was much smaller, but once you got in the groove, turtling up and counter-killing was the most efficient way to win AC1 fights, aggression be damned.

lol back when I played AC1 I didn't even know you could use the hidden blade in combat. I was obviously a lot younger and I guess oblivious. But yeah, countering in general was the solid way to go if you were serious.

MnemonicSyntax
01-06-2014, 09:34 PM
Make fun of him all you want, but that's legitimately the best way to fight in AC1. I see "hardcore" fans reminiscing about AC1's "aggressive" combat all the time, but if we're being honest, it was always primitive at best. And you could win every single fight with one-shot hidden blade counters. Granted, the window was much smaller, but once you got in the groove, turtling up and counter-killing was the most efficient way to win AC1 fights, aggression be damned.

Agreed. If you don't counter, hitting the attack button repeatedly isn't boring or repetitive how?

roostersrule2
01-06-2014, 10:40 PM
Good joke.No!

**** challenge, **** guards.

I wanna be in and out of combat faster then Ubi churn out AC games.

Kagurra
01-06-2014, 11:33 PM
No!

**** challenge, **** guards.

I wanna be in and out of combat faster then Ubi churn out AC games.

You've lost all hope man. Tsk tsk.

dbzk1999
01-06-2014, 11:41 PM
Just to say in my opinion the Templars in ac1 were too easy to beat