PDA

View Full Version : Combat System Recycled AGAIN?



Wolfmeister1010
03-06-2014, 03:57 AM
This thread is not meant to be part of the "leaks" and "thoughts on what ACV will be about and where" and stuff so it does not need to be part of that thread Mr. shade made. So, let's keep it away from THAT topic.

It seems that the Sam Fey stuff was false. We could be getting a game that takes place in London/Paris in the same time..but Sam Fey as a character likely doesn't exist. And that means that the rest of the press release, like the parts about revamped combat and stealth, might also be fake.

The Brotherhood-Revelations combat system lasted two games, and so did the most recent AC3-4 system. Maybe they will actually change some of the mechanics up again. Maybe they will add crouching and such, and change up the entire combat system. That is what I hope. But, what if the next game "unity" (and its last gen counterpart codenamed "comet" feature the same combat system?

Just want to know, how would you guys react if they made a new game that was basically AC4 was to AC3, in the sense that their are all new features, mechanics, and location, ect, but the combat system stays the same at heart (other than a few little tweaks)?

AC4 was a fantastic game, but I am sure we all agree that they can no longer just throw in new features to distract us from the same old same old core gameplay mechanics. Would you be okay if they did the same thing with the next game? Giving us the same combat system but distracting us with next gen exclusive graphics and cool new features?

Or will you be mad, thinking that the core gameplay and combat should have been changed, and that they can no linger try to distract us from it?

I can not think of any reason why they would keep the same combat system...I mean..they see all of our complaints since AC3, and they would surely not be stupid enough to give us the same combat system AGAIN after two games..for a total of 5 games (unity, comet, and liberation) with the same combat system. At least I seriously hope. But, what if they did let us down like that? How would you feel?

LoyalACFan
03-06-2014, 06:50 AM
I'd be fine with it if they returned to a carbon copy of AC3 combat to be honest, AC4 combat was lame in comparison. All they need to work on is the AI, and make it so that it's actually challenging to keep up a kill streak with enemies constantly attacking you and whatnot.

ACLexter
03-06-2014, 07:28 AM
I want a better, more realistic combat system especially melee (any type of swords)
I mean, when attacking your enemies and performing a multiple slash, only your swords collide with the swords of your enemies not with any parts of their body. if you manage to slash their body, their either died or just badly wounded.

think about when slashing your enemies in AC4 like 4-5 slash in their body and then you switch your target, they still look okay and your slashes and stabs are nothing.

AssassinHMS
03-06-2014, 02:08 PM
I wouldn't mind if the combat system wasn't so ******ed and made for ******s. But seriously, revamping the core is the ONE thing they have to do. If they fail in doing that, or worse, ignore them like they have so far, then they can go to hell and anyone who buys such a game is directly contributing to the raping of AC.

luckyto
03-06-2014, 05:26 PM
I'd be fine with it if they returned to a carbon copy of AC3 combat to be honest, AC4 combat was lame in comparison. All they need to work on is the AI, and make it so that it's actually challenging to keep up a kill streak with enemies constantly attacking you and whatnot.

I feel the exact same.

I even go farther and say that one of the biggest problems with AC combat is that they keep changing it --- instead of refining it. AC3 was a brilliant and fun system that needed minor tweaking to make it challenging, progressive and deep. But somehow, they screwed it up. AC1 was a brilliant system that needed minor tweaking to make it more challenging, and they screwed it up. ACB was a fun system that was way way too easy, and needed serious tweaking to make it more challenging.

But in SIX games they've had THREE good foundations. With fine-tuning, they could be GREAT systems. Just take AC3 combat and fix it.

Combat needs work, but it's not nearly as desperate for help as the AI. The AI for Assassin's Creed is in serious trouble. It has been for ages, and with each title, it just gets worse. Black Flag is - hands down - the worst AI in any Assassin's Creed game. There needs to be a huge amount of depth added to the enemy actions/reactions/movements. Improving AI would be the best thing for stealth, it would be the best thing for improved combat and the best thing to make the world more immersive. At this point, the game is falling apart because of the AI.

Farlander1991
03-06-2014, 05:40 PM
But in SIX games they've had THREE good foundations.

Two. ACB wasn't a different foundation. It was the AC1/AC2 foundation with a slapped on move for group combat and the result was just horrible.

Fatal-Feit
03-06-2014, 05:45 PM
I would be fine as long as it's an improvement over AC:3's combat and not like AC:IV's. Perhaps a mix between Liberation HD and 3.

Kirokill
03-06-2014, 05:46 PM
I never had a problem with AC1 combat system, I enjoyed the one hour trying to unmask the fake guard leader (the spared woman).
I hate this glitchy combat system in AC4, honestly if glitchy = more challenging for them it is, just, I don't know how to even say it. AC3 combat was better than AC4, but still wasn't good. It does make you fight, and no need to run, that is not what an assassin should do.

Dome500
03-06-2014, 05:58 PM
I would probably be a little bit let down. But since I do not EXPECT them to necessarily change combat it would not be a huge disappointment (since I can only be disappointed in things I did NOT expect).

I see a lot of improvement potential for combat..

LoyalACFan
03-06-2014, 06:41 PM
I feel the exact same.

I even go farther and say that one of the biggest problems with AC combat is that they keep changing it --- instead of refining it. AC3 was a brilliant and fun system that needed minor tweaking to make it challenging, progressive and deep. But somehow, they screwed it up. AC1 was a brilliant system that needed minor tweaking to make it more challenging, and they screwed it up. ACB was a fun system that was way way too easy, and needed serious tweaking to make it more challenging.

But in SIX games they've had THREE good foundations. With fine-tuning, they could be GREAT systems. Just take AC3 combat and fix it.

Combat needs work, but it's not nearly as desperate for help as the AI. The AI for Assassin's Creed is in serious trouble. It has been for ages, and with each title, it just gets worse. Black Flag is - hands down - the worst AI in any Assassin's Creed game. There needs to be a huge amount of depth added to the enemy actions/reactions/movements. Improving AI would be the best thing for stealth, it would be the best thing for improved combat and the best thing to make the world more immersive. At this point, the game is falling apart because of the AI.

This. We need evolution, not revolution.

Dome500
03-06-2014, 06:44 PM
This. We need evolution, not revolution.

No one ever said they should change it completely.
But it needs LOTS of improvement.

GunnerGalactico
03-06-2014, 08:44 PM
I would be fine as long as it's an improvement over AC:3's combat and not like AC:IV's. Perhaps a mix between Liberation HD and 3.

Gonna have to say I agree with that 100%



No one ever said they should change it completely.
But it needs LOTS of improvement.

Also agree with that, the combat system doesn't have to be changed drastically. They can tweak it or make a few minor changes. They need to improve enemy AI and their line of sight.

Sushiglutton
03-06-2014, 08:56 PM
Melee combat is probably my favourite kind of gameplay and to me it has been very disapointing to see Ubi struggle so in this area. I replayed Sands of Time last year and in my honest opinion I feel it has a more entertaining system than any of the AC games. Considering it's over a decade old that's sad.

As for why the combat in AC3 (I'm gonna focus on AC3 as AC4 was pretty much just a simpler version of it) is problematic there are a several reasons:



Taking out standard guards is way, way too easy. One succesful counter (very forgiving time window), or a single tap within a killstreak and they go down. There is no room for strategy in a system like that. It requires no focus which means I don't get invested in it.
The "watch instead of do" philosophy I criticized for the parkour is very present in the combat as well. Best example is the dual counters. If two enemies attack you tap a single button and watch a short cutscene from a cinematic angle. This creates a disconnect between the player and the action which is exactly what you do not want. It's also poorly balanced because when two enemies attacks at once it should be bad for you, not give you two free kills.
Uneconomical control scheme. Combat is all about being in the moment. For this to work all gadgets and weapons need to be at your fingertips. A quickfire system of some kind if therefor despereately needed.
Lack on moves. There are simply too few interesting options in combat, so there is never really a need to prioritize
Lack of enemy archetypes. The archetypes there is are not exactly fun to fight. For example the fact that many techniques don't work vs Jaegers, but disarming does, don't make them more interesting to fight. In fact it makes them more repetetive.
Targetting issues. For example when you break defense your next attack is sometimes targeted at another enemy, which is almost never what you want.
Clunky input, the meat shield in AC3 was not as smooth as it should have been (fixed in AC4). Sometimes no icon appears above enemies heads and you can't block the attack (also some kind of bug I assume).



Overall this leads to a system that is shallow, unengaging, clumsy and just pretty much rubbish. Now I do think they could start with some of the basic ideas of AC3 and then expand on them:



Taking out even standard guards requires at least two steps. You may need to injure/disable them first in some way before you can kill them.
One way to make the dual counters more interactive would be that when you are attacked you need to tap counter followed by one facebutton/enemy attacking you. You need to choose the right attacks based on archetypes (your attacks will be dealt in enemy rank order). No cinematic camera please!
Quickfire of all gadgets (including smoke bombs) needs to be implemented.
Tons of options here obviously. A repositioning move, one more defensive move, target a limb move, kick etc.
The harder enemies should also require multiple steps to allow for a greater variety of strategies. Just turning off all but one standard move is a very dull design and doesn't make them harder.
Playtesting like mad I guess.
I feel like they'll be able to iron things like these out if they keep building on the same system for a while.

luckyto
03-06-2014, 09:51 PM
Fatal-Feit ... Absolutely. :) AC3, not ACIV ... which somehow managed to be screwed up. *cough* AI *cough*

--------


It does make you fight, and no need to run, that is not what an assassin should do.

I'm at wild opposition to those sentiments, and they have been expressed on these boards a million times - so don't think I'm picking on you.

I want to fight. I want to be able to fight a hundred guards. I just want it to be fun and rewarding. The franchise has always been about: combat, stealth and free-running. But combat is core. And the player chooses which to do. This idea that I should be forced to run because "that's what an Assassin should do" may be realistic, but it isn't fun. It isn't the game that I want to play, nor many other gamers or people who've been with the franchise.

-----------

SushiGlutton --- going down your first list

1) Standard guards can go down in one-hit. All games need cannon fodder. Cannon Fodder is fun. They are the warm-up. The salad before the main meal. I don't see this as an issue.
2) The "watch instead of do" philosophy. Oh my... A lot of points here ...

... but first, I have never understood the radical urge to go back to platforming where I have to hit a button for every action. When I hear such criticism, people usually make it out as if there is no player input to free-running as set forth in AC1 --- and that is simply not the case. The player's job is to navigate. Navigating the rooftops and the crowds should be the focus of the player's involvement --- and not when to hit jump or vault like Super Mario Brothers. When you actually run in real life, you aren't thinking "this leg, now this leg, now that leg, now jump." Your reflexes do all that for you. Just like High Profile does all that for the game character. Your mind and eyes are focused on where you are going and the best path to take, and that's why the Parkour system in AC is perfect --- because we shouldn't be thinking about the character actions, we should be thinking about where is the best place to get away, what is the best approach, or is that a guard up ahead.

Second, for combat, I would love to go back to the "watch and react." Since ACII, we've had this combat system that is all about archetypes. For this guard, hit this button combo. For that guard, hit this button combo. It's a brainless IF THIS, DO THIS system. ACIII "almost" broke that stereotype. I could - at the very least - shake things up a little. I would much rather be countering, dodging, grabbing and attacking based on what the enemies were doing, my position in the battle and such ... just like AC1. Reaction. A "watch and react" is the ideal combat system if the AI is decent. A do system is often --- for this enemy, do this, for that enemy do that. And that get's old very quickly (AC2, ACB, ACR).

Third, Action-Cam camera kills have been part of the franchise since part one. I personally do not agree that they take the player out of it -- nor do they create a disconnect. It's a fun reward for solid play. They can be overdone --- and have been overdone. If used poorly, they can create a disconnect. But they certainly can be done right; and numerous games have implemented similar mechanics with great success. I personally was happy to see the double-counter kill cam --- it hearkened back to ACI.

For 3, 4, and 7: AC1 did all those well. You had limited weapons, but you could access them quickly. Knives were easy throw in the mix, and you could mix up light attacks, heavy attacks, grabs, dodges and counters in any number of ways. Add AC3's layer where you have additional options for grabs, kicks, attacks and ranged after counters and you would have a very deep system. (< Evolution)

It's not so much about the quantity, it's about depth The moves in AC3 and AC1 are PLENTY. It's the ability to mix them up and combine them in unique ways. And that's where AC really falls short.... because of the archetype system. It's the archetype system that forces you into only a few useful combinations. If you could literally chain any combination against any foe --- that's depth. That's how Batman works. That's how God of War works. That's how AC1 works. And all the great melee combat systems ever.

5: Get rid of archetypes altogether. And make levels of difficulty ... more like AC1.

6. Definitely. It became a major issue in ACIV.

Dome500
03-06-2014, 10:23 PM
1) Standard guards can go down in one-hit. All games need cannon fodder. Cannon Fodder is fun. They are the warm-up. The salad before the main meal. I don't see this as an issue.

Huge issue for me. I don't want cannon fodder. If you let me kill hundreds of guards, at least make it more challenging than a 1-hit-kill.


... but first, I have never understood the radical urge to go back to platforming where I have to hit a button for every action. When I hear such criticism, people usually make it out as if there is no player input to free-running as set forth in AC1 --- and that is simply not the case. The player's job is to navigate. Navigating the rooftops and the crowds should be the focus of the player's involvement --- and not when to hit jump or vault like Super Mario Brothers. When you actually run in real life, you aren't thinking "this leg, now this leg, now that leg, now jump." Your reflexes do all that for you. Just like High Profile does all that for the game character. Your mind and eyes are focused on where you are going and the best path to take, and that's why the Parkour system in AC is perfect --- because we shouldn't be thinking about the character actions, we should be thinking about where is the best place to get away, what is the best approach, or is that a guard up ahead.

Not really....

1. You seem to be pretty lazy...
2. If you ever did parkour you would know that you have indeed to feel and conciously make every move, "your instincts doing this for you" is nonsense. Seriously, try it in real life. You will fail.
3. As if navigation and tactics was SOOOO hard.... Seriously, in games like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or Conviction you have to do the same thing. But I still have to press when I want to climb up something or jump. What the hell is so hard about this?
4. More interactivity (IMO) = more immersion. The less the game requires me to do the less I feel like doing it. Sure, one can exaggerate it. But to be honest, AC is oversimplifying it


Second, for combat, I would love to go back to the "watch and react." Since ACII, we've had this combat system that is all about archetypes. For this guard, hit this button combo. For that guard, hit this button combo. It's a brainless IF THIS, DO THIS system. ACIII "almost" broke that stereotype. I could - at the very least - shake things up a little. I would much rather be countering, dodging, grabbing and attacking based on what the enemies were doing, my position in the battle and such ... just like AC1. Reaction. A "watch and react" is the ideal combat system if the AI is decent. A do system is often --- for this enemy, do this, for that enemy do that. And that get's old very quickly (AC2, ACB, ACR).

Agreed on this.

Less archetypes but more reactive actions based on what the enemy is doing at the moment. Agreed.
But one has to mention that even AC1 had Archetypes. So a combat system completely without archetypes is not possible.
But I think they should make the archetypes weak to multiple forms of attack and only immune towards one special strategy.
Everything else would be based on what the enemy is doing.
You need to find a balance between "watch and react" and "strike and defend" which enables the game to play fluid without being to easy and not challenging enough



Third, Action-Cam camera kills have been part of the franchise since part one. I personally do not agree that they take the player out of it -- nor do they create a disconnect. It's a fun reward for solid play. They can be overdone --- and have been overdone. If used poorly, they can create a disconnect. But they certainly can be done right; and numerous games have implemented similar mechanics with great success. I personally was happy to see the double-counter kill cam --- it hearkened back to ACI.

Agreed.

A possibility to make this better is if 2 enemies attack to let the player press 2 buttons in shortly after another. If he doesn't he will be able to defend against one enemy but get hurt by the other one. No enemy will die in that case. Something like that or something similar.



For 3, 4, and 7: AC1 did all those well. You had limited weapons, but you could access them quickly. Knives were easy throw in the mix, and you could mix up light attacks, heavy attacks, grabs, dodges and counters in any number of ways. Add AC3's layer where you have additional options for grabs, kicks, attacks and ranged after counters and you would have a very deep system. (< Evolution)

Agreed. AC1 and 2 had the best gadget quick access, and they also had grabs, counters and dodges. I think that all would make for sophistication combined with some good elements from the AC3 combat.

xx-pyro
03-06-2014, 10:23 PM
It does need tweaking, counter windows lowered and AI smartened up (things like detection meters should be much smaller aka easier for you to be spotted, if they see a dead guard they automatically stay on high watch, etc).

After all these year I literally still see no reason to add a crouch button, it doesn't add anything useful to the game considering we automatically hide behind crates and stuff like that (don't we? I haven't played in awhile. If not we should, which would still mean no need for a crouch button).

More archetypes requiring different strategies is always a simple way to beef up combat a bit, although that sort of depends on the time period as well. I thought AC3s was fine besides a few bugs/glitches.

One thing AC4 did perfect was not having any long-range insta kill weapon ala xbow/regular bow. Sleep darts and berserk darts were OP enough as was but at least they didn't just kill the guards outright.

rcole_sooner
03-06-2014, 10:34 PM
More content .... better graphics ... less worry about revamping combat.

xx-pyro
03-06-2014, 10:36 PM
More content .... better graphics ... less worry about revamping combat.

Yes graphics are much more important than an integral part of gameplay like combat is :rolleyes:

rcole_sooner
03-06-2014, 10:37 PM
I am glad you agree.

:D

xx-pyro
03-06-2014, 10:41 PM
I am glad you agree.

:D

Someone who counters snark with more snark, I think I like you.

rcole_sooner
03-06-2014, 10:49 PM
Cool. It's all fun.


...but really I am the type that just wanders around looking at the scenery. LOL! This is also why I do a lot of PC titles, so I can crank up the graphics.

That is why I am more of a sp campaign type, than an mp type. I like to go slow and take it all in.

luckyto
03-06-2014, 11:33 PM
It does need tweaking, counter windows lowered and AI smartened up (things like detection meters should be much smaller aka easier for you to be spotted, if they see a dead guard they automatically stay on high watch, etc).
.

Agreed.


But one has to mention that even AC1 had Archetypes. So a combat system completely without archetypes is not possible.
But I think they should make the archetypes weak to multiple forms of attack and only immune towards one special strategy.

I view AC1's archetypes more like the same guard with different difficulty levels. But we are talking about the same thing, I think. Any guard in that game could grab you, some were just more likely to grab you. Any guard in AC1 could counter, some were just more likely to do so. And they had different health levels with the harder types taking more hits, and the cannon fodder going down in one good combo or counter. It worked.

Look at God of War. Probably the best melee system ever done. Most encounters featured weak cannon fodder mixed a few harder enemies at you with a variety of attack patterns. You could utilize any number of light attacks, dodges, combos and heavy attacks against each of them with varying success. Combat comes down to reacting to the situation - when to block, when to attack and how to attack and where to move within the fray. It was very simple - but could be layered together with great depth and finesse.

Both AC1 and AC3 came close to this. AC1 was held back because the "turtle" became all too powerful and AC3 is held back by the same archetyping system introduced in AC2.


1. You seem to be pretty lazy...
2. If you ever did parkour you would know that you have indeed to feel and conciously make every move, "your instincts doing this for you" is nonsense. Seriously, try it in real life. You will fail.
3. As if navigation and tactics was SOOOO hard.... Seriously, in games like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or Conviction you have to do the same thing. But I still have to press when I want to climb up something or jump. What the hell is so hard about this?
4. More interactivity (IMO) = more immersion. The less the game requires me to do the less I feel like doing it. Sure, one can exaggerate it. But to be honest, AC is oversimplifying i

Well, I've run from the cops plenty of times back in high school, played ball and been in similar situations ... lol ... my body was doing whatever it needed to, and I was a hell of lot more focused on which way to go. I don't remember consciously thinking, I have to jump that fence, I just put my hand out and vaulted and went back to stride. But my eyes and mind were on my escape route.

More interactivity can often mean less immersion. If it's overkill. Tomb Raider, for example, has a smart cover system. Whenever you are in danger, move to a place with cover and she takes cover. No button pressing. It works. It's probably the best cover system ever invented and the fights are no less immersive. In fact, they are probably better off because I don't have to stop to think ... oh, i'm in cover, i have to press this. I'm focused on the enemy.

In AC terms, which eavesdropping missions were more immersive: AC1's versions where you sat on a bench, and the camera focused in tightly on the conversation or the highly interactive AC3 and ACIV versions where you follow inside this glowing circle? In my opinion, AC1's versions actually allowed you to focus on the story, on the conversation, and were more immersive. While the AC3 version - while being more interactive -- had my mind more focused on glowing DNA circles than the conversation. The ideal eavesdropping mission would be somewhere in between.

It's not lazy, because there's nothing exhaustive about pressing buttons. It's a matter of which interaction creates the most immersion and takes the mind to the place that best suits the mood/game/setting. In my mind, the free-running of AC has always suited the franchise --- and there's nothing brainless about it. I've been gaming forever, since Atari 2600, and even I can see that the desire to have button-presses for every action is the old-school way of thinking (game design) when graphics, environments and AI weren't capable of engrossing a player. AC broke that mold, and I was glad for it. I still like to play the old way, but there are franchises that do that already. I'm good with letting them do it, and AC focusing on level, map design, crowds and other ways to engage me while I run full-speed.


Ultimately, that's where I fall in all changes. For all the releases since ACB. I'm not interested in big changes to the game. Big changes have usually meant disasters with a few minor exceptions. I more interested in refinement. Evolution. Embrace the original Assassin's Creed. Take the combat back to it's roots and refine it. Take the AI and guards back to its roots and improve it. Take chases back to exactly what they were in AC1. Bring back open-ended assassinations (thank you Black Flag). Bring the conspiracy and double-crosses back. Make the crowds bigger, smarter and more complex. Make eavesdropping more immersive, and bring back old-school pick pocketing. Stop trying to make NEW games or what games that fans want. Make the BEST Assassin's Creed game.

Sushiglutton
03-06-2014, 11:44 PM
SushiGlutton --- going down your first list

1) Standard guards can go down in one-hit. All games need cannon fodder. Cannon Fodder is fun. They are the warm-up. The salad before the main meal. I don't see this as an issue.

Disagree. I don't mind that some enemies are a bit easier, but the standard guards in AC3 are ridiculously easy. It's not like a salad, it's more like a drop of water in a tiny shotglass. They offer no satisfaction to fight whatsoever.






2) The "watch instead of do" philosophy. Oh my... A lot of points here ...

... but first, I have never understood the radical urge to go back to platforming where I have to hit a button for every action. When I hear such criticism, people usually make it out as if there is no player input to free-running as set forth in AC1 --- and that is simply not the case. The player's job is to navigate. Navigating the rooftops and the crowds should be the focus of the player's involvement --- and not when to hit jump or vault like Super Mario Brothers. When you actually run in real life, you aren't thinking "this leg, now this leg, now that leg, now jump." Your reflexes do all that for you. Just like High Profile does all that for the game character. Your mind and eyes are focused on where you are going and the best path to take, and that's why the Parkour system in AC is perfect --- because we shouldn't be thinking about the character actions, we should be thinking about where is the best place to get away, what is the best approach, or is that a guard up ahead.

Second, for combat, I would love to go back to the "watch and react." Since ACII, we've had this combat system that is all about archetypes. For this guard, hit this button combo. For that guard, hit this button combo. It's a brainless IF THIS, DO THIS system. ACIII "almost" broke that stereotype. I could - at the very least - shake things up a little. I would much rather be countering, dodging, grabbing and attacking based on what the enemies were doing, my position in the battle and such ... just like AC1. Reaction. A "watch and react" is the ideal combat system if the AI is decent. A do system is often --- for this enemy, do this, for that enemy do that. And that get's old very quickly (AC2, ACB, ACR).

Third, Action-Cam camera kills have been part of the franchise since part one. I personally do not agree that they take the player out of it -- nor do they create a disconnect. It's a fun reward for solid play. They can be overdone --- and have been overdone. If used poorly, they can create a disconnect. But they certainly can be done right; and numerous games have implemented similar mechanics with great success. I personally was happy to see the double-counter kill cam --- it hearkened back to ACI.


Parkour: Of course you should not control each leg individually, that would be way too much control. But there is a middle ground between that extreme and simply holding the stick in a direction and let the game do the rest. Tapping a button in Mario is a reflex action once you have some skill at the game (note there is an actual learning curve in Mario!). I don't think to myself: "Now I need to tap a button at the end of this platform", I just do it. This is the way all great action game functions. First you struggle, you practice, then suddenly it clicks and now you don't have to think anymore (you can still fail at times obviously).

Agree with your second point, I think you missunderstood what I was trying to say. By the "watch" part of my reasoning I meant when you sit passively and watch a mid-combat "cutscene". Not that you have to observe your opponents for attack patterns, which is obviously more than fine.

I don't mind some action-cams. AC3 took it too far though with really long animations and I believe they moved the camera a lot more than they used to (I could be wrong about this though).




For 3, 4, and 7: AC1 did all those well. You had limited weapons, but you could access them quickly. Knives were easy throw in the mix, and you could mix up light attacks, heavy attacks, grabs, dodges and counters in any number of ways. Add AC3's layer where you have additional options for grabs, kicks, attacks and ranged after counters and you would have a very deep system. (< Evolution)

It's not so much about the quantity, it's about depth The moves in AC3 and AC1 are PLENTY. It's the ability to mix them up and combine them in unique ways. And that's where AC really falls short.... because of the archetype system. It's the archetype system that forces you into only a few useful combinations. If you could literally chain any combination against any foe --- that's depth. That's how Batman works. That's how God of War works. That's how AC1 works. And all the great melee combat systems ever.

To me there is a massive difference between having to tap the d-pad first and then do an action, or to have it right at my finger tips. The latter just feels so much better, it clicks.

I ususally include depth in my combat speeches, not sure why I missed it this time :). In short I agree with you that there needs to be ways to mix your various abilities in interesting ways. Your reasoning about archetypes is very similar to what I said I think ("For example the fact that many techniques don't work vs Jaegers, but disarming does, don't make them more interesting to fight. In fact it makes them more repetetive.").


Note one very important thing here though!!!! For this depth you speak of to work you can not have the cannon fodder type enemies you praised in point 1! That's exactly why I consider them such a big issue!




Get rid of archetypes altogether. And make levels of difficulty ... more like AC1.

This is a matter of definition I suppose. An enemy in a certain difficulty level could be considered an archetype.

Dome500
03-06-2014, 11:45 PM
Agreed.



I view AC1's archetypes more like the same guard with different difficulty levels. But we are talking about the same thing, I think. Any guard in that game could grab you, some were just more likely to grab you. Any guard in AC1 could counter, some were just more likely to do so. And they had different health levels with the harder types taking more hits, and the cannon fodder going down in one good combo or counter. It worked.

Look at God of War. Probably the best melee system ever done. Most encounters featured weak cannon fodder mixed a few harder enemies at you with a variety of attack patterns. You could utilize any number of light attacks, dodges, combos and heavy attacks against each of them with varying success. Combat comes down to reacting to the situation - when to block, when to attack and how to attack and where to move within the fray. It was very simple - but could be layered together with great depth and finesse.

Both AC1 and AC3 came close to this. AC1 was held back because the "turtle" became all too powerful and AC3 is held back by the same archetyping system introduced in AC2.



Well, I've run from the cops plenty of times back in high school, played ball and been in similar situations ... lol ... my body was doing whatever it needed to, and I was a hell of lot more focused on which way to go. I don't remember consciously thinking, I have to jump that fence, I just put my hand out and vaulted and went back to stride. But my eyes and mind were on my escape route.

More interactivity can often mean less immersion. If it's overkill. Tomb Raider, for example, has a smart cover system. Whenever you are in danger, move to a place with cover and she takes cover. No button pressing. It works. It's probably the best cover system ever invented and the fights are no less immersive. In fact, they are probably better off because I don't have to stop to think ... oh, i'm in cover, i have to press this. I'm focused on the enemy.

In AC terms, which eavesdropping missions were more immersive: AC1's versions where you sat on a bench, and the camera focused in tightly on the conversation or the highly interactive AC3 and ACIV versions where you follow inside this glowing circle? In my opinion, AC1's versions actually allowed you to focus on the story, on the conversation, and were more immersive. While the AC3 version - while being more interactive -- had my mind more focused on glowing DNA circles than the conversation. The ideal eavesdropping mission would be somewhere in between.

It's not lazy, because there's nothing exhaustive about pressing buttons. It's a matter of which interaction creates the most immersion and takes the mind to the place that best suits the mood/game/setting. In my mind, the free-running of AC has always suited the franchise --- and there's nothing brainless about it. I've been gaming forever, since Atari 2600, and even I can see that the desire to have button-presses for every action is the old-school way of thinking (game design) when graphics, environments and AI weren't capable of engrossing a player. AC broke that mold, and I was glad for it. I still like to play the old way, but there are franchises that do that already. I'm good with letting them do it, and AC focusing on level, map design, crowds and other ways to engage me while I run full-speed.



Yes but with less interactivity there also comes more comllications, like the game always detecting the wrong thing and not what you want to do because you were 2 inches left instead of right.

Sophistication HAS to be in there in some way. Do I want to sprint or do I want to climb and sprint? Separate those 2 actions.
Also, do I want to jump or just fall down? (AC4 did a good job with that as far as I can tell)
Do I want to climb left or right? Because as it is now the game just "detects" one direction.

Those are also problems with the system. Too much simplifications leads to more errors in tight situation where seconds can mean a failure of mission or personal goal.

luckyto
03-06-2014, 11:56 PM
Yes but with less interactivity there also comes more comllications, like the game always detecting the wrong thing and not what you want to do because you were 2 inches left instead of right.

Well... that's the real problem, isn't it. Black Flag is a prime candidate. It's been so oversimplified that it's glitchy as Vanellope on crack. To me, that all began with ACIII when they changed free running from a two-button action to one. That's when it started to get really buggy. AC1 was - in my biased mind - perfect. You could jog without jumping, walk, slow walk, or run full-speed. It was both intuitive and nuanced. But yeah, in this over-simplified version, it's glitched out.


Disagree. I don't mind that some enemies are a bit easier, but the standard guards in AC3 are ridiculously easy. It's not like a salad, it's more like a drop of water in a tiny shotglass. They offer no satisfaction to fight whatsoever

LOL


I ussally include depth in my combat speeches, not sure why I missed it this time http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20130918.419/images/smilies/smile.png. In short I agree with you that there needs to be ways to mix your various abilities in interesting ways. Your reasoning about archetypes is very similar to what I said I think ("For example the fact that many techniques don't work vs Jaegers, but disarming does, don't make them more interesting to fight. In fact it makes them more repetetive.").

I've seen your combat speeches before :) I thought that's what you meant. I was elaborating on your point. I think we are on the same page. "It makes them more repetitive" is exactly what I meant. It's been plaguing combat since ACII and I've been on these boards since ACB complaining about it.



Note one very important thing here though!!!! For this depth you speak of to work you can not have the cannon fodder type enemies you praised in point 1! That's exactly why I consider them such a big issue!

Here tho, I think the cannon fodder do give you depth. Because when the cannon fodder is mixed with challenging enemies, you are able to stategically use them to create gaps in the fighting area to manoevre and gain advantage. In this instance, they are necessary. It's true in most games. Maybe the cannon-fodder shouldn't be one drop in a shot glass, but one good combo should take out the low level guards.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Sushiglutton
03-07-2014, 12:05 AM
I've seen your combat speeches before :) I thought that's what you meant. I was elaborating on your point. I think we are on the same page. "It makes them more repetitive" is exactly what I meant.
Lol I tend to repeat myself a bit :o! In my defense I just finished God Of War 1 today and that game is just too much fun for its own good. So I felt inspired to bash the combat in AC again lol. If AC could get a combat system that was anywhere near that fun (or like in Arkham, DmC or any of the other classics) I would be so happy!


Here tho, I think they do. Because when mixed with challenging enemies, you are able to stategically use them to create gaps in the fighting area to manoevre and gain advantage. In this instance, they are necessary.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I think the standard enemies in Batman have the perfect level of challenge for cannon fodder. They won't kill you, they may cause a bit of problems (break your combo), you need to take them down in a couple of steps so there's still a little bit of depth there.

The tap & kill variety in AC is just too shallow.

But yeah agree to disagree :D!

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 12:26 AM
I really disagree that there's depth to the cannon fodder enemies in Arkham games in and of itself. In fact, the two-step thing actually gets really annoying and repetitive over time. You essentially just switch from enemy to enemy until they're all down.

There is, however, the thing with timing combos to get the biggest combo bar possible which changes the combat dynamic and adds timing elements, but without it, Arkham cannon fodder would actually be worse than ACs because they're not interesting opponents and it's a chore to get rid of those huge groups. And AC is not a type of game which should include combo bars like Arkham's.

EDIT: And, really, the combo bar is the thing that makes Arkham combat system and adds skill to it (AND use for any gadgets). Without it it's really... meh. I mean, it's alright and functional, though gadhets are pretty much useless (unless they are useful on the hard difficulty, I played on normal). I'm not saying that the system as a whole is bad, because the combo bar is part of that whole (and a lot is designed around getting that combo bar up), and it's what makes the system enjoyable and well-designed and there's skill and timing involved in keeping it high, but without it the systems are not that much better or deeper than ACs.

Kagurra
03-07-2014, 02:29 AM
I found AC3/4 combat to be really boring. Hope they change it. Maybe go back to a more evolved system of the old combat. With health on enemies, instead of infinite health if you don't finish your combo or shoot them, and they need to get rid of the idea that all you need to do is press two buttons at such a leisurely pace to just murderlize everything.

travilanche
03-07-2014, 09:05 AM
I just gotta say...my biggest complaint about the combat in ACIV is the extreme lack of kill animations. I get that the only weapons used are swords...but after awhile I noticed that watching Edward kill was no longer a joy to watch because it was all the same. If they had done different animations for every set of swords then it would have been awesome. But they were all the same. I always just use either Ezio or Altair's swords because they look the coolest and have a nostalgia factor...but they are basically the same as every other sword set.

Also you Dont get the rope dart until way too late in the story.

iSoTryHard
03-07-2014, 10:00 AM
I may cop hate for this, but in my own personal opinion I like the AC Brotherhood system. It improved on my on a good system in my opinion in AC 2 by adding killstreaks to make the combat more flowed, I quite enjoyed it in my opinion.

Kirokill
03-07-2014, 12:36 PM
--------
I'm at wild opposition to those sentiments, and they have been expressed on these boards a million times - so don't think I'm picking on you.

I want to fight. I want to be able to fight a hundred guards. I just want it to be fun and rewarding. The franchise has always been about: combat, stealth and free-running. But combat is core. And the player chooses which to do. This idea that I should be forced to run because "that's what an Assassin should do" may be realistic, but it isn't fun. It isn't the game that I want to play, nor many other gamers or people who've been with the franchise.
-----------
No worries :)
You misunderstood a bit, I know the player should do what he wants, but since AC3 was released it has been annoyingly hard to hide and run, it forced me to fight, I know if you want to fight, fight, and if you want to run, then run. That was ruined with this engine, and even worse in AC4. Hiding was annoying and not worth it because if you hide in a haystack, you get 5 guards to fetch it, and sometimes before they search it, you get spotted, they made hiding grass so useful that any other hiding place is almost useless, because you can assassinate so easily in the grass and you get *u**ed once you try to hide in haystack. Social stealth was also useless in this engine, civilians were like nothing but background for the atmosphere. Notoriety was removed in AC4 that hiding or running was useless.
Of course you shouldn't be forced to hide.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 03:59 PM
-----------
No worries :)
You misunderstood a bit, I know the player should do what he wants, but since AC3 was released it has been annoyingly hard to hide and run, it forced me to fight, I know if you want to fight, fight, and if you want to run, then run. That was ruined with this engine, and even worse in AC4. Hiding was annoying and not worth it because if you hide in a haystack, you get 5 guards to fetch it, and sometimes before they search it, you get spotted, they made hiding grass so useful that any other hiding place is almost useless, because you can assassinate so easily in the grass and you get *u**ed once you try to hide in haystack. Social stealth was also useless in this engine, civilians were like nothing but background for the atmosphere. Notoriety was removed in AC4 that hiding or running was useless.
Of course you shouldn't be forced to hide.

Yeah, THOSE points are also something I hope to see improved on/fixed next time.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 05:08 PM
I found AC3/4 combat to be really boring. Hope they change it. Maybe go back to a more evolved system of the old combat. With health on enemies, instead of infinite health if you don't finish your combo or shoot them, and they need to get rid of the idea that all you need to do is press two buttons at such a leisurely pace to just murderlize everything.

You could kill 30+ enemies within about 20 seconds by holding onto the X button in the old combat... Double kills were broken.

luckyto
03-07-2014, 06:48 PM
-----------
No worries :)
You misunderstood a bit, I know the player should do what he wants, but since AC3 was released it has been annoyingly hard to hide and run, it forced me to fight, I know if you want to fight, fight, and if you want to run, then run. That was ruined with this engine, and even worse in AC4. Hiding was annoying and not worth it because if you hide in a haystack, you get 5 guards to fetch it, and sometimes before they search it, you get spotted, they made hiding grass so useful that any other hiding place is almost useless, because you can assassinate so easily in the grass and you get *u**ed once you try to hide in haystack. Social stealth was also useless in this engine, civilians were like nothing but background for the atmosphere. Notoriety was removed in AC4 that hiding or running was useless.
Of course you shouldn't be forced to hide.

Oh yeah.

I think you are talking about AI, or at least what I called AI. Because the AI is atrocious. It's gotten progressively worse. It has culminated in AC4 with their over-simplified AI being applied in every situation. The AI needs massive amount of depth. It needs more than three levels (Notorious, Suspicious, etc)... It's needs multiple levels of notoriety to handle the many different situations you might encounter guards. Guards on the street should behave differently than guards in an armed fortress or a plantation. Guards in an armed fortress might be on high alert or they might be "lazy." Guards on the street might be actively looking for suspicious people. If you fight, guards might have a different set of behaviors over time.

AI needs a radical overhaul.

poptartz20
03-07-2014, 09:03 PM
Honestly I enjoyed the combat in AC3 the best then AC4. AC2-ACR I feel are a bit broken and somewhat clunky. Not to mention the Health system. Lol!

So while I wouldn't mind if they kept the same combat system, my question would be what exactly would you want them to change it too? Something that feels more realistic? or are we talking about where you go to a street fighter cut scene

http://i.imgur.com/YokOIH8.jpg


and counter pops up with life?



Now on the terms of Ai. Yes. I would love to see AI be more aware. I have said it once but like in the last of us or batman arkham asylum When they see a man down they don't actually just become alert for like 2 sec. they actually go oh crap someone is here trying to kill us. so they change up their patterns or they alert other guards in the area. I think what a real person would do.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 10:06 PM
Honestly I enjoyed the combat in AC3 the best then AC4. AC2-ACR I feel are a bit broken and somewhat clunky. Not to mention the Health system. Lol!

So while I wouldn't mind if they kept the same combat system, my question would be what exactly would you want them to change it too? Something that feels more realistic? or are we talking about where you go to a street fighter cut scene

http://i.imgur.com/YokOIH8.jpg


and counter pops up with life?



Now on the terms of Ai. Yes. I would love to see AI be more aware. I have said it once but like in the last of us or batman arkham asylum When they see a man down they don't actually just become alert for like 2 sec. they actually go oh crap someone is here trying to kill us. so they change up their patterns or they alert other guards in the area. I think what a real person would do.

LOL YES. I want to see Assassin's Creed Dual brought to life.

Anyway, regarding the AI-- so much yes. If future sequels continue to handle assassinations like in AC:IV or AC:1, AI awareness could add so much more depth into stealth. And it would make hiding a body a more useful feature.

Dome500
03-08-2014, 01:57 AM
Anyway, regarding the AI-- so much yes. If future sequels continue to handle assassinations like in AC:IV or AC:1, AI awareness could add so much more depth into stealth. And it would make hiding a body a more useful feature.

Agreed on this. In terms of Stealth there has to be better A.I.

There are only 3(4) types of players anyway (generally):

1. All out Combat. They don't care how fast detection goes. They just wanna fight
2. Opportunists. They try Stealth and if they fail or if they don't want to sneak anymore they fight their way through.
3. Stealth purists. They want as much Stealth as possible.
(4). Non-lethal Pacifists. They probably want to choke or send to sleep as many enemies as possible.


In the end, a better Stealth system will be good for all of those.

rcole_sooner
03-08-2014, 02:52 AM
LOL! I guess I am an opportunist. I try stealth about 1/2 a dozen times, then the heck with it I'm killin' 'em all. LOL!

I guess it depends on how far back being detected sets me. I've almost felt like the pile of 943 bodies at times, however, no where close really, but a big ol' pile for sure. Then look around and the guards at the target location are still just guarding away. LOL!

Heck, in AC3 I kited almost the whole fort to a powder keg location and killed 'em all with the blast. The few guards up on the wall never detected anything. I did it for kicks, since I was frustrated I kept getting detected ... that kinda worked ... I felt a lot better ... and just went ahead with the mission. Plus I mapped the whole Ft. George out while I was running about, so that was almost worth it alone. :)

Kagurra
03-08-2014, 03:54 AM
You could kill 30+ enemies within about 20 seconds by holding onto the X button in the old combat... Double kills were broken.

True, but that wasn't a main mechanic in the combat and you were never forced to do it. Lets say somebody new had no idea that was even in the game. I'm sure that person would only do it by accident once or twice through their whole PT. But in the more recent games, it's all automatic and you have to do nothing different.

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 04:15 AM
True, but that wasn't a main mechanic in the combat and you were never forced to do it. Lets say somebody new had no idea that was even in the game. I'm sure that person would only do it by accident once or twice through their whole PT. But in the more recent games, it's all automatic and you have to do nothing different.

Wrong. In the more recent games you had to tap the tool button (triangle or Y) towards the direction of the enemy. But unlike the old games, it only works with the small grunts and you had a more limited supply of tools which balanced it. In the old games when you start a chain you can let go of the controller and Ezio will manually slaughter the guards, or you could just hold onto X or square and he'll automatically double tool kill them in seconds-- which could also be mid-interrupted in the newer games but not the older ones.

As for somebody who might have no idea that it existed, it's factually more possible to spam 1-2 buttons redundantly in the older games to win against a wave full of variety than the newer titles. They all could be killed in the same few ways. <<<Kick and attack or X + RT with hidden blade. +infinite health due to OP potions.

Ureh
03-08-2014, 05:11 AM
@Fatal-Feit For AC3: The double tool kills work on all types, but you have to disarm them in a streak first. And it's possible to utilize rope darts during streaks without depleting them (as long as you don't use the left stick to select an enemy).

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 05:23 AM
@Fatal-Feit For AC3: The double tool kills work on all types, but you have to disarm them in a streak first. And it's possible to utilize rope darts during streaks without depleting them (as long as you don't use the left stick to select an enemy).

I'm referring to aggressive play so taking the time to disarm an enemy isn't the most viable way of keeping your streak up, especially when some AI doesn't allow you to knock it off without countering and are is too keen on picking up the weapon, first hand. A better way, IMO is by targeting a grunt so you can get that extra free kill towards a Jager or Brute, although it doesn't always work.

As for the rope dart, is that really possible? I'm not sure if you're talking about AC:3 or AC:IV, because in AC:3 you can utilize rope darts in double kills without having to restock, but not counters.

Kagurra
03-08-2014, 11:06 AM
Wrong. In the more recent games you had to tap the tool button (triangle or Y) towards the direction of the enemy. But unlike the old games, it only works with the small grunts and you had a more limited supply of tools which balanced it. In the old games when you start a chain you can let go of the controller and Ezio will manually slaughter the guards, or you could just hold onto X or square and he'll automatically double tool kill them in seconds-- which could also be mid-interrupted in the newer games but not the older ones.

As for somebody who might have no idea that it existed, it's factually more possible to spam 1-2 buttons redundantly in the older games to win against a wave full of variety than the newer titles. They all could be killed in the same few ways. <<<Kick and attack or X + RT with hidden blade. +infinite health due to OP potions.

I wasn't comparing the double kills in Ezio games to double kills in recent games. I was comparing normal combat to normal combat. One is at least a lot less boring... guess which one. Not the new one.

It was boring in AC3 too. The infinitely respawning jagers around every corner with only one way to melee kill them didn't help either. They punished you for killing more guards, but it wasn't in a fun way. It was just annoying. You could literally see the jagers phase in and sprint to you just as you killed the first one. And all of a sudden all the other guards disappeared.

ACConspiracies
03-08-2014, 02:20 PM
So my idea for the combat system in assassins creed is to use the idea that fighting games like tekken have, which assign a different limb to a different button. Tekken uses SQUARE and TRIANGLE to control the right and left punches and then uses X and CIRCLE to control the right and left kicks. So in assassins creed i think they should use this to make it more fun and rewarding then it is now.

This is how it should work:

The enemy attack you, you press CIRCLE to counter.

You then follow up with a 3 hit combo. Using 3 different buttons on the controller, SQUARE to control the characters left punch, TRIANGLE to control the characters right punch, X to Control the characters kick and circle to disarm the character.

The 3 hit combo hits the opponent and takes him out in the 3rd hit. E.g. I press circle to counter and then follow up with SQUARE TRIANGLE SQUARE. The final SQUARE kills your enemy. Each combination of the buttons has a different combo attack to kill the opponent.

This will also work with the dual weapons. If you have a sword in the right hand and have the hidden blade in the left you could do this:

CIRCLE to counter, X SQUARE TRIANGLE, this will let the character kick the enemy the stab him in the stomach with the hidden blade and slash his neck with sword in a combo... However at certain times the enemy will block the last attack and then try to attack you which you will have to quickly press circle to counter again ( the counter this time will be much harder making it more likely for you to get hit by the enemy) and when you counter for a second time successfully you can follow up with just one button to kill your enemy.

When you are in the middle of a combo the enemies around you can easily attack you so you have to be prepared to counter them an example of how this could work is:

You press CIRCLE to counter, then SQUARE SQUARE TRIANGLE, but while you are doing this combo another enemy is about to attack you so you either get hit and lose a lot of life or you are prepared and quickly press CIRCLE to counter and you have to follow this with another CIRCLE to throw the enemy away or you get attacked and lose more life. However if you are successful in this after the throw you can press SQUARE TRIANGLE or X to kill the opponent you were attacking first in one hit.

To make it more rewarding you will start with only a couple of combos to kill your enemies and you will unlock more if you are successful with 20 combo kills to unlock more combos to do and then more at 50 kills.

But this won't be a waiting game for you to just wait for the enemies to attack, you can also attack anyway like you can now but it will not kill them easily... It will take ages for you to kill an opponent this way but if you do attack this way the enemy will block a lot of your attacks and after a while they will counter and you will have to press certain buttons to deflect their combos. E.g.

You attack and then the enemy counters and is about to do a 3 hit combo on you which will make you lose 70% of your life if they succeed at the 3 hit combo. They counter and then are about to do a combo which you will have to press SQUARE TRIANGLE and X to deflect. At first it will tell which to press for each attack to deflect it but then you will have to learn...

You attack and it is countered and then the enemy is about to punch which you have to press SQUARE at the right time to deflect, then the enemy is about to kick you and you have to press X to deflect and then the enemy strikes you with his sword which is where you have to press TRIANGLE to deflect and after this you lose 30% of your life by deflecting to make it harder and then the enemy is left unarmed and easy to kill.

This combat system will also allow the boss fights to be quite cool e.g. If their is a templar boss who weilds an axe and a dagger you will have to do more to kill the enemy...

The templar attacks you and you counter and then press SQUARE TRIANGLE X, the enemy will always deflect the last hit and then attack you and you will have to counter again with CIRCLE and hit him again but this won't kill him... just injure him... If you attack him and the enemy counters you will have to go through a step of things to deflect the attacks... The boss will be different to normal enemies and can hit you with a 5 hit combo which will kill you if they succeed. But you won't just have to press SQUARE TRIANGLE AND X to deflect... The boss can attack with his sword and you will have to keep pressing TRIANGLE to stop him or he will get you.

So this is my idea based off the combat system they have already but by making it more fun and rewarding... and with the next gen hardware they should be able to add a lot of combos for each set of weapons making it fun to watch the enemy die with cool animations but also making it fun to play and hard with certain things you have to master to not get hit.... tell me what you think of this..... btw it would be really annoying if anyone actually took my idea and made it in their game... as this is my own idea that took some thinking... but thanks anyway if you read this. :)

Mr.GoodKall
03-08-2014, 04:33 PM
AC combat is one of the best in games today. You know how hard it is to come up with a whole new combat system? And itll probably be not as good as what we have today, so why fix whats not broken? Just add to that and well be good. Its already sick

Ureh
03-08-2014, 11:16 PM
@Fatall-Feit It could be that one or both of us are misunderstanding the other. My previous post was kinda incoherent. Gameplay is a bit hard to describe with words, easier with visuals (vids/pics). But here's what I was responding to:


Wrong. In the more recent games you had to tap the tool button (triangle or Y) towards the direction of the enemy. But unlike the old games, it only works with the small grunts and you had a more limited supply of tools which balanced it.

Seemed like you were saying that the double tool kills (rope dart & pistols) only worked with the grunts. So I assumed you meant it did not work against anyone else (but you do kinda clarify this in your next post). And my response to "limited supply of tools which balanced it" was: rope darts never run out as long as you do not use them in a "double item kill". They last indefinitely if you just tap the tool button, at the end of a kill, without selecting the next target with the left stick. Doing so will allow you to continue a kill streak if the guards are too far away.


I'm referring to aggressive play so taking the time to disarm an enemy isn't the most viable way of keeping your streak up, especially when some AI doesn't allow you to knock it off without countering and are is too keen on picking up the weapon, first hand. A better way, IMO is by targeting a grunt so you can get that extra free kill towards a Jager or Brute, although it doesn't always work.

I think only the Jagers can prevent Connor from using a disarm-streak. Otherwise the AC3 combat system is designed in such a way that we can be quite aggressive with disarms during a streak. If you have the spare time, watch the following vid and what I'm saying might make more sense (notice the 0:09 to 0:11 mark). All it takes is 2-3 button presses to disarm in a streak and perform a double kill. A "disarm streak" simply renders the target vulnerable to attack for a few seconds, it doesn't knock the weapon from their hand.

http://youtu.be/kiAMo3bbnRY

I ran out of time, so I'll make a video of a jagers being added into the mix later. But all you have to do is continue a streak and when a jager does attack, just counter+disarm them. Then you can immediately perform a double item kill like in this video:

http://youtu.be/PLeuYWpfJAY


As for the rope dart, is that really possible? I'm not sure if you're talking about AC:3 or AC:IV, because in AC:3 you can utilize rope darts in double kills without having to restock, but not counters.

If I understand the bolded part correctly, you're saying that "double item kills" with rope darts don't deplete the ones in our inventory - so you've infinite rope darts? I thought we could only do a maximum of 5 rope dart double kills and/or rope dart counters before having to get a refill.

Anyway, sorry if this whole post is confusing. Hope not. :p:eek:

edit: http://youtu.be/-mhT5VwNGwg
Brute mob and two double tool kills.

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 12:43 AM
I wasn't comparing the double kills in Ezio games to double kills in recent games. I was comparing normal combat to normal combat. One is at least a lot less boring... guess which one. Not the new one.

It was boring in AC3 too. The infinitely respawning jagers around every corner with only one way to melee kill them didn't help either. They punished you for killing more guards, but it wasn't in a fun way. It was just annoying. You could literally see the jagers phase in and sprint to you just as you killed the first one. And all of a sudden all the other guards disappeared.

Well that's a matter of opinions now, isn't it?

As for the constant Jagers; that's a problem with the notoriety system, not the combat.

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 12:57 AM
@Fatall-Feit It could be that one or both of us are misunderstanding the other. My previous post was kinda incoherent. Gameplay is a bit hard to describe with words, easier with visuals (vids/pics). But here's what I was responding to:

No problem, I enjoy discussions about the combat.


Seemed like you were saying that the double tool kills (rope dart & pistols) only worked with the grunts. So I assumed you meant it did not work against anyone else (but you do kinda clarify this in your next post). And my response to "limited supply of tools which balanced it" was: rope darts never run out as long as you do not use them in a "double item kill". They last indefinitely if you just tap the tool button, at the end of a kill, without selecting the next target with the left stick. Doing so will allow you to continue a kill streak if the guards are too far away.

To help clarify things, I'm referring to seamless double tool kills after a kill-- which works with grunts. The other varieties will counter you.

As for the rope dart, I'll take your word on it. From what I remember, it depletes from tool counters, not double tool kills but you could be right. I've been practicing the combat in AC:IV and the rope darts there depletes regardless of how you used it.


I think only the Jagers can prevent Connor from using a disarm-streak. Otherwise the AC3 combat system is designed in such a way that we can be quite aggressive with disarms during a streak. If you have the spare time, watch the following vid and what I'm saying might make more sense (notice the 0:09 to 0:11 mark). All it takes is 2-3 button presses to disarm in a streak and perform a double kill. A "disarm streak" simply renders the target vulnerable to attack for a few seconds, it doesn't knock the weapon from their hand.

http://youtu.be/kiAMo3bbnRY


I ran out of time, so I'll make a video of a jagers being added into the mix later. But all you have to do is continue a streak and when a jager does attack, just counter+disarm them. Then you can immediately perform a double item kill like in this video:

http://youtu.be/PLeuYWpfJAY

After AC:1, I'll definitely practice this, thanks! Do you tap or hold onto the tool button as soon as you disarm them?
This is an amazing trick, dude. :D


If I understand the bolded part correctly, you're saying that "double item kills" with rope darts don't deplete the ones in our inventory - so you've infinite rope darts? I thought we could only do a maximum of 5 rope dart double kills and/or rope dart counters before having to get a refill.

Anyway, sorry if this whole post is confusing. Hope not. :p:eek:

edit: http://youtu.be/-mhT5VwNGwg
Brute mob and two double tool kills.

As you've corrected me, the rope darts depletes from double tool kills, not tool counters. That's where we were confused at. So an apology isn't necessary. I really do enjoy discussions about the combat. AC:3 is really complex so at the end of the day, you might learn a thing or two from it.

Ureh
03-10-2014, 06:17 PM
@Fatal-Feit Selecting the target with the left stick and tapping should suffice. But if you prefer holding the button, then that works too. :o;)

luckyto
03-10-2014, 07:03 PM
Ureh ---- wait... what? How did you do that?


AC combat is one of the best in games today. You know how hard it is to come up with a whole new combat system? And itll probably be not as good as what we have today, so why fix whats not broken? Just add to that and well be good. Its already sick

Ummm... like I said, AC1 and AC3 had the foundation for great combat systems. The rest have all been very much subpar. They need massive improvement. Yes, they don't need to completely overhaul it --- but it is broken.

poptartz20
03-12-2014, 04:55 AM
Umm... I was looking at a video of watchdogs.

instead of trying to really over complicate the matter why don't we mesh together 2 things that already exist. AC3/4 combat with watchdogs? I mean granted the game isn't out yet but the combat too it actually looks pretty fluid.

Also when Aiden is in a "restricted" area. he always stays crouched. so how about something like that working it's way into ac?

The combat in WD also looks grittier. and more up close and personal. with take downs. It feels like it's a street smart CCC way of fighting.


just a thought!

shobhit7777777
03-12-2014, 06:46 AM
Umm... I was looking at a video of watchdogs.

instead of trying to really over complicate the matter why don't we mesh together 2 things that already exist. AC3/4 combat with watchdogs? I mean granted the game isn't out yet but the combat too it actually looks pretty fluid.

Also when Aiden is in a "restricted" area. he always stays crouched. so how about something like that working it's way into ac?

The combat in WD also looks grittier. and more up close and personal. with take downs. It feels like it's a street smart CCC way of fighting.


just a thought!

Watch_Dogs doesn't have melee combat per se

The moves that you see are basically one button takedowns , like in Splinter Cell Blacklist. Takedowns are a one-hit-kill melee attack which can be contextual.

Combat, in the AC context is a proper fight between two opponents involving an exchange of blows and greater tactical depth.

I personally am not invested into the combat system enough to comment on this topic, but I sincerely hope they come up with a new, more engaging system with the next game...for the sake of those who do like AC combat

pirate1802
03-12-2014, 07:05 AM
I wouldn't mind if the combat system wasn't so ******ed and made for ******s. But seriously, revamping the core is the ONE thing they have to do. If they fail in doing that, or worse, ignore them like they have so far, then they can go to hell and anyone who buys such a game is directly contributing to the raping of AC.

Always the charmer. Ah well, after this post I know not to take you seriously. :D

RinoTheBouncer
03-12-2014, 12:14 PM
Well itís not everything but Iíll be extremely disappointed because I donít want to play the same style forever. I want new mechanisms, new ways to assassinate, new types of missions. Not the same routine.

Sushiglutton
03-12-2014, 04:34 PM
I watched this TotalBiscuit video about a game called "One Finger Death Punch" and I thought it was real interesting in terms of combat design. It's a super simplistic system (you either fight right or left) and yet because it's challenging, has great pacing and varied/satisfying animations it's still a blast to play according to TB (haven't tried it myself). I just thought I should leave it here if anyone is interested, because it made me think a lot of what is important to combat and not.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN6rYygppY0&amp;list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ

AssassinHMS
03-12-2014, 05:07 PM
Always the charmer. Ah well, after this post I know not to take you seriously. :D

That's cool but, for the record, I wasn't completely serious with that post. However, it isn't necessarily false either. I know that, due to the lack of open world historical games, AC is just that to some people. Still, as a game, it is much more than that. With the yearly releases and the casual take, AC's core has remained weak (in some aspects, even weaker) for 5 games. I think the raping of a product starts when you use it (you use the name, the brand, the face and the core) but you don't improve it. You strip away its identity (yes, its identity and I know you don't agree with me on what AC's identity is), you don't help it evolve and you use it for profit only. I think I can safely say that this is a clear case of rape.
All core mechanics are extremely weak, combat too, so yeah.


Sorry if this isn't the most charming post.

RinoTheBouncer
03-12-2014, 06:44 PM
That's cool but, for the record, I wasn't completely serious with that post. However, it isn't necessarily false either. I know that, due to the lack of open world historical games, AC is just that to some people. Still, as a game, it is much more than that. With the yearly releases and the casual take, AC's core has remained weak (in some aspects, even weaker) for 5 games. I think the raping of a product starts when you use it (you use the name, the brand, the face and the core) but you don't improve it. You strip away its identity (yes, its identity and I know you don't agree with me on what AC's identity is), you don't help it evolve and you use it for profit only. I think I can safely say that this is a clear case of rape.
All core mechanics are extremely weak, combat too, so yeah.


Sorry if this isn't the most charming post.

Well I agree with this post more than any other ďcharmingĒ one out there. Cause itís very true.

I know we can differ about the idea of the identity but thereís definitely some sort of identity for it. The game can change and evolve and even get a bit different but thereís some soul to it that should remain strong and prevalent and the shell must keep evolving so that it remains original and neither a repetition of the first game nor a completely different thing that nobody can feel anymore but only exists for the sake of profit.

Ureh
03-13-2014, 08:17 PM
They shouldn't leave the combat unchanged, for sure. But what kinda system would everyone here favor? Something like God of War? or Arkham games? Any other examples? I don't have any experience with Arkham combat, but I hear it's semi-similar to AC3/4. Is it even possible to "improve" or "change" ACreed 3rd person combat at this point or have they reached a point where evolution is at near a standstill?

----

Ureh ---- wait... what? How did you do that?

Do what? :confused::)
----
And here's the last vid - fighting a mixed mob (jagers, grenadiers, peons) - if anyone's interested (took 2 hrs to upload it!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MurHZC2sfks

You know how Jagers counter Connor if he tries to kill them in a streak right? What if there was a way to counter their counter? Or maybe sparring sessions with Jacob Zenger so you can learn a new move ? Maybe having Connor gaining more experience as he grows older (ex: when he becomes an adult and learns kill streaks). Or unlocking abilities after fighting specific enemies a specific number of times (sorta like the guild challenges rewards)? :eek:

Hans684
03-13-2014, 09:16 PM
One way to make it harder is by changing to first person, the combat would be more skill based and without one counter kills or not counter at all.

Wolfmeister1010
03-14-2014, 12:15 AM
One way to make it harder is by changing to first person, the combat would be more skill based and without one counter kills or not counter at all.

..

Sushiglutton
03-14-2014, 12:35 AM
They shouldn't leave the combat unchanged, for sure. But what kinda system would everyone here favor? Something like God of War? or Arkham games? Any other examples? I don't have any experience with Arkham combat, but I hear it's semi-similar to AC3/4. Is it even possible to "improve" or "change" ACreed 3rd person combat at this point or have they reached a point where evolution is at near a standstill?


I love God Of war (actually beat God Of War 2 today for the third time), but I don't think that style of combat would fit AC at all. The way I see it there are mainly three third person combat styles (I'm no game expert, so please correct me if wrong):


Arkham style (other examples: AC3-4, Sleeping Dogs):


No lock-on
Game auto adjust attacks based on distance to enemies
Smart auto targetting for ranged weapons
Simple one tap attacks (as opposed to long combos)
One tap defensive moves with generous timing


Devil May Cry (other examples: God Of War, Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta):


No lock on
Attack animation independent of enemy placement
Long complex combos
Dodge button to escape unblockable attacks.
Timing very important


Ocarina Of Time (other examples: Dark Souls, AC1-2):

Manual lock-on
Slow, wait for opening type combat
Hold a block button and circle enemies.
Ranged weapons targets locked on enemy



This is probably wrong in many ways, just a basic list :).


Anyway out of these three I def think the Arkham style suits AC the best. It's perhaps not as realistic as the Ocarina style, but it's fast, stylished and really promotes great animations, something Ubi is clearly very good at. So I think they are in the right area, it's just the execution that needs to be much, much better imo!

Consus_E
03-14-2014, 12:47 AM
One way to make it harder is by changing to first person, the combat would be more skill based and without one counter kills or not counter at all.

Dishonored?

Fatal-Feit
03-14-2014, 01:29 AM
Anyway out of these three I def think the Arkham style suits AC the best. It's perhaps not as realistic as the Ocarina style, but it's fast, stylished and really promotes great animations, something Ubi is clearly very good at. So I think they are in the right area, it's just the execution that needs to be much, much better imo!

IMO, they should add something like Uncharted, RDR or The Last of Us' crouch and hovering to the mix. Like being able to assassinate from, aim and shoot with guns or other range tools from a cover. It could really add some complex diversity to the combat and stealth.

shobhit7777777
03-14-2014, 09:56 AM
The Witcher 2 combat was like a fluid AC system....not as many moves but much more enjoyable. It was like an Arkham Asylum/AssCreed hybrid

Hans684
03-14-2014, 08:42 PM
Dishonored?

It would feel the same but with a first person historical protagonist they would be "forced" to improve. I consider it a "bridge" to difficulty, one the AI/core is improved becouse of first person they can change it back to third person while keeping as much as they can.