█␢█

Well I guess that's your choice, then. But if that's the case, then you'll probably want to change toward a more OB-focused AC because normal boosting is quite useless on its own in ACFA. So that means changing the weapons from ones that use EN to ones that don't and investing into a gen that has a high KPO.

I'm pretty sure it's a piracy issue mainly. If it requires you to have an online account linked to the key code, they have a sort of preventative defense against pirated games. Granted there are probably still ways around it because SC2 is like that, but I still managed to find a pirated copy to play the single player off of.

Frame's pretty dope. Fuck you, Vincent! Don't get what you want to achieve with the GA boosters or with the Laura FCS, though.

Cool so I'll be back home in time to import it. LOL FUROMU SOFUTOUEAMEKAKASUTAMAIZUAKUSHIYONSHIRIZU. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean after From Software. Maker Customiza---?

Trailer. Production values look great, premise just looked so cheesy. Especially stuff at 1:39 just really turned me off to the movie, but I trust 90's taste so I might look into the movie.

It was really that good? Honestly from the trailers the concept sounded awful--like some sort of B-movie. My whole family was going "oh wow why does this movies have this kind of casting."

Fucker, I was going to say Arcana Heart.

Season 3 started, and Blizz made changes to the map pool. For 1v1: Personally I'm alright with the map removals. I didn't really like Slag, Delta, or even Scrap that much. As for the new maps, I don't really care for them either! Nerazim Crypt is middle-of-the-road for Blizz maps. Open natural, sort of short rush distances (like Xel'Naga short), obvious third base expansion. Searing Crater looks real 1base oriented as well, what with the short natural-to-natural distances. Antiga Shipyard is quite alright for a Blizzard map. What's a definite plus is that there aren't any rocks blocking expansions. (!!!)Abyssal Caverns looks like a regular Blizzard map where close air and crossmap positions are okay, but close ground distances are pretty short (or at least have to potential to be).

I don't understand the point of having a Dearborn paired with a laser rifle. Dearborn isn't generally used for just straight up damage, largely because Dearborn has so little ammo. Personally I'd change it to a Musselshell, but that's because I do missile fly-bys. If you're planning on shooting off at a distance, look into the MP-203. Also I'm kind of iffy on using the Tellus arms. I've tried them before, and they're definitely usable, but only barely so. You're pretty much limited to using missile/projectile pairs with those arms because anything that will require the use of parallel processing will make it extremely hard to track. So as a result you have to keep slightly more still to hit things, which is both bad facing ACs heavier than you (because it sets you up for big-hit weapons) as well as the ones lighter than you (because they can chip you down much more easily).

Or just dodge/run since it's just missiles.

So then the extreme, but most obvious question to ask is that you're fine with human trafficking?

Okay yeah I'm fine with that. I honestly don't care about the terminology I use so long as I can attach the correct meaning to it, and if that's the reason that no one can differentiate between what's going on at :40 and :50 that's fine too. But what really annoyed me was the it literally was just what I interpreted it to be nit-picking the entire time, not even bothering with the subject matter but rather it's vocabulary. I mean honestly it's whatever, and I'll probably be over it tomorrow, but right now it still bugs the hell out of me because in my eyes it literally contributed nothing, unless clarity was that large of an issue because of it. I guess I'll rewrite it some time, but certainly not tonight. In my head I'm still going "big fucking deal, you know what I mean. Talk about that or just go fuck off."

Okay so Niji's semantic spew got me pretty salty, not gonna lie, especially since he used that to completely avoid addressing my notion that a three-direction chain is capped. Spoiler! --Click Here to View!--[Niji] 12:54 am: Like, what does it have to do with the term cancelling? So I take it that apparently I wasn't being clear enough about the significance of one method being capped (limited, restricted, etc.) on how many quickboosts are allowed where as the other is unlimited, and that the number of directions the AC quickboosts is in itself not significant but instead indicative of whether or not the entire sequence has a limit. Nearly everyone has said that there is no difference between :40 and :50 in the first video of the topic post. Both have an extremely long QB sequence where there is very little time between each quickboost. The difference is that in the first sequence, the AC has to use rotate through unused directions, which ultimately undermines the momentum of the sequence in order to maintain it (in the video: ↑ → ↑ ← → ← ↑ → ← → ↑ →). To my knowledge, it is be impossible to input a QB sequence such as ↑ → ↑ ← ↑ → ↑ , hence why I say there's a cap to tri-directional QB sequences. I'm pretty sure you could pull off a ↑ → ↑ ← ↑ → ← ↑ sequence, but the fact that you have to add another side input into the sequence completely kills the momentum of the whole thing. Compare this to the bi-directional QB sequences which are fully capable of pulling off 4+ critical QBs1 (I'm making a new term, fuck you) while actually still being streamlined enough for combat. ------------------------- 1. Critical QBs would be the quickboosts in a sequence that carry you in the general direction you wish to move. Again using the example of ↑ → ↑ ← ↑, each forward quick boost would be considered a critical quickboost. TL;DR Spoiler! --Click Here to View!--Fuck you, Niji, you semantic homo.

Okay so the main difference is that, at :50, he's doing a QB sequence that only uses two directions, whereas at :40 he's using more than two. I mean, the difference seems insignificant, but it's an indication of the different mechanics (I guess that's the right word?) at play where the former is limitless in the number of quickboosts a person can do and the latter has a limit. Which leads me to the hardcap, and from personal experience and talking to others, it seems that people can't boost in the general direction more than three times. I'm having a hard time putting it in words so I'll use arrows, word. So say you wanted to do a chain that would bring you forward. You would do something like ↑ → ↑ ← ↑, but that's essentially your limit. You could go so far as ↑ → ↑ ← ↑ →, in fact. However to follow up the side QB with another forward QB seems to be impossible, at least from the experiences of the people I hung out with as well as my own. With what I'm dubbing a QB cancel, however, you would be able to go ↑ → ↑ → ↑ → ↑ → ↑ → forever until you run out of energy. What you were doing was what I considered quickboost chains. There might have been a few cancels, but for the most part it was chains.

Oh okay, word. Yeah I've tried that before. Thing is that for one, I'm already used to using the triggers for QB and it honestly isn't worth the effort; and two, Xbox doesn't have pressure sensitive face buttons so no SSQB. With the triggers, though I can only do the canceling going back and right. I guess I can't line up the directions well enough for the other pairs.

Yeah there always seemed to be a miscommunication about "direction" whenever it goes from what I'm used to hearing on Xbox over to ACU people. What I mean by a three-direction chain is that you use three of the four quickboost directions in your chain. Granted you go in one general direction, you need three different directions for quickboost to achieve that is what I'm getting at. I guess my terminology regarding chains is different from what most other people agree on. Like I've I kind of remember something like this happening before when it came to how many chains a person could pull off. So when I said 3-chain I meant three quickboosts, but to other people that meant three quickboosts in the general direction you're heading.

Nah, what I meant was that cancel and chain are synonymous to Niji, but when he mentioned QB canceling, it made me think of :50 where you can QB infinitely (again, I'm assuming) in solely two directions whereas with chains you usually need three directions to QB for anywhere remotely as many times.

Oh dude I remember TM showing me that video a long time ago. I still don't get how the guy can chain what looks like 2 or 3 SSQBs together as well as QT (or even SSQT for that matter) so well considering he has some weak sidebooster, which I'm assuming is a Schedar.

TeamLiquid-esque caption just because I'm cool. ~0:50 showcases bi-directional quickboost chain sequences vs. ~0:40, which demonstrates more traditional tri-directional quickboost chain sequences. To my knowledge the only way I can do something like :50 is to mash the QB trigger and move the left stick in two directions really quickly, but my results were spotty at best. The benefit of doing a QB bi-directional quickboost chain sequence over a tri-directional quickboost chain sequence is that you can surpass the 5-QB hardcap1 of a tri-directional quickboost chain sequence by using a bi-directional quickboost chain sequence as seen in ~1:30. I'm assuming bi-directional quickboost chain sequences will let you QB infinitely so long as you keep rhythm and have the EN to sustain the cancels. For-e-ver. For-e-ver. I'll confirm that this is possible in both AC4 and FA, as I was able to do it semi-consistently forward in AC4 and have done it several times back-right in FA. I was wondering if anyone else has been able to do a QB cancel consistently, and if so what a good method is to do a QB cancel. ------------------------------------------------- 1: By 5-QB hardcap I simply am referring to the hardcap of efficient chaining (i.e. ↑ → ↑ ← ↑ for a forward QB chain). You can, of course, chain indefinitely too, but to do so, you have to just QB in squares. -------------------------------------------------

I still don't see how that has anything to do with my opinion of weapon combinations? Anyways, yeah for Taurus' AC, most people will tell you to use Dearborn03 simply because you get the same damage potential out the quickest compared to the 02. There really isn't a reason to not use 03 either in general unless you have a specific niche in mind that favors the 02 over the 03.

Medler, Kronos, Sigmia, Atari.

Honestly the community is small enough that the majority of everyone worthwhile should be on your friendlist and if not, you should at least recognize them by name.

Yeah it always helps when people talk in lobbies. It feels so tense to me when no one talks, especially when it's just you and another player.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement? But yeah I'll send you a friend request some time and harass you to play some time.

Sacrus we should play some time. I haven't seen you around. Also, just something I'd like to point out, but by and large, missile/missile combinations are very easy to sidestep either through flares or just straight up running (which is even still feasible with heavier ACs). Missile/projectile combinations are extremely good in FA, which is what I think Chode was getting at. And on the defense of using Wheeling01 versus the Dearborn is mostly a matter of ammo. The Wheeling01 would be justifiable to keep in the same respect that you would keep an MR-R102--you simply has a lot of ammo to throw at your enemy, and if you can keep up pressure, you have a higher potential for mistakes. But yeah, if you're not going to go forward to shoot missiles, Dearborn is the way to go.