exogen

Yo I just really want to play AC man. Alas...

You know Rach, I think we actually could get to the bottom of this, but that would assume we were both willing to sit in a 1v1 all day and talk on skype to figure all this stuff out in game. Neither of us give a shit to do that so yeah.... AHH so fustrating from is. I really would love to play Armored Core, but they keep trying to make it call of duty.

I can't wait to see the new superman, this looks good!

I still think that its lame, cause unless we are talking about steaking up on people and getting the drop and then running away, we aren't talking about anything.

Yo my boy showed me this animie and I was hooked!!! I watched every episode, currently its up to 9. I can't wait till the next one comes out tomarrow!!! spoiler stuff

Damn it Rach, you keep changing your post so it looks like I am responding to things that aren't there! lol dude come on. Anyways, yeah switching this dicssusion back to AC: Veneral desease: look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCOhV0_fRco Take for example, the battle that begins at 20:32 Notice that the reason that the AC's keep getting hit is because the boost is to steady. You can't move in a such a way that throws off the FCS. QB doesn't really change things much. So VD still looks like a damage race like ACV.

Well it depends on what level we are arguing on. A demonstration would be a fast and easy way to get to the bottom of this. But since I don't play anymore that is not an option. That doesn't mean we can't break it down in words, but I can see now that given the level of disagreement, it would take so long that it's pointless.

I'm not taking the high road. If I was I wouldn't go to the extent of saying that the level I was at was something anyone else couldn't reach (disclaimers and such). I just know that this business about AC4 being damage racing isn't true. Yaka was just an example. It wasn't supposed to be proof, just anecdotal evidence to open up your mind. I will agree with you on one thing. There is a sort of pointlessness in debating it because I am in no shape to prove it through demonstration at this point, and don’t really have the interest either. But saying my explanation makes no sense is not fair; how would you know it makes no sense? If I got to a level way beyond anything you ever thought possible with the game, how would you really know?

I don't have the skill anymore to do this. But yeah, it is possible to have a CQC match in virtual A or desert and rape a dude and take minimal damage (not a huge chunk), if any. The mechanics allow for it is my point. It all depends on how the other player wants to play. Because of side booster dominance if someone wants to backpedal you, they can, which forces you to backpedal them to avoid taking damage. It all depends on if the guy gives you the opening to get in on him. Then you have the tools to rape him in close by confusing them. You don't attach by going right in head on though, and don't forget about OB. The only real problem is backpedaling like I said before.

Rach, I was adressing your statement where you said you were damage racing with Pete, which I thought was around the same time as that video. I wasn't saying the video you posted was an example of damage racing. If that video was an indication of your style I'm saying it would explain why you would make statements like this. No, but the way you move, gives me a reason as to why you guys would be damage racing elsewhere. I'm not faulting you or trying to belittle you in the slightest and not trying to indirectly toot my own horn. I'm just commenting from a high level perspective on what I think is the reason why you guys would be damage racing. You know I'm your dog! I will say one thing, and if THIS is what your talking about specifically than I stand corrected; in 1.1 the stun lock was crazy unless you were tuned for stability and grounded. Right, and you have said this before. But AC4 high level play doesn't reduce to "QB turn fights." Hell I barely used QT unless it was done offensively. I'll give you that positioning is a huge part, but positioning in and of itself is a complex and dynamic part of the game. Yeah, your right I didn't rise to high skill till much later after you guys quit. That is why what I am saying is in no way an insult. But, I do know, and Pete would not disagree here because I have talked to him many many times about this, that the level I got to later was much higher than the level you guys were on..much higher. Seriously, I'm not bullshiting here or trying to make myself sound like the greatest player ever. Just talking in terms of messurable skill and methods. My metagame knowledge was just greater because I put more time into it than you guys ever did and had psychotic dedication. The same would be true or anyone in my shoes, yourself included. That's not true. Niji, for example, can testify to this. Yaka, who btw was of the opinion that AC4 was all about damage racing and all that bla bla, was playing with us one night. It was me, Niji, Llama and Yaka playing AC4. He was rocking MG rifle. I was rocking the same shit on a LW as well. I danced around him right in his face and just fucked with his FCS, basically pitbulling him like you would in the older games, just with new school mechanics. Niji saw this, ask him about it. Yaka didn't even know you could play like that. The reality is that once you get enough control and practice you can manuver in very complex ways to trick the FCS, just like in the older games. That is where the staggering of your movement comes in. But I wasn't saying that staggering your movement in the way I said was the universal answer. It is just one method among countless others. That's why I describe it as dynamic. Like, I wont do that staggering of the movement while going in one direction unless I'm at mid. In close I will do diferent things, but whatever I do it will be to fool your FCS and lead you in the positioning game where I want you to be so you can't hit me well. the stun lock part I get, but there were other ways that exist that were far superior to the way you were playing. You just weren't advanced enough to know about them. Again rachis, that's not an insult, just saying there are high levels of skill you don't know about cause you quit playing. You didn't need to circle strafe him though. There are other methods, even on 1.1, that work way better.

Rach, the reason that I think you guys would damage race each other when not behind cover, based on the video, and in my opinion, is that you guys had not yet gotten to the level in AC4 (a level I achieved much much later) where you could dodge while traveling in the same direction. The key to moving in the same direction and dodging at the same time is to stagger your movement but not completely stop. You QB in one direction but hold the stick in the opposite after you finish and while your momentum is still up. Also letting go and turning on boost incorporated in that, than repeat. Vary the ryhthum according to the weapon properties and you can throw off the FCS. This metthod is not always full proof because of angles and the positioning game, but there are ways to cotinually avoid fire while at mid range and at close, you can as well to a great degree, and also break locks.

lol the vatlord. I am the vat lord!!!

There is truth to this insofar as now you necessarily have to use cover (ACV). But I disagree with the idea that cover is optional in AC4 in its entirety. It's not that I disagree that there are mechanics in place that allow you to play the game without cover and not be subjected to a damage race. Obviously we have covered the fact that you can play AC4 in a stage without cover and the mechanics allow you to get along. What I disagree with is the idea that in stages where cover is present, that you really have an option to not use cover that is strategicly equal to the player who does use cover. THAT is where I want to make my point. A person who uses cover will ALWAYS have the distinct advantage over the person who does. This is not trivial, it makes the diference between winning or losing in more than one way. I know it's a subtle point, but I think it is an important one to this discussion. But see, your sentence in bold is not true TM. In AC4, in maps where you had no cover, for example; the boost mechanics allow you to get along and avoid weapon fire. It takes skill, and it isn't easy, but the methods exist and are reliable.

PD: omg lol, Nas. But yeah the hot gas is a process. When you take that idea seriously though, it means that there are no things at all or a substance. Things or substance than are just words to talk about aspects of process, all of which are inseprable from all other aspects.

Noob, maybe it is a fantastic idea for Japan(I think the Japanese will like anything new), but I think you overstress the necessity or advantages you get from a team balanced game. I understand that ACV FORCES you to work as a team, but in a game of 1v1 balance that allows for team play, the team who uses cohersive team tactics will ALWAYS be stronger by margins, that one that doesn't. And just because a game is balanced for 1v1, where each AC type in on par strategiclly against all others, doesn't mean that the skills accociated with each type are all the same. I know you wish to say that its the rock paper scissors element that is stressed so much in a team based game that makes the in game decision making so emphasised, whereas in a 1v1 game you are not forced. But is a team based game really a good idea for AC in the long run? Why can't we have team orientation by having lots of team options while not screwing everyone else over and keep the balannce 1v1? In a 1v1 game you can have the option to play teams or 1v1 and in any combination. In ACV it is so ridgid that you have no choice but to not only play teams, but play with a certain number of people or you throw off the balance. Seriously that's not very flexible is it?

lol Keansushiro, I don't think it would be fluff. I mean, maybe, but maybe you might have something to say about it from another angle that might illuminate things. Or you could agree or disagree with the idea I'm arguing for which is that the question is misguided because in reality there are no "things" or any kind of "stuff" i.e. a substance that underlies or gives rise to all we percieve. I think instead all that exists is an ongoing process. My thought process goes like this in regards to this problem. I look at a wall, and I'm like what is the wall made of? Then I begin to break it down and eventually I'm like "ok physics says it's energy." But what is that? No answer. Then I imagine something that energy could mean, but then I can ask the same question again, so there is never an answer.

Rach, just another reason why team balance isn't a good idea given the market.

Are youblaming all the lack of play on Namco? They have been no where near as bad as Sega was, and people played endlessly even with Sega's flaws.

oh damn is that what that shit is? I don't know cause none of them are Bison lol Yo but you watch that other video? lol that shit is funny as hell.

Yeah, but the irony here is that as accecible as ACV appears to be not as many people really find it fun enough over here. As technical as AC has always been it has always had a small but devoted market. FROM wants that shit to shrink into japan only I guess.

Yes it did, it showed some updates on some of the characters, although not all. Look again.

Everything street fighter. First look at the 2013 update if you not aware of it already! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XFgDggvfWk Next, look at this funny as video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGryat7oWNQ&list=FLVtipKKpXTlUMBoEaOg0vQQ Look at this as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7mOVUHvmzo&list=FLVtipKKpXTlUMBoEaOg0vQQ

Yeah I think I understand your meaning for the most part, you’re talking about practicality. Particularly you’re talking about the essentials of doing things in the moment and the knowledge that is associated with that. I just am not sure you if mean to reduce knowledge to merely a means to an end. If you do, then I think that position is problematic. If not, and what you mean is more mundane, that maybe we are saying the same things, sort of… I'm trying to "push" the idea that maybe the whole business about, say for example, what is energy is just WAY off the mark. Not because we can get along with a simple and practical "notion" of what energy is to help us work in the moment, but because even that practical idea that we might be using in the moment is wrong as well. Like maybe some stuff helps us get along in the moment, but it could be wrong. I am saying if we abandon this idea of a substance, or a fundamental "stuff" and work instead with the notion of a process, than we can have both the practicality in the moment that you speak of, and also the abstract "truth" that I am talking about.

lol On the real level though, and just to show you guys I am not as one sided as you might think. I think there is always good in every bad. For instance, in Armored Core venereal disease (VD I like to say) one mechanic I think FROM really did well on was that wall jump shit. I always had mixed feelings about the quick turn in AC4. On the one hand I liked it and found that it really didn't work well as a defensive move (which was the early criticism that people leveled against it as being defensive, ironically) and functioned as a more active flanking tool. However, while I saw through the argument that AC4 didn't have "real" flanking, I kind of liked the old way where it was harder to escape from a flank, once flanked, The grand overloard of ACU Niji said it best when he (she if your still confused...ah poor Tsu never new Niji was a man) said that AC4 is about maintaing a flank and prior AC is about getting one. ACV sort of gives you the best of both worlds. You can use wall jump like QT to flank or escape, but only if cover is present and in the right respect. This makes context and positioning more relevant for that specific mechanic which makes this more interesting as opposed to a general universal mechanic like QT. Now if they can just bring back all the cool other boost mechanics, the shit would be on point. Switching back over the pessimism, another thing that has no real justifiable purpose in ACV is the lack of gravity. Remember how you could just fall by cutting your boosters, in past AC games to dodge or break locks? Seriously it takes you way to long to start falling and the speed at which you fall sucks. You can't it to get under people and break locks like before, you just get shot now. I know they did it because you don't have flight anymore, but damn, that just proves my point about the essentials of AC. You need flight because not having it forces them to out in this weak gravity shit which leads to more damage racy mechanics, which are dumb because they negate skill the more of them you add.

The reason I think that is because I don't think we can know what things are, appart from what they are like. In other words we can't talk about what is, appart from what we experience. If we are looking for a reality beyond that we are lost. But doesn't that mean that we can postulate what it could be? I think the idea of a substance is just flawed and it is evident by the fact that no answer can be given in principle that cannot be itself reduced futher untill we arive at just "isness" or "being" or something like that. But if the whole problem boils down to existence, then we have lost the problem. The question wasn't about what does existence mean, but what exists! I think that the problem is just mistaken. there is an alternative though to the idea of substance, and that is process. What if there isn't a substance, but process?