exogen

See, I think the wall-jump was a great idea, so I'm not hating on ACV. If they included that with a solid boost system it would be good. Edit: Here are a few other major flaws in my view. Lock boxes being able to lock on to targets that are above and behind you: In ACV if someone is above you, you can aim up and shoot them even if they are behind you. If they are to far behind you, you can't lock on obviously, but sinse when in armored core could you EVER do that? This just prevents people from flanking you, hence it contrinbutes to the damage race. Lock boxes being able to be aimed down 90 degrees: In every AC to date you could never aim down, at least with guns, al the way to the ground (90 degrees). By not being able to aim down you allow those who would try to above the air and get to high in the sky from gaining an advantage over you. If someone goes into the sky to high you get right under them and blast them and they can't aim all the way down to shoot you. It helps balance build types and tactics out with one another. In ACV you can aim 90 degrees down with any weapon. this is dumb and it is a deviation of a tried a tested mechanic.

I just want them to put a good boost system in the game. I like hate that team based rock paper sicssors crap, but god damn they don't give me ANYthing to work with. ACV is so uncompromising.

Ok will do. I have come to believe that FROM just gets the mehcanics right or wrong by happenstance. Their interest isn't with making a solid mechanic, but in designing the mechanics around the concept of whatever game concept they are deploying at the moment. the failure in that design process is that it leads to all sorts of querky problems.

lol ok I'll let him know. You want me to mention the faggot part too lol

I talk to Pete all the time, but I don't want to get in the middle of you guys beef. Noob, yeah I agree 100%. The team balance was a cool idea, and some different shit, but for a game like Armored Core, with its small player population, its a bad idea. Also, I think it is a bad idea for two additional reasons. 1. AC is already hard to balance at a 1v1 level so the same imbalances should be expected at the team level, which can lead to more disastrous consequences because of the level of exaggeration and disparity between the build types. So where as a build was supposed to be stronger by, say, 50% or something over another build, might now end up being 75% stronger. If you aim the game for 1v1, they wont get the balance right and the game will just end up being balanced for teams in a weird way anyway. Just like we saw for instance with the heavy RJ's in the prior reg. 2. People play Armored Core because they want to build the robot THEY want to play with....isn't that the whole point of customization. customization goes hand in hand with personalization. team balance runs contrary to that principle because the robot a person wants to use may not always have its place, forcing them to play with things they don't want to or play a limited roll.

Oh damn I didn't know you and Pete had beef like that. Anways, back to Amored Core. As much as I don't like about ACV, I could roll with it if they fixed the dodging issue (by adressing the multiple factors that contrinbute to create that problem) and if they fixed the boost mechanics a bit so you could flank better. If they at least did that much I could have fun with the CQC like I want to. I personally think that the whole team balance thing is a bad choice for Armored Core and I have observed that more people dislike it, although I don't think many realise why they hate it. They just tend to hate the rock paper scissorsish nature of the balance.

Excuse me Rachis, but I already posted in this thread about this. Noob was under the same misconception. I had the demo months before the game came out, played the game when it did for at least 6 months before I dropped it. Also, I might add, I was more advanced than anyone else playing save for a few heads. The people that are good in that game now are only now learning the tactics I was using when the game first came out. Case in point, Anubis. Hell you can go ask him, he will tell you, I still talk to him and he still plays. You can ask Pete too, who was playing that shit right along with me. Ultibreaker also, or Impervious. All of us quit that bullshit. Just to set the record straight, and to repeat myself. I gave ACV a very fair chance but time and time again it disappointed me. It's not just that it has a system I don't prefer, but that game has all sorts of imbalances and flaws.

The sniper dominance was obvious to me as an inevitablity, so if that is what they are running now, it doesn't supprise me. If they made better dodging mechanics and CQC flanking it would keep the shit in balance. But they want to go and make a sloppy ass boost system so what do you expect.

Ok, but given the lack of dodging ability when the AC's are out in the open banging, even if it isn't the majority of the time, it does happen and should be expected as part of the game (again even if not all the time). Just to reiterate, when an AC isn't flanked in ACV the situation is a damage race. My argument here, is that in a game like AC4 it is never a damage race because, 1. You have the ability to dodge weapon fire or break locks depending on distance, and of course, skill. 2. Cover is an option and there is no reason NOT to whore it just as much as in ACV because the use cover will always mean you take no damage, whereas dodging involves engaging the enemy and therefore opens up the possibility (not the necessity) of getting it. 3. flanking exists obviously in AC4 as well. Your argument is that since damage racing isn't something that happens for the majority of a given match, but instead only a small percentage of it (assuming players of high skill) it wouldn't be fair to label it a damage racing game. After all, if the strategy of the game is to avoid fire (not just because that is the rational thing to do but because dodging isn't as effective) then it would not make sense to say that damage racing is the objective because that could be a contradiction. the question is, is your assessment of the game correct? Let's not debate that just yet. I think you might be right, but I'm just not sure if it is to the extent that you think it is. Assuming your characterization is correct, I can agree with you on that basis. However, my issue, and I can see the way I said it was flawed, was that engaging the enemy in ACV, which is something that is inevitable at some point, is a damage race. I think THAT is the issue I take up. If my above logic is sound, than it means we are actually in agreement, because our arguments miss each other. You’re looking at the game as a whole (your macro level) and I am looking at an aspect of the game in which I wish to criticize. In AC4 I could use cover, I could engage the enemy, dodge their shit and flank them out, and still win against multiple attackers with my AP virtually untouched, and sometimes with a flawless. In ACV, try as I may, the game mechanics just prevent that. I AM going to take damage and there is nothing I can do about it. Skills, in terms of dodging and all that, don't factor in. That is what upsets me, among many other things about the game.

Oh ok, yeah I know what you mean now. But at some point you need to engage them. When you do, not all situations are going to involve your tatrget being completely flanked, because A. the flanking system sucks, B. you can't always get back to cover (for various reasons, all of which are cicumstantial and situational). When your target isn't flanked, its a damage race. Now I'm guessing you would say that those times are few are far between and overall its about getting the drop, correct?

What do you mean by "information transparency?" Can you clarify on just how enagements are predictable? See, the whole idea of getting the drop on someone is that the other player who is getting dropped on, doesn't know its coming, hence they can't predict it.

The reason it's hard, if not impossible, to flank the tank, is indeed due to the turning speed of the tank when still, but ALSO due to the crappy booster mechanics. In ACV you can't do tight turns with high boost (QB) anymore, as you could in AC4. When you do a side boost you have to wait till the booster flame turns off completely before you can start turning again. When the flame turns off, your speed diminishes rapidly because of the game physics. The result being, you have to HB and then turn, HB and then turn, as opposed to doing it in one motion. In other words, you can't do quarter turns with high boost all in one motion. This is extremely important because that means that now you have to do wider circles around people. The tighter your turning ability the more effectively you can flank people, because you have the maneuverability to break their lock, again and again. In ACV, if you watch, even really good players you will see that they have to go into cover, not because merely that the dodging of weapon fire while an enemy has you locked isn't as effective or to risky, but because the enemy will inevitably regain their lock. They will regain it because the boost mechanics almost demand it. In AC4 the QB system was different. After a side QB for instance, you would keep going into the direction you were moving in at a high speed after the flame from the QB had turned off. So, the duration on the QB was shorter but it gave you more power or distance, proportionately speaking, as compared now to ACV's HB. After the QB you could start turning and the result would be a quarter turn (for LW's and less of a degree the heavier your build type). This is just one of the major criticisms I have of ACV. What they did here is really unnecessary. You see, some people might object and say that since they took out quick turn that it makes more sense to not allow quarter turns with side QB like how I am talking about here (effectively circle strafing or side strafing to be technical). The problem with that objection is that there are plenty of anti-flank mechanics in the game. If you are on the ground, after each boost you can do a quick turn, although it isn't a QB quick turn. This mechanic was actually in AC4 but not many people knew about it or even used it. It was for the most part, easier just to QB QT. Ok, so in light of the clarification on the way we are using the term damage race, I can say my argument like this. I think ACV is a damage racing game. It lacks something that AC4 and prior do, namely effective dodging and it has a shitty flanking system, as I partially explained above (cause there is more to the story then that). AC's cannot hide behind cover the entire time and inevitably must face each other at some point, and when they do, it will be a damage race, more or less. Even if you want to claim that the time out in the open when two AC's are facing off (as opposed to one being flanked for instance) is minimal (like Noob might), by comparison, in a game like AC4, it will always be the case that you have the option to dodge and out position the other player, if you have the skills (Hence AC4 does not include damage racing). ACV includes real damage racing (due to the shitty dodging), whereas AC4 never does. I know Noob wants to say that the game is about team tactics and more of a run and gun pop out and pop back behind cover sort of game. I just think its to inevitable that your going to get popped. All the expert videos I saw and I was at my best at that game I noticed the same thing. It's really not a matter of skill in my opinion, its a direct consequence of the boost mechanics, game physics, projectile properties, FCS and hitboxes. Keep in mind that there are some other issues I didn't recap here but you can see that above anyway.

Yeah an "exchange" is the key word. The two AC's exchange fire with one another. The one who deals more damage is the winner of the damage race. The factors that would go into it would be weapon damage, weapon damage type, armor type and armor points. Dodging factors in too, but as we all seem to agree, once it gets to the point where it is offseeting the exchange, it isn't a damage race anymore. Again the factors that would allow for dodging would be certain cgame mechanics, which ACV doesn't really support.

Yeah I think I would agree with that assessment PD of ACV for the most part, as far as the dodging goes. You pretty much gotta avoid the bad matchups and get the drop on people, cause that up in each other's grill trying to out CQC each other can result in some negative outcomes. It's all because of the dodging, or lack thereof. If you had played it you would know what I mean. Remember how in the older games you always had a sense, based on positioning and the weapons they had, and how you were moving if you were going to get hit or not? That shit is basically nonexistent in ACV. If the other guy has a lock, the chances are very high you are going to get hit. That is why Noob is saying that cover is essential in ACV.

In what capacity though? Like if someone is avoiding mostly all of your shots while you aren't avoiding jack, can it really be called a damage race? I mean in the sense that when the two robots two robots are banging out without the use of cover, and neither side has flanked the other, sure both are trying to dodge each other's shots as little as possible, but in ACV that ablity is greatly minimized so its really a str9 up damage race. So, yeah I agree we aren't talking about 100% accuracy here, but can we agree that in ACV, as compared to other games the dodging really sucks for the most part and therefore if the AC's are out in the open (and neither has flanked the other) it is basically a damage race because the dodging isn't as effective? What, wasn't good in any other game and isn't good in ACV? Yeah the whole point of this discussion already assumes a comparison, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things by themselves to gain insight. Yeah, so can we agree that we don't mean that dodging is absent altogather, but that it wouldn't be a damage race if the ability exists to dodge the majority of the shots assuming certain things like range and positioning are in the situation. omg rofl...dude this had me on the floor!! Most def, so when we are talking about damage racing, we don't mean just standing still like dead people. We mean while moving. the question becomes then, is there a way to dodge the majority of shit in ACV and by comparison the other games, assuming your not flanked out or outpositioned (outangled), in some way that you are not in a position to dodge effectively anymore?

I would also like to add to what noob said in his last post. You also have trouble dodging fire in ACV because the FCS, weapon properties and boost mechanics combined, result in a way more accurate projectile once you get a red lock. In short you can’t fuck with the FCS as much like you could in every other AC game and twitch dodging isn’t as effective either. Combined that with the boost mechanics limiting the kind of flanks you can do as compared to the older games (you have less maneuverability both vertically and horizontally) which means you can’t break locks as easy in CQC or maintain flanks as much as before. I think I agree with this, for the most part. One thing that can be derived from this is that if your not in the lead you probably aren’t going to get it back from out maneuvering the other player, cause the dodging sucks. It is usually wise to clarify definitions in any dispute. Here is why I think damage racing should not include flanking or dodging. The idea of a “race” means that there are two inputs, like in a car race, both cares are driving at once. Similarly in a damage race, both AC’s are shooting and taking damage simultaneously. When someone is flanked, they cannot hit the other AC (because they don’t have a lock). Therefore one of the AC’s is not taking any damage, therefore there is not both AC’s taking fire and giving it to each other. Therefore it cannot be a damage race. The same goes for dodging, if one or both for that matter, are not taking fire, it cannot be a damage race, because neither of them are taking damage. After all what would be the point of calling it damage race if no damage is being dealt? Noob, you don’t seem to despite this and later after PD pointed it out you agreed it made more sense to simply refer to people shooting each other. I am going to assume therefore that we are all referring to that, when we talk about damage racing. When you say it's just not optimal, I get why you say that. Pretty much because dodging and CQC type flanking just isn't itself optimal, so str8 up shooting each other in the face is just dumb. But wouldn't str8 up shooting each other in the face, that is, damage racing each other, be stupid in either game? Your saying though that at least in AC4 and prior you had CQC type flanking and dodging, where basically in ACV you have to rely on cover, right? Before I go any further and bring in my arguments as well as address Noob’s, is there any disagreement about what I have said above?

I'm talking more specifics though in terms of what the problem I have been having is. Like people will say to me "hello exo" and then talk about a whole history that we had togather and the whole time I'm trying not to be rude and find out who they are without asking them based on what they said. lol come on, even I don't think we need to take it to that level. History does matter just as a tool. But I been doing that already, its just that its been pissing me off cause of those situations I mentioned keep happening. I'm not a biter dog, Exo is origional.

Oh..yeah yeah I agree. Confusion eliminated. I must have had a blonde moment, even though I'm not blonde and typed and o instead of an i. my bad.

Ok, when I typed macro in the words I typed, as opposed to "quoting" him typing macro, which looks something like this. He said I quoted him which made me confused as well. Because I just quote people, I don't alter posts.

I didn't alter the post I quoted from you. I'm lost as well. In other words, "damaging racing alone:" situations where AC's are just banging it out with nothing but their boosters to minimize the damage? And then macro is that plus situations where cover is used, shields maybe or whatever else in theory could cut down on damage (but mainly cover)? If so I think we actually have been following each other very well, because the whole bit about isolation brought this out. I have argued that in ACV when you are out in the open it would be a micro situation and hence a damage race game. You then countered by saying that cover is MORE emphasized and hence those micro situations are not as much as in AC4 or prior, hence it isn't a damage race game. My counter is to disagree with you that cover is more prevalent in ACV. And my argument is that the person who whores cover in, say, AC4, will always have an advantage over the person who does, irrespective of how effective dodging is. This is because a person who uses cover constantly and uses guerrilla tactics is essentially fighting safer than the other player, hence they necessarily have a high probability of winning. Therefore, whoring cover in prior AC games has a better chance of winning. Therefore, prior AC games are cover based games. Its like this. The first thing I see noobs in AC4 do is run out into the open because they wanna be all cool dodging and shit, not realizing that at expert level none of us did that shit even though we were all fantastic at dodging. Your next move is to disagree with me about the exact degree of how much it is effective in AC4 vs. ACV. But on what basis can you measure this? More importantly, do I need to and can I? The argument I gave above actually cuts right through the need to ask those questions because cover use will always trump dodging in terms of strategic importance. No we don't agree on this. The part of your statement italicized is false. How would damage racing ever be viable in any game? Let me offer the best defection of damage racing I can. Damage racing is when two AC's are just blasting each other and taking damage continuously (with at least minimal or negligible dodging) as a result of not being behind cover. How is that ever viable? There certainty is a difference in AC4 vs. V insofar as the RATE at which you lose life is greater in V. But if cover means I don't have to damage race with you and I can increase my chances of winning, by not taking as much fire, than if cover is present it is ALWAYS more viable. Therefore the more or less distinction you are trying to make falls apart. I know, I understand. Ironically though, this is the exact premise that I think proves my point when infered with other statements. Its because cover is ALWAYS more viable than damage racing that cover is always more important in EVERY AC game than damage racing (and by inclusion, dodging). Again, this is just incorrect. Cover always trumps dodging, hence it trumps damage racing, in terms of strategic choice. (my parenthesis) Yes I know you think that, but I don't agree with that point. I argue that cover ought to be whored all the time whenever it is present. If you say that I don't need to in AC4 (as compared to ACV) because damage racing is better that it is in ACV, then I will respond that your statement is inccorect because cover use always trumps dodging in terms of strategic value. Well as far as supprises go, lack of radar enables that for the most part. Basically it seems your saying that in ACV you don't ever want to be seen (presumably because if one was seen doging would suck which then contributes to the rock paper scissors relationships between build types), thus why you want to get the drop. But how have I not adressed this in my last post? Didn't I say that the reason for the use of cover in either of the games would differ? It doesn't adress the claim I am making that cover ought to be whored at high level play in either game. You might say that you can't exactly get the drop on someone in a 1v1 in AC4 due to radar (remember also jammers such in AC4). But it doesn't matter because getting the drop on someone can't be validly called a damage race because a damage RACE requires both paties shooting at each other as opposed to where one side is flanked. You can flank in AC4 but its not from getting the drop on somebody, its from outmanuverng them so that your outside of their lock window or at an angle where the FCS isn't accurate enough. Note you can't do that in ACV, and I think this is a point of yours, because flanking isn't as good either, hence why you NEED to rely mainly on peekaboo moves as opposed to running them down and flanking the shit out of them. But notice that outflanking them would not be damage racing would it? That is part of why I say ACV is a damage racing game, because it fetures less dodging (hence more damage racing) In AC4 you are going to be behind cover as much as possible except when you come out. But when you come out it is either to (a. to outflank your opponent or (b. to peekaboo shit them. Otherwise your behind cover. Damage racing only occurs if you run out of EN which if you good and have a good build shouldn't happen. But that means that AC4 doesn’t favor damage racing. In ACV you come out to peekaboo shot them but not to dodge much, cause that is mainly suicide and flanking isn't as effective either. But all that means is that when your out from behind cover in ACV it's basically suicide or a damage race. But that just means that in ACV when your not behind cover, your subjected to damage racing. I think you want to say that ACV isn’t a damage racing game cause it’s a peekaboo game. I disagree that it is, because I think that when both players play the peekaboo game to its final conclusion, it results in both players eventually having to face each other (or a stalemate if you will results from the peekaboo game being played on each other), which with the lack of consistent dodging and flanking, results in a damage race. And since AC4 and prior didn’t have that problem when one comes out from cover, AC4 didn’t have damage racing, where ACV does. And since there really wouldn’t be any other circumstances in either game where damage racing would come in that would exist on high level (at least not something that is limited to only one of those games), there is more damage racing in ACV than in AC4. Hence why I say it’s a damage race game.

Ok, so maybe micro vs. macro isn't the right term to use, who knows. But I think I know what you mean now when you say "separated." I understand the argument your making and thought I had made an argument that countered before, it but maybe I wasn't clear. Let me try to make it a bit more clearer and you can tell me where you think my error is. Even if not maybe it will get us closer to identifying some key issues. also this should make it more clear why I am talking about isolation, because what I am talking about is an isolated circumstance, even if that circumstance is a regularity in the game. I get that your saying that in ACV you NEED to use cover, whereas in older games, your saying, you could get along without it. I disagree with the idea that overall (this is your macro level) cover is less favorable in the older games. Cover was just as important in the older games (for the maps that featured it of course which was most of them) but for different reasons. See in ACV you NEED to use cover (as you seem to agree with) for the reason that dodging isn't as viable. Now you go and say that since dodging was more viable in the older games (alot more viable actually) that it means that cover isn't as viable. Isn't that what your saying? If I'm wrong here than correct me but I had been under the impression this whole time that this was your perspective. Assuming that is what your saying, then this is the crux. Even though dodging was more viable in the older games than it is in ACV, it doesn't mean that cover has a diminished importance in those older games by comparison or in and of itself. That is where I am saying you are in error. It does not follow logically that just because dodging is better, that cover is less important, because cover is still superior (because when your behind cover you CAN'T get hit whereas when your not, even if dodging is good, there is still a chance). With that in mind, cover CAN be compared to ACV because the person in the older games who uses cover, in fact the person who whores it to its fullest extent possible, will necessarily have a greater advantage than one who doesn't. A lot greater advantage btw and for a number of reasons. You want to say that the person who doesn't whore the cover can get along better than the person who does, but that is where you wrong. It will ALWAYS be better to whore cover as much as is possible no matter how good the dodging is. The difference is in situations where you are not behind cover, which in either game (AC4 and prior vs. ACV) are going to happen because not every fight takes place from behind cover. Literally the AC's are not standing behind buildings shooting at each other because that would just make no sense. Just to note, even the peekaboo fighting you mentioned as being necessary due to the sorry dodging, is still viable in AC4, again, just for diferent reasons. That is why I am saying cover is not relevant to this discussion, because it will be a factor that needs to be whored in any game. Assuming what I have said above is sound than an comparison along the lines I have outlined IS VALID. The only way cover wouldn't be relevant is if the dodging was so good that you just could hit anyone, but then cover wouldn't really matter at that point would it, cause even if you didn't have any cover no one could hit each other anyway. That means that cover is a constant. If all my reasoning here is valid then what we need to be talking about, which is what I have been talking about, is the situations where cover is not being utilized, or what I was calling "out in the open." And again to clearify "out in the open" doesn't mean like a desert or something where NO cover is present on the map, but simply those times when the AC's are not behind cover, which are going to happen, as I said. Edit: one other thing. I think I can see where you might have misunderstood me from the begining and maybe it was my fault for not being clear. I don't think ACV cover is as effective as AC4 cover, and that is because of the boost mechanics. However, that doesn't mean that in ACV you can't use it at all. I think my post wasn't clear. I should have said explicitely that it isn't AS effective BY comparison.

What do you mean by "separating things to the macro level?" I thought when you separated things it would be breaking things down to the micro level and putting them togather again would be the macro level. Can you please say this another way? In the sense you are refering to for the reasons you provided, I agree with you though that the game AS A WHOLE is not a damage racing game. the reason is that given that cover is available, its not a damage race. But neither is any other AC game for that matter. But when I say it is a damage racing game we have to inquire as to WHAT SENSE I mean this in, and why? And that is where my argument comes in. But before I do that, let me give you a chance to make any points.

Noob, Let me first adress the issue about isolation, because this is a central point of misunderstanidng I think. In responce to what I said about the need to isolate variables, you said: "i do not think that isolating the variables is an effective way to evaluate a mechanic because evaluation should be on a macro level. in order to properly evaluate damage racing, all factors of damage and damage reduction must be accounted for, whether or not situational." Then you have the argument in specific terms. I will try and paraphrase; In order to understand damage racing you must understand it in the proper context. That context includes all the factors that reduce damage. Some of those factors, among others, is cover usage. Therefore in order to understand damage racing you must understand it in context, which includes cover usage. That basically sums it up, or am I misrepresenting you here? I then said: "But when I say you need to isolate those variables, I don't mean they should be isolated permanently. We need to take things apart to find out how they work but ultimately the test is to put them back together again" With that in mind, I made no misreponse to your post. I simply disagree that we need to always look at things on the "macro" level. Notice when I wrote the word "permenently" I am deliberately refering to exactly what you said about the macro level. the rest of your post was devoted to the argument about context being relevant, which is basically a way of saying that we must ONLY look at things on the macro level. But I disagree here, and my reason is that you "need to take things appart to understand them." You need to understand the parts before you can understand the whole properly. In other words, all that stuff about context you said, I don't discount it as irrelevant to ACV, but I don't think it is relevant to the issue I am talking about. Perhaps it is when I say something like "ACV is a damage racing game" that you are reacting to. You then say, "but cover is a necessary part of the game and, in the case of ACV, a big part." Cover usage obviously negates damage racing, so ACV can't be a damage racing game. Isn't that what your saying?

Ok let me try to clarify. It's not so much a disconnect so much as it is me just not wanting to about FA. I already said I am not going to debate about FA. I didn’t ignore Noob’s post, if you look at my last post I acknowledged that he said something about FA. He said he thinks it is important that we discuss FA in this discussion but I don't think it's relevant. It wasn't disconnect, I just disagree that it’s relevant and I said so. Now if Noob thinks my reasons are inadequate, that’s one thing, and if we really need to then fine, let’s talk FA. I just think we can manage just fine without that game as an example. With that said, when I am debating the game mechanics and all that, I am not referring to FA. For example, when I say "both games" in the post young adult contemporary quoted, I damn sure am not referring to FA. Why would I be referring to FA when I have made it explicitly clear that I mean AC4 mainly (but also drawing on situations and mechanics from older games) vs. ACV, and I staed in more than one post that ACFA is excluded? What I think is happening is a disagreement over the important of FA in this conversation. Other than that, we have been going back and forth and just clarifying things rather nicely. That brings me to the definition thing. Where exactly have my definitions "changed." You make it seem as though I'm some bafoon who changes his definitions every post and has no idea what the hell he is saying. Alright, fair enough, show me, quote my contradictions.

But when I say you need to isolate those variables, I don't mean they should be isolated permanently. We need to take things apart to find out how they work but ultimately the test is to put them back together again. The problem with the dodging issue is like I said; Cover is going to be a factor in both games (say AC4 or LR vs. ACV) and the one who uses cover vs. the one who doesn't will always have the advantage. You want to say that cover is more important in ACV, and in the regard you mean, you are correct. But that is a moot point in relation to what I am saying because I am talking about the instances when cover isn't a factor, which again, will exist in both games. In other words, what I am talking about has nothing to do with the aspect of the game that deals with cover anyway regardless of what game we are talking about. That's why its a moot point. As for FA; to answer your question, the reason I hate FA so much is because it destroys the intricacies of CQC I loved so much in AC4 and older games, and replaces them will a more general and dumbed down version of what was in 4. But that is just the beginning. My gripes with FA are endless. I know some people think I’m like this big complainer about armored core but that’s not true. FA and ACV are the only games I have ever had real beef with. LR or NX wasn’t my cup of tea because I was more of a SL sort of dude, but that much is preference than it is balance or design issues.