AC4 and fA, balanced or not ?

[Mom]

There should always be a gradient between ease-of-use weapons and more dedicated weapons. That brings about niches-- and niches are great means of finding ways to crack a current metagame and bring about even more diversity.

[Exorcet]

Attempt 2

 

So parts that are unlocked late in the game should be exactly as useful and easy to use as default parts you start out with and don't offer any incentive to up(?)grade, huh? That's cool, I guess. I mean, personally, I like to be rewarded for playing well with some kind of tangible improvement over my current bot/car/gun but whatever; I guess that's just me.

 

EDIT: Yeah, what Niji said. GG.

 

FRS and other 'leveling' modifiers outside of part stats

 

Multi play >> Single play

 

AC multi play >>>> AC single play

 

Designing missions to favor certain parts (MT's have 1 def e and 9999999999 def s, or 999999999 PAR)

 

Single player reg vs Multi player reg

 

But even ignoring all of that, it's still fine to have equal parts. SP is about story and gameplay. The only thing that needs to progress are the challenges and my skills. I'd also rather not be lead to building the one (or two) Tier bot(s) for single play, and instead experiment with parts and use what I want to win.

 

Also, you're comparing SP and vs, which have nothing to do with each other. AC4 was pretty balanced in vs, yet there were SP tiers. Basically Attack power/Fire interval was how good a weapons was in SP, so it's possible to satisfy both sides at once, even if you don't use the list of 5 solutions I put at the top of this post [though I guess the forth one is pretty much what is described in this paragraph].

 

But of course, there is a severe clash of opinion here. I recall you liking CoD's unlock system. When I think of CoD's unlock system, I think of one of the biggest, most useless, and fun impeding gimmicks-that could have possibly ruined the game if it wasn't so good-in the history of games. I'm am in no way whatsoever rewarded by having to waste X hours after dropping $60 to get the gun I want. I am rewarded by playing and seeing my skills improved.

 

 

 

No no, what I said is that in a game where everything is balanced skill differences are far, far less obvious.

I do not see this at all. Back to Gran Turismo. The GT-R was insanely unfair in the early versions of the game, an even more auto win car than the Ford GT. For this, I decided not to use it. I did best some GT-R drivers using lower tier stuff, and I guess that's where your point comes in - I would be considered better than the those GT-R drivers. However, there were other people with my mindset also using the same cars as me. I beat some of them too, consistently. Doesn't seem to difficult to tell who's better in the balanced situation. However, looking back at the unbalanced situation, when I lost to a GT-R, was it because the car was better than mine, or because the driver was better than me and so was his car? It was difficult to tell. Maybe if an extreme gap formed between me and a GT-R, I could say that I was the worse driver, however a moderate gap would be ambiguous.

 

In an AC context; MG/800 was considered tiered, yet as long as I wasn't using a non 800 MG, I didn't have such a hard time with it in vs play. From that, you might have considered me better than my opponent. However, he beat me in 'balanced' matches too, so perhaps it isn't so clear in the unbalanced situation.

They're ambiguous. And the easier that it is to use higher end things in that game the more ambiguous it gets.

Then make everything balanced and difficult to use.

A guy with a club can always hit a guy with a Katana and take him out, even if the guy with a Katana spent years mastering it. Who's better in that situation? Not exactly ideal for a game setting.

The club is not balanced.

 

**See bottom of post before reading this - I think I see now, you're saying that it's unfair for the Katana to be as effective as the club when the Katana takes 5 years to master, and the club can be used by anyone. However, this has nothing to do with what I was saying before. Yes, I do want the club and katana to be equals, but they should both require 5 years of practice; ie, in your example the club guy will lose, even though his weapons is exactly as good as the katana. Balance and ease of use are very separate.**

 

A guy with TP booster in LR can give another guy, an expert even, a run for his money. This shouldn't happen. The expert will likely win every match, but not by some clear method. What's worse. The expert may have spent 5 years playing that game and the new player may have spent 2 weeks. This has happened to people in LR. It happens to people in fighting games all the time, too. In nearly every game, tbh.

TP is not balanced.

 

This seems to go against your own logic and support mine more than anything. In wanting balance, I'm clearly against TP existing [in a broken form]. You want TP to exist, however you also want 5 years of game play as a requirment to use it. What's the point? It means that for 4.99 years it is worthless, and from 5 years on, there is only one booster in the game.

 

Yes. In a purely competitive setting, there isn't a reason for lower tier parts. The reason behind making lower tier parts is that you can create a story mode for the game that lets you grow into the higher tier parts and because they allow new players to learn the game and progress through the levels of difficulty, eventually entering the upper echelons of play and using higher tier parts and feeling accomplished. The accomplishment comes from clearly being in a new level of play compared to before. You can actually see it and so can all your friends.

See my reply to 90 and my reply to the next quote.

 

 

Games that make your time spent playing/practicing seem worth the rewards are more likely to get a fanbase. The less your reward for your effort, the less likely you are to apply effort. The less clear the difference between you and someone who is worse, the less likely you are to treat the game seriously.

OK. Tier parts blur the lines not balanced ones. When you have extreme tiers, the outcome of a match is predetermined when skill is equal. When you have balanced parts, subtle differences in understanding the game can make a large difference.

 

In AC (or any game) you want skill to win, and the way to do that is to make sure there is no design that is constantly favored in the win ratio equation. If there is a dominant design, equal skill play just becomes people using the tierd stuff, effectively making most of the parts available obsolete. The only outcome is limiting the game.

 

I'm all for marketing and stuff, but there's no reason it should interfere with pvp. Give the guys looking for their false glory their own messed up reg and let the compeitive players have the good reg.

 

Do guns in CoD not work differently between SP and pvp? Why not in AC if you want that so bad?

 

 

The question of balance is why? Why do you want balance? Is it to prove that you're better than someone? Being able to do what others cannot do is what determines whether others will see you as better than them. In the end, it's all a matter of overcoming a difficulty. Not about being balanced. There is no balance in being better. It is purely unfair. Purely imbalanced. We work to unbalance any situation we find. That's the point of competition. To be better.

I want balance [in AC] so that the customization advertised is actually there, and that there is a variety of tactics and methods available for my use and the use of would be adversaries.

 

"Being able to do what others cannot do is what determines whether others will see you as better than them"

 

Like winning. If out of 100 matches, I win 100 times, I'm probably better than the guy who lost 100 times. Whether or not the game is balanced doesn't play a part in this. The difference is, in the balanced game, you might have 1000 parts and 1000 different fighting styles to master or attempt to overcome. In the unbalnced game, there could be 10 parts and 1 style. So basically, unbalancing the game only makes things less interesting.

 

"There is no balance in being better. It is purely unfair. Purely imbalanced.

 

True, that's why I fought Exogen and Batto and not the AI. Those former were balanced fights which made them worth playing.

 

It's the same reason people run the best stuff in a tiered game, they don't want to have to deal with a handicap. In effect they create a new balanced game by limiting the part selection (character selection, etc) to a set amount. Either that, or they ban the top stuff since the top stuff is usually less plentiful than the lesser stuff. Balance is naturally looked for in the game itself, imbalance is only looked for in skill levels. And it is the looking for imbalance that is enjoyed, not neccessarily the attainment. When it is actually attained, there is no reason to play.

 

"We work to unbalance any situation we find. That's the point of competition. To be better."

 

Again true. I wanted to be the best player in AC4, I'd prefer matches where I was more likely to lose than win so I could get better. However, the thought of an artificial performance booster (an unbalanced part) was never desired. It would not make me better, it would not boost my enjoyment. It would just make me win. There is no purpose in that.

 

 

 

I get the feeling I wasn't 100% with you though. Your club example made practically no sense to me in particular. **Or maybe it did**

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

However, the thought of an artificial performance booster (an unbalanced part) was never desired. It would not make me better, it would not boost my enjoyment.

 

Now I see where you're going with this...you're against PEDs, huh? You trying to say people are on the clear?

 

...You didn't find my medical reports, did you?

[SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD]

Also, you're comparing SP and vs, which have nothing to do with each other. AC4 was pretty balanced in vs, yet there were SP tiers. Basically Attack power/Fire interval was how good a weapons was in SP, so it's possible to satisfy both sides at once, even if you don't use the list of 5 solutions I put at the top of this post [though I guess the forth one is pretty much what is described in this paragraph].

 

Yes, SP and MP have nothing to do with each other but AC has always been designed with SP getting a bigger focus than the MP scene. Because MP parts are unlocked through SP it forces the player to go through single player campaign to improve their multiplayer bot. I wasn't saying that SP influenced MP balance; I was saying that the designers made these incremental improvements to parts to motivate players through the single player campaign.

 

But of course, there is a severe clash of opinion here. I recall you liking CoD's unlock system. When I think of CoD's unlock system, I think of one of the biggest, most useless, and fun impeding gimmicks-that could have possibly ruined the game if it wasn't so good-in the history of games. I'm am in no way whatsoever rewarded by having to waste X hours after dropping $60 to get the gun I want. I am rewarded by playing and seeing my skills improved.

 

I really don't know of any game that has everything unlocked at the start. If you want to use one of those unlocks then you have to work for it. If you're good, it'll take less work; if you're bad, it'll take more. That is how unlocks reward skill. To give an example say instead of camouflage, headshots unlocked new guns in CoD. For someone who sucks at headshots that might seem unfair and unbalanced because it gives the better players better guns. The thing is if you're faced with your ineptitude it gives you the opportunity to either strive for excellence or give up and play something else. Because no game dev wants people to stop playing their product for something else they try and make it appeal to as many people as possible. Thus, XP unlocks guns so that everyone has access to them eventually while still allowing the better players to progress further. Headshots unlock camouflage as a way of rewarding better players for their work.

 

RPGs, shooters, racers; most any game that tries to attract a wide audience for as long as possible will follow these guidelines.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Gary the Tennis Coach

[Exorcet]

But that doesn't prevent them from having SP and MP regs. I'm only talking about MP. Ideally, I'd like AC SP to be good, and being balanced would be part of that. But realistically, I'm abandoning SP for MP in this argument. Let it be as unbalanced and terrible as it needs to be to sell, just don't hurt MP when you don't have to.

 

 

 

Second paragraph - Well as far as general rules for the general population, I can't really argue. I kind of want to say it's beside the point, but I can't deny that it is a factor in the real world. Games must sell, and my mind is not aligned with the rest of the population on this issue.

 

However, I still think that that method of rewards is over rated and unnecessary (and your reward isn't a reward at all IMO, more of chore, regardless of how good you are). My preferred games, high end simulations, typically have no unlocks at all and it's part of their charm. You can buy one and from day one compete online (or play offline) just like anyone (unless you haven't mastered it). IMO, exploring/leanring the game >>>> unlocks. The reward for playing is getting good as far as I see, and the reward for being good is victory.

 

And unlocks have nothing to do with balance. There is nothing unfair about some better doing better. It's just that unlocks don't really have positive effects [of course, this is only from my viewpoint].

 

 

 

 

PD, that is an open question. It depends on your ability to bring a Super Hornet from your place of work into my driveway by next week.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Exorcet

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

However, I still think that that method of rewards is over rated and unnecessary (and your reward isn't a reward at all IMO, more of chore, regardless of how good you are). My preferred games, high end simulations, typically have no unlocks at all and it's part of their charm. You can buy one and from day one compete online (or play offline) just like anyone (unless you haven't mastered it). IMO, exploring/leanring the game >>>> unlocks. The reward for playing is getting good as far as I see, and the reward for being good is victory.

 

And unlocks have nothing to do with balance. There is nothing unfair about some better doing better. It's just that unlocks don't really have positive effects [of course, this is only from my viewpoint].

 

I'm with you that unlocking shouldn't be a balancing factor for a game that utilizes multiplayer. It's a silly mechanic. I'm all for unlocking as part of the game to some extent, especially one that's supposed to be primarily 1p like AC, but too much and it gets really obnoxious. It shouldn't really interfere with you having fun in multiplayer, and it most certainly shouldn't be some form of balancing factor.

 

PD, that is an open question. It depends on your ability to bring a Super Hornet from your place of work into my driveway by next week.

 

I'll see what I can do.

[Genocide]

However, I still think that that method of rewards is over rated and unnecessary (and your reward isn't a reward at all IMO, more of chore, regardless of how good you are).

 

This, a thousand times this. I'll even use the MW2 example everyone is talking about. My preferred staples are suppressors with Ninja Pro, but I don't really see it as a reward for doing good, since I can fuck shit up even with out them, often times to the same degree that I do with them. All they do for me is make things a slight bit easier for me to go on a rampage, since if the enemy team has half a brain between them they'll know where I shoot from and how to lock such locations down easily. While I am trying to get to that point, the game is not harder, but definitely far more boring because I know I won't be able to get to those locations through a mob of enemy soldiers if they know where I'm shooting from as I move toward them. It becomes more of a, "How fast do you care to slog through this bull shit?" thing rather than a, "Congrats! You did a good job!" thing (which IMO, it never was to begin with, even in the first MW).

 

Yeah, the parts get incrementally better for SP to provide that incentive to keep going, but honestly, how many of you actually need the high-tier shit to play the SP that's already ridiculously (and somewhat infamously I might add) easy? TBH, my incentive to keep going was to get the FRS so I could use it to put my bots on an equal footing (relatively) with those that already had 442 FRS. Shit, and even then that was a chore, I remember not playing Occupy Arteria Carpals on hard mode and going to MP with 441 FRS. I murdered people that had all the FRS regardless, lol sometimes I'll forget to use all 442 points and go into battle with a mech using like 360~ FRS. The thing that actually motivated me to get that last fucking FRS was the fact that I couldn't play my friend's ACs without it.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Genocide

[Rogan]

In a game like AC there will always be parts with advantages over other similar parts. However these parts,. which players refer to as top tier, have weakness and disadvantages exactly like every other part in the game. Its possible to design an AC specifically to beat what is classified as a top tier AC. I'll use the example of a WG DR AC, since there are a half million of those floating around online. The WG frame has issues with missiles due to lack of flares. So capitalize on that weakness. The enemy AC uses DR as it's main source of damage, anythin with higher shell defense and similar or higher damage output at mid to close range can give it a hard time. Alternatively it can be sniped out. Granted these are crude examples, but they illustraight my point. Just because something is top tier that doesn't mean its the best part for every player or AC in the game. Isn't this the entire point of niches? Break parts which would otherwise rein supreme.

 

I think these points have been brought up already, I'm not willing to re-read the entire thread to find out though.

[Genocide]

That is true, you can hard-counter a person's design by building specifically to attack those areas of weakness. That's what I was referring to as macro-balance. The AC's as wholes are, for the most part, pretty balanced.

 

But that doesn't address the parts themselves. Even in your example you were putting singular parts together to make an AC with a weakness, or in that exact case, multiple weaknesses.

 

My gripe specifically was when the case is that the part itself is trying to fill a certain niche, when multiple parts are trying to fill that same niche. The things we as a community consider tier because of the stats assigned to the part end up beating out all (for practical purposes) other parts in that same category, thus lessening the part, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the AC diversity online. For instance, the cases I brought up regarding Hilbert and Argyros arms. Unless you are specifically wanting to equip Argyros, you're more likely to use Hilbert. Given the general mentality of people in a competitive environment, the parts themselves become a form of risk management. The risk of using Hilbert as opposed to Argyros is low, yet however when one would expect the pay off for higher risk to be greater, the pay off is exactly the same. So in effect, the part itself is getting shafted which is limiting the diversity, and IMO skewing the balance of the game. And that's just one of numerous examples I could bring up.

 

And of course, that is using what the game gives you (a win as opposed to a loss), and not taking any kind of social factors into consideration such as prestige etc.

[Harakiri Tiger]

Ok. So let's say we don't use Ease of Use (Difficulty of Use) as a balancing factor for your AC weaponry. This'll be interesting to see.

 

How do you balance a Rifle against a Grenade Launcher. Let's say the GL is an old school one, that way we don't have to worry about splash damage, and it's arm mounted. This way you have to choose between using one or the other. Let's do this balancing with some stats, too. Since that's what regulations do.

 

I'll make up some stats for the Grenade Launcher, and you guys balance the Rifle against it.

 

Rifle

Weight: XXXX Kilograms

EN Drain: XXXX Kilowatts

-----

Attack Power: XXXX Falcon Punches

Ammo: XXXX Rounds

Range: XXXX Meters

Rate of Fire: XXXX Shots Per Minute

Grenade Launcher

Weight: 2,500 Kilograms

EN Drain: 250 Kilowatts

-----

Attack Power: 25,000 Falcon Punches

Ammo: 18 Rounds

Range: 400 Meters

Rate of Fire: 6 Shots Per Minute

You may, of course, ignore the unit descriptions I used. Haha.

[Exorcet]

Rifle

Weight: 900 Kilograms

EN Drain: 150 Kilowatts

-----

Attack Power: 2000 Kilowatts

Ammo: 150 Rounds

Range: 450 Meters

Rate of Fire: 21.35294118 Shots Per Minute (168.5950413)

Grenade Launcher

Weight: 2,500 Kilograms

EN Drain: 250 Kilowatts

-----

Attack Power: 25,000 Falcon Punches

Ammo: 18 Rounds

Range: 400 Meters

Rate of Fire: 6 Shots Per Minute (600)

 

 

(xxx) is in game units. Correct attack power unit, Flacon Punch is not a unit of power (!!!!).

 

Well, a lot of stats are missing. And reload is insanely odd, so I didn't really know what to do with it, but scailing your GL to SAKUNAMI (which it almost is) I made a generic rifle and scaled it back to your stats.

[Harakiri Tiger]

Well, you can feel free to make your own stats for it too. That may actually be easier. Go ahead and do that. Just make two templates that you think cover the two weapons. You can even use existing weapons like 051ANNR and Sakunami or something. I just don't have the stats lying around.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

tl;dr

 

most all games cater to noobs because noobs = profit. all of you are overthinking this stuff.

 

besides, having a balanced game is pretty damn near impossible and either turns the game into being super fair (which is boring) or a giant game of rock paper scissors, using counters with strenghts and weaknesses (which also makes it largely luck based and boring)

 

unbalanced games give you a choice of either using overpowered shit to win (same thing over and over; effective, but boring) or to use crappy shit and try to win, creating a challenge (which makes things a lot different and more exciting)

 

acfa is pretty balanced besides lag, which throws a bunch of shit out the window and fucks everything up. the man with the bigger lagstick wins, even if they are using worse shit and suck more.

[Exorcet]

Took two random original parts from my spreadsheet.

 

 

Rifle

 

 

weight - 1240

drain - 40

attack - 1516

PAR - 420

PAP - 3019

ROF - 24

Ammo - 180

Damage rate - 63.2

Total Damage - 272808

PA rate - 17.5

velocity - 1288

range - 580

precision - 96

melee ability - 400

 

 

Grenade

 

weight - 1980

drain - 297

attack - 11691

PAR - 2500

PAP - 3410

ROF - 155

Ammo - 20

Damage rate - 75.4

Total Damage - 233820

PA rate - 16.13

velocity - 865

range - 550

precision - 95

melee ability - 80

Edited February 26, 2010 by Exorcet

[Harakiri Tiger]

Did you balance those or still working on balancing them?

[Exorcet]

They are probably fairly close to balanced. The only things I'm not sure of are the removal of magazines (all weapons) and that the grenade I picked is closer to older versions than the new, the blast radius is small (but still there) and the projectle is intended to get direct hits. I also lowered the damage of all arm weapons by about 10%, so maybe we should bump them up by that much just so that the numbers are easier to interpret in the context of the actual parts

 

rifle - 1684

 

GL - 12990

 

Oh, and the parts are for AC4.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Exorcet

[Harakiri Tiger]

Ok, perfect.

 

Now, here's my first question regarding those two weapons. If I spent enough time to master both of them, thus eliminating any difficulty problems, would they be able to produce pretty even results? This is assuming your balancing worked out right.

[Exorcet]

Yes, they should produce even results if used properly.

 

I'm assuming that they will be used on a 'normal' AC, which usually implies other weapons, good use of tunes, etc.

[IronSoul]

most all games cater to noobs because noobs = profit. all of you are overthinking this stuff.

 

besides, having a balanced game is pretty damn near impossible and either turns the game into being super fair (which is boring) or a giant game of rock paper scissors, using counters with strenghts and weaknesses (which also makes it largely luck based and boring)

 

unbalanced games give you a choice of either using overpowered shit to win (same thing over and over; effective, but boring) or to use crappy shit and try to win, creating a challenge (which makes things a lot different and more exciting)

 

acfa is pretty balanced besides lag, which throws a bunch of shit out the window and fucks everything up. the man with the bigger lagstick wins, even if they are using worse shit and suck more.

 

Yeah but you can have intuitive and easy to use while rewarding difficult play, I think that's what some people are saying. The problem isn't noobs using noob combos, it's vets using noob combos, which usually promotes a cycle of noob combos hard to break until someone finds the balls to break that system.

 

Also, yay, part balance challenge. Gonna work on something, but I ain't gonna do it all in one go. Make mistakes that way.

[neoLynx]

Me no understand so well?

Preeze exprain.

"Yeah but you can have intuitive and easy to use while rewarding difficult play, I think that's what some people are saying. The problem isn't noobs using noob combos, it's vets using noob combos, which usually promotes a cycle of noob combos hard to break until someone finds the balls to break that system."

[Nine Breaker]

Me no understand so well?

Preeze exprain.

"Yeah but you can have intuitive and easy to use while rewarding difficult play, I think that's what some people are saying. The problem isn't noobs using noob combos, it's vets using noob combos, which usually promotes a cycle of noob combos hard to break until someone finds the balls to break that system."

 

 

Vets sometimes use bad designs to make their matches more challenging, thus leading other players to think that those bad designs are good designs and results in people trying to copy them. An example would be a full Aaliyah build with a MG/Energy Rifle combo. Yes I've actually seen that before.

[neoLynx]

Yes but I think that is a cool vet. Actually challenging themselves, its not his fault if some one copies the build.

[Exorcet]

Ok, perfect.

 

Now, here's my first question regarding those two weapons. If I spent enough time to master both of them, thus eliminating any difficulty problems, would they be able to produce pretty even results? This is assuming your balancing worked out right.

 

 

Yes, they should produce even results if used properly.

 

I'm assuming that they will be used on a 'normal' AC, which usually implies other weapons, good use of tunes, etc.

 

Bump.

[Niji Superfan]

Alright, so while I have limited computer access, I'll make some addresses here. I'll be honest, I only read the first page (and to say I read it at all is putting it pretty fucking liberally), but while my laptop is out of order, I don't have the time to thoroughly assess seventy-odd posts on AC metagame and part balance. I suppose I am a tad behind in giving my input, but oh well, better late than never. Anyhow:

 

- l-o-fucking-l at Ironsoul saying From is "too busy with AC5" to balance ACFA. The game has around 300 parts, most of which could be given a bell curve by category and around two dozen of which need a hard adjustment; they could make a better reg file if they really broke and down and made some more specific alterations, but the aforementioned approach would at least make the game reasonably balanced. Adjusting the regulations is really no more involved than opening up a spreadsheet and playing with numbers. From could very easily pay a nerd like me a meager sum of money to create a new reg file based on 1.4 (or even an earlier reg file, for all it matters) in the span of an afternoon. I could be really generous and say that it might take as long as a full day, but given the ostensible lack of playtesting that plagued every reg file from 1.1 in AC4 right through to 1.4 in FA, I very highly doubt it'd take more than a few hours. From is clearly above paying money for silly things like playtesting or fine-tuning. By the way, your facial hair looks like shit, go invest in a beard trimmer and become learned in the ways of the base clipper setting. Granted, your face looks like shit and to say that the facial hair mars it in any way is like saying that a bit of mold on a piece of shit is what's holding it back, but I digress. In a loosely related matter:

 

Vets sometimes use bad designs to make their matches more challenging, thus leading other players to think that those bad designs are good designs and results in people trying to copy them. An example would be a full Aaliyah build with a MG/Energy Rifle combo. Yes I've actually seen that before.

 

While he's still the man (err, manchild) of the hour, Ironsoul brought an MG/rifle combo to all two of the matches we've ever been in together. During the second of the two, he used them in close quarters against the last surviving member of our team (namely Delfe/Sweetooth/Vision of Shiva/Strayed Mongrel/Fuck me he's had too many names), when it was down to the two of them. Our guy was down to his hangar handguns, and so was forced to get within humping distance just to do any damage to Ironsoul. Our guy also had 100 AP (no, this is not a typo, I really mean [/i]one hundred AP[/i]), and somehow, Ironsoul wasn't capable of dropping him. It went on long enough that we lost because Delfe expended both his hangar handguns and summarily flew out of bounds, lacking anything else to fight off Ironsoul's sad little build with. To this day, those of us that were there still marvel at how Ironsoul, in all his splendor, was somehow incapable of landing even one shot with a rapid fire weapon at point-blank range. Like, the law of averages would dictate that he'd HAVE to connect with at least one shot in the time it takes to burn off three handgun clips, even just by stroke of luck. Realize that these were handguns, on the SS-AL arms: I am not exaggerating when I say that Delfe was inside the 100 range mark during this time. I mean, Stevie Wonder could hit a man once with a weapon that has a reload of, uh, 4 (in fact, I think he had the ZAKAT, in which case it would've been a reload of 2). Even spraying it like a firehose, you'd be bound to get lucky and connect with just one stray bullet, and somehow, that wasn't even possible here. QED, Ironsoul is fantastically terrible at AC4. He is so bad at these games it's wholly unrealistic; it defies all logic and reason.

 

...That was more or less irrelevant, I just find it hilarious because you reached for a prime example of an intentionally terrible AC and you unwittingly turned up a combo Ironsoul used in earnest.

 

- The White Glint parts are far from broken, regardless of reg. They're all high tier (well, excepting the head), but they are the absolute least of ACFA's problems. Frame parts in 1.4 suffer from Silent Line syndrome, in that there's almost a strict hierarchy for part viability: The EKHAZAR core is better than the 63AN core is better than the WG core. The 63AN arms are better than the WG arms are better than the LANCEL arms. The list goes on, really. Amongst the arms, there's really never any reason to use anything that isn't the 63AN unless you're statwhoring with the ARGRYOS, which supports a limited amount of weapon setups. Amongst the cores, there's almost never a reason to use anything other than the EKHAZAR, seldom excepting the 63AN just for higher defense on lighter builds (and only if you can afford the added weight and drain). Frame design in ACFA is methodical to a fault, to the extent that there's almost always one "right" way to build any one AC. Building an AC in AC4 was methodical to the effect that you could rotate certain frame part combinations to be more efficient or produce more with your build. Building an AC in ACFA is methodical to the effect that you're basically retarded if you're making a serious design and don't use the EKHAZAR core with the 63AN arms.

 

- In that vein, For Answer needs a hell of a lot more than a netcode adjustment to be balanced. Even independent of the velocity issues, the actual part balance is just bad. There's almost always one best part in any given category, and even when there isn't, there's either a strict hierarchy or a body of It honestly feels like the worst of SL and LR's part balances with none of what made either game enjoyable.

 

ANYHOW, to get back to the original question posed by the topic, I can safely say that AC4 is the best-balanced game (in 1.6, anyway) and ACFA is the worst-balanced. Like, Project Phantasma was probably more sensible than this shit is. I can still find ways to be innovative in AC4 even with its limited assortment of parts, and somehow, FA doesn't offer the same creative depth with roughly twice as many parts (feel free to correct me on this). Fuck For Answer, what a waste of money. The worst of it is that the regs actually got worse from 1.2 on; 1.1 was far from balanced, but it was a huge step in the right direction, even if there was still an overall lack of part variety due to blatantly copypasted stat. Compare the 47AN to the 63AN, NSS to SS-L, HOGIRE to LANCEL: these are just three of the many that have near identical stats. Half of the new parts were blatantly copied from an existing part, with two or three stats modified. The part balance wasn't stellar either, but if nothing else, 1.1 is playable. More than that, it has some interesting parts and plenty of potential for innovative builds, in a stark contrast to the later regs. All told, 1.1 is a fun reg to play on. This really can't be said of 1.2, 1.3 and especially 1.4, which kills the part variety more than 1.2 ever did and still manages to be more broken. A lot of people question why most of the older players (myself included) hate ACFA so much. What they fail to realize is that I was absolutely behind ACFA up til the American release, when I realized From was never going to put any effort into addressing its issues. Truthfully, i recognize that For Answer has all the potential to be a much better game than AC4 ever could be, and somehow, it doesn't even manage to be as good. It hopelessly pissed away every chance at being decent with each new reg file that was released.

 

Moving on, we have AC4. I'm still never quite sure how to feel about AC4, really. It's easily the best-balanced game in the series, but at the same time, it lacks a lot of the finer subtleties of, say, Silent Line or Last Raven. It does offer more streamlined multiplayer than any other game in the series, and its part balance in 1.6 makes the majority of the parts competitively viable (albeit with the exclusion of entire categories, such as handheld grenades and half the missile types). Still, to say that there's nothing wrong with AC4 is far from the truth, so it's about time someone really addressed that. First and foremost, AC4's metagame emphasizes rangelocking to a fault. Weapons like machineguns could be used at mid-close range in Last Raven, but in AC4, they can't be used unless you're close enough to feasibly rub your dick on your opponent. Similarly, where sniper rifles could be used at almost any range in SL or LR, they're all but useless outside of the 1000 range in AC4 (and they're still going to get laughed off by a half-assed decent player even when used from a safe distance, but that's beside the point). This is is one glaring fault that's made all the more pronounced by the exceptional range control of certain weapon types; the 47ANNR can effectively cover every range mark you'd ever need to cover in a competitive matchup, to the point where sniper rifles seem completely superfluous. Machineguns work in a competitive setting, but even up in the nosebleeds, a MARVE can dish out damage fast enough to compete with a MOTORCOBRA (taking into account consistency of damage, of course), and it can do so from longer ranges than the MOTORCOBRA. The list goes on, really. AC4 very blatantly favors certain weapon types, for far more reasons than the velocity cutoffs that usually take the heat for this issue. Point-blank, rifles have an unbridled mix of potency and versatility that makes them far and away the best weapons in the game; you can double up on any rifle in 1.6, and guaranteed, you have a strong and reliable weapon setup. This really should never be case, and while some of you will argue that there are much better weapon combos than strictly dual rifles, that isn't the point. When you can run in with just two MARVEs or two AZANs and drop most any setup in the game with a can-do attitude, a little elbow grease and a stunning lack of self-respect, it tells me there's something very wrong with the weapon balance in this game. I need to stress that this is in 1.6, because due to the hefty nerfing the MARVE and AZAN received in 1.4, it doesn't quite pan out the same as it does in any of the earlier/later regs.

 

AC4's problems run deeper than this, though. A lot of mechanics from the previous games that helped it to maintain coherency were arbitrarily removed in AC4, not the least of which is the boost lift. In the older games, you generally lifted into the air by boost alone, with jumps being a more situational measure. It was typically used to save energy, and jumping was still a huge asset (especially to RJs) so long as you were safe to stop still for the brief vulnerability period it entails. In AC4, for whatever ridiculous reason, you can't even leave the ground without jumping. If you don't stand perfectly still for about half a second, you can't even get into the air. This emphasizes air combat to a fault, and at the highest level of competition, you won't even be able to safely leave the ground unless you're in the opponent's blindspot or behind cover, which is strictly a luxury. You can't always get behind cover, and in some matchups, you may not even be able to get in your opponent's blindspot at all; even assuming equal skill, it's just not possible for even a fully-loaded mid to flank a featherweight (well, a good one anyway). I'm getting tired of going in-depth at this point, so I'll just summarize and say that active drain on weapons that are still in the hangar is one of the most idiotic mistakes From made with AC4, especially considering they didn't have active drain in Nexus (y'know, the first game in the series to introduce them). The same dev team designed every game from Nexus right up to AC4, so really, what the hell is their excuse? This is just one of those silly little discrepancies that are completely inexcusable, which impeded AC4 and absolutely defined FA. Given how easy it would be to mitigate all of these design flaws, you can probably empathize with my lack of respect for Nabeshima's design team at this point, and it's largely why I don't have high hopes for ACV.

 

Alright, I'm spent. That was a hell of a lot longer than I was expecting it to be, but hopefully it does something to contribute to the topic. Enjoy. Or don't. Or something.

 

DISCLAIMER: I probably should've proofread this, but I really don't feel like it and consequently, it's bound to make absolutely no sense in a couple places. I'm really good at randomly excluding words and failing to notice it until I've read it two dozen times.

[exogen]

to me ACFA is not even worth discussing because it's such a horrid game to me.

 

Ac4 however was more balanced by 1.6, but never really achieved what it needed.

the reg was the most balanced yet but when the changed the inertia it destroyed the balance.

 

Ac4 needed to have the leg caps adjusted, the forward boosters QB duration increased by a factor of 1, kraken/holliferns needed a main booster equivelant, the generators needed to be rebalanced a bit more, the EN drain on LW leg parts should have been increased while their carring caps should have been deminished alot. the pop on OB needed to be slightly stronger even on 1.6. outside of that just weapons tweaking is all that was needed but those changes I mentioned were the REAL reason AC4 was always unbalanced. they never corrected the problems which were more systemic than anything else.

 

If they did those changes alone the game would be balanced to a compedative degree.