Armored Core: Verdict Day Discussion

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/DoubleSlap_(move)

[exogen]

Yeah cover was definietly used in AC4. If you read one of my prior posts I mentioned that. Cover was usefull in basically every map except virtual A and desert and parts of the ice map.

 

But the boost mechanics and FCS in ACV just are more about damage racing than anything else, it's sad.

 

Then here comes the counter argument about cover. But again, cover was always present in prior games so that really isn't a valid point to retort with is it?

 

Bottom line is, ACV is just dumbed down and made more for damage racing. They tried to build this team based balance shit but as usual FROM fucked everything up. The only shit they get right seems to be on accident and everyone knows that this shit is true.

 

Listen, I tried to give ACV a chance, honest. I tried time and time again after each disapointment the more I learned about the game. It just isn't worth it. I hate to say it, and I know this will sound condecending but believe me it isn't - the people that mainly like ACV are people who were not of high level skill on AC4 or older games and wouldn't know the diference between a damage racing game and one that wasn't. Again, I'm not trying to offend anybody here, trust me, but it's the truth.

 

If you think I wrong, then let's go head to head and debate the evidence. But be prepared to show me facts, not just conjecture. Cause I can back up my opinions in technical detail.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

really if you didnt play the game for at least more than 2 months straight i dont see how you could be so hellbent on judging it as a damage racing game

 

damage racing is pretty much suicide in acv and if it really was any good then tanks would be op (except they arent)

 

the reason the metagame developed around snipers is because of the hit-and-run peekaboo power. actual dps was ass on them and they got fucked by lw flankers

 

the only time damage racing was really relevant was 1.00 dual ucg gatlings, and even those were only really good if a proper flank was executed

 

 

and cover is a completely valid point in acv because cover is so much more important compared to previous games

 

considering you can gain altitude advantages, use as walls to bounce off of for mobility, scanning targets through solid objects, and the lack of radar; all of these things make cover much much much more relevant in acv than any other previous ac

 

not to mention that if you actually tried to pull off some damage racing shenanigans, the 3-type defense mechanic along with the 5-man team dynamic make it extremely hard to find the correct opportunity to duke it out with another opponent in a straight up damage rance

 

 

 

but lets be honest you wouldnt know any of this because you never actually played the game (playing the game =/= trying it out for 3 days and quitting because it wasnt a carbon copy of ac4)

 

the actual problems with acv go far beyond the concept of damage racing

[exogen]

really if you didnt play the game for at least more than 2 months straight i dont see how you could be so hellbent on judging it as a damage racing game

 

Actually, I played the demo for at least two months straight first off. Second, is allot of the tactics that are used in high level play now, specifically in terms of manuvers, I had figured out when the demo came out. Ultibreaker could attest to this, as well as Abubis (who got inpired to get really good from watch me when the game first came out), hell I have tactics that people still don't even use now (at least not concistently anyway). Third, is that I played it for WAY over two months and gave it MANY MANY chances.

 

damage racing is pretty much suicide in acv and if it really was any good then tanks would be op (except they arent)

the reason the metagame developed around snipers is because of the hit-and-run peekaboo power. actual dps was ass on them and they got fucked by lw flankers

the only time damage racing was really relevant was 1.00 dual ucg gatlings, and even those were only really good if a proper flank was executed

 

Your conception of a damage race is to specific, which is why you are making reference to particulare weapon times. I am speaking on a more general level. A damage race is simply the result when two AC's are both out int he open, even if this is only for a short period of time. Cover has nothing to do with this. Cover would be an essential even if dodging was more effective.

 

and cover is a completely valid point in acv because cover is so much more important compared to previous games

 

I agree in ACV cover is MORE essential, but THAT just proves my point about dodging doesn't it? And I already have made it clear, and this is not something that can be disputed, that in prior AC games (not counting FA) the person who used cover ALWAYS had the greater advantage, and not just by a little bit but by a large margin.

 

considering you can gain altitude advantages, use as walls to bounce off of for mobility, scanning targets through solid objects, and the lack of radar; all of these things make cover much much much more relevant in acv than any other previous ac

 

The wall jump is the one thing I will give ACV as doing a solid job in. That is one mechanics that needs to stay in future games from now on. However, the wall jump isn't as ultimate and metagame as you think it is. The problem with the wall jump os that if someone is going head to head with you it only works if the other player is intending to enage you. Basically both of you have to be behind an obsticle facing each other. IF not the other player can just back up or retreat around the corver. The boost mechanics don't allow you to persue them in the air as you would need to. What your talking about only works on people who are unsespecting. My retort here is that anyone can get shot in the back no matter what game we are talking about.

 

 

not to mention that if you actually tried to pull off some damage racing shenanigans, the 3-type defense mechanic along with the 5-man team dynamic make it extremely hard to find the correct opportunity to duke it out with another opponent in a straight up damage rance

 

Again, enlarge your definition of damage race. All it really means is that for the most part the two AC's are absorbing each others hits because doging is not as effective or concistent. The armor diferences and weapon types just add another retarted dimention to the game as it is.

 

 

 

 

but lets be honest you wouldnt know any of this because you never actually played the game (playing the game =/= trying it out for 3 days and quitting because it wasnt a carbon copy of ac4)

 

the actual problems with acv go far beyond the concept of damage racing

 

Like I said above, your greatly mistaken about my time logged in on that game.

 

And of course the problems go beyond the lack of dodging. That is just the begining of my gripe with the game, thus why I don't play it. Do you really think that I only have one gripe with the game?

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

yeah yeah ad hominem probably wasnt appropriate but i seriously dont understand how you come up with this shit

 

A damage race is simply the result when two AC's are both out int he open, even if this is only for a short period of time. Cover has nothing to do with this. Cover would be an essential even if dodging was more effective.

 

how does cover have nothing to do with your definition of damage racing, which is when two acs are out in the open?

the term "out in the open" intrinsically assumes that cover is relevant to the concept of damage racing

the importance of cover is directly related to how powerful damage racing is

 

and simply putting two acs out in the open is over-simplifying the concept of damage racing, since the only way for any ac to damage any other ac is if there are no objects in between the two acs

 

damage racing under my definition is when two acs are in the open for extended periods of time and the only forms of damage reduction between the two are mobility and range

the most prominent example of damage racing i can think of is 1.10 ac4 dual rifle fights, where the emphasis on minimalizing damage was not on the usage of cover, but the usage of mobility

 

i am saying that less powerful dodging makes damage racing LESS prevalent because being in the open increases the risk of taking damage, as opposed to being in the open for extended periods of time relying on dodging power.

 

 

for the record, i never said walljumping was a huge part of the metagame, nor did i say it was exceptionally strong. i merely listed it as a reason as to why cover is more viable in acv than in other games. do not put words in my mouth

 

also, at its prime in 1.4, acfa metagame was heavily favored towards high AP high def ACs that were slow but could manage cover very well. to say cover was not important in that game as an exception is just not true.

[exogen]

Come up with what?

 

 

how does cover have nothing to do with your definition of damage racing, which is when two acs are out in the open?

the term "out in the open" intrinsically assumes that cover is relevant to the concept of damage racing

the importance of cover is directly related to how powerful damage racing is

 

Because, in order to understand something you need to isolate it as much as possible and eliminate variables. Also, cover is something that is going matter on its own terms with or without the mechanics being as such. It's a seprate issue.

 

and simply putting two acs out in the open is over-simplifying the concept of damage racing, since the only way for any ac to damage any other ac is if there are no objects in between the two acs

 

It doesn't mean like in a desert or something like that. Out in in the open can manafest itself in those periods where cover isn't available. That could be a short period of time, the point being that during THOSE moments, dodging sucks.

 

damage racing under my definition is when two acs are in the open for extended periods of time and the only forms of damage reduction between the two are mobility and range

the most prominent example of damage racing i can think of is 1.10 ac4 dual rifle fights, where the emphasis on minimalizing damage was not on the usage of cover, but the usage of mobility

 

This definition breaks down. What do you mean by "extended?" Are we talking one minute or ten? And why would whatever duration your talking about even if you had one matter? Seriously, the only way to make sense of it is to talk about when the AC's have each other in their sites and they are not just about to go back behind cover. So basically everything other than peekaboo circumstances.

 

 

i am saying that less powerful dodging makes damage racing LESS prevalent because being in the open increases the risk of taking damage, as opposed to being in the open for extended periods of time relying on dodging power.

 

But remember cover here is not something you can rely on to make your point because cover would be a constant in this discussion. Once cover becomes a constant, the only varrible is if when cover is available at the exact moment, can you dodge fire better or worse and are the manuverality of the AC's better or worse by comparison. Once you look at it in those terms a game where you can dodge better (again with cover being prevelant either way) is neccessarily going to be less of a damage race.

 

Your argument seems to be that in a game where dodging isn't as effective there will be less damage racing because players have no choice but to use cover. What you overlook is that in games where dodging is more effective, cover is still superior, because there is NO chance of getting shot (same as there would be in a game that has poor dodging) when behind cover, therefore there is a valid incentive for people to turtle the hell out of it regadless.

 

for the record, i never said walljumping was a huge part of the metagame, nor did i say it was exceptionally strong. i merely listed it as a reason as to why cover is more viable in acv than in other games. do not put words in my mouth

 

also, at its prime in 1.4, acfa metagame was heavily favored towards high AP high def ACs that were slow but could manage cover very well. to say cover was not important in that game as an exception is just not true.

 

I know it wasn't the focal point of your argument, I wasn't saying it was.

 

cover in ACFA was not as important as it was in AC4 but it wasn't useless. But I'm not going to debate FA because it was such an epic fail in so many ways that its just not worth my time. If you had fun with the game then cool.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

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. mobility and dodging are methods of reducing damage, so the strength of damage racing in a particular game is measured as a balance of favorability between dodging and usage of cover. if mobility is strong enough to rival the use of cover (rival, in this case meaning close to or slightly less than), it would be favorable to be more mobile, as dynamic > static. if mobility is weak enough to make cover more important, it is favorable to use cover, and the trade-off is that cover is static while mobility is dynamic.

 

i think it might be important to discuss why FA was such a huge failure though, since that game had very strong mobility for a large majority of the regulations. i do not understand how you could hate a game with such strong mobility given your position on this subject

[exogen]

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. mobility and dodging are methods of reducing damage, so the strength of damage racing in a particular game is measured as a balance of favorability between dodging and usage of cover. if mobility is strong enough to rival the use of cover (rival, in this case meaning close to or slightly less than), it would be favorable to be more mobile, as dynamic > static. if mobility is weak enough to make cover more important, it is favorable to use cover, and the trade-off is that cover is static while mobility is dynamic.

 

i think it might be important to discuss why FA was such a huge failure though, since that game had very strong mobility for a large majority of the regulations. i do not understand how you could hate a game with such strong mobility given your position on this subject

 

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.

[Mom]

Damage Race in a cover vat.

[Pendragon]

Well, if you don't like it, your opinion is perfectly valid. I can see where you're coming from when you claim such, since I've seen tank vs tank reduce down to "who shot first?" scenarios. But it all depends on if you can get a good team running, and thankfully I don't play on the EU server, so there are plenty of people playing.

 

I just wish I could play more, since my internet loves turning off at the worst times. THANKS COMCAST.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

you didnt read what i posted so like idk what else i can tell you

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

also, at its prime in 1.4, acfa metagame was heavily favored towards high AP high def ACs that were slow but could manage cover very well. to say cover was not important in that game as an exception is just not true.

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.

 

major disconnect for sure, exogen you gotta try sticking to your original stance man you keep changing definitions in your head so often that you're starting to address all kinds of phantom points lol geez

 

you been doing that too for like last 2 pages or something

[exogen]

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.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

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. mobility and dodging are methods of reducing damage, so the strength of damage racing in a particular game is measured as a balance of favorability between dodging and usage of cover. if mobility is strong enough to rival the use of cover (rival, in this case meaning close to or slightly less than), it would be favorable to be more mobile, as dynamic > static. if mobility is weak enough to make cover more important, it is favorable to use cover, and the trade-off is that cover is static while mobility is dynamic.

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.

 

the issue i have with this post is that you ignore everything ive said after "variables" and your supporting argument is that cover is not relevant, when the exact post i made is arguing why cover is important to the discussion. i even gave a reason as to why cover usage is different in all past games and should not be discredited just because "it was in past games." in fact, its the exact same thing ive been saying for the past 2 pages and ive been trying to reword it for you so that you would understand enough to give a reasonable response, but you have been rewording your refutation the entire time as well.

 

i also explain why it is important to analyze the game without isolating the mechanics too much, and it seems like you agree but at the same time you dont

[exogen]

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?

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

you got most of it ya

 

i dont get how separating things to a micro level helps in this specific case though because of the direct relation between cover usage and damage racing

 

im saying the game as a whole cannot be a damage racing game if damage racing is not effective or favorable

[exogen]

you got most of it ya

 

i dont get how separating things to a micro level helps in this specific case though because of the direct relation between cover usage and damage racing

 

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?

 

im saying the game as a whole cannot be a damage racing game if damage racing is not effective or favorable

 

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.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

the separation i am referring to is the separation of damage racing and use of cover. idk if "macro" is a typo but i wrote "micro"

 

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.

 

yeah the point im trying to make is that ACV should not be simplistically compared to other AC games because in other AC games, cover was less favorable and damage racing was more viable due to elements of mobility. its like if i were to assign a monetary value to cover and damage racing; past games it might be worth $10 to damage race and $15 to use cover, but in acv its worth $5 to damage race and $20 to use cover.

 

so when you say "in some sense, acv is a damage racing game" i really dont know what you mean by that because it is even more discouraging in acv than it is in any other ac game

Edited May 30, 2013 by Bakuhatsu Pengin

[Aokiryu89]

This term "damage race" has seemingly lost all meaning. Isn't every game with a health bar or a score system a freaking damage race?

 

Wasn't that the fundamental thing about gaming? Getting the highest score by dropping the other person's health to zero?

 

What if you are just getting sick of playing games?

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

in this context its referring to when you just shoot at each other mindlessly and hoping you dont die first

[Nomrah]

This term "damage race" has seemingly lost all meaning. Isn't every game with a health bar or a score system a freaking damage race?

 

Nah, ACV in most cases was all about the damage race, the AC's meet and they unload. you can't really dodge the shit tactfully so you just hover and kick around each other like roosters with the shitty maneuvering and keep holding down the fire buttons. If you kick around enough you might lose the guy and sit behind some building for a while, but it's only a matter of time before the shit starts again!

 

Although this changed when you were playing as a sniper or some karasawa wielder.

 

What makes it a damage race is that a lot of the time it would be no different than having the two AC's stand in front of each other firing everything they've got, and the outcome would most likely be determined by the games terrible defense system.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Nomrah

[Aokiryu89]

That's the thing though, there are ways around simply firing mindlessly at each other. People who play like that end up becoming easy targets for those who learn to utilize the environment with the same skill that was once the boosting game in 4/FA. I mentioned this before that it really is more like a successful version of Front Mission Evolved. 3 armor types, 3 weapon types, field of vision, etc etc.

 

Even the vast difference in armor strength is similar. The only thing is that ACV is too rigid with the customization, it is all way to easy and you can almost predict how an AC is going to function by looking at it's external parts.

 

Since FROM went that far they should've allowed for the ability to change the armor on specific parts instead of having a bunch of parts mocked up to be different when they were fundamentally the same design just with different crap strapped to them.

 

I believe someone here brought up introducing a customization style similar to race car games. Get an engine and tweak the shit out of it, put it turbo or add more cylinders and/or cylinder size. All that jazz.

 

My main gripe with this game is that it is too damn rigid and lacks the fluidity that the PS2 era games and older had. I still believe they were going the right direction control wise with Last Raven but instead of simply adding the what was good in 4/FA and V to that established gameplay style they had used since 97' they just went and waisted time building two game engines from the ground up and completely dumped the soul out of the AC series and after realizing their success with DS I doubt they will look back. Any hope I would have for FROM too stop pussy footing around and bring back the foundation of PSone/PS2 era AC now rests in how much work they put into VD and DSII. As a fundamentally pure Developer and perhaps one of the last major Devs who are capable of controlling what they put far better than most devs nowadays I seriously doubt they would have any intention at all of going back to their roots at least for the AC series.

 

Some other dev will probably come out with that true mecha game that doesn't beat around the bush. As far as I'm concerned Hideo Kojima's dev team on ZOE:2nd runner is still the only one that has gotten anywhere near close to what would be that experience.

 

In the mean time, use cover faggot.

 

It should be noted that all of my comments are in humor. I see where the "damage race" argument is coming from but I have seen players overcome the limitations in this game in more ways than simply strapping on the most powerful weapons and armor and just chugging along. When I play good I barely get scratched even by someone loaded with dual PMGs with AMPS which is a pretty rare occurance given I personally suck balls at games period.

 

To me a damage race would mean having no option other than to get the biggest toughest guns, stand there, and just play Rock'em Sock'em Robots. Which is exactly what me and my brother did when we first played AC back in 97'. It was fundamentally a quick draw with chainguns because we had no clue at all how to dodge shit. But you know what, we figured out how to play the game and avoid most every shot that came at us.

 

See even though you can't dodge everything without cover doesn't mean that using cover is a non-advantageous game flaw that serves no purpose besides being a spot to charge batteries for a bit before jumping in to start the same old shit again.

 

Anyways I'm probably just spinning around in circles so I'm just going to stop trying to explain how to play a game that Nobushima and his subordinates shitted out because they wanted to cash in on the ONLINE gaming norm.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

that is what is being argued yes

[exogen]

the separation i am referring to is the separation of damage racing and use of cover. idk if "macro" is a typo but i wrote "micro"

 

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."

 

 

yeah the point im trying to make is that ACV should not be simplistically compared to other AC games because in other AC games, cover was less favorable and damage racing was more viable due to elements of mobility. its like if i were to assign a monetary value to cover and damage racing; past games it might be worth $10 to damage race and $15 to use cover, but in acv its worth $5 to damage race and $20 to use cover.

 

so when you say "in some sense, acv is a damage racing game" i really dont know what you mean by that because it is even more discouraging in acv than it is in any other ac game

 

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.

Edited May 31, 2013 by exogen

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

a

 

no, like, i literally typed micro and then you quoted me as saying macro and then was confused as to why you thought i said macro

 

the micro-macro issue is basically this as far as i see it:

micro - just damage racing alone

macro - damage racing and all forms of damage reduction, including cover

 

 

cover is less viable in older games as a direct result that damage racing is more viable, so we are on the same level of understanding to an extent

 

however, not once did i say that damage racing was more viable than cover in any ac game

 

the relationship between cover-damage in older games was much more even than it is in acv, where the difference in effectiveness between cover and damage racing is so drastic that it forces players to use cover much more than other games

 

there are varying levels of favorability between damage and cover in past ac games and this is the point that i have been trying to make the entire time. its not that damage racing is better than cover, its that past cover is not as good as acv cover because acv damage racing is not as good as past damage racing

 

and the reason why cover is important to the discussion is because acv is centered around the idea of flanking and retreating via cover rather than straight up fights. because acv is a game that allows for all information to be gathered for both parties, the ac that does not have the advantage in an engagement would never want to fight directly with the opponent. thats how acv is not a game about damage racing in the slightest: in the situations where two or more acs are out in the open, the "loser" would either be running for cover or be out of sight for as long as possible. straight up fights are far too predictable and the trade-off is not worthwhile, especially in a team environment. again, these are just more reasons as to why damage racing cannot be evaluated on a micro level.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Bakuhatsu Pengin