Armored Core: Verdict Day Discussion

[exogen]

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

I didn't alter the post I quoted from you. I'm lost as well.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

Again, this is just incorrect. Cover always trumps dodging, hence it trumps damage racing, in terms of strategic choice.

there are varying levels of favorability between damage (I assume you left out the racing after damage here) 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

(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.

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.

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.

[SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD]

I didn't alter the post I quoted from you. I'm lost as well.

 

http://i40.tinypic.com/2564j75.jpg

 

He typed "micro." You typed "macro." There is a very clear difference between the two terms. They are not interchangeable. This is what he's talking about when he said that you quoted him wrong.

[exogen]

http://i40.tinypic.com/2564j75.jpg

 

He typed "micro." You typed "macro." There is a very clear difference between the two terms. They are not interchangeable. This is what he's talking about when he said that you quoted him wrong.

 

Ok, when I typed macro in the words I typed, as opposed to "quoting" him typing macro, which looks something like this.

macro

 

He said I quoted him which made me confused as well. Because I just quote people, I don't alter posts.

Edited May 31, 2013 by exogen

[SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD]

Except you put what he said in quotation marks. That's quoting someone. Just because you're not using the quote function on the forum doesn't mean you weren't quoting him. When you put something in quotation marks, you're saying that those are the exact words of someone. Those were not his exact words and, in fact, the word you misquoted is the exact opposite of the word he typed. It changes his meaning completely.

 

That's why he said he was confused as to whether it was a typo or you were intentionally changing the discussion from micro (looking at a subset of the whole) to macro (looking at the whole).

[Mom]

Damage Racing.

[exogen]

Except you put what he said in quotation marks. That's quoting someone. Just because you're not using the quote function on the forum doesn't mean you weren't quoting him. When you put something in quotation marks, you're saying that those are the exact words of someone. Those were not his exact words and, in fact, the word you misquoted is the exact opposite of the word he typed. It changes his meaning completely.

 

That's why he said he was confused as to whether it was a typo or you were intentionally changing the discussion from micro (looking at a subset of the whole) to macro (looking at the whole).

 

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.

Edited May 31, 2013 by exogen

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

this is as simply as i can explain it

 

damage racing [favorability] + cover use [favorability] = 100 [total match time]

 

ac4: (30) + (70) = 100

acv: (10) + (90) = 100

 

first, i disagree that damage racing should not include dodging or mobility. i will use your original definition to remain consistent

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.

 

as both acs are out in the open while one might be flanking, flanking of all sorts under this definition is included in the category of damage racing

 

yes cover is never weaker than damage racing, but in older games it was more forgiving and less predictable with the usage of mobility. there is a lot more "open time" in ac4 than there is in acv because during drawn-out exchanges, it was possible for the direction of the fight to go either way. ac4 also had the advantage of immediate altitude, which set players on equal footing. there is a strategic use in ac4 of using damage racing as a means of increasing the AP lead or attempting to equalize the AP count. going even further back, SL and LR had a huge amount of "open time" because the ability to bulldog lockboxes was so strong, that damage racing actually took a certain amount of mechanical skill. both acs could dodge each others shots all day long and the best way to secure a solid ap lead would be to fight each other until the ap difference began to widen.

 

in acv, there is almost no chance of the underdog acquiring the lead because of the mobility and the defense system. if you are not using the proper weapon type on an ac or the opponent has the counter to your defense, you are fucked. you have to rely on teammates, cover peek-a-boo, flanking hit-and-run, or escape. open areas are so dangerous because of the lack of QT, lack of radar, and the fact that there isnt just 1 enemy around to keep tabs on, and because open areas are so dangerous, cover in acv becomes more important than it was in ac4.

 

and as far as flanking goes in ac4/acv, ac4 has QT, radar, and no definite lockboxes, which makes flanking much harder. you can also gain altitude from anywhere on the map, so altitude advantages do not last forever. acv has no radar, no qt, a definite lockbox, and limited immediate altitude. these factors make flanking and death-from-above extremely strong in acv because once a flank happens, its extremely hard to deal with. again, cover in acv is much more important than in ac4

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

so basically ur saying 'damage racing' is the opposite of 'utilizing cover', and 'utilizing cover' is so important in acv because most fights are over the minute someone gets side control of the other guy.

 

That makes sense but the choice of names for the terms is confusing. It basically sounds like anything that isn't hiding is damage racing and I always thought damage racing was literally racing against an opponent to see who dies first. So essentially damage racing wasn't just playing offense it was damage racing.

 

So like to give you an example, in Last Raven if you used something light with a machine gun and you are flanking someone all day and just chewing them up all fight, I wouldn't call that damage racing cuz the other guy isn't racing he's just dying like a bitch. Or if you prefer you could call it rushing or riding or a couple other things.

 

In the old ACs, damage racing was you basically get into your preferred range and you hose the other guy down with primary concern being to hit as much as possible, cuz the plan is to outrace him in damage.

 

Honestly the use of the term 'damage-racing' is confusing to me here, so I think maybe you guys need to think of a different word. It might help idk.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

now that i think about it yeah that makes more sense. the term doesnt really stick

 

but the point im trying to make is that damage racing (both people shooting each other) is just not optimal at all in acv (even when players are optimizing weapon range) so methods like flanking and stuff are a lot more important, and because mobility is so shitty in acv, flanking has to be done through backdooring people (via cover)

 

and thats why i dont see how acv is a damage racing game

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

why wasn't it optimal again? Cuz the damage race result is pretty much set in stone based on the ACs facing each other? i.e. no strategy or "skill" actually plays into it? I'm just trying to understand that part still

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

yeah the way it works with the 3 part defense system is that acs can either get extreme defense in 1 of the 3 types, or loosely cover 2 types and be ok in 1 type. some examples being 2700/500/500 or 1500/1200/900. tanks can hit like 2000/2000/1500 but they are insanely slow and are basically movable turrets.

what makes it more complicated tho is that the main contribution to defense types AND ap values is based on the leg type. quad legs can contribute like 2500 defense to 1 stat and cores at most will contribute like 900

 

so just by looking at the opponents leg type, players can determine what weapons to use against that leg type and its even more transparent when acs are allowed to do a full scan of the other players defense stats and weapon ammunition and stuff. in the team environment you also get operators who get full information of the entire map and all enemies on the map it and they can relay the info to the players

 

acs can hold a maximum of 4 weapons plus an inside unit, but theres only 3 defense types and at most you can only adequately cover 2 and have a gaping hole in the third. so with proper scouting, you can always determine whether or not an engagement will work out in your favor based on ap values and defense typing. if the opponent has a huge amount more ap than you do and they are running weapons that you are weak to, theres no way in hell youd think that you could come out on top of an engagement head-on and you typically try to avoid those engagements as much as possible because mobility wont do much to negate damage.

 

as far as mobility goes in acv, you get quick boosts but they are not very spammable because they drain a ton of en. you get ob that works in all directions on the x axis but it uses a ton of en as well. the only way to gain altitude is to jump, but you can wall jump multiple times and then hover at that altitude for awhile, so walls and cover are the main source of altitude for acs.

 

all of your movements cost lots of en and en covers very slowly unless you switch to non-combat mode, which adds tons of en output but you cant shoot at all. in noncombat mode though you can literally x-ray through walls from far distances and scan information about other peoples stats. conversely, you never get a radar like old ac games

 

so what typically happens is that if you try to dodge fire excessively in an engagement, you flat out tank on en and then your only option is to either sit like a duck trying to shoot the person or you swap to noncombat mode and find cover. it also doesnt help that one of the defense types that most acs are weak to involves en weapons. also, because of the team aspect, if you try to go aggro on 1 dude, for sure hes got another 3 guys that got his back and can see your every move

 

theres also a ton of one-hit-KO weapons that are in the game, which can instantly obliterate any AC but are super low ammo and they all require manual aim and have huge equip requirements. so in instances where you would normally win in a damage race, these OHKO weapons end things instantly. they arent extremely hard to land either because of the lack of mobility

 

so yeah acv is a game where you can choose all of your engagements before they even happen and make decisions based on information transparency. the only way they get away with this is that the game is team oriented and instead of tdm, its objective based.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

oh okay

 

I get it now, good looks noob

[exogen]

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.

 

in acv, there is almost no chance of the underdog acquiring the lead because of the mobility and the defense system. if you are not using the proper weapon type on an ac or the opponent has the counter to your defense, you are fucked. you have to rely on teammates, cover peek-a-boo, flanking hit-and-run, or escape. open areas are so dangerous because of the lack of QT, lack of radar, and the fact that there isnt just 1 enemy around to keep tabs on, and because open areas are so dangerous, cover in acv becomes more important than it was in ac4.

 

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.

 

but the point im trying to make is that damage racing (both people shooting each other) is just not optimal at all in acv (even when players are optimizing weapon range) so methods like flanking and stuff are a lot more important, and because mobility is so shitty in acv, flanking has to be done through backdooring people (via cover)

 

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?

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

yeah i dont mind dropping the flanking part from damage racing since it doesnt fit properly

 

i think that dodging should be included in the definition though because in reality, no two players are just gonna sit in each others faces soaking up bullets. its just not a practical definition. damage racing would then be defined as two players shooting at each other at the same time and it kinda removes the stupidity of "2 ppl blastin each other with 100% accuracy"

 

 

in previous games, damage racing can be considered a good choice because you can take advantage of the opponents weapons disadvantages (i.e. bumrushing a sniper for ap lead)

 

acv dont got none of that as long as team dynamic is present. also, acv weapon system allows for acs to cover multiple ranges much easier since weapons got homogenized, so a well-made ac of any kind shouldnt have too many issues with range differences (so a sniper would be able to deal with bumrushing a lot easier)

 

 

 

from what i understand right now, youre saying that it isnt good in acv, but it also wasnt good in any other ac game so far, so the comparison is not relevant

 

i think it would be easier if we could drop all comparisons and look at acv by itself, but idk how thatd turn out as far as the argument goes

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

ya in my mind "damage racing" is like literally racing someone to reach 0 AP. Obviously that's a race you wanna lose haha.

 

Here is why I think damage racing should not include flanking or dodging.

 

yeah exactly. In my mind damage racing is literally just getting in fools faces and shooting a bunch. You sorta could dodge a little in the old games in the sense that you try some side to sides and shit but realistically...you're not about that dodging life. You want the motherfucker in front of you to get dragged into a rock em sock em robot fight. Like those old timey boxing matches where they just stood in front of each other and socked each other in the mouth for like hours.

 

noob that makes sense but at the same time I think it's safe to assume it's not the most literal sense of standing there cuz yeah, people don't stand still to shoot ever, not just cuz of dodging but to make sure you're lining up shots properly. In the older games anyways

 

acv dont got none of that as long as team dynamic is present. also, acv weapon system allows for acs to cover multiple ranges much easier since weapons got homogenized, so a well-made ac of any kind shouldnt have too many issues with range differences (so a sniper would be able to deal with bumrushing a lot easier)

 

I actually got the impression you were saying otherwise before? That a lot of ACs tended to be specialized towards given goals and that's why the team dynamic was so important. Like not just with weapons but also with how legs work.

[exogen]

yeah i dont mind dropping the flanking part from damage racing since it doesnt fit properly

 

i think that dodging should be included in the definition though because in reality, no two players are just gonna sit in each others faces soaking up bullets. its just not a practical definition. damage racing would then be defined as two players shooting at each other at the same time and it kinda removes the stupidity of "2 ppl blastin each other with 100% accuracy"

 

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?

 

from what i understand right now, youre saying that it isnt good in acv, but it also wasnt good in any other ac game so far, so the comparison is not relevant

 

What, wasn't good in any other game and isn't good in ACV?

 

i think it would be easier if we could drop all comparisons and look at acv by itself, but idk how thatd turn out as far as the argument goes

 

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.

 

 

 

ya in my mind "damage racing" is like literally racing someone to reach 0 AP. Obviously that's a race you wanna lose haha.

yeah exactly. In my mind damage racing is literally just getting in fools faces and shooting a bunch. You sorta could dodge a little in the old games in the sense that you try some side to sides and shit but realistically...you're not about that dodging life. You want the motherfucker in front of you to get dragged into a rock em sock em robot fight. Like those old timey boxing matches where they just stood in front of each other and socked each other in the mouth for like hours.

 

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.

 

you're not about that dodging life

 

omg rofl...dude this had me on the floor!!

 

people don't stand still to shoot ever, not just cuz of dodging but to make sure you're lining up shots properly.

 

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?

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

It sounds like dodging is hardly around in acv from what noob is saying. A lot of what I read was basically you have to avoid getting jumped at all times, and you have to avoid unfavorable matchups at all times, because there's no real way to alter the, i dont know how to phrase it but, statistical result? Logical result? That.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

the team dynamic works because while an ac could and should be able to cover multiple ranges, the leg types and the introduction of heavier weapons adds more

 

quad legs get manual aim snipers that can 2-shot tanks from across the entire map; at ranges that people cant even see the quad. tanks can use heavy weapons while moving but they move slow, so they are basically mobile turrets. they still get close and far rage weapons though. hws get a special kneeling position that increases their defense by double while being able to use a heavy weapon, and they are more mobile than tanks when not kneeling. rjs and mws tend to be the jack-of-all-trades. the only ac that would struggle to cover multiple ranges would be the LW which is used more for recon and flanking and objective killing.

 

so yeah all the acs can cover just about every range, but they each offer better positional advantages on the map (which are important for objective based games), and thats where the dynamic comes in.

 

 

 

and right now i follow you guys on the damage racing definition and by that definition i could see how in some sense, acv would be considered a damage racing game. i still dont think it is though because if i were the dude who knew he was gonna lose id high tail it for cover instead of trying to shoot the other fucker

 

my definition that i was using the whole time could probably be described as a firefight idk what the term would be. two people shooting at each other but not a straight damage race, more like a duel or something

[exogen]

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.

Edited June 1, 2013 by exogen

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

and right now i follow you guys on the damage racing definition and by that definition i could see how in some sense, acv would be considered a damage racing game. i still dont think it is though because if i were the dude who knew he was gonna lose id high tail it for cover instead of trying to shoot the other fucker

 

my definition that i was using the whole time could probably be described as a firefight idk what the term would be. two people shooting at each other but not a straight damage race, more like a duel or something

 

an exchange

 

In my mind damage racing is real specific since it's like an actual main strat for a lot of people in the older games.

[exogen]

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.

[SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD]

I know when I played at the beginning of the game's life that tanks were very good, even with their mobility handicap, because they could carry the hardest hitting shit in the game. They were actually more dangerous when they were sitting still because their turn speed was ludicrously fast when they weren't moving. I annihilated a lot of things early on that tried to flank me because I could turn faster than they could evade. You also couldn't get near a tank because of the ramming mechanic in the game. The heavier your AC, the more damage it did when you rammed someone. Tanks could kill LWs with one ram.

 

I'm not 100% sure what the argument is anymore but I felt like that was relevant in a way.

[Nomrah]

Near the end of my time with the game after I was sick of trying to make it work like the AC I was used to. So I went ahead and came up with something different but effective, It was a heavyweight biped with a kneeling pulse cannon, piledriver as well as a pulse cannon and shotty. Basically I would lead one dude after another to an enclosed location, just kept pulling them further and further into where I wanted them, kneel down with the pulse cannon and wait for them to show up around the corner. I had about a 75% success rate that I would annihilate them in under 5 seconds. Of course this worked best with randoms online, but it made the game fun. Best time I had with the game was a 3 v 1 with that AC, took out two with the pulse cannon strategy and took out the last guy who was a tank with the piledriver, hearing them over the mic the whole time made it all the more enjoyable.

[exogen]

I know when I played at the beginning of the game's life that tanks were very good, even with their mobility handicap, because they could carry the hardest hitting shit in the game. They were actually more dangerous when they were sitting still because their turn speed was ludicrously fast when they weren't moving. I annihilated a lot of things early on that tried to flank me because I could turn faster than they could evade. You also couldn't get near a tank because of the ramming mechanic in the game. The heavier your AC, the more damage it did when you rammed someone. Tanks could kill LWs with one ram.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I'm not 100% sure what the argument is anymore but I felt like that was relevant in a way.

 

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.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

i dont think its a damage racing game because in the event that a damage race were to happen (purely 1v1), itd be favorable for the person who is at a disadvantage to retreat instead of fight because engagements are very predictable. so in theory, damage racing would not occur very much due to information transparency.