Armored Core: Verdict Day Discussion

[Rachis]

The shit on the shit that you were talking about.

[Aokiryu89]

[exogen]

acv isnt about dodging things because it was (supposedly) geared towards team strategy in a 5v5 layout

 

it was more about using map cover and coordinated advances rather than flying across the map and being able to dodge fire from 4 ACs + turrets

 

I am talking about dodging once you are engaged in combat. I don't mean "flying" around or dodging how you seem to mean it. The last thing I want is "dodging" like you would in FA. I mean like in AC4 and the older games where your dodging method was relative to the range you were at.

 

I don't see why team-oriented play has anything to do with what I talking about so you will need to be more specific as to why its a criticism.

 

and sure 1v1 games have their advantages, but independent layouts are not the end-all for all competition or display of skill.

 

its safe to say that there is much more dynamic to properly creating a balanced 5-man team and having the teamwork and communication to consistently win

 

I would agree with you! Team based play IS more skillful in at least one regard, because it incorporates the skill one needs in a 1v1 and builds it into various team situations. Now there is something to be said about the trade-offs of skill of team vs. 1v1, but that's not what I am getting at. In a general way, I am saying that by balancing the game exclusively for team play you lose something (1v1) and create other problems, whereas if you balance it for 1v1 you still get team play and ultimately lose nothing.

 

 

(as far as LWs and CQC goes, idk about you but i was pretty successful with being able to flank with a LW in team situations)

 

The key word you used is "successful." Success is going to be relative to who knows what tactics. I highly doubt there are many who can give me an exhaustive and systematic breakdown of the mechanics as they relate to cqc techniques. There is a difference between tactics that work or don't work in theory (assuming high level play) and those that work in everyday situations and noobs or people who either don't know high level play or can't execute it.

[The Fallen Raven]

Some slightly newish details. A small interview with Armored Core's Producer: http://www.siliconera.com/2013/04/26/armored-core-producer-making-another-white-glint-is-like-making-another-mickey-mouse/

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

dodging should not be as effective in a game that is focused on team play because it would allow players to ignore cover too much and it would make weapon choice much less diverse, which in turn makes specific weapon defenses too strong. weapon lockbox and the amount of speed given in ACV is plenty to be able to twitch dodge/juke most weapons effectively

 

you lose out on ac diversity when a game is balanced for 1v1 and then expected to work in 5v5 because everyone uses strong 1v1 acs and tactics and the game becomes a giant 1v1

leg part diversity works (in theory) in acv because a team weak to one damage type would be too easy to defeat

 

combining the first 2 issues, consider a team made entirely of LWs that are able to dodge ~75% of shots during combat.

if the game were balanced for a 1v1, they would probably not be very weak to a specific damage type, and even if LWs had a generic weakness to 1 damage type, there would have to be a weapon within that damage type that could consistently register on LWs. realistically, that is maybe 1-3 potential weapons out of 100 in an ac game

not to mention the mobility that an entirely LW team allows; it is just too strong and entirely possible if the game were to be balanced for 1v1s

 

 

the beauty behind acv is that they make it difficult to defend against all 3 defense types, meaning the weaknesses in defense typing must be covered by teammates instead of the individual themselves. weaker dodging capabilities means that certain leg types cannot cover their weaknesses through dodging alone. however acv still leaves enough room for dodging attacks and the amount of cover supplied on all of the maps leaves more than enough options for avoiding damage

[Pendragon]

Some slightly newish details. A small interview with Armored Core's Producer: http://www.siliconer...r-mickey-mouse/

 

The framerate is disheartening, but the way he talks about the concerns that the playerbase has, and how he plans on keeping the customization up to par AND making single player worthwhile is what brings me relief. I'm glad they're not just throwing it out altogether.

[Aokiryu89]

The framerate is disheartening, but the way he talks about the concerns that the playerbase has, and how he plans on keeping the customization up to par AND making single player worthwhile is what brings me relief. I'm glad they're not just throwing it out altogether.

 

With From Software who knows it could be worse or smooth by the time we get the game. Given they aren't doing much testing in the states my bets are on the former.

[exogen]

dodging should not be as effective in a game that is focused on team play because it would allow players to ignore cover too much and it would make weapon choice much less diverse, which in turn makes specific weapon defenses too strong. weapon lockbox and the amount of speed given in ACV is plenty to be able to twitch dodge/juke most weapons effectively

 

That's not true. In AC4 and before, you could dodge in the way I am saying and it but the person who used cover was ALWAYS in a better position than the one that didn't. What mattered was how the cover was placed on the map strategically, more so than cover being just anywhere. As for it making weapon choice less diverse, again I have to disagree. As in the older games (AC4 and prior) it was more about the skill associated with the weapon and not merely the weapon that mattered. You could pick any weapon you want, but it was about skill, and...isn't that how it should be? Your suggesting that we should be unable to dodge (at least like you could in the older games) which makes things more rock/paper/scissors - like gameplay. That's lame when the other option doesn't take away team tactics, but ONLY makes them stronger.

 

you lose out on ac diversity when a game is balanced for 1v1 and then expected to work in 5v5 because everyone uses strong 1v1 acs and tactics and the game becomes a giant 1v1

leg part diversity works (in theory) in acv because a team weak to one damage type would be too easy to defeat

 

 

You CAN'T lose diversity in a game made for 1v1 by definition. A game balanced for 1v1 means that assuming the game was balanced right (where tiers are at VERY least a minimal issue) then EVERYTHING (barring of course obviously contradictory builds i.e. a heavy with only one hand gun and no EN) is on equal ground. When you add more players to the mix it’s THE SAME odds because the tactics associated with each build type don't change just because there is more AC's on the field.

 

 

combining the first 2 issues, consider a team made entirely of LWs that are able to dodge ~75% of shots during combat.

if the game were balanced for a 1v1, they would probably not be very weak to a specific damage type, and even if LWs had a generic weakness to 1 damage type, there would have to be a weapon within that damage type that could consistently register on LWs. realistically, that is maybe 1-3 potential weapons out of 100 in an ac game

not to mention the mobility that an entirely LW team allows; it is just too strong and entirely possible if the game were to be balanced for 1v1s

 

Let's take your LW example; so according to you the LW can dodge 75% of the shots. This is already problematic, because you are attributing a arbitrary number to the BUILD itself and NOT the player. In theory, a better player should be able to dodge 100% of the shots!! What is the catch though, and the part you forgot? the skill of the OTHER player, be it a HW or W/E it is (it really doesn't matter in a game based on 1v1). What will be the deciding factor is how well the HW player can maneuver and aim so as to outplay the LW and visa versa. Your analysis assumes it’s the builds doing the work as an implicit assumption. What you are talking about here applies MORE in a game that is balanced for team play, as with ACV, than it does for AC4 and prior. So, you just proved my point.

 

 

the beauty behind acv is that they make it difficult to defend against all 3 defense types, meaning the weaknesses in defense typing must be covered by teammates instead of the individual themselves. weaker dodging capabilities means that certain leg types cannot cover their weaknesses through dodging alone. however acv still leaves enough room for dodging attacks and the amount of cover supplied on all of the maps leaves more than enough options for avoiding damage

 

But this is where that I think you don't understand team tactics in a 1v1 based game (the perspective I am trying to share here). In a game like AC4 if I have a LW that means that IF I get hit, I will die FAST, as opposed to a heavy which will survive longer and can hit harder. That means that all the strategic elements that are based around the facts of each build's strengths and weaknesses don't suddenly disappear just because in a 1v1 situation each build type can counter all others. Again, the deciding factor in a team situation is going to be how well the team can work together and how efficient they are. Sure, in a game that not only is balanced for 1v1 but also allows dodging of the kind I want, dodging would be part of the battle (at least more so for LW and lighter mids), but what is wrong with that? Actually, that's the way it supposed to be.

[Bakuhatsu Pengin]

to put it as simply as possible, if the game is balanced for a 1v1, then on a 5v5 level it becomes a giant 1v1 instead of an actual 5v5

 

weapon diversity - taking ac4 as an example, there is diversity because there is a very small amount of weapons to choose from and in general, the game is not that fast. if we use SL, LR or FA where there is a large amount of weapons AND the ability for "skill dodging," there is much less weapon diversity because weapons are chosen on shot velocity and tracking (in fact, booster bans had to be enacted in SL and LR just for the sake of diversity at a competitive level (ie FLEET/TP, pegs, which allowed 100% dodging if the player had skill). (the ~75% i used earlier was because skill is not quantifiable, so i used an average estimate. if you would like to use 100% as an average estimate, then you are crazy)

 

you say that a LWs weakness is that it cannot get hit very much, but then you also say that a skilled player is untouchable in a LW. make up your mind

 

 

again, as i said before, it should not be impossible to dodge, but dodging should not be so strong as to let players ignore cover or positioning, or allow players to flank heavier ACs for infinity. i dont see how you cant agree with this since you disapprove of damage racing, and strong dodging allows for exactly that

[exogen]

to put it as simply as possible, if the game is balanced for a 1v1, then on a 5v5 level it becomes a giant 1v1 instead of an actual 5v5

 

No it doesn't. I know for a fact from experience that a team that is more cohesive will decimate one that isn't. If I have a team and we are all working together we will coordinate our attacks to rape each member of the other team one by one with all our combined firepower organized, diversions and all. What you’re saying is just not true. My team, in AC4, on PS3, was number one and virtually undefeated. Hell we basically wrote the book on AC4 team tactics.

 

weapon diversity - taking ac4 as an example, there is diversity because there is a very small amount of weapons to choose from and in general, the game is not that fast. if we use SL, LR or FA where there is a large amount of weapons AND the ability for "skill dodging," there is much less weapon diversity because weapons are chosen on shot velocity and tracking (in fact, booster bans had to be enacted in SL and LR just for the sake of diversity at a competitive level (ie FLEET/TP, pegs, which allowed 100% dodging if the player had skill). (the ~75% i used earlier was because skill is not quantifiable, so i used an average estimate. if you would like to use 100% as an average estimate, then you are crazy)

 

I already addressed this issue you raise. You talking about the problem of tiers. Tiers are when some element of the game is made in such a way that it has an unfair advantage over other elements so that options are ranked or tiered. In a game that is balanced you wouldn't need part bans. Sure tiers or (imbalances) mess up diversity, but the problem doesn't and CAN'T go away in a team based game. Suppose they intend to make the game balanced for teams but instead you get some things that are too strong. And look at that, ACV is just that sort of game, as evidenced by the updates! Thus what your talking about is a problem that faces ALL games, and doesn’t pertain to the issue we are debating, namely 1v1 vs. team-based balancing.

 

 

you say that a LWs weakness is that it cannot get hit very much, but then you also say that a skilled player is untouchable in a LW. make up your mind

 

That is not what I said. I said "a LW that means that IF I get hit, I will die FAST, as opposed to a heavy which will survive longer and can hit harder." And I also said "What will be the deciding factor is how well the HW player can maneuver and aim so as to outplay the LW and visa versa." In other words, the LW if he plays right wont get hit because he has the tools to do the job (dodging) but the HW can counter the LW IF and ONLY IF he is a BETTER PLAYER! The build types and mechanics just set the stage, its up to the players to outthink each other. That's skill as opposed to a system of counter building which you are arguing for.

 

again, as i said before, it should not be impossible to dodge, but dodging should not be so strong as to let players ignore cover or positioning, or allow players to flank heavier ACs for infinity. i dont see how you cant agree with this since you disapprove of damage racing, and strong dodging allows for exactly that

 

Who ever said it would be so strong that players would ignore positioning and cover? Dodging, in a game like AC4 and prior games, was inseprable from positioning - the two can't be separated. ONLY in a retarded game like FA would that distinction start to break down. NOW, as for the cover issue. As I also said before, in a game like AC4, the person who used cover ALWAYS had an advantage over the one that didn't, and in AC4 you can dodge alot IF you have the SKILL.

[Rachis]

No it doesn't. I know for a fact from experience that a team that is more cohesive will decimate one that isn't. If I have a team and we are all working together we will coordinate our attacks to rape each member of the other team one by one with all our combined firepower organized, diversions and all. What you’re saying is just not true. My team, in AC4, on PS3, was number one and virtually undefeated. Hell we basically wrote the book on AC4 team tactics.

 

You're thinking too small. You're just thinking about being a pub warrior basically. With randoms, anything goes and usually people who play well together are going to put down guys who don't. This should be expected in a casual environment. This also doesn't require any in-depth knowledge of tactics or strategy. Team cohesion makes or breaks any strategy right from the start. What Nob is getting at is if you balance the game for 1v1's then you are going to be able to create AC's that are reasonably strong against everything. The weaknesses in designs will more easily be covered by individual talents and playstyles. Balancing a game for team play forces weaknesses upon a team. It creates the necessity to field a variety of designs to make up for the inherent weaknesses of the individual. This variety is going to allow for the kind of strategy that got introduced in ACV where you should be attacking certain designs in a specific way. You create targets. You don't have this variety in a 1v1 environment because you remove the necessity to work together. AC4 team play was largely split off into 1v1's. More advanced players would go for 2v1's, but the targets didn't really matter and the lone guy's teammate would pretty much just pick which guy he was going to shoot at. It was a big damage race. Cover was largely ignored in team-play.

[Artdeux]

We already know Exogen hates ACV so why are we even discussing this. VD is going to be more of the same and Exogen is going to hate it all the same.

[Pendragon]

Yeah, good point. I'll enjoy it regardless, since I enjoyed ACV as well, despite the various flaws it had.

 

And should it not be as good as I hope, I can always fall back to the classics.

[Rachis]

We already know Exogen hates ACV so why are we even discussing this. VD is going to be more of the same and Exogen is going to hate it all the same.

 

For the spirit of discussion ye ole' chap.

[Draxus]

This will probably be my favorite AC of all time.

 

My only concern is that history shows come AC6, it may all end. I hope FS stops with the rebooting every few games and finally sticks with something they know is working.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Duronix

[Rachis]

History doesn't mean crap with Armored Core. Armored Core 5 got more units sold than Armored Core 4 and For Answer so the interest in the franchise is turning around. It's nothing like when Armored Core came about, but if From Software is willing to make games after For Answer which was the worst selling game in the series so far then I'm not worried about the IP's future.

[KORTOKtheSTRONG]

History doesn't mean crap with Armored Core. Armored Core 5 got more units sold than Armored Core 4 and For Answer so the interest in the franchise is turning around. It's nothing like when Armored Core came about, but if From Software is willing to make games after For Answer which was the worst selling game in the series so far then I'm not worried about the IP's future.

 

good point, BALLHEAD MOTHERFUCKER!

[exogen]

[/font][/color]

 

You're thinking too small. You're just thinking about being a pub warrior basically. With randoms, anything goes and usually people who play well together are going to put down guys who don't. This should be expected in a casual environment. This also doesn't require any in-depth knowledge of tactics or strategy. Team cohesion makes or breaks any strategy right from the start. What Nob is getting at is if you balance the game for 1v1's then you are going to be able to create AC's that are reasonably strong against everything. The weaknesses in designs will more easily be covered by individual talents and playstyles. Balancing a game for team play forces weaknesses upon a team. It creates the necessity to field a variety of designs to make up for the inherent weaknesses of the individual. This variety is going to allow for the kind of strategy that got introduced in ACV where you should be attacking certain designs in a specific way. You create targets. You don't have this variety in a 1v1 environment because you remove the necessity to work together. AC4 team play was largely split off into 1v1's. More advanced players would go for 2v1's, but the targets didn't really matter and the lone guy's teammate would pretty much just pick which guy he was going to shoot at. It was a big damage race. Cover was largely ignored in team-play.

 

I would agree with your assessment. A team-based game forces a team to work both with and around build advantages/disadvantages whereas, while in a 1v1 based game, team situations while they incorporate build properties as a base of the team strategy (how that strategy manifests) you are not forced into bad matchups (to barrow fighting game terminology).

 

My issue is simply, I don't like that. Now while preference is something that is ultimately subjective, however, I can make other arguments. AC is a game which has been designed around the concept of building your own robot. ACV works against this principle because given that the choices of viable build combinations in a team situation are less than it would be in a game designed around 1v1 play, it narrows the choices down, resulting in less variety. And tiers don't go away just because the game was designed for 1v1. I for example, play LW's which get rapped in ACV from, like, one shot forcing me to play a style that I don't even like, hence one of the reasons why I stopped playing it. In general, it lessens the options. I think what most people want to do is just pick up a robot that they made and play that shit. ACV doesn't let you do that. ACV isn't Call of Duty or some other larger game; it is a small niche market. By making it exclusively team based you dwindle the options of a game with an already small fan base and undermine what has been classically the whole point of the game.

 

 

 

 

We already know Exogen hates ACV so why are we even discussing this. VD is going to be more of the same and Exogen is going to hate it all the same.

 

Well sure, but that doesn't mean we can't iron out certain issues for the betterment of our understanding.

Edited May 2, 2013 by exogen

[Mom]

Most sold armored core game of all time? Armored Core 2! Fuck ya. Helps to have a console launch title, something which probably won't be happening for ps4/xbox. Edited May 2, 2013 by The OB Express

[Pendragon]

AC2 sold the most? Aw yeah, I loved that game.

 

Nothing makes giant robots better than fighting on Mars and shooting aliens, not to mention a crashing moon that makes Majora's Mask look like Child's Play.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

THAT'S ABSURD. MAJORA'S MASK IS SO MUCH BETTER A GAME THAN ANY AC GAME IN THE SERIES THAT I CAN'T THINK OF AN ADEQUATE COMPARISON

 

THE BEST I GOT IS COMPARING A CANDLE TO THE SUN

 

YOU'RE PROLLY STILL FUCKING TWILIGHT SPARKLE THOUGH HUH YOU CREEP

[Mom]

YOU DONT KNOW SHIT MAN MARS IS WAY BETTER THAN FAIRY BOYS MY GUY.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I KNOW PENDRAGON BONES DOWN CUSTOM MADE MY LITTLE PONY DOLLS THO MY GUY

 

TALKIN BOUT "I don't date anyone else... and I have zero interest in having any kind of relationship with anyone other than the mare I adore" OKAY GUY

[Mom]

WHY'D YOU WRITE THAT HATE LETTER PENDRAGON MY GUY?

[Aokiryu89]

Strange wool.