Talk:Armored Core/Archive 1

To The One Vandalizing This And All AC Pages With Improper Links
It's come to my attention that someone from www.armoredcoreonline.com has been posing as the "world's largest ac community" when it is both not, as there are much larger in Japan, as well was only made one or two months ago.

This website is meant to deliver facts. The fact of the matter is that ACO is official the Ubisoft Armored Core for Answer Forum. Using Wikipedia to advertise your website beyond its proper placement is vandalism, and will be reported if you do not cease and desist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extraxi (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention: All
I am going to go through this article and cut out the crap from it, as it needs serious work. Any comments, questions or concerns? --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As it is, I do have a concern about the removal of the parts lists. While I agree that it was bloated and overloaded in its former context, I also believe that the decision to completely remove the major components introduced subsequent to the Armored Core 1 sequence (such as Overboost(introduced in AC2), Exceed Orbit Cores(AC3), and Kojima Technology(AC4)) may be generalizing too much. It's probably worth it to find some sort of middle ground. Theorycreation (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since the article is about the series as a whole I felt that only the shared part categories were pertinent. Also, the new part categories require a bit more explanation than things like FCS which can be explained in just a few words and Head which is self-explanatory. I'm not entirely opposed to adding the categories you suggested but I think the proposed edits be posted here in the talk page before adding them to the article itself. Ninety (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

General Discussion
Isn't there a DS version due out soon?

No. Nothing has been confirmed attributing to an Armored Core for the DS.Red13utterfly 5:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The main page is full of bullshit, this needs sorting out. [D2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.29.160 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What's a Poke of Doom?
Someone is using specific jargon without further explaining. (see Fan Classifications, Ninja). So, what's that move? Kobayen 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The poke of doom is what happens when you use a laser blade on a quad or tank. The laser blades do damage intermittently throughout their swing, 4 times if I recall correctly. With other leg types, the blade is swung so it only inflicts its damage at most 2 times. However, tanks and quads use a "poke" motion so if used properly the blade will hit with all 4, doing immense damage. When used with arms that have high energy supply and a powerful blade(the MOONLIGHT is typical), it is capable of annihilating light ACs in a single poke. A similar manuever is also typical on tanks. They equip an overboost core and design it to be able to inflict a massive amount of damage from several weapons simultaneously. Then they OB at their opponent until they are touching them and fire.--Soban 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan classifications

 * This section is entirely original research. I'm removing it.  Reliable sources are required for such things.  Wickethewok 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New parts in AC4 and abilities?
So I gather most of us have seen the new trailer videos (probably the streaming one) for AC4. Here's what I noticed:

Its all about that nice new flagship mech, the one with the "angel wing" look. It apparently reenters the atmosphere from orbit and uses some special and freaking huge extension boosters to brake its final touchdown from orbit, then drops them. This AC obviously is made of all new parts. From the looks of it, it is a medium-heavy to heavy weight AC. And its flying around like a light plane with its boosters.

This display of sustained boosting flight at a rather high altitude, combined with a few frames of footage of the front of the core when powering down the boosters, suggests a new core type, not just a new core model. When the booster was powering down, large pieces on the front of the core retracted and closed up. I'm guessing there's a new "aerial" or "jet powered" or "sustained flight" etc class of core. The flight mode is probably a special funciton of the core activated with the R3 button. I guess the AC was packing a good generator and radiator combination, but the new core type/boost flight system must have excellent cooling parameters, or else they've relaxed some of the parameters on boosting flight throughout the whole game. It looks like it could sustain flight nearly indefinitely, or at least much much longer than the best heavy biped setup with, for example, the GULL booster in AC: Nexus.

Next: the angel wings. At first I thought they were the special flight-enabling back parts. But no... they're just a DUAL BACK PART of SIX ENERGY CANNONS... oh-kay... which it fired in mid air while boosting ... oh-kay ... in addition to use of the spherical energy shield at high altitude in mid air. Generator/cooling stats system must be different here!

Finally, its other non-energy weapon looks roughly like a regular rifle, but apparently has the attack power of a sniper rifle and the firing rate of a machine gun. And can also be used as a missile intercept system ...? Given the energy drain of sustained boosting and giant back laser cannons, I'd want to pack something ballistic too... its just that all this put together seems very... broken, compared to the restrictiveness of prior AC games.

If From decided to make the game more "fun", then I'm all for it. I'm just afraid that AC will end up being just one of the harder bosses, and is probably just another CPU-only overweight, OP-I fat bastard. Eh, what can you do? Its Armored Core ... 1 - The boosters part I didn't see, I must have seen a shorter video, but it might be like in AC2 where they show in the first movie the AC's dropping from ships in space Starship Trooper style, it is shown in the beginning movie, but you don't actually do it.
 * OK, all of this has probably been answered, but I'll put it up anyway for people who are reading this without any knowledge of AC4

2 - In AC4 if your gen is good enough, you can fly almost forever, OP-I style, but with more restrictions, though. And the shield is built in to all AC's, it is a shield against solid weapons, but less effective against energy. Also, they scrapped the heat system, so no more over heating or anything. Finally, the cherry on top is that your gen doesn't recharge anymore, it regenerate at the same rate as normal, but at low levels, your stuff doesn't work. This explains the cannons, which are also karasawa style - very heavy, but you hit something and it dies very fast. Think the string cannons from AC3 only actually useful.

OP-Intensifier section edit
I am editing the first few sentence of this paragraph:

Since the removal of PLUS and OP-I in later games, players had to improvise using other optional parts and using various equipment to "imitate" the enhanced abilities. As for being overweight, it is possible to go beyond weight limits, but the increased weight will slow down an AC's speed greatly, depending on the distance from those limits. It is best to stay near or far below the weight limits for the best performance of the AC.

Whether the player has to improve or not is irrelevant. This part of the paragraph is not entirely netrual, and alludes to much into "OP-Intensify limits your playing ability," which is not an acceptable clause in wikipedia. Red13utterfly 9:16PM, 6 December 2006

Left Arm Part Section
This area seems a little biased to me..."It's also quite possible to lock-on to 2 enemies at a time. The benefits of ranged weapons have made blades nearly obsolete, but not useless."

1- I don't recall being able to lock onto 2 enemies at once with anything other than missles in any game in the series.

2-Because of the placement of controls (both fire buttons and the boost are on triggers), it typically requires more dexterity to wield two guns at once (as opposed to 1 gun and a laserblade), especially if a person is using different weapons (ex- shotgun and machine gun), which can result in players standing still to try and use both weapons effectively.

3-While it is noted that blades only work at close range, it is not mentioned that most AC's boost forward a bit when before the blade is swung, closing the distance between it and it's target.

Or... maybe I don't know what on earth I'm talking about. Either way, could someone check this?

168.170.197.140 13:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

With duel weilding any two guns, as long as there were two targets on opposite sides of the sightlock, an AC can use the left gun to shoot at the left most target and the right gun to shoot at the right most target. Only with the multitargeting FCS I add. And this is 100% true in Nine Breaker and Last Raven. Divenous (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds a bit funny fuck me as well. Clean it up a bit, but for blading is involved? In the older Armored Cores, you do dash forward when blading on the ground. I don't know about AC4: Red13utterfly

Alright, I'll try to make it more neutral since no one else has done anything, wish me luck. 24.58.114.90 02:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gah, I'm not very good at this... the article should also mention the ability to (at least in earlier games) to fire an energy wave from a laserblade, increasing it's attack range (but from what I've seen the damage dealt is decreased.) could someone with an ounce of skill add that in somewhere? 24.58.114.90 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadrupedal Spiders
Spiders have 8 legs. Please change the description for 'four legs' in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.50.67 (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Major page revisions
In an attempt to address the myriad issues this article had, I've made an extensive amount of changes to content and formatting. What follows is a summary of these edits.
 * 1) Removed all information that was extraneous or written in an in-universe style. The "Description" section was especially bad as it was almost entirely composed of primary sources in addition to being far too long for the article. From Video game article guidelines: "'Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry. Readers should be presented with a concise overview of the game's plot and gameplay. It is also important for readers to be able to learn how the game was developed and its commercial and critical reception. Because the encyclopedia will be read by gamers and non-gamers alike, it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia.'"
 * 2) Rearranged the article to be more consistent with the styles of similar video game articles.
 * 3) Removed a large amount of unsourced claims/original research. Anything that I felt could have a source I left in the article so that sources may be added at a later date.
 * 4) Removed all external links other than the official FROM SOFTWARE AC site. Both the links to Armored Core Universe and the one to Armored Core Online are unacceptable as they are fansites authored by an unrecognized authority (see: Links to be avoided). It is generally inappropriate to link to forums, official or otherwise. In addition, both sites host materials that are possibly copyright-protected and are likely being used without permission from the holder of the copyright.
 * 5) Suggested that the list of AC games be split into its own article to reduce the clutter on this page. The new page would be able to go into more detail on a game-by-game basis (to a degree) than this page can. This page is meant to be an overview of the game series as a whole and not a description of the games that make up that series or the intricacies of game elements.
 * 6) Various other minor edits.

Issues that still need to be addressed:
 * Needs third-party sources and citations. Add sources as applicable and be sure to provide in-line citations.
 * This edit needs to be looked over by others and discussed here in the talk page to determine its quality.

For everyone that has been switching the page back and forth between revisions because of the external links dispute refer to number 4 of this section as well as this article: Edit warring.

Jmodum90 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the article issues template which seemed almost as long as the article. If anyone wants to re-tag the article please explain your reasons here or at least in the edit summary. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had left the article issues at the top as some were still unresolved after the page revision. Admittedly, most were unnecessary after the pruning. I believe that the Template:Unreferenced should remain as no sources have been provided yet. Ninety (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)