EA Sports UFC 2 News Post

EA Sports UFC 2 Patch 1.07 Coming Soon, Here Are Some Details

03:09 PM - May 30, 2016 by tissues250

Geoff Harrower, A.K.A. GameplayDevUFC, has been posting quite a few details on the upcoming EA Sports UFC 2 patch on his Twitter page. While no date for the patch has been revealed, he has posted quite a few nuggets. Check out some of them below and let us know what you think!

Punches in single collar clinch will no longer interrupt transitions
Increased counter window after denied clinch attempt
Added counter damage bonus after denied clinch attempt
Reduced the damage of Thai knees slightly
Fixed bug so you can now deny a clinch attempt during the follow through of your strike
Added new logic to control when different strike types can interrupt a takedown
Fixed bug that made takedowns in some clinch positions too easy, and others too hard
Added new grapple momentum scenarios to a few ground and clinch transitions
Gave fighters who have the sitout sweep in sprawl the option to also perform the half guard escape
Tuned the submissive fighter's escape from back mount to half guard to be a bit more difficult
Changed the inputs for submission reversals on the ground to be L2+R2 to fix exploits and enforce pre-emptive denial penalty
Punish the defender in a submission for defending a chain before it appears by taking away some defensive progress
Pushing in the wrong direction to deny submission chain blocks the defending fighter from pushing in the correct direction
AI will now use submission reversals
Some fighter AI's tuned to use submissions and takedowns more or less as appropriate to their real life counterparts
Blocking and stamina management improvements for pro AI

This post will get updated as more details are revealed.

Game: EA Sports UFC 2Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS4 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 17 - View All

EA Sports UFC 2 Videos

Member Comments

# 141 SUGATA @ 05/31/16 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC


	Your view of what kind of influence game changers have is way, way off from the reality. You think you just type in our private slack chat that you want to talk to Andrew Wilson immediately and he'll pop on and listen to your problems with the combo multiplier? The effectiveness of a game changer doing that is exactly as effective as you attempting to do it on this forum.

So why no any response and answer to my questions/ideas when at the same time you are very active in useless flames (w drink like for ex) and saying about mythical "others" that think that the game is well balanced and right?

# 142 johnmangala @ 05/31/16 05:07 AM

The patch changes seem fine to me as long as punches can cause stun events just like in real life now, the clinch punches have been nerfed if they can't interrupt transitions so some balance and realism in terms of clinch damage.

# 143 SUGATA @ 05/31/16 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishingtime


	What is the multiplier number? Is it 3 strikes. 5 strikes? More? I really don't think it is the multiplier that is so bad if it is only for like 3 strikes. It is the hit reactions and unblockable follow up strikes.

The longest Combo chain allowed in the game is 5, and that doesn't apply to every combo. Other chains are shorter (said by GameplayDevUFC).

# 144 Donnie_Brasco_FR @ 05/31/16 06:59 AM

How the Ground and the clinch of Rampage is bad?
And how he doesnt have power takedown and high suplex? it's Crazy!

# 145 aholbert32 @ 05/31/16 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Find_the_Door


	No it really doesn't and it's just an absolute cop-out excuse to keep it in the game to not want to make that change. I don't mean to be so blunt but this is something that we've been asking for since UFC 1. I find it comical that things like the clinch that are actually somewhat well represented in the game are being tuned to be phased out because they don't go into the flow of the combo multiplier system. It's almost as if they're catering the entire game around this combo multiplier system that none of us here want. All these excuses of all the people that love the game aren't posting excetera excetera aren't really valid because that's all speculation. I was hoping with this game that we get something that was more of a representation of what the forum has been asking for. It seems that's not the case though. I'm not sure who they're trying to cater to because every UFC game that I've ever played since Undisputed 2009 has ended up with the same pool of 1000 players at the end of its life span that'll actually play it for the remainder after release because they have the temperament to tolerate the game. Instead we're still catering to these people that one don't post, and two abandon the game regardless of the fixes that they're implementing. Maybe someday they will understand that it's not a matter of catering to these people that regardless of what's done to the game will abandon it for other titles. It's more so about catering to the people that actually play it when stuff like Madden comes out they'll actually stick around and enjoy the title and keep it afloat. I hope I'm not violating any ToS, this is just from the heart as a longtime UFC gamer.

Hmmm....this is an interesting perspective. From a corporate perspective, why do your dollars matter more?

Casual fans and hardcore fans both spent $60 on this game. I'm sure just as many casual fans spend money on things like UT just like hardcore fans (if not more).

The point is to grow the game. So if hardcore fans are more likely to adjust and tolerate a MMA game because they love MMA, why would I target my game strictly to them. If I want to grow the playing base, I will focus on finding a middle ground that will appeal to casual fans but not totally alienate the hardcore set. That middle ground is hard to find and I've only played 1 MMA game that did that well (UD 3) and it took THQ 3 attempts to get there.

As for the "speculation" that hardcore fans arent posting, I dont agree. Have you read this board? 70-80% of the content here is people complaining about an aspect of the game. Whether its striking, ratings, movesets or a missing feature, people here consistently complain about the game. And thats fine as long as its constructive.

Now there are probably 100 people who come to this board regularly and post. Are we to assume they represent the majority of people who own the game? Are we to assume that there are hundreds of people who love the game and visit the board but never post?

# 146 aholbert32 @ 05/31/16 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUGATA


	1) some fixes are easy because similar fixes were made before by patch. It is not my thoughts, this is just facts. So why Devs can not to make it now? 2) in UFC1 Devs asked us for ideas, created special threads for this for ex about grappling. I don't see how Devs asked us about Striking ideas when Striking is the MAIN LARGEST issue of the game. Even more when we are going to post the ideas Devs are not responding at al like they don't want to hear that b/s "it is 100% physics based and not debaters" This is the DIFFERENCE and this force me to complain. Devs don't ask us about striking ideas, they think that all is right or they think they know what to do already but keep this in secret - such things was not before on old forum. 3) btw I am not Against CM b/c this allow us to anticipate opponent's next move w CM mechanics knowledge.

LOL. You didnt answer any of my questions.

Just because a fix was made before doesnt mean its easy. Priorities change. Manpower changes. What they were able to do in UFC 1 doesnt mean that they have the time or manpower to do it for UFC 2.

GPD has responded to your threads and posts before. Just because you dont like or agree with his answers doesnt mean he hasnt responded.

As for devs creating threads to generate ideas, I see a big thread at the top of this forum where GPD asked for suggestions on grappling positions. Also, he's confirmed that striking isnt likely to be touched for UFC 2. So why would he create a thread asking suggestions when its not being changed for UFC 2 and its too early for discussion about UFC 3?

# 147 Find_the_Door @ 05/31/16 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Hmmm....this is an interesting perspective. From a corporate perspective, why do your dollars matter more? Casual fans and hardcore fans both spent $60 on this game. I'm sure just as many casual fans spend money on things like UT just like hardcore fans (if not more). The point is to grow the game. So if hardcore fans are more likely to adjust and tolerate a MMA game because they love MMA, why would I target my game strictly to them. If I want to grow the playing base, I will focus on finding a middle ground that will appeal to casual fans but not totally alienate the hardcore set. That middle ground is hard to find and I've only played 1 MMA game that did that well (UD 3) and it took THQ 3 attempts to get there. As for the "speculation" that hardcore fans arent posting, I dont agree. Have you read this board? 70-80% of the content here is people complaining about an aspect of the game. Whether its striking, ratings, movesets or a missing feature, people here consistently complain about the game. And thats fine as long as its constructive. Now there are probably 100 people who come to this board regularly and post. Are we to assume they represent the majority of people who own the game? Are we to assume that there are hundreds of people who love the game and visit the board but never post?

Casual fans are important initially to get the game off the ground. The game should not tuned to cater to them though after they've already left the game clearly and are not even playing any more.

No amount of tuning is going to bring them back they have moved on to other titles to have a catch-and-release mentality when it comes to playing games that's why they are called casual gamers.

This game needs to be tuned to the hardcore player casual players will know no difference as they will play the game if they're going to play the game if they're not going to play the game they'll simply play something else that's what casuals do. It's not rocket science.

I wouldn't be shocked if the number crunchers are knocking on the door asking "why are the numbers dropping off?" The answer... the unnecessary tuning - just my assessment.

# 148 aholbert32 @ 05/31/16 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Find_the_Door


	Casual fans are important initially to get the game off the ground. The game should not tuned to cater to them though after they've already left the game clearly and are not even playing any more. No amount of tuning is going to bring them back they have moved on to other titles to have a catch-and-release mentality when it comes to playing games that's why they are called casual gamers. This game needs to be tuned to the hardcore player casual players will know no difference as they will play the game if they're going to play the game if they're not going to play the game they'll simply play something else that's what casuals do. It's not rocket science. I wouldn't be shocked if the number crunchers are knocking on the door asking "why are the numbers dropping off?" The answer... the unnecessary tuning - just my assessment.

Why would the number crunchers care though? I see complaint after complaint here about the online numbers dropping but no one can explain why that matters.

If online was pay to play and EA generated revenue from that, the online numbers would matter. Sure EA wants every owner to be happy with the game and continue to play it but that doesnt effect their bottom line. There is no correlation between the number of people who play the game months after release and the number of people who buy the next game.

This is a cold corporate way to look at it but EA already has your $60 bucks. They still want to sell the game to casuals even if its a a reduced price months from now. Making big hardcore changes to the game through patches doesnt help do that.

# 149 Find_the_Door @ 05/31/16 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Why would the number crunchers care though? I see complaint after complaint here about the online numbers dropping but no one can explain why that matters. If online was pay to play and EA generated revenue from that, the online numbers would matter. Sure EA wants every owner to be happy with the game and continue to play it but that doesnt effect their bottom line. There is no correlation between the number of people who play the game months after release and the number of people who buy the next game. This is a cold corporate way to look at it but EA already has your $60 bucks. They still want to sell the game to casuals even if its a a reduced price months from now. Making big hardcore changes to the game through patches doesnt help do that.

I don't think you quite grasp what Ultimate Team and $10,000 tournaments are intended to do.

1) Get people to pay

2) Get people to play

Both significant in the grand scheme as it builds brand loyalty, and future purchases are more likely of proceeding titles.

# 150 TheShizNo1 @ 05/31/16 08:58 AM

But if they already have your money....?

I'd imagine the people involved with that stuff already have the game and are already playing. I don't think anyone is running out and buying the game just to enter the tournament.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

# 151 Boiler569 @ 05/31/16 09:08 AM

Already thought they were going to have punches no longer stop transitions in SC in the last patch lol so not a big deal

I like being able to punish missed clinches more; hope they don't mess with the denial window, though, it's already good where it's at (or possibly a LITTLE too big of a window)

Not very impressive changes at this point but hopefully they're holding back a lot of info; or at least, they'll add trading/auction house to UT

# 152 Phobia @ 05/31/16 09:34 AM

Any idea when this patch is dropping? Since I hit division 5 I pretty much put the game down since the cheese was getting pretty hard to stop online. I say cheese because people were taking advantage of quirks in the game mechanics.

I think this is the biggest problem I have with the strike multiplier, it creates spam.

# 153 Boiler569 @ 05/31/16 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phobia


	Any idea when this patch is dropping? Since I hit division 5 I pretty much put the game down since the cheese was getting pretty hard to stop online. I say cheese because people were taking advantage of quirks in the game mechanics. I think this is the biggest problem I have with the strike multiplier, it creates spam.

I really don't wanna be a Debbie Downer...but there will always be cheese/exploits/etc. in a video game ;(

hell, that happens in real life too if you think about it lol (PEDs)

# 154 Phobia @ 05/31/16 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boiler569


	I really don't wanna be a Debbie Downer...but there will always be cheese/exploits/etc. in a video game ;( hell, that happens in real life too if you think about it lol (PEDs)

Oh trust me I know Boiler, but I find there is more in this years game than UFC 1. I enjoy this years more but I find there is more to take advantage of for the guys who like to find/use exploits.

# 155 bmlimo @ 05/31/16 09:58 AM

to bad for clinch spammers kkkk now i know why in one fight i couldnt deny a guy after i hit him

# 156 aholbert32 @ 05/31/16 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Find_the_Door


	I don't think you quite grasp what Ultimate Team and $10,000 tournaments are intended to do. 1) Get people to pay 2) Get people to play Both significant in the grand scheme as it builds brand loyalty, and future purchases are more likely of proceeding titles.

I grasp it. UT is a great way for the game to generate revenue. The difference is hardcore fans arent the ones buying UT packs. Casual fans are. Hardcore fans are more likely to grind to generate enough in game currency to buy packs.

The 10k tournaments are to promote the game and to give the hardcore community a reason to play the game longer. These tournaments dont generate revenue for EA. It actually costs them money. EA has to pay the winner 10k. It has to fly the finalists into Las Vegas and pay for their lodging. It has to rent the space at the UFC Expo to hold the finals. Its a marketing opportunity to get more people to buy the game not a revenue generator in itself.

Regarding brand loyalty, why does that matter when the UFC is the only brand that matters? I've said this before, EA couldve completely crapped the bed with UFC 2 and most people here wouldve buy UFC 3 as long as the game looked like a huge improvement. Why? Because the bottom line is hardcore fans just want a good MMA game and if a company offers one, they wont care about how much the previous game sucked.

Especially when there is no competition. Brand loyalty matters when there is competition.

# 157 ryan4889 @ 05/31/16 10:06 AM

LOVE IT!!! Finally the clinch spammers (ahem fish) will have to learn to fight realistically lol. The nerf to knees is obviously a welcome thing that badly needed fixed.

# 158 SUGATA @ 05/31/16 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	LOL. You didnt answer any of my questions. Just because a fix was made before doesnt mean its easy. Priorities change. Manpower changes. What they were able to do in UFC 1 doesnt mean that they have the time or manpower to do it for UFC 2. GPD has responded to your threads and posts before. Just because you dont like or agree with his answers doesnt mean he hasnt responded. As for devs creating threads to generate ideas, I see a big thread at the top of this forum where GPD asked for suggestions on grappling positions. Also, he's confirmed that striking isnt likely to be touched for UFC 2. So why would he create a thread asking suggestions when its not being changed for UFC 2 and its too early for discussion about UFC 3?

Stop. What questions??
I always answer to questions and i am always responsible for my words.

I see only one question in yr post:

Spoiler

Lets play a game:

Before I play this game, let me make one thing clear. THIS IS NOT BASED ON FACT OR ANYTHING THE DEVS HAVE TOLD ME.

So lets say you are appointed a gamechanger. Lets say you have great ideas for how to change something like the combo modifier. You can explain it from the technical side and in your opinion, the fix is relatively easy.

So you pitch it to the devs and their response is:

That fix (that you think is easy) would cost a significant amount of money and time to fix for UFC 2. Especially given that they may have started working on a new game, they dont plan to fix it until next game.

or

That while people on the forums hate the combo modifier, they've determined from surveys and social media that most people like the combo modifier.

or

That a higher up at EA likes the combo modifier and thinks it should remain.

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RESPONSE?

There is alot more to being a gamechanger than just identifying an issue and proposing how to fix it. Alot more things to take into consideration other than you wanting an issue to be fixed.

None of these are the reasons for why the combo modifier is in place. But they could be reasons for why features that people hate on the forums remain in the game.

The reason why you dont likely see the Gamechangers posting with idea threads is because they can take their input directly to the devs. They dont need to post in the forums first to take their idea or issues to the devs.

I dont know how many times I can tell you this. The devs read the forums. They have read your threads. They are aware of the issues in the game that have been posted about.

Just because you think a fix is easy....doesnt mean its actually easy. Just because something you want doesnt get fixed doesnt mean the devs are "ignoring" you.

It just means that they have a short amount of time and manpower (right now) and have to prioritize fixes. The majority were complaining about clinch issues. Only you (and a few others) were complaining about the color of the ps4 light or a speed bonus from sway. So....the devs are going to look are going to give priority to the issues that THE MAJORITY cares about.

My response:
1) Statistics said (here on forum, in our 8K social group) the most dont like current striking. This is a fact. If dev you want success for UFC 3 you MUST to change it. Have u as a GC done it?
2) How? I will crate a thread on forum here to make a discussion how to change striking to its best. I will resume it and bring it to devs for follow up discussion w them. Have u as GC done it?

I will done it. I will gather the most useful info and will give the ideas to devs brecause THE NEED IT and this is the cause of this forum existence!

Next. You said devs was possible to make some fixes before but now they can not. They can but they dont want because of business plan. OK! But we have our business plan too and next time we will think twice to buy or not buy UFC 3. the same logic!

Next. You said GPD answered me. Not true. I created many threads woth constructive criticism w/o complaining or blaming. Onle 1 or 2 of them were responded by GPD, and his answer was "We will try to reproduce this bug."
I spend my time to make ven more video illustrations, after 10 days i asked have u reproduce? no response... now patch spoilers: no even a word about this. This is nearly a disrespect to the author. At least this is frustrates me and force me to not loose my time on _constructive_ feedback. This is the result!

# 159 aholbert32 @ 05/31/16 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUGATA


	Stop. What questions?? I always answer to questions and i am always responsible for my words. I see only one question in yr post: Spoiler Lets play a game: Before I play this game, let me make one thing clear. THIS IS NOT BASED ON FACT OR ANYTHING THE DEVS HAVE TOLD ME. So lets say you are appointed a gamechanger. Lets say you have great ideas for how to change something like the combo modifier. You can explain it from the technical side and in your opinion, the fix is relatively easy. So you pitch it to the devs and their response is: That fix (that you think is easy) would cost a significant amount of money and time to fix for UFC 2. Especially given that they may have started working on a new game, they dont plan to fix it until next game. or That while people on the forums hate the combo modifier, they've determined from surveys and social media that most people like the combo modifier. or That a higher up at EA likes the combo modifier and thinks it should remain. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RESPONSE? There is alot more to being a gamechanger than just identifying an issue and proposing how to fix it. Alot more things to take into consideration other than you wanting an issue to be fixed. None of these are the reasons for why the combo modifier is in place. But they could be reasons for why features that people hate on the forums remain in the game. The reason why you dont likely see the Gamechangers posting with idea threads is because they can take their input directly to the devs. They dont need to post in the forums first to take their idea or issues to the devs. I dont know how many times I can tell you this. The devs read the forums. They have read your threads. They are aware of the issues in the game that have been posted about. Just because you think a fix is easy....doesnt mean its actually easy. Just because something you want doesnt get fixed doesnt mean the devs are "ignoring" you. It just means that they have a short amount of time and manpower (right now) and have to prioritize fixes. The majority were complaining about clinch issues. Only you (and a few others) were complaining about the color of the ps4 light or a speed bonus from sway. So....the devs are going to look are going to give priority to the issues that THE MAJORITY cares about. My response: 1) Statistics said (here on forum, in our 8K social group) the most dont like current striking. This is a fact. If dev you want success for UFC 3 you MUST to change it. Have u as a GC done it? 2) How? I will crate a thread on forum here to make a discussion how to change striking to its best. I will resume it and bring it to devs for follow up discussion w them. Have u as GC done it? I will done it. I will gather the most useful info and will give the ideas to devs brecause THE NEED IT and this is the cause of this forum existence! Next. You said devs was possible to make some fixes before but now they can not. They can but they dont want because of business plan. OK! But we have our business plan too and next time we will think twice to buy or not buy UFC 3. the same logic! Next. You said GPD answered me. Not true. I created many threads woth constructive criticism w/o complaining or blaming. Onle 1 or 2 of them were responded by GPD, and his answer was "We will try to reproduce this bug." I spend my time to make ven more video illustrations, after 10 days i asked have u reproduce? no response... now patch spoilers: no even a word about this. This is nearly a disrespect to the author. At least this is frustrates me and force me to not loose my time on _constructive_ feedback. This is the result!

The language barrier makes it difficult for me to understand everything you are saying but I'll try my best.

1) Your stats dont work. There arent 8k members of this forum alone. Even if there were 8k members maybe 1% of them actually post here consistently. You can see that just by reading the threads. Its the same 50-100 people posting all the time. Out of that 1%, the majority of the 1% hates the current striking.

2) Your response doesnt really make sense. In the scenario, the devs gave you 3 reasons why they cant change the combo modifier. The first reason isnt stats related. They dont have the manpower or time to fix the issues. The second one is that they have different data that shows that more people like the combo modifier. The third is a higher-up likes the modifier and wants to keep it.

Showing stats that people on the forums hate the striking doesnt change the above reasons. Creating a thread alone doesnt change the above reasons.

3) Regarding your business plan, maybe you wont buy UFC 3 because they didnt make any of your changes for UFC 2....but I bet you will. If they made significant changes to striking, added more features, more animations, more customization....damn near everyone who bought UFC2 would likely buy UFC 3.

4) Regarding GPD, he responded to your "Solve Lags" thread. He responded to your "Does Combo multiplier work on ground thread' (multiple times in fact). He responded to your "How to evade strikes on the ground" thread. He responded to your "Sway Issue" thread. That is all in the last 2 weeks.

In fact other than the patch spoilers threads, he has responded to your threads MORE than anyone elses on this site.

Not to defend GPD but the guy doesnt work for you or any of us. He doenst have to respond to you or anyone here. Regarding the sway issue, he said he would send it to the QA team to see if they can reproduce it. He didnt give you a timeline when he would have a response. ****, he didnt even say he would give you a response.

He owes you, me or anyone here nothing. I get that its frustrating that you dont get what you want when you want it but your expectations are a little high. Especially for a game that costs $60.

# 160 norml @ 05/31/16 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC


	Except that we are buffing takedowns in a couple of ways, you just haven't heard about that yet...

Looks like I might have to go back and pick up a used copy of UFC 2. Can't wait to here what was changed.

« Previous 1 2…5 6 789 10 11…14 15 Next »

More Links

EA Sports UFC 2 Patch 1.07 Coming Soon, Here Are Some Details