|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by Dave_S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the post you quoted I don't think I called MM cheesy or say anything about his ego, I have no idea what's the dude is like.
I created this thread for the regulars of this forum that might see it. If ufc 2 gamechangers don't post much how could someone vote for them? They have nothing to go off of. I based my votes last time with input I received right before the voting happened. IIRC in application thread people posted some general information, then in different threads many of the potential gamechangers discussed their reasoning an ideas.
When I was talking about gamechangers i certainly didn't say all them. IMO the beta felt like alpha, and its immediately noticeable shortcomings didn't make me think they made any progression outside of the grappling, roster, hair movement and high/low block.
As the game progressed the clinch seems more similar to ufc 1 than it was in beta. I was really confused by all the positivity on the beta forums, no one was really talking about obvious issues that have since been fixed down through patches.
Again my list can and will probably change before ufc3 is at that point.
I don't think EA will do vote for gamechangers, this is 100% speculation. If they do I can't help but think about the people I see putting in work with suggestions, trying to teach and learn from community, actively discuss fighter movesets and game dynamics.
If EA does this again and some of the old gamechangers were good why wouldn't EA bring them back outside of voting.
At this point I almost would make my list myself 5 times, except side I don't fly or care to travel so I'd vote for Fish 5 times instead. (Not really)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the issue is that you dont completely understand the Gamechangers program. Lets talk about before the beta:
The first event we went to wasnt a troubleshooting event. We spent the two days primarily playing every mode of the game. Guys who primarily play online played Career mode and Custom Events and Knockout Mode which are completely offline modes. Playing those modes helps in a lot of ways but it doesnt help identify issues with the meta or potential exploits.
Also this is the first time that the GCers played the game. So they are learning a completely new grappling system and changes to the striking system (this is the only reason I was able to compete with some of those guys during the first event). Its hard as hell to identify exploits when you are just learning the game. With that said, GCers were able to help with changes to the clinch and adding the momentum system during that event.
The 2nd event had more free play but that doesnt mean that every issue you identify is fixed or fixable. As Zombie said, there are sometimes the devs will have a completely logical reason for (budget, causes other bugs).With that said, there were plenty of issues that guys like Zombie, Zack, Solid and MM were able to identify. Issues that you guys never saw. The 3rd event (which I believe lead to the most GCer changes including strike intercept) happened after the beta.
I hope this isnt speaking out of turn but I think the fact that Tweedy wasnt able to attend any of the events hurt the team's ability to recognize some exploits. I'm not saying Tweedy uses exploits but someone on his or Kinectic's level can look at it from a "win at all costs"/"Competitive level". I think we needed someone who was looking to break the game and look solely for exploits. We didnt start doing that until event 2 or 3.
If there is a vote, I dont think it will be for 5 people. EA is happy with most of the Gcers and their participation. I would love for them to add 3-4 more people but if they dont I think the game is in good hands.