If you could select five players...

[GameplayDevUFC]

There are some GC's I would fight tooth and nail to keep, regardless of the voting.

I'm not going to say which ones though.

Don't want their egos to get any bigger than they already are.

[aholbert32]

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.

[Acebaldwin]

I appreciate the vote of confidence in me Dave concerning the striking, but as I've said in the past and still believe in, I am 100% confident in the game changers that were picked for last game and would not want to see changes. Whatever criticism I had was in the end simply due to it's strict NDA which would not let them speak freely about many things.

As I've said that I realised that Tweedy was chosen to be GC due to his skills, yet never took part in the events, and so I would definitely suggest the idea to pick another top player that would take part in his stead.

Mind you, I would definitely love to be part of it, just to have more in-depth non-restricted NDA discussions with devs and GCs even if it would mean not taking part in testing the game at events.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jonnysmallfeet

It's down to personal opinion, I think he shows a massive bias towards one style of fighting, the style of fighting he uses on his youtube channel. He only looks at things from his point of view so to have someone like that contributing to a game is silly, would be better letting completely unbias people do it, people who want a good game for everyone. Btw the way it is nothing to do with the combo video.

Lets say thats true (from my interaction with him it isnt but lets just say). Thats why we have a team of GameChangers and a team of Devs. If he was biased towards a certain play style, we would debate and discuss any potential change that he suggested.

And thats what we do. We debate.

There are pages and pages and PAGES of discussions between the GCs and the devs about aspects of the game. Any suggested change by a GC is discussed throughly before the devs even consider it. Take Strike Intercept. It was discussed for hours amongst the GCers. Then it was taken to some of the devs. Then those devs took it to the entire team. Then it was implemented.

So one person's "biased" view isnt likely to effect the game. If anything, Martial has a similar bias to me. We both are focused on making the game as realistic as possible. Sometimes that view comes into conflict with balance and making the game enjoyable for every kind of fan (casual and hardcore).

[Jonnysmallfeet]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Lets say thats true (from my interaction with him it isnt but lets just say). Thats why we have a team of GameChangers and a team of Devs. If he was biased towards a certain play style, we would debate and discuss any potential change that he suggested. And thats what we do. We debate. There are pages and pages and PAGES of discussions between the GCs and the devs about aspects of the game. Any suggested change by a GC is discussed throughly before the devs even consider it. Take Strike Intercept. It was discussed for hours amongst the GCers. Then it was taken to some of the devs. Then those devs took it to the entire team. Then it was implemented. So one person's "biased" view isnt likely to effect the game. If anything, Martial has a similar bias to me. We both are focused on making the game as realistic as possible. Sometimes that view comes into conflict with balance and making the game enjoyable for every kind of fan (casual and hardcore).

Everyone is entitled to their opinion you could tell me until you're blue in the face, I have my view and just because a game developer and a game changer tells me different, doesn't mean I would change my opinion.

All I said is I wouldn't be comfortable getting the game if he was involved again, if he is then so be it no big deal on either side I won't miss the game and the game won't miss me haha but I will not ignore my morals for a game and I won't support a game where I feel part of the community are being belittled for having a different view to one of the game changers.

[GameplayDevUFC]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Lets say thats true (from my interaction with him it isnt but lets just say). Thats why we have a team of GameChangers and a team of Devs. If he was biased towards a certain play style, we would debate and discuss any potential change that he suggested. And thats what we do. We debate. There are pages and pages and PAGES of discussions between the GCs and the devs about aspects of the game. Any suggested change by a GC is discussed throughly before the devs even consider it. Take Strike Intercept. It was discussed for hours amongst the GCers. Then it was taken to some of the devs. Then those devs took it to the entire team. Then it was implemented. So one person's "biased" view isnt likely to effect the game. If anything, Martial has a similar bias to me. We both are focused on making the game as realistic as possible. Sometimes that view comes into conflict with balance and making the game enjoyable for every kind of fan (casual and hardcore).

I hope that some day we live in a world where these game changer discussions were available to the public, but only game changers could participate.

I don't like the NDA any more than you guys.

I think it would be amazing if everything that goes on in the slack chat was open to the public, right now, always.

But alas that's not the world we live in.