EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • aholbert32
    (aka Alberto)
    • Jul 2002
    • 33106

    #271
    Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

    Originally posted by TheBuddyHobbs
    Out of curiosity can you share your response to the CAF post that got you banned?
    I said I expected to see 20-30 DLC guys if they are arguing that they were saving the space for DLC guys instead of giving it to us for CAF. I followed that by saying that if they only released like 5-10 like theyve done in the past with Fight Night, I was going to call them on their BS.

    Comment

    • TheBuddyHobbs
      Banned
      • Apr 2013
      • 2312

      #272
      Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

      Originally posted by aholbert32
      I said I expected to see 20-30 DLC guys if they are arguing that they were saving the space for DLC guys instead of giving it to us for CAF. I followed that by saying that if they only released like 5-10 like theyve done in the past with Fight Night, I was going to call them on their BS.
      EA doesn't take criticism very well at all. Something as small as that would definitely hurt their little feelings haha. Anyways, glad that it was at least seen by somebody.

      P.S. mad respect to GameplayDevUFC for taking all the criticism in stride and answering our questions!

      Comment

      • jeremym480
        Speak it into existence
        • Oct 2008
        • 18198

        #273
        Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

        Man that's rough. You would think with EA and OS being in bed together all of these years, they would have been a little more lenient on an OS Admin.





        Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
        My 2K17 Boston Celtics MyLeague

        Alabama Crimson Tide
        Green Bay Packers
        Boston Celtics

        New Orleans Pelicans

        Comment

        • Phobia
          Hall Of Fame
          • Jan 2008
          • 11623

          #274
          EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

          :Internal discussion:

          Lead - So how many caf slots can we make available?

          Employee 1 - 50 to 100 could easily be within our space allotment.

          Employee 2 - Well technically we could allow infinite cafs. It would be up to the storage space of the console.

          DLC manager - whooaa now let's not get crazy here. We are going to make good money on micro transactions from DLC fighters.

          Lead - He makes a great point, we can't allow them to make fighters we plan to release. Only give them 10 slots that should hold them over.


          Sent from da lil phone.

          Comment

          • TheBuddyHobbs
            Banned
            • Apr 2013
            • 2312

            #275
            Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

            Originally posted by Phobia
            :Internal discussion:

            Lead - So how many caf slots can we make available?

            Employee 1 - 50 to 100 could easily be within our space allotment.

            Employee 2 - Well technically we could allow infinite cafs. It would be up to the storage space of the console.

            DLC manager - whooaa now let's not get crazy here. We are going to max good money on micro transactions from DLC fighters.

            Lead - He makes a great point, we can't allow me to make fighters we plan to release. Only give them 10 slots that should hold them over.


            Sent from da lil phone.
            It makes me sick that this might very well be exactly the case...

            Comment

            • Phobia
              Hall Of Fame
              • Jan 2008
              • 11623

              #276
              Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

              Originally posted by TheBuddyHobbs
              It makes me sick that this might very well be exactly the case...

              No question it's a fact. It's a business


              Sent from da lil phone.

              Comment

              • jeremym480
                Speak it into existence
                • Oct 2008
                • 18198

                #277
                Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                Honestly, I don't know what is worse EA limiting us to 10 CAF's or how THQ charged $2.99 (or made us go through Career Mode) for CAF's. The glitch saved that game though.

                Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
                My 2K17 Boston Celtics MyLeague

                Alabama Crimson Tide
                Green Bay Packers
                Boston Celtics

                New Orleans Pelicans

                Comment

                • aholbert32
                  (aka Alberto)
                  • Jul 2002
                  • 33106

                  #278
                  Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                  Originally posted by jeremym480
                  Honestly, I don't know what is worse EA limiting us to 10 CAF's or how THQ charged $2.99 (or made us go through Career Mode) for CAF's. The glitch saved that game though.

                  Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
                  This is worse. At least with the 3 bucks you could download other peoples fighters. Also THQ's CAF system is LIGHT YEARS ahead of EA's. I'm finally digging into it and its crazy how limited it is even with Gameface. The number of total moves is so small its ridiculous.

                  I'll give you an example. I'm trying to create John Lineker. John has this weird mohawk haircut. So I accept I wont be able to nail it right but I can get it close, right? WRONG.

                  First, Gameface doesnt have a mohawk haircut so I tried something thats close to it. Well when I imported him into the game he came out with a regular hair cut. Why? Because the game doesnt have the same haircuts as Gameface.

                  So I say "Ok, I'll just create him within the game and give him a mohawk." The problem is there are no sliders within the CAF Menu so you have to select a premade face and they all look like ****ing cartoons.

                  Here is my take on the game and the mindset I'm gonna have to take to enjoy this game....I'm gonna have to pretend that its 2009 and approach this like its UFC 2009. I'm going to have to accept that this game is extremely limited. Limited in moves. Limited in game options. Limited in features. Limited in CAF options. Limited in AI. Limited in fighters.

                  The only thing thats not limited is the graphics. The fact is I played UFC 3 for 2 1/2 years and I'm burnt out on it. I couldnt go back if I wanted to. So I'm just gonna make due and hope that the patches/DLC improve this game.

                  Comment

                  • Jdoug312
                    Banned
                    • Oct 2010
                    • 1585

                    #279
                    Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                    Originally posted by TheBuddyHobbs
                    EA doesn't take criticism very well at all. Something as small as that would definitely hurt their little feelings haha. Anyways, glad that it was at least seen by somebody.
                    Ea aren't the only ones who ban a member if they don't like what that member is saying. Maverick was clearly stubborn and close minded, but he didn't deserve to be banned just because aholbert had a differing opinion.

                    If he went in multiple threads and complained about the low number of cafs, he'd still be here. But he instead said thought that people only use cafs to fight cheaply. 60% of OS for some reason or another hate online gameplay, but they're fine to say that over and over.

                    It's easy to pile on a guy because you disagree with him; the real test of character is whether or not you give him "due process" which in the case of a forum would be banning him for an actual offense, not just because he's saying something you don't want to here.

                    Comment

                    • Weedboy
                      Rookie
                      • Apr 2012
                      • 138

                      #280
                      Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                      Originally posted by Jdoug312
                      Ea aren't the only ones who ban a member if they don't like what that member is saying. Maverick was clearly stubborn and close minded, but he didn't deserve to be banned just because aholbert had a differing opinion.

                      If he went in multiple threads and complained about the low number of cafs, he'd still be here. But he instead said thought that people only use cafs to fight cheaply. 60% of OS for some reason or another hate online gameplay, but they're fine to say that over and over.

                      It's easy to pile on a guy because you disagree with him; the real test of character is whether or not you give him "due process" which in the case of a forum would be banning him for an actual offense, not just because he's saying something you don't want to here.
                      the guy was name calling and making assumptions about people saying that offline gamers were not competitive. He also refused to try and see the other side of the argument and just responded with ad hominem and only validated his own version of fun. If i didnt know better ifd say he was a troll working for ea. reptile is still around because he presents his differing opinion in a non offensive manner.

                      Comment

                      • aholbert32
                        (aka Alberto)
                        • Jul 2002
                        • 33106

                        #281
                        Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                        Originally posted by Jdoug312
                        Ea aren't the only ones who ban a member if they don't like what that member is saying. Maverick was clearly stubborn and close minded, but he didn't deserve to be banned just because aholbert had a differing opinion.

                        If he went in multiple threads and complained about the low number of cafs, he'd still be here. But he instead said thought that people only use cafs to fight cheaply. 60% of OS for some reason or another hate online gameplay, but they're fine to say that over and over.

                        It's easy to pile on a guy because you disagree with him; the real test of character is whether or not you give him "due process" which in the case of a forum would be banning him for an actual offense, not just because he's saying something you don't want to here.
                        See thats where you are wrong. He got banned because he was personally attacking people calling them children and ignorant. See dont get it twisted. I dont ban people who disagree with me. If I did half of the damn forum would be gone.

                        You can disagree with me all you want. But dont violate the TOS and think I'm gonna give you a pass or "due process." OS is zero tolerance where you can attack the thought but not the poster. So if he left it at just saying he thought CAFs were stupid..he would still be here. He went the insult route so he's gone.

                        In the future, get your facts straight before you try to call me out.

                        Comment

                        • Jdoug312
                          Banned
                          • Oct 2010
                          • 1585

                          #282
                          Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                          Originally posted by aholbert32
                          See thats where you are wrong. He got banned because he was personally attacking people calling them children and ignorant. See dont get it twisted. I dont ban people who disagree with me. If I did half of the damn forum would be gone.

                          You can disagree with me all you want. But dont violate the TOS and think I'm gonna give you a pass or "due process." OS is zero tolerance where you can attack the thought but not the poster. So if he left it at just saying he thought CAFs were stupid..he would still be here. He went the insult route so he's gone.

                          In the future, get your facts straight before you try to call me out.

                          Pretty sure (nah, 100% positive) that I stated "due process" in a forum setting would be not banning a member unless they committed an actual offense. Therefore, no one should "violate the TOS and think I'm gonna give you a pass or 'due process.'" so why you felt the need to toss that in I can only wonder.

                          Originally posted by gramabaggins
                          Everyone plays my player..DUH...lol... but seriously thats just ignorant and short sighted to think just because you dont play my career or just because you like to create a whole bunch of fighter's everyone does.
                          Originally posted by aholbert32
                          Plenty of people play the way he does. Also slow down with the personal attacks before you get banned.
                          According to your attack the thought, not the person philosophy, you gave a threat to this guy for no reason. He didn't say "everyone who disagrees with point A is ignorant." He said it's ignorant and short-sighted to think that. Unless I'm mistaking, that's attacking the thought, not the person. Where's the consistency? He's not even the dude who got banned, but he was wrong by you. I have no stake in keeping maverick or anyone else around, I have a stake in making sure that the rules for being banned aren't changing on the whim of 1 person because they disagree with what the other person is spouting.

                          Comment

                          • aholbert32
                            (aka Alberto)
                            • Jul 2002
                            • 33106

                            #283
                            Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                            Originally posted by Jdoug312
                            Pretty sure (nah, 100% positive) that I stated "due process" in a forum setting would be not banning a member unless they committed an actual offense. Therefore, no one should "violate the TOS and think I'm gonna give you a pass or 'due process.'" so why you felt the need to toss that in I can only wonder.





                            According to your attack the thought, not the person philosophy, you gave a threat to this guy for no reason. He didn't say "everyone who disagrees with point A is ignorant." He said it's ignorant and short-sighted to think that. Unless I'm mistaking, that's attacking the thought, not the person. Where's the consistency? He's not even the dude who got banned, but he was wrong by you. I have no stake in keeping maverick or anyone else around, I have a stake in making sure that the rules for being banned aren't changing on the whim of 1 person because they disagree with what the other person is spouting.
                            I felt the need to toss that in because it doesnt make any sense. Due process doesnt even apply to this forum. It was a useless phrase you used and I tossed it back at you.

                            See again you dont know what you are talking about. See I'm an admin and I moderate the forums. Thats not a threat...its a warning and there is a difference. He was toeing the line with the "ignorant/short sighted comment." So I gave him a warning. I didnt ban him because it wasnt a violation but if I notice someone getting close I will issue a warning.

                            But anyway, why the **** am I explaining this to you? I'm just gonna keep doing what I have been for years. If you have a problem with it PM Steve. LOL. Anyway back to impressions. Sorry about this detour.

                            Comment

                            • Jdoug312
                              Banned
                              • Oct 2010
                              • 1585

                              #284
                              Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                              Originally posted by Weedboy
                              the guy was name calling and making assumptions about people saying that offline gamers were not competitive. He also refused to try and see the other side of the argument and just responded with ad hominem and only validated his own version of fun. If i didnt know better ifd say he was a troll working for ea. reptile is still around because he presents his differing opinion in a non offensive manner.
                              I'll give you this: dude def seemed like a troll, whether or not he actually was. But he could've just been stubborn, and you can't force open-mindedness on folk, I think everyone knows that in 2014.

                              But at this point, this discussion isn't about the game anymore, it's about OS policy.

                              On the game side of things, I'm still 50-50 on whether I want to buy new or not. Def some glaring omissions that I hate, but idk if I can afford (or even want to) wait an extra few days to get the game, considering that I'm in 2 separate leagues that are having their 1st events shortly after the game releases. Still need time to get used to the retail game before I dive in to league play.

                              Edit- Aholbert, I would think explaining your actions to avoid looking like a tyrant to members would be a worthwhile endeavour. As for threat vs warning: "Move and I'll shoot you dead" is quite different then "I have a gun that I'll use if I need to."
                              Last edited by Jdoug312; 06-13-2014, 08:33 PM.

                              Comment

                              • TheBuddyHobbs
                                Banned
                                • Apr 2013
                                • 2312

                                #285
                                Re: EA UFC Retail Impressions Thread

                                So about that game UFC...

                                Comment

                                Working...