Re: NEW Stand-up STRIKING mechanics for EA UFC 3 (concept, ideas, discussions)
As I said (again), I'm fine with Analog Crushing. And I don't think physics would explain very well how strikes landing at the same time should result in one of them not having any effect. We are not plastic toy soldiers without joints. The guy dealing more damage will already win for dealing more damage. There is no need to make the other strike not count.
As to your efforts into building more details to this model, I can't tell you much, unfortunately. I'll put my *** on the line and tell you that (hope this isn't inpolite towards GPD) we are watching it and that GPD asked me about this discussion, but I don't know if had (or will have) the time to read the details. And please do not take this as proof that they changing the striking a lot. GPD has taken interest in suggestions that were not scheduled at all for the next game (at the time).
I suppose I can also tell you that I have my own solution to this striking exchanges problem, which was actually developed in discussions with other GCs a long time ago (before EA UFC 2, before the first event). It was very detailed then and is even more now.
So, in summary, for the viability of your extra work:
* GPD has an interest in the discussion and in your view of it, but I dunno if he'll be able to read all the details, or when... the ideal would be for him to talk to you about it. The eyes of devs seem likely, but not guaranteed (that's mu interpretation, anyways).
* Even if he does and even if he likes your idea, they might not be doing that kind of change to the game. This is what happened to me in UFC2.
* And even if they read, discuss, like your idea; and are making this kind of changes to the game; they may still prefer another idea on the same topic, such as the one that's been circulating among GCs for a long time, or yet another one they come up with.
That's what I can tel you to try and inform you as much as I as I can, so you can make up your mind in regards to whether not not going into more detail for your model.
I wish I could tell you ours (GCs). Maybe you'd agree with it.
As I said (again), I'm fine with Analog Crushing. And I don't think physics would explain very well how strikes landing at the same time should result in one of them not having any effect. We are not plastic toy soldiers without joints. The guy dealing more damage will already win for dealing more damage. There is no need to make the other strike not count.
As to your efforts into building more details to this model, I can't tell you much, unfortunately. I'll put my *** on the line and tell you that (hope this isn't inpolite towards GPD) we are watching it and that GPD asked me about this discussion, but I don't know if had (or will have) the time to read the details. And please do not take this as proof that they changing the striking a lot. GPD has taken interest in suggestions that were not scheduled at all for the next game (at the time).
I suppose I can also tell you that I have my own solution to this striking exchanges problem, which was actually developed in discussions with other GCs a long time ago (before EA UFC 2, before the first event). It was very detailed then and is even more now.
So, in summary, for the viability of your extra work:
* GPD has an interest in the discussion and in your view of it, but I dunno if he'll be able to read all the details, or when... the ideal would be for him to talk to you about it. The eyes of devs seem likely, but not guaranteed (that's mu interpretation, anyways).
* Even if he does and even if he likes your idea, they might not be doing that kind of change to the game. This is what happened to me in UFC2.
* And even if they read, discuss, like your idea; and are making this kind of changes to the game; they may still prefer another idea on the same topic, such as the one that's been circulating among GCs for a long time, or yet another one they come up with.
That's what I can tel you to try and inform you as much as I as I can, so you can make up your mind in regards to whether not not going into more detail for your model.
I wish I could tell you ours (GCs). Maybe you'd agree with it.
Comment