Recommended Videos
Collapse
Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
Collapse
X
-
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
Sure. We only have 28 pages of people correcting the stat issues already.
It's totally perfect. /s
These stats are allllll over the place. Lets be real. A lot of them make no sense. You can easily see certain fighters with missplaced stats to either buff them into "A tier" or nerf them into "c tier". The entire "tier" system warps the fighters stats away from realsim and towards some wierd artificial "balance" which really doesnt balance anything.Last edited by Haz____; 02-17-2018, 06:12 PM.PSN: Lord__Hazanko
Just an average player, with a passion for Martial Arts & Combat SportsComment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
Robbie Lawler has better footwork stats than Tyron Woodley. (90 v 85) if anything it should be switched.
Woodley was primarily able to KO Lawler with his footwork. Not to mention it was the crux of his strategies against Wonderboy and Maia.
Comment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
Mickey Gall and Erick Silva have better footwork stats than Woodley. (86 and 89 v 85).
I am sure there are even more discrepancies, from the stats thread, I may have forgot.Comment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
I think footwork is just lunge speed or distance or something, I don't think it affects general movement speed.**** off, Nugget7211 - GPD, 2017 & 2018
Internet Hero - Jack Slack, 2018Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
To be fair, there's like a 3-4 page argument about RDA in there and a lot of discussion/duplicates as well. It's not 28 pages of nothing but corrections.Sure. We only have 28 pages of people correcting the stat issues already.
It's totally perfect. /s
These stats are allllll over the place. Lets be real. A lot of them make no sense. You can easily see certain fighters with missplaced stats to either buff them into "A tier" or nerf them into "c tier". The entire "tier" system warps the fighters stats away from realsim and towards some wierd artificial "balance" which really doesnt balance anything.
I personally think the stats are like 90% fine, and considering they have to get UFC approved, there is always going to be some weird **** like champions and popular fighters getting unrealistically good stats, and some "C tier" fighters being unrealistically bad to make said champions and popular fighters feel really, really good. But it is a significant improvement over 2, in my opinion.**** off, Nugget7211 - GPD, 2017 & 2018
Internet Hero - Jack Slack, 2018Comment
-
**** off, Nugget7211 - GPD, 2017 & 2018
Internet Hero - Jack Slack, 2018Comment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
This is very true.
Maybe striking speed should become just speed and govern such things.
Or add movement speed by itself.Comment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
There's some more too, like Rousey being more accurate than Pennington. (86 v 84)Comment
-
Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
Sure. We only have 28 pages of people correcting the stat issues already.
It's totally perfect. /s
These stats are allllll over the place. Lets be real. A lot of them make no sense. You can easily see certain fighters with missplaced stats to either buff them into "A tier" or nerf them into "c tier". The entire "tier" system warps the fighters stats away from realsim and towards some wierd artificial "balance" which really doesnt balance anything.
No one said they were perfect. Your comparison to ufc 2 is absolutely wrong. You have absolutely no idea how the stats were created. You are guessing and your guess is wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProLast edited by aholbert32; 02-17-2018, 06:35 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by MoJust once I'd like to be the one they call a jerk off.Originally posted by MoYou underestimate my lazinessOriginally posted by Mo**** ya
...Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Why are there no Classic versions of fighters?
To be fair, there's like a 3-4 page argument about RDA in there and a lot of discussion/duplicates as well. It's not 28 pages of nothing but corrections.
I personally think the stats are like 90% fine, and considering they have to get UFC approved, there is always going to be some weird **** like champions and popular fighters getting unrealistically good stats, and some "C tier" fighters being unrealistically bad to make said champions and popular fighters feel really, really good. But it is a significant improvement over 2, in my opinion.
Wow. This person has no inside info on how stats were developed but he has it pretty much right.
They aren’t perfect. There are errors which happens when you are creating 2k plus stats. The ufc has input which changes some things. With that said, they aren’t even close to ufc 2.
Also the 28 page thread is a mix of legitimate changes, some mistakes being pointed, people being biased about their favorite fighters and some requests that are flat out wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProComment
-
Comment

Comment