How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

[TheGentlemanGhost]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

I haven't seen any comments from ppl saying they dislike the game style who havent played the game so i guess my view point is correct? U cant use i have seen this and that as an argument because we all have confirmation bias's. I just dont believe making a MMA sim game will sell anywhere near enough copies for us to get another. What proof does anyone have that an actual simulation mma game will sell?

Just using ppv numbers as a guide there are only a couple of hundered thousand hardcore mma fans in the us and where i am (uk) u get UFC for free with your other subscriptions so they cant even sell ufc events as ppv's outside the us which should tell you all u need to know about the hardcore mma fan base.

FIfa/NBA and all the other sports sim games began as arcade games for years and years before they moved into simulation gameplay and these are the biggest sports in the world i just dont get where hardcore mma fans think the buys are coming from if they make a sim mma game.

Dont believe the hype the UFC sells u. Just becuase they say the UFC is huge or a fighter is massive in a country, doesnt mean its true, UFC is a niche sport with a small audience(might be a big US audeince but a small rest of the world audience) and i have just as little belief that a hardcore mma simulation will sell well as u seem to have that it will.

edit: It not what the sim ppl want to hear but i believe the game may already be too sim/complex for a casual audience to just pick up and enjoy it and making it more sim/more layers of complexity will just add to the problems. Not a popular view but this is my belief

Complexity does not equate to sim, the game play and features do. Also, earlier sports games were not built to be arcade, they simply lacked the resources back then, but they were made to be a representation of the real life sport. Besides the fact the technology wasn't there, the company's were dedicated to making a simulation of the sport and we played them because they were the closest thing to sim sports we had. There's only so much that could be done in a 16-64 bit system...

But if you chose to believe the arcade style is what sells, then name me some sports games that have lasted catering to the arcade style? NBA Live is still tailing 2k pretty badly, and Live is considered the more arcade brand. MLB the Show beat out every other baseball game on the market and it's definitely the most sim. So if you really wanna stand by that, give some real examples...who's making classic arcade sports games the public loves?

Have you even followed EA UFCs FB page? Whenever they post some video, it gets completely obliterated by negative comments from people with or without the game. The screenshots are just from a top 10 KOs post on their page. You can down play it if you want, but you were the one who said you never see these comments. It's not like I agree with just how negative these are, it's just for your reference. If the game looked and played out more sim, I'm pretty sure they'd have less comments like these though.

Spoiler

Screenshot_20180603-065018.jpgScreenshot_20180603-064920.jpgScreenshot_20180603-070049.jpgScreenshot_20180603-070014.jpg

But this myth that sports games need to revolve around casuals seems to have zero fact to it. Anyone that plays sports games, whether casual or hardcore, knows there's going to be some kind of learning curve. Which is why it's always good to have as many settings to cater to the players desired style. If you want an arcade experience, you should be able to do that with various settings, but I have yet to see a sports game fail from being too realistic.

Sent from my SM-J700P using Operation Sports mobile app

[MartialMind]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

I haven't seen any comments from ppl saying they dislike the game style who havent played the game so i guess my view point is correct? U cant use i have seen this and that as an argument because we all have confirmation bias's. I just dont believe making a MMA sim game will sell anywhere near enough copies for us to get another. What proof does anyone have that an actual simulation mma game will sell?

Just using ppv numbers as a guide there are only a couple of hundered thousand hardcore mma fans in the us and where i am (uk) u get UFC for free with your other subscriptions so they cant even sell ufc events as ppv's outside the us which should tell you all u need to know about the hardcore mma fan base.

FIfa/NBA and all the other sports sim games began as arcade games for years and years before they moved into simulation gameplay and these are the biggest sports in the world i just dont get where hardcore mma fans think the buys are coming from if they make a sim mma game.

Dont believe the hype the UFC sells u. Just becuase they say the UFC is huge or a fighter is massive in a country, doesnt mean its true, UFC is a niche sport with a small audience(might be a big US audeince but a small rest of the world audience) and i have just as little belief that a hardcore mma simulation will sell well as u seem to have that it will.

edit: It not what the sim ppl want to hear but i worry the game may already be too sim/complex for a casual audience to just pick up and enjoy it and making it more sim/more layers of complexity will just add to the problems.

So your worry is that SIM would make the game more complex and that would kill off the CASUAL playerbase?

A few comments back you wrote this:

"MMA isnt that big of a sport so it has to appeal the casual audience and i truly believe having a game where u can only throw 20-40 punches a round or someone can force an outside fight by just pushing backwards or at an angle the entire fight will kill of whats left of the casual playerbase especially online."

Don't you think that's a bit contradictory?

My argument has always been that basic tactics should be defeated by basic tactics. That's SIM.

In real life, If a striker is constantly chasing me with combinations, he might be working harder by throwing, but he is using a basic pressure tactic and in real life, I can defeat that basic pressure tactic with a basic defensive tactic.... just moving away.

In the game though, aggressive players wanna be able to chase opponents down with combos but want the opponents to have to perform complicated defensive tasks to stay safe. That's what I disagree with and will always disagree with.

Chasing with combos only works on very stationary and flat footed fighters, fighters like Cowboy who will back up in a straight line, into the cage and just stay there... that's how he got run down by fighters like Nate Diaz, RDA, Jorge and Till. But "Chasing combos" can be dealt with by not backing up in a straight line, circling out, keeping that feet moving.... basic stuff. And that's how it should work in the game too.

To force a fighter to have to do more than just circle, a pressure fighter has to employ more advanced pressure tactics AND he needs to reduce his strike count.... but that is something you players REFUSE to do. Your argument? "It's boring".

It's not like the game doesn't give you tools to deal with counter strikers, you just don't wanna use those tools... You wanna use just ONE which is walk forward throwing combos, but you wanna force defensive players to use ALL their tools to stay safe.

How is that fair?

I'll let you respond before I continue.

[Sivo]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

Its a complex situation with regards to simulation and i don't want an arcade game but i believe that the fan base outside of america just isnt there for a hardcore simulation mma game that some ppl on here seem to want. i could be completley wrong but all i'm going on is how popular the ufc is in the uk which is constantly touted as one of the ufc bigger fanbases and it isnt that popular at all.

Fifa, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL are all much more popular sports than the ufc with much bigger fanbases, a much bigger audience that truly understands them as they have been around for a long time and ppl have had time to understand tactics etc. They also have a much bigger budget which allows the devs to make an accurate representation of a sport and i could be wrong but i would imagine u would need a budget that size to make an accurate representation of mma that is still fun and doesnt take aslong to learn as real mma. This is why i believe there needs to be a balance between simulation and a more fun game not necesarilly an arcade game.

With regards to comments the vast majority of ppl who play games never watch youtube videos, read forums or comment on games twitter accounts and all my points are based largely around online as i assume the the game has sold well enough and we just aren't getting the bleed over to online play.

a game becoming more sim tends to lead to the game becoming more complex but games like fifa etc u can just pick up the game and play online pretty well without learning all the complexities that are actually in the game but the base game has to stay simple in order to keep new players coming in and not getting overwhelmed by the amount of things that they have to learn while playing for the first few times

am trying to reply to everything but really am not that good at getting my point across in typed form. sorry if this is difficult to read

[Sivo]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

So your worry is that SIM would make the game more complex and that would kill off the CASUAL playerbase?

A few comments back you wrote this:

"MMA isnt that big of a sport so it has to appeal the casual audience and i truly believe having a game where u can only throw 20-40 punches a round or someone can force an outside fight by just pushing backwards or at an angle the entire fight will kill of whats left of the casual playerbase especially online."

Don't you think that's a bit contradictory?

My argument has always been that basic tactics should be defeated by basic tactics. That's SIM.

In real life, If a striker is constantly chasing me with combinations, he might be working harder by throwing, but he is using a basic pressure tactic and in real life, I can defeat that basic pressure tactic with a basic defensive tactic.... just moving away.

In the game though, aggressive players wanna be able to chase opponents down with combos but want the opponents to have to perform complicated defensive tasks to stay safe. That's what I disagree with and will always disagree with.

Chasing with combos only works on very stationary and flat footed fighters, fighters like Cowboy who will back up in a straight line, into the cage and just stay there... that's how he got run down by fighters like Nate Diaz, RDA, Jorge and Till. But "Chasing combos" can be dealt with by not backing up in a straight line, circling out, keeping that feet moving.... basic stuff. And that's how it should work in the game too.

To force a fighter to have to do more than just circle, a pressure fighter has to employ more advanced pressure tactics AND he needs to reduce his strike count.... but that is something you players REFUSE to do. Your argument? "It's boring".

It's not like the game doesn't give you tools to deal with counter strikers, you just don't wanna use those tools... You wanna use just ONE which is walk forward throwing combos, but you wanna force defensive players to use ALL their tools to stay safe.

How is that fair?

To start things of i am talking about online and from my understanding most players are happy with the single player gameplay and were happy with the state of the gameplay when the game came out. Its the online base that has driven most the game changes in patches and i worry that the added layers of complexity especially at the lowest level of online play may cause problems with ppl just giving up on online play before becoming good at it.

If u have 2 brand new players fighting each other and one of them could just hold back and just stay out of range the entire fight i dont think this would be the type of gameplay that would sell online to new players whereas being forced into a war to me atleast is the better of the 2 options as i can only imagine how difficult it is to balance these 2 things in a game without allowing an opponent to just stay out of range the enitre fight.

With regards to my comment i do worry that the base game is too complex/overwhelming but i also believe that having a game where u could only throw 40 shots a round or that the opponent could just stay out of range the entire fight without any skill would hurt the sales massively, i think both are true if that is contradictory so be it.

I understand that irl outside fighting is the easier tactic to implelement but this is a game and it has to be entertaining and i believe(which is purely my view which large parts of these discussions are) that the game just wouldnt be that popular if ppl could just implement outside fighting easier than inside fighting. I believe for entertainment it should be more difficult to implement outside fighting than inside fighting

Look at all the fight of the years awards and they are all wars. My belief is based of the fact that imo most ppl watch mma for ko's/wars and if we want to encourage players to buy the game it has to cater to that audience as that seems to be the bigger audience over the hardcore one.

I wont argue that its unfair to counter fighters or ppl who want to fight on the outside but its entertaiment and a business and if they want to get more sales they have to aim for the bigger market which i believe is the wars/ko's audience.

I'm not gonna argue on technichal info but i'm looking at it from a player who comes on in the afternoon and has seen less than 1000 players online and am worried that online is dying outside the us atleast

edit: i just want a fun game with a large playerbase i just dont believe the market is there for the game to go ultra simulation and not loose more online players. atleast in europe

[TheGentlemanGhost]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

Its a complex situation with regards to simulation and i don't want an arcade game but i believe that the fan base outside of america just isnt there for a hardcore simulation mma game that some ppl on here seem to want. i could be completley wrong but all i'm going on is how popular the ufc is in the uk which is constantly touted as one of the ufc bigger fanbases and it isnt that popular at all.

Fifa, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL are all much more popular sports than the ufc with much bigger fanbases, a much bigger audience that truly understands them as they have been around for a long time and ppl have had time to understand tactics etc. They also have a much bigger budget which allows the devs to make an accurate representation of a sport and i could be wrong but i would imagine u would need a budget that size to make an accurate representation of mma that is still fun and doesnt take aslong to learn as real mma. This is why i believe there needs to be a balance between simulation and a more fun game not necesarilly an arcade game.

With regards to comments the vast majority of ppl who play games never watch youtube videos, read forums or comment on games twitter accounts and all my points are based largely around online as i assume the the game has sold well enough and we just aren't getting the bleed over to online play.

a game becoming more sim tends to lead to the game becoming more complex but games like fifa etc u can just pick up the game and play online pretty well without learning all the complexities that are actually in the game but the base game has to stay simple in order to keep new players coming in and not getting overwhelmed by the amount of things that they have to learn while playing for the first few times

am trying to reply to everything but really am not that good at getting my point across in typed form. sorry if this is difficult to read

I'd say the vast majority of people definitely don't go to forums like this, but social media and YT is a bit different. Any one that's the least bit curious about any given game is likely going to look at one of the two at least, esp with the ads that can pop up in your FB feed and I know I'm always looking at gameplay videos of games I'm interested in before I buy usually.

Popularity really isn't anything I'd disagree with. But I don't know how popular American sports are worldwide compared to MMA or the UFC specifically. As a casual fan of other sports myself, I'm still interested in realism, and realism and sales have always seemed to go hand and hand. The only time I get the less sim game if I'm casual, is if the price is significantly cheaper like with NBA Live this last go around. Before the huge mishap with NBA Elite, most basketball fans would considered NBA Live the more arcade game and 2K the sim standard for NBA with all it's depth and game management features and etc...and the most sim NBA game (2K) has been winning due to it feeling closer to the real sport.

Sim and realism simply don't hurt sales, I just don't understand where this notion always comes from. Time and time again, we see the more sim based games stand the test of time. The foundation of every great sports series has had a good sim foundation, after that, then they make certain features or make sliders and settings so both sim and casuals can enjoy the game. I just honestly don't know were the idea that realism and sim game play over casual game play in sports games has hurt a company or franchise. Plus it doesn't have to be complex, although I do believe MMA games will always have to have a certain level of complexity simply due to all the various aspects of the sport.

[1stChrisso]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

The discussion is absolutely stupid smh! The forums had it like 300 times before and it's always the same people defending the arcade approach.

Most of the other sports game have a sim approach. Imagine you hit 10 homeruns per game in The Show, hit 50 3s in NBA 2K and 3 goals from half court in Fifa. You sprint non stop etc. Would that be fun?

We are talking about a realistic stamina system and a balance for combos. Are you kidding when you say it's implemented correctly? Both are broken atm in EA UFC 3. Heavyweights can throw 180 strikes per round. Everbody can throw combos non stop. We are on a NBA Jam stamina level atm lmao

The problem with people defending this BS is they all come with Tekken SF MK backgrounds. They are just too biased and nobody of the Devs should listen to them if they really want a sim game.

[bmlimo]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

To start things of i am talking about online and from my understanding most players are happy with the single player gameplay and were happy with the state of the gameplay when the game came out. Its the online base that has driven most the game changes in patches and i worry that the added layers of complexity especially at the lowest level of online play may cause problems with ppl just giving up on online play before becoming good at it.

If u have 2 brand new players fighting each other and one of them could just hold back and just stay out of range the entire fight i dont think this would be the type of gameplay that would sell online to new players whereas being forced into a war to me atleast is the better of the 2 options as i can only imagine how difficult it is to balance these 2 things in a game without allowing an opponent to just stay out of range the enitre fight.

With regards to my comment i do worry that the base game is too complex/overwhelming but i also believe that having a game where u could only throw 40 shots a round or that the opponent could just stay out of range the entire fight without any skill would hurt the sales massively, i think both are true if that is contradictory so be it.

I understand that irl outside fighting is the easier tactic to implelement but this is a game and it has to be entertaining and i believe(which is purely my view which large parts of these discussions are) that the game just wouldnt be that popular if ppl could just implement outside fighting easier than inside fighting. I believe for entertainment it should be more difficult to implement outside fighting than inside fighting

Look at all the fight of the years awards and they are all wars. My belief is based of the fact that imo most ppl watch mma for ko's/wars and if we want to encourage players to buy the game it has to cater to that audience as that seems to be the bigger audience over the hardcore one.

I wont argue that its unfair to counter fighters or ppl who want to fight on the outside but its entertaiment and a business and if they want to get more sales they have to aim for the bigger market which i believe is the wars/ko's audience.

I'm not gonna argue on technichal info but i'm looking at it from a player who comes on in the afternoon and has seen less than 1000 players online and am worried that online is dying outside the us atleast

edit: i just want a fun game with a large playerbase i just dont believe the market is there for the game to go ultra simulation and not loose more online players. atleast in europe

U are missing the point here...not all fighter would be able to fight outside this game is a sim game... all fighter have their strong points and weakness...
If I choose Wonderboy for example, If I choose to stay outside pointfighting in the right timming I should be able to do that... but if I try to brawl I should get wrecked because is one of his weakness. In a sim game isn’t just about gameplay... is about the real fighter strength and weakness... when u make outside fighting useless, u are turning guys like wonderboy, Gus, Lyoto, Rockhold and others just useless...

[ryangil23]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

The problem is the jab. It's too easy just to throw a jab every single time and keep alternating between a hook and a kick after it. Not to mention the tracking on hooks is just ridiculous and you get hit by them so easily when you try to use head movement no matter which way you slip.

[1stChrisso]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

The problem is the jab. It's too easy just to throw a jab every single time and keep alternating between a hook and a kick after it. Not to mention the tracking on hooks is just ridiculous and you get hit by them so easily when you try to use head movement no matter which way you slip.

Good point! But how to break the block without throwing multiple strikes? The whole block breaking mechanism was a bad design decision. I am really convinced that the idea I posted in the OP would solve many problems. The more strikes you throw the more your block should be tired. It would definitely slow down the game which is badly needed.

[Solid_Altair]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

The problem is the jab. It's too easy just to throw a jab every single time and keep alternating between a hook and a kick after it. Not to mention the tracking on hooks is just ridiculous and you get hit by them so easily when you try to use head movement no matter which way you slip.

I agree the jab is a bit OP, atm.

And I think this is having a big effect on the meta.

[bmlimo]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

I don’t think the jab is the problem... the extra speed boost for combos make the follow strikes OP...

[Paledude45]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

Again, I ask you, when hardcore or casual fans yet to buy the game see that 9 out of 10 of the gameplay videos are fights were players are effortlessly fighting like it's Killer Instinct...do you really believe that generates more customers? Judging by most comments I see from people who haven't even played the game, they're completely turned off by seeing a style like Kenetic described that he plays. They actually mock the fact that it's so fast paced.



Let's be realistic, intentionally made arcade sports games like NFL Blitz & NBA Jam are on the back burn now and trying to reemerge every 4 or 5 years for only $20 on PSN or Live because it's not what people want and doesn't have a long shelf life. The originals hold some nostalgia and are good for the gaming party environment, but they can only last so long, a realistic sim experience will always get the sales, accolades and longevity (unless licensing issues arise ).

I would love a new NBA Jam game, please bring this series back lol.

[ryangil23]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

I don’t think the jab is the problem... the extra speed boost for combos make the follow strikes OP...

There's little vulnerability off of the jab now and that's how most start their combos and then get the higher speed follow ups. The only way to try and beat it is the leaning straight but even then if they throw hooks after it you will get caught

[Solid_Altair]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

There's little vulnerability off of the jab now and that's how most start their combos and then get the higher speed follow ups. The only way to try and beat it is the leaning straight but even then if they throw hooks after it you will get caught

If you time the slipping very well, you will beat any follow up. But it's hard. Also, you have to be stationary and use the minor slip, to do it quickly enough.

[Phillyboi207]

Re: How about a balanced combo vs. block system?

I agree the jab is a bit OP, atm.

And I think this is having a big effect on the meta.

It shouldnt have break blocking ability

Other than that it’s in a good spot