Re-doing fight scoring - Official Discussion

[gwad12345]

The thing is, it may be super boring to watch, but unless that the opponent can get some good worthy shots inbetween those takedowns. The person who executes them is taking the fight where he wants to and controlling it, earning the deserved victory... regardless of how boring it was.

This is true. This isnt really a problem in this game though because the game engine is very if not too sensitive to referee standups, if youre not passing guards, landing shots or trying for subs youll get stood up.

[Guest]

Yea I honestly haven't seen any real problems in the engine aside from sub spamming, mostly just people bitching about someones tactics that they weren't prepared for.

[Guest]

There have been some truly terrible decisions based off ground stuff. Check out this one. My fighter is Davison. He won the fight, but had no business winning even one round. He landed fewer takedowns, fewer strikes, was on the bottom almost the entire fight, and just had a few more improve positions. Here are the stats:

 

http://i61.tinypic.com/11186j4.jpg

[generalmills]

I don't agree with this (or what I understand it to be). But, I understand the decision has been made to change the current system. I personally like to see damage guys get rewarded. Hopefully a fair system will come out for both sides of the debate.

[jebba]

So I've been playing the game for a few years now, though I rarely make board posts. I agree that tweaking the current system is a better option then puting a whole new one in place. Although I seem to be in the minority here, I am absolutely opposed to having the judges be biased toward certian styles. Is it more realistic, probably. But inconsistent judging is one of, if not the biggest issue in real MMA today. Do we really want to recreate the screwed up parts of real MMA in the game or have a game where that BS doesn't happen (as often at least). Posting the judges biases the day of the fight is still problematic because of the world wide nature of the game. If my fight is at 6am my time and the bias isn't posted until the night before I may not even have a chance to adjust. I like to set my sliders a week or so out and make adjustment once closer to the fight so if things come up in RL I at least still have a strategy set even if I can't log on the day or two before a fight.

 

As for the ground game, I am speaking as someone who likes ground fighters. the +10 for attempted subs is WAY to high. I could probably be accused of spamming subs in some of my fights, but that is because I HATE decisions. Trying hard to finish on the ground shouldn't be penalized; I don't understand why being very aggressive on the feet should be praised, but the same level of aggression on the ground be looked down on! I think there should be differentiation between threating with a sub and an actual attempt. As it is throwing your legs up for a triangle is viewed the same whether you lock it in and really go for it, or if you throw them up and they just get shrugged off. I don't think threating with a sub should get many points, but an actual attempt, even if it is defended should be scored more than it is now. Other than real sub attemps, I agree with, I think it was Mentors comment, that attempts in general shouldn't be counted much. As for spamming subs, this brings me back to the difference between threats and attempts. High level grapplers, in RL MMA, may only really go for a couple of attempts per round, but they threaten with many more. threatening with a sub can make an opponent have to adjust which can open other opportunities. It doesn't take much energy as they aren't really putting much into it, unless the chance to really sink it in comes. As for takedowns. a successful takedown should be scored in conjunction with how long dominant position is maintained or how much damage is done once the fight is on the ground. This will lower the incentive to try and win decisions with a bunch of takedowns and nothing else. Over all I think on the feet/clinch damage should be the main factor in scoring, but on the ground it should be balanced with positional control and actual sub attempts.

[nandorossi]

Just because of Jebba's post I think Mike should send out a PM to every user explaining that there is changes being done to the scoring and have a link to this thread so we can get the opinions of those who dont always post on the forums. This has already been a great discussion and there are a lot of factors for Mike to think about. Obviously the scoring is an issue and needs an update, but I think everyone not just the forum users should get a chance to state their opinions. I talk to two other managers in RL and they dont use the forums or go to the forums for anything so those two have no idea whats going on with this. This will be a major change and it will affect everyone. I know off topic sort of but I think that it would help.

[Guest]

You know, I just checked out that fight and while on paper you would definitely think block won, but I read the whole fight and I think you won the first round, you managed 2 sweeps and throughout the fight your shots actually did damage, whereas a lot of his didn't (he did land some good ones though) It was a SPLIT decision and it really could have gone either way, but I don't think the reality of you winning that first round was wrong..

 

There have been some truly terrible decisions based off ground stuff. Check out this one. My fighter is Davison. He won the fight, but had no business winning even one round. He landed fewer takedowns, fewer strikes, was on the bottom almost the entire fight, and just had a few more improve positions. Here are the stats:

 

http://i61.tinypic.com/11186j4.jpg

[poraan]

There have been some truly terrible decisions based off ground stuff. Check out this one. My fighter is Davison. He won the fight, but had no business winning even one round. He landed fewer takedowns, fewer strikes, was on the bottom almost the entire fight, and just had a few more improve positions. Here are the stats:

 

 

Second round

 

Davidson: Takedown to side, maybe 4 hitted gnp from side, improve to side and sub attemp. Was over 3 minutes on top this round.

 

Block: takedown to guard, improve to half guard and about 3 gnp from guard.

 

Davidson won second imho.

 

 

 

Block really won that whole fight and even commentator scored 29-28 for him and said "I think Block has won this one but let's see what the judges have to say."

 

Maybe just bad judges.

[minark]

I think the idea of letting orgs choose their judges is borderline insane. Keep it randomized like it is now. If we let the orgs decide, it's going to turn into a big exploit. Small org owners will select judges that best fit their or their alliance mates fighters and in the end we're going to have a huge problem with people running to the forums crying about how they got bad judges or the org owner screwed them with the judges and every other excuse they can.

[Mentor]

Yea I honestly haven't seen any real problems in the engine aside from sub spamming, mostly just people bitching about someones tactics that they weren't prepared for.

 

For the most part that is what i think.

 

Also can Mike please post the current formula for rating fights so that we can compare how much of a change is being proposed. It is hard to really talk if we cannot see the difference

 

 

I think the idea of letting orgs choose their judges is borderline insane. Keep it randomized like it is now. If we let the orgs decide, it's going to turn into a big exploit. Small org owners will select judges that best fit their or their alliance mates fighters

 

This can EASILY be bypassed. You can easily put a regulation which stops org owners for continually changing the rules (for example a 6 months period where he cannot change anything). Also there can be a "clause" included that if an org owner changes the rules, any fighter is allowed to activate a release clause and simply leave. Org owners wont simply be able to change the rules every week to fit their buddies preferences.

 

You guys are very fixed on your positions regarding flexible rules. We want a game which gives us options. There are always ways around asshole owners, but there is noway you can go around a fixed rule set.

[shortfuse122829]

Please don't slaughter me for this !!!!

 

I'm new to the game and don't have a clue what I'm doing... but I have a mentor who is great...

 

Could an issue be that the old timers of the game just know it too well and can look at pretty much any fighter then train and sort sliders to win? That they have systems set up which they KNOW work?

 

That aside... "styles make fights" and it would be good for matchmakers to have access to extra stats which will allow them to match more effectively, Then its up to the manager to work it out.

 

I don't have much of a clue about the game, but I know object orientated programming to an advanced level. This game is HUGELY complex... and I'd love just a little peek at some of the code to shake my head in bewilderment.

 

So my opinion (and as I said... please don't slaughter me) is that changes need to be made regularly to keep the game fresh and keep everybody on their toes... and remember guys... (maybe I'm wrong) but ultimately this site is a business and things need to be done regularly to keep it profitable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll sit back now and wait for a torrent of abuse....

 

 

Constant changes wouldn't really work either tbh. This game has had man different engines over the years. Everything from 100 counter to body gassing, to leg kick and sub-spammers in the early years. The guys who have a philosophical understanding of how the engine works are always going to be able to adapt to any changes that get made. That's why I don't get all wrapped around the axle on these threads. I let my opinions be heard and then I usually will sit back and let it play out and then just start scouting fights until I think I have a grasp on the new engine. Guys like LT, CK and others who have a grasp on the engine will always be able to evolve w/ it and find success to the highest degree.

 

I am not really sure why the discussion has turned into a "types of judges" discussion. I think that's kinda lame if I'm being honest and would hate to see orgs be able to pick their types of judges. I would probably avoid staying in orgs full-time altogether if that were to happen and just pick & choose super-fights as a I float around a FA.

 

I still stand by my earlier statements that changing the scoring before fixing certain engine things is a bit futile. If changes are made to the engine, it could change everybody's mind about this discussion. It might not, it might just reinforce these ideas but in the past I feel that pretty big engine changes have changed the landscape a little bit.

 

In my personal opinion, this is the closest we've ever been to having a well-rounded and decent engine. Certain era's, specifically 100 counter and body gas were just utterly awful and this game was swayed towards being more of a kick-boxing game then an MMA game for a long time. The last engine changes w/ counter TD and stuff really changed the landscape and made grapplers relevant but it also probably made them a tad over-powered (& this is coming from 1 of the bigger advocates for the ground game). There are some who will say that counter TD made it that way, that is not my personal belief. I think the ground game being broken is what makes all of it seem more over-powered then it probably is. Being able to keep a 25 minute fight on the ground 50% of the fight while landing 7 total strikes and throwing 14 (as in my example above) is the biggest issue behind all of this in my PERSONAL opinion. If time didn't just mysteriously disappear at a ridiculously rapid rate when the fight hit the ground, strikers would have more time to work it back to the feet and still have enough time in the round left to be able to steal the round back w/o having to throw crazy damage to score points and leave yourself wide open to counter TD.

 

Why do you all think DMG is so over-powered right now as well? The reason is because everybody came to the realization that it's very difficult to stop counter TD. A counter TD to side-control can take 3-4 mins of a round away (even when only 2 or 3 strikes land) then the only chance you have winning that round is to either go crazy aggression and land an assload of strikes in the 1 minute the fight stays standing.....OR make sure that the few strikes you DO land are doing a SIGNIFCANT amount of damage. ALL of these issues are related but people want to just pick out the parts they don't like and blame it on that so that changes can be made that suit them or their fighters. THIS is the issue that we have been fighting for ages. Whoever has the loudest group of complainers gets their way so that Mike can please his customer base. Hopefully for once we'll get it right and look at the thing as a whole, and not just the parts that we want to bitch about.

 

Alright....now hopefully I am really done in this argument. I have no fear that I'll be able to adapt to whatever Mike decides to roll w/ I just hope we don't end up w/ too terrible of an engine/scoring sytem at the end of all this.

[Guest]

I agree where I don't think the system needs a complete overhaul. Just stop the sub spammers, and maybe fix the clinch accuracy. If anybody else has a fight where they think it was completely wrong, post it here so we can do a breakdown of the fight and figure out what the issues are.

[tp61503]

all i have to say at the moment is sometimes when i get a takedown in fights for 2+ minuets and work on some GNP and a few sub attempts i still lose rounds.

 

i think thats crazy so as long as that gets fixed im ok with whatever changes you all decide. (its probably because of what standup occurs the fighters are throwing heavier damage? i guess thats being fixed?)

 

so

[Guest]

 

For the most part that is what i think.

 

Also can Mike please post the current formula for rating fights so that we can compare how much of a change is being proposed. It is hard to really talk if we cannot see the difference

 

 

 

This can EASILY be bypassed. You can easily put a regulation which stops org owners for continually changing the rules (for example a 6 months period where he cannot change anything). Also there can be a "clause" included that if an org owner changes the rules, any fighter is allowed to activate a release clause and simply leave. Org owners wont simply be able to change the rules every week to fit their buddies preferences.

 

You guys are very fixed on your positions regarding flexible rules. We want a game which gives us options. There are always ways around asshole owners, but there is noway you can go around a fixed rule set.

I agree with you that customization is great. If something were put in that allowed an org owner to ban elbows on the ground, allow stomps, or a variety of other changes, that would be a good thing. Judging, however, is not one of those things. Fight organizations can set all the rules that they want, but in the end, they have zero control over how judges score a fight.

 

I think Mike should create one scoring system: one that mirrors real life as much as possible, not what individuals think is the most exciting or what they think fighting SHOULD be. This is the most simple and requires a reasonable amount of effort to design and implement.

[minark]

I agree with you that customization is great. If something were put in that allowed an org owner to ban elbows on the ground, allow stomps, or a variety of other changes, that would be a good thing. Judging, however, is not one of those things. Fight organizations can set all the rules that they want, but in the end, they have zero control over how judges score a fight.

This 100%. Giving the org a choice over what type of judging they want is too much power. Whether it can be regulated or not, its just not a good idea.

 

I wouldn't mind giving org owners control over knees on the ground etc. like Nexus said. That actually makes a lot of sense. I know one organization doesn't allow elbows on the ground because of the cuts. Bellator maybe.

[Guest]

This 100%. Giving the org a choice over what type of judging they want is too much power. Whether it can be regulated or not, its just not a good idea.

 

I wouldn't mind giving org owners control over knees on the ground etc. like Nexus said. That actually makes a lot of sense. I know one organization doesn't allow elbows on the ground because of the cuts. Bellator maybe.

Yeah, Bellator doesn't allow it in tournament fights, but allows it in championship and non-tourney fights. The same reason why people here are concerned (org owners picking and choosing judges/judging criteria) is the exact reason why MMA promoters are not allowed to pick the judges that they want for fights or instruct them on how to interpret rules. They are not neutral observers and could easily make decisions based on profits instead of randomness or fairness.

[Mentor]

I agree with you that customization is great. If something were put in that allowed an org owner to ban elbows on the ground, allow stomps, or a variety of other changes, that would be a good thing. Judging, however, is not one of those things. Fight organizations can set all the rules that they want, but in the end, they have zero control over how judges score a fight.

 

I think Mike should create one scoring system: one that mirrors real life as much as possible, not what individuals think is the most exciting or what they think fighting SHOULD be. This is the most simple and requires a reasonable amount of effort to design and implement.

 

lol, you beat me to it about the Elbows. The thing with things like that is that Mike will basically need to adjust the way the clinch game works. Certain sliders will need to be disabled for that to happen and the text's will likely need to be re-written.

 

Also, why should orgs be allowed to decide on things such as Elbows and not be allowed to decide how a takedown (this is an example) is scored? I mean, some orgs may feel that a takedown is a major event, others though think that takedowns only matter if you do something with them.

 

Don't get me wrong, i still think there should be "unified" rules which are unbias to the stand up or ground game. Just i think org owners should be allowed some flexibility in those rules. If that is given, it will allow for a TOTALLY different type of game because we will see orgs with varied styles pop up. For example, if lets say orgs are given some say in the rules, it does not mean they will simply have sliders and modify everything. Mike could have some "fixed" rulesets made up. For example:

 

Orgs which do not like the new set of rules and want to keep the the old set, could pick "Old School MMA Rules" And there will be a description of those rules for people to understand what those rules are. Maybe you like the new rules and you can pick the ruleset which says "Modern MMA Rules". Then there could be 3 other predefined sets.

 

Striking (volume striking) = These set of rules give total strikes (ground or stand up) the advantage. Power shots will still get some love, but in general, if you landed more, you would usually win. Such set of rules are interesting because some managers could go for the decision and end up getting KOed because the other guy went for the jackpot.

 

Control + positioning = Control in the clinch, takedowns, and positioning on the ground (mainly transitions). Ie, these set of rules mainly favor grapplers in general. It does not mean strikers cannot win, simply the takedowns etc will mean much more.

 

Finishes (irrelevant from where they come from) = These set of rules favor the fighter which came closest to winning, be it though submissions or power punches, kicks ect.

[Guest]

Orgs which do not like the new set of rules and want to keep the the old set, could pick "Old School MMA Rules" And there will be a description of those rules for people to understand what those rules are. Maybe you like the new rules and you can pick the ruleset which says "Modern MMA Rules". Then there could be 3 other predefined sets.

I think the problem with this is that if new fighters might be building to do better with a certain rule set, and it MAY have an impact on what org's they would consider letting their fighter in. Creating problems for some orgs in signing fighters.

IF we had a lot more managers in this game I don't think it would be a problem. But I don't think there's enough players for this not to create problems.

[Mentor]

IF we had a lot more managers in this game I don't think it would be a problem. But I don't think there's enough players for this not to create problems.

 

We have around 50,000 fighters in the game, how many more do you want? We have enough fighters to justify 4-5 rule sets

[Guest]

 

We have around 50,000 fighters in the game, how many more do you want? We have enough fighters to justify 4-5 rule sets

I understand and respect your viewpoint, but disagree with it. I don't think an org owner should be able to tell a judge how strongly to weigh a takedown. That is not allowed in MMA. If we want more rule sets, I think it needs to be different sports. We already have KT. It would be nice if we could run TWGC orgs, and possibly boxing orgs if Mike wanted to create a fight engine for it.

 

I agree with your point that it would be a lot of work for Mike to add rule variations as options. I wasn't really suggesting it as much as saying it is more realistic than allowing org owners to select or influence judges.

[Guest]

 

We have around 50,000 fighters in the game, how many more do you want? We have enough fighters to justify 4-5 rule sets

Doesn't mean they're all active or worth signing. There's a lot of orgs around and people creating new ones, and specifically ID restricted orgs are having some trouble signing decent fighters as it is.

 

 

I'm not against this, I actually like the idea. I just dont think the possible good outweighs the the possible bad.

[Mentor]

I don't think an org owner should be able to tell a judge how strongly to weigh a takedown. That is not allowed in MMA.

 

I think it happens though, lol. Also this is a fictional world. Traveling is what happens in the real world, how popular is that in this game? I do not think i need to redirect you to that topic.

 

We do not need to have everything the same as the real world, this is a game and the whole point is to have fun. If a few rule changes makes the game more diverse and fun, then i am all for it.

[Timmy]

 

I think it happens though, lol. Also this is a fictional world. Traveling is what happens in the real world, how popular is that in this game? I do not think i need to redirect you to that topic.

 

We do not need to have everything the same as the real world, this is a game and the whole point is to have fun. If a few rule changes makes the game more diverse and fun, then i am all for it.

 

This may be a fictional world, full of fictional fighters and events, but MMA is a real sport. The game is about MMA and one of Mike's achievements is to have kept it realistic in all important respects.

[MMATycoon]

Let's try and keep on topic of fight scoring, not different rulesets etc. When we have different off topic things going on, I start skim reading and might miss something on fight scoring.

 

OK, so reading through this thread;

 

1. The system proposed is pretty much how it works now anyway, just with waaaaaaay too much variation. For example, you can have one big shot that counts for 20 normal strikes or whatever. There's just far too much variation based on damage, being tired etc, that I genuinely don't think it's "tweakable" as it would end up just as messy after the tweaks as it is now. Messy is the best description I can come up with and I think if you guys saw the current system next to the proposed one, you'd pretty much all prefer the proposed one.

 

2. Takedown or sub scoring. Please don't read it as +10 in the example. As someone else mentioned, that's for a very, very close to finishing sub attempt, which would rightly score highly. I don't mind reducing that slightly but to have the sub range from 1-3 points would be really daft because then a very close sub attempt would score the same as one and a half GNP shots. I am more than happy to decrease the max score per sub attempt or takedown as the fighter throws the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc per round.

 

3. That brings me on to the "we should fix the fight engine first before scoring". I don't see why it matters which way round we do it. If anything, I think it makes more sense to do the scoring first. If you make scoring match real life, then people are going to clamour to make the fight engine itself more realistic. Sounds great to me. If we "fix" the fight engine first, we could be "fixing" it towards people's personal preferences, then we'd have to "fix" the fight scoring towards the same personal preference. I think that way around makes a lot more sense and is open to manipulation from the vocal members of the community....

 

So again, if we score it like real life, then that will provide a foundation for future game engine tweaks to make everything more and more realistic.

 

4. I think if I'd put this scoring into place without telling you, nobody would have noticed and you'd just think there weren't as many stupid decisions anymore

 

N.B. I didn't have a score set for knockdowns, so that could be +10 or something.

[Mentor]

Attempts in general should not be getting almost anything. All that should get a score is success and the level of success. I guess a +10 for a near submission is very logical, but a +10 for a takedown is not.