Re-doing fight scoring - Official Discussion

[thegroovemonkey]

Agree with #3 100%.

[Guest]

Honestly I still have yet to see a fight where the winner/loser didn't get what they deserve.

[shortfuse122829]

 

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....

 

 

Here is what I think you're over-looking w/ that point of view. People are clamoring for TD's to be scored as not so signicant points wise. What I am essentially asking/saying is are TD's really over-powered based on how it's scored points wise or is that a perception that people have because 1 TD can eat up half the round pretty quickly leaving little less time for the strikers to score points? If it's the latter, then fixing that issue may lead to not even having to change anything scoring wise.

 

There are some who will look at that statement as me being an advocate for leaving the scoring for TD's the way it is now because I am a fan of the ground game. That is really not at all what I am saying, it may very well need changed. I just think it's extremely difficult to gauge how much the TD is actually counting for when you can keep fights on the ground for 12:30 minutes while landing 7 strikes and throwing 14. Is the 1 TD scoring so many points that guys can't win the round back or is the 12:30 minutes of time I killed laying on top of you and doing jack shit? I don't think anybody can honestly say oh it's definitely a flaw in scoring.

 

This sorta reminds me of when you decreased the effectiveness of mount/sweeps which was a slider related issue and not an engine related issue, which you would've been able to figure out if you played the game seriously and kept up on the engine. I do think that flaws exist in the current scoring that need to be adjusted but again......most of the time there are multiple things working in conjunction & it seems like people don't want to look at this picture as a whole and want to try to make tweaks to 1 thing when there could be other factors at play.

 

The trend of super aggressive fighters and more guys leaning towards damage is absolutely related to counter TD and the flaws in the ground game. If that wasn't broken guys would come back towards the middle on normalized sliders and then who knows what your opinion on scoring will be.

 

 

But moving on, I think sub spamming needs addressed how it's scored if we're just going to deal w/ scoring for now.

 

Attempts especially failed ones shouldn't get as much or more credit then successful GNP shots. I get guys who say well close ones should get more then 1 shot I guess but my question to that is how does the game determine a close submission? Is it flavor text?

 

Also don't think failed advance attempts should really count for too much, seems like guys on bottom can try to advance a lot and score too many points.

 

Damage > Acc I don't care about that so much cause once the engine gets tweaked I think the trend of super aggressive or guys leaning towards damage will normalize a bit.

[minark]

Mike, are we adding a damage slider for clinch and ground? Or does the standup slider cover all three of those areas. I ask because you have missed attempts scoring judged off of damage sliders in all areas.

[Guest]

I think what we really need to figure this out is someone to show commentaries of the issues they're talking about so we can break them down and see what really happened and how we need to go about repairing it.

[shortfuse122829]

Mike, are we adding a damage slider for clinch and ground? Or does the standup slider cover all three of those areas. I ask because you have missed attempts scoring judged off of damage sliders in all areas.

 

I dunno about the 1st part but he's swore to me in the past that standing accuracy/dmg has 0 to do w/ clinch/ground game. I always wondered this cause way back in the day I had a fighter I used to go 100 agg 85 accuracy w/ and I swear that guys GNP landing % was ridiculous. To me it appears as though it effects it but I know Mike has said it doesn't.

 

Also it is hard to say cause i've landed GNP on pretty high damage at a decent rate too but that could be more related to energy gap once I land the TD then anything. People always underestimate the effect energy can have once the fight hits the mat.

[MMATycoon]

close sub attempts would not just be flavour text - we can see how close a sub was in number terms.

[shortfuse122829]

Well that's pretty sweet anyway. I'm still not sure how I feel scoring should be weighed though at least in terms of the ground. I think top control/dominant positions & GNP should beat out sub spamming. But I do think close subs should be weighed as important as well but it's hard to say how many points GNP should count for. I was 70 Agg 60 Finish 76 strike 65 GNP in Bunn's last fight & only threw 14 strikes, landed 7 in 12:30 mins. So if those are the #'s we're working w/ GNP should be weighed pretty high too. If activity were increased & 70 agg 60 finish 76 strike leads to going 20 of 40 instead of 7 of 14 over 12:30 mins my opinion is going to change what the GNP to Sub point ratio should be

[Guest]

if you add damg/acc slider to clinch/gg then that could be a factor to scoring.

 

and adding a head/body slider to gg

[minark]

if you add damg/acc slider to clinch/gg then that could be a factor to scoring.

 

and adding a head/body slider to gg

 

 

That's what confuses me because on clinch and ground and pound he has damage slider factored into scoring for the proposed changes. So I wanted to know if he plans on creating new damage accuracy sliders for the clinch and ground game or if he just plans on tying them all in to the standing damage/accuracy slider.

[shortfuse122829]

Alright Mike, I think you're right & I'm wrong when I put it to #'s. Apparently I was looking at the wrong stat in Bunn's fight, he was 7 of 14 TD not GNP. He was 5 of 36 GNP in 12:30 mins. 36 is way better than 14 thrown but still low when considering I did 120 moves standing in the same time frame but either way that's off point. I actually look at fights & see how this would compute. At 1st glance it seems like you get a lot of credit for attempts. Not taking the points for failed/successful advance or controls into consideration Bunn got 1.1-2 pts x 36 ground strike attempts & 3-6 points for landing if I'm understanding that right. So on the conservative side

 

36 attempts x 1.3 = 46.8 or 47 pts

5 lands x 4 pts = 20 points

 

so roughly 67 points for thrown & landed ground strikes alone. If you had 2 tight sub attempts & a dozen or so 2-4 point attempts in there you'd still come up short of 67 points. Do 5 lands & 31 misses outweigh 2 almost taps? I'm not really sure. Deep subs can score but spamming shldnt

[shortfuse122829]

Also how far off are these #'s from how it is scored now? I ask bc striking wise if I went

 

20 head punch attempts x 1.3 = 26 points

10 lands x 4 points = 40 points

 

so going 10 of 20 head punches would negate the 67 points on the ground in that last fight going just based on strikes (not advances or control). Why does wrestling seem so powerful in that case? Is control scoring those points? Or are TD's just scoring that much? I mean clearly your opponent also throws & lands too but if you outlanded/threw him by that margin it should cover those points in theory

[shortfuse122829]

I could be wrong Minark but I believe DMG slider on the ground is effected by position. Mount you'd probably get the 6 point for landing & guard would get 3 points for landing. I'd love to see an acc/dmg slider for both though but that was my interpretation of it. I won't guess on clinch cause I don't really understand how it works

[Timmy]

Might it work to split sub attempts into two catorgories?

 

1. "Aborted" subs (what currently scores +1 to +7) No points.

2. "Attempted" subs (what currently scores +8 to +10) +12 points.

 

Therefore the sub spammer is assumed to be working on getting into positions to set up a sub but being forced to abort by successful counter, lack of patience, or bad technique and scores nothing. Only a skilled ground fighter gets a good execution, comes close to success, and scores points.

 

It removes the possibility of winning a fight by spamming subs without the skill to actually threaten pulling one off (scoring dozens of +2's and +3's under current system) but still rewards a ground fighter who dominates a fight but can't quite get a stubborn opponent to tap.

 

The fight commentary might still report them all as "sub attempts", and the flavour text might remain unchanged, but if "aborted" and "attempted" are listed seperately in the fight stats breakdown after the fight, it will be obvious when people lose to a subber that they weren't robbed, they were close to tapping enough times to deserve the loss. When a subber loses he can see that his attempts were weak and made no impression on the judges.

 

I put +12 as a guess/estimate of what it might score but it could be anything that balances with other scores.

 

An alternative naming might be:

1. Sub Attempst (weak)

2. Sub Attempts (noteworthy)

[KawasakiRamenBlitz]

Honestly I still have yet to see a fight where the winner/loser didn't get what they deserve.

 

Mike, since a few managers now also have voiced that they would actually prefer to stay with the current system, I just wanted to ask you, if this is actually an option you are considering also?

 

Your initial post sounds like a total revamp is definitely happening, the only question is how. But if enough managers would like to stay with the current system - maybe tweak it a bit - is that something that you would be willing to do, also?

[poraan]

Also how far off are these #'s from how it is scored now? I ask bc striking wise if I went

 

20 head punch attempts x 1.3 = 26 points

10 lands x 4 points = 40 points

 

so going 10 of 20 head punches would negate the 67 points on the ground in that last fight going just based on strikes (not advances or control). Why does wrestling seem so powerful in that case? Is control scoring those points? Or are TD's just scoring that much? I mean clearly your opponent also throws & lands too but if you outlanded/threw him by that margin it should cover those points in theory

People usually forgot that fact that grapplers/wrestlers can usually strike too.. Many grapplers can strike with strikers and sometimes after couple td's they can dominate strikers on standing..

If fighters like Pluto and Valentine would have 150/150 KO power that would be crazy..

[shortfuse122829]

People usually forgot that fact that grapplers/wrestlers can usually strike too.. Many grapplers can strike with strikers and sometimes after couple td's they can dominate strikers on standing..

If fighters like Pluto and Valentine would have 150/150 KO power that would be crazy..

 

I think that's fairly realistic though. I mean you'd have some wrestlers in MMA like Jon Fitch who aren't as talented on the feet as some of the guys he'd fight but you get some pretty good strikers like Ellenberger and Hendricks who can really wrestle their ass off as well as strike well. A well-rounded fighter is always going to have the advantage over a 1 dimensional fighter and I do think that's the way it should be. If you're getting dominated grappling you should have to do a significant amount more standing to over-come it.

 

The one issue that I have and where I somewhat agree with you is here.....I find it ridiculous that laying on top of a guy and going 5 of 36 ground strikes can lead to such an energy advantage once the fight is back on the feet and therefore lead to the grapplers ability to just dominate the stand-up where they might have been losing in that department earlier. I think that wrestling a guy should EVENTUALLY lead to an energy advantage and lead to more success on the feet, but come on.....these guys have elite cardio and i have never seen a real life MMA fight where 5 GNP from guard/half-guard led to a guy's energy being completely depleted. You should actually have to inflict damage on the ground to bring about that energy advantage, not just lay on top of guys

[poraan]

 

I think that's fairly realistic though. I mean you'd have some wrestlers in MMA like Jon Fitch who aren't as talented on the feet as some of the guys he'd fight but you get some pretty good strikers like Ellenberger and Hendricks who can really wrestle their ass off as well as strike well. A well-rounded fighter is always going to have the advantage over a 1 dimensional fighter and I do think that's the way it should be. If you're getting dominated grappling you should have to do a significant amount more standing to over-come it.

 

The one issue that I have and where I somewhat agree with you is here.....I find it ridiculous that laying on top of a guy and going 5 of 36 ground strikes can lead to such an energy advantage once the fight is back on the feet and therefore lead to the grapplers ability to just dominate the stand-up where they might have been losing in that department earlier. I think that wrestling a guy should EVENTUALLY lead to an energy advantage and lead to more success on the feet, but come on.....these guys have elite cardio and i have never seen a real life MMA fight where 5 GNP from guard/half-guard led to a guy's energy being completely depleted. You should actually have to inflict damage on the ground to bring about that energy advantage, not just lay on top of guys

 

I think in striker vs grappler aspect escapes is one problem. Not because escapes isnt working, its because you cant combine escapes well with other skills.

If your fighter is trying to escape from ground he doesnt need subs, gnp or takedowns.. Fighter without escapes has always advantage if hes opponent got escapes(even escapes would be working better)..

Only combination that could work is escapes and clinch skills, but everybody knows that knees/elbows isnt really best skills at the movement.

77-80% skill cap allows fighters to be too much all rounders, if you want to get to the cap you need to be "grappler" and you dont need escapes.

[Guest]

Counter takedowns certainly need to be looked at in regards to them failing and scoring accordingly.

 

This fight frustrates me: http://mmatycoon.com/fightcommentarypbp.php?FTID=662248

 

If a fighter gets visibly rocked and stumbles/retreats you'd think that would be worth a lot more than a bit of lay and pray. Frustrating.

[Guest]

Counter takedowns certainly need to be looked at in regards to them failing and scoring accordingly.

 

This fight frustrates me: http://mmatycoon.com/fightcommentarypbp.php?FTID=662248

 

If a fighter gets visibly rocked and stumbles/retreats you'd think that would be worth a lot more than a bit of lay and pray. Frustrating.

His landing percentage was a lot better compared to yours, you may have rocked him but you couldn't finish it... He also took you down at will. I didn't read the whole fight but even just looking at the stats I can easily see how they would have favored Mr. White.

[Guest]

His landing percentage was a lot better compared to yours, you may have rocked him but you couldn't finish it... He also took you down at will. I didn't read the whole fight but even just looking at the stats I can easily see how they would have favored Mr. White.

 

If I rock him than I think that should be worth a bit more than him laying on me. He 'took me down at will' because I let him. Second round was certainly his, first round was certainly mine. Third round should've been mine because I think me rocking him should be worth more than him taking me down and attempting 0 strikes and 0 submission attempts and only 2 position changes.

 

He laid on top of me while I worked.

On the feet I outstruck him, missed some shots but I rocked him.

 

Strongly disagree.

[Guest]

I think the main problem with ground scoring as it stands right now is that it puts way too much weight on position changes and not nearly enough on actual position. For example, if you take a guy down into mount and he spends half the round mounted, then eventually gets half guard, spends a minute or so there, then gets full guard until the end of the round, the guy on the bottom clearly lost (assuming there were no strikes or close submission attempts from either guy). However, in our current scoring, the guy on the bottom almost always wins that round because he had 2 "improve positions" while the guy on top had 0.

 

Improving position should mean almost nothing. If you are on your back the whole round, you lose. You don't get points for defending. Spending the majority of the round with side control, mount, or back control should give you a dominant win no matter what else happens. Some people might argue that a tremendous sweep should be rewarded, and it would be by rewarding time in a dominant position. After sweeping, you are on top and now earning control points.

 

Mount and back control should give you huge amounts of points just for spending time in those positions. If you lose the mount and the guy on bottom regains half guard, he doesn't deserve points for that. Instead, he should simply be giving up less points per minute for being in a less dominant defensive position.

[MrTwoPlums]

Ok so I'm still pretty new, and I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how my fighter lost this fight.

 

http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=667298

 

It seems my opponent got way too much credit for grappling and we were barely on the ground. Any feedback would be appreciated please.

[duphus]

the first 2 round where close by the announcer

 

So couple of things this could be:

 

1. bad decision - maybe

2. your fighter was throwing very high accuracy and no damage

3. your fighter is a pillow fist or has no strength to do any damage

4. the other fighter scored a lot of points, getting clinches, TD's etc (anything highlighted in red)

 

but overall you probably should have won that fight.

[Guest]

Ok so I'm still pretty new, and I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how my fighter lost this fight.

 

http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=667298

 

It seems my opponent got way too much credit for grappling and we were barely on the ground. Any feedback would be appreciated please.

He also attempted 43 combos without landing any. Do attempts count for anything in the current system?