Re-doing fight scoring - Official Discussion

[Guest]

On the submissions personally I think it should decrease your points dramaticly for each attempts past the fisrt in each round. There are way to many sub spammers in the early going orgs.

 

Also for allowing people to takedown and stand up the person should get full points. How the hell do the judges know that I want someone to take me to the ground. In the judges eyes they see a takedown and score. If you want to be takendown you have high transistions, submissions, and or ground and pound. So you will most likely get the sweep and score off that and then start landing punches or trying for better positiions and looking for a finish. Full points should be awarded for what happens regardless what the other fighter has set on his sliders or what box was ticked imo.

Mostly agree with this, alittle variation though.

 

Maybe instead of losing points from sub attempts after the first you just don't gain any, and it gasses you a little more, also instead of first per round, maybe first per takedown or guard pulled, IE if the fight gets stood up that counter resets and you can still gain a point for your next sub attempt if you take them down again.

 

Reason: Losing points from sub attempts will greatly decrease submission attempts and while we like it or not, some fighter have that as a key to victory and it would really make them a lot less efficient which I don't think is fair. However it does take energy to pull on someones limbs and try to execute a submission and I think it would definitely cause these submission fighters to be more cautious of their sub attempts.

 

I still "allowed takedowns" should still give full points, but maybe negate some of the damage taken since they're allowing it?

[Guest]

sub spamming should seriously decrease stamina. Only about 3 a round before you cant breath and give up position too easily

I wouldn't go this far, submissions don't take THAT much out of you unless you're REALLY trying to seperate an arm for an armbar or something of the like, chokes take very minimal energy. It's mostly about getting correct positioning and holding onto it long enough for them to tap without them breaking it.

[Wolf]

I wouldn't go this far, submissions don't take THAT much out of you unless you're REALLY trying to seperate an arm for an armbar or something of the like, chokes take very minimal energy. It's mostly about getting correct positioning and holding onto it long enough for them to tap without them breaking it.

They sap the stregnth from your arms. Say a guillotine choke if you are really squeezing and dont get it your arms are like jelly

[Guest]

They sap the stregnth from your arms. Say a guillotine choke if you are really squeezing and dont get it your arms are like jelly

It's not nearly as tiring as you might think

[Wolf]

It's not nearly as tiring as you might think

I know it is but i can see you're convinced in your own opiniin so i shant argue any longer.

 

My point was sub spamming needs an energy hit

[duphus]

This here is an example of what needs fixed, IMO

 

here is the fight, note the 1st round http://mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=653153

 

Since many aren't going to count up moves and what not, I have broken the moves down they are as follows

 

Strikes: Strikes total for round 1

 

timmey: 3-3

Artur: 5-10

 

Ground game: went to ground at roughly 50 secs into round 1

 

Timmey: 4+ mins of top contol, including side and mount

 

Sub/Strikes on ground

 

timmey 6-8 GnP

Artur 0-1 sub

 

Advances

 

timmey 3-4 got mount and side

Artur 1-14

 

 

I don't know any judge that would have scored it like that in real life

 

It seems he got way too many point for failed advances and sub attempts too me

[Guest]

I know it is but i can see you're convinced in your own opiniin so i shant argue any longer.

 

My point was sub spamming needs an energy hit

I agree it needs a hit, but people aren't gonna throw all their energy into every submission attempt is all im saying. Maybe a white belt, but anybody beyond that should know better.

[aylib]

Certain subs that would probably be rated as close to being finished, do indeed sap a shtload of energy.

[gwad12345]

I think it goes without saying this needs to be thoroughly tested before it is implemented. The only thing I'm worried about is people spamming accurate strikes to try to get a decision. We need to make sure there arent any unrealistic strategies that can be successful.

[TheMould]

I think it's more takedown spammers should suffer the hit, imagine going for like 10 takedowns in a round and being able to stand up and defend yourself fine. Think the other problem is, that EVERY fighter over a certain age has top conditioning, their is nobody with a bigger tank than anybody else at the top, but thats a separate issue.

[shortfuse122829]

GNP: Attempt (+1 base and +0.1 to +1 depending on damage slider), Successful (+3 and +0.1 to +3 depending on damage done)

Sub Attempt: Attempt (+1 to +10 depending on how close it is)

 

Am I really seeing this? you get + 3 for landed GNP but possibly + 10 for a failed sub attempt? Doesn't that still make sub-spamming score ridiculously over-powered on the ground?

[shortfuse122829]

Also I know this really isn't the thread for this.....but the whole ground game really needs to be re-vamped.

 

http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=662193

 

I kept this fight on the ground for 12:30 minutes (If you look at the stats at the end the ground bar and stand-up bar are equal, meaning that we spent the same time on the ground as standing) and I went 7 for 14 on ground strikes. Just think about that for a minute. I threw barely 1 strike per minute and landed about 1 strike for every 2 minutes on the ground. But was able to keep the fight down for 50% of the fight. The strike attempt ration on the ground needs to be seriously jacked up by a lot. I've already discussed this in the fight engine thread. Until that is fixed you can't really get a grasp on how counter TD effects the fight because the actual ground game is seriously flawed. It's very possible those TD's don't allow me to just dominate those rounds if I'm not holding him down forever when doing pretty much nothing at the same time. The energy taken just from being laid on his flawed. The strike attempts is flawed. Failed sub attempts are extremely over-powered. I honestly can't say that TD's landing are seriously over-powered in the judges. They very well might be. But they certainly appear to be w/ the ground game being flawed. Some of these changes you might be making might not even be necessary once again.

[TheMould]

GNP: Attempt (+1 base and +0.1 to +1 depending on damage slider), Successful (+3 and +0.1 to +3 depending on damage done)

Sub Attempt: Attempt (+1 to +10 depending on how close it is)

 

Am I really seeing this? you get + 3 for landed GNP but possibly + 10 for a failed sub attempt? Doesn't that still make sub-spamming score ridiculously over-powered on the ground?

+10 will be the guy was about to tap out but was saved by time kinda thing. Most failed sub attempts (I would've thought) would only be +2's/3's

[shortfuse122829]

+10 will be the guy was about to tap out but was saved by time kinda thing. Most failed sub attempts (I would've thought) would only be +2's/3's

 

Even that to me is just silly. Do you know how many guys throw up 10+ sub attempts in a round? So let's say at 8 of those attempts are split +2/+3 and 2 get + 10's....that'd be 40 points on the ground for those attempts. It would take 13 landed GNP about to score the same amount of points. Do you know how hard it is to even get 13 strike attempts in a round?

 

So essentially I could sit in mount for 3 minutes and land 13 strikes....and still get out-scored by a guy throwing up 10 sub attempts from the bottom?

 

So 10 failed subs > 13 successful ground strikes + top control?

[TheMould]

That's not a problem with the scoring though, that's a problem with the engine. In reality whats more impressive, nearly snapping somebodies arm off, or landing a couple of strikes in GnP?

 

I do agree the sub spammers need to be punished but think it's not a scoring issue - it's something that needs to be stopped in engine.

[DeadDisney]

love the bio on the judges but is there an option that will be coming to say in advance of the fight that who the judges will be?

 

This would be an excellent add on, btw. It would make for some interesting changes to fight planning.

[shortfuse122829]

I don't mean to make it sound like I am attacking you TheMould, I am merely pointing out how silly I think it is that you could throw up less attempts of things that are essentially failing to land, and out-score a guy who has the top position and actually lands more strikes successfully then your "attempts that are failing".

 

I personally believe we're getting ahead of ourselves fixing scoring (though admittedly some things do need adjusting scoring wise) when IMO the ground game is completely flawed as it is. Of course things are going to seem over-powered as far as scoring when you can keep fights down for such long periods of time while having very little activity at all. Anybody who thinks that doesn't effect why ppl feel so strongly that things are broken are misjudging IMO but who am I to argue.

 

I'm just going to drop out of this argument now because I know that wherever the majority of crying comes from is what Mike will ultimately roll w/ even if its unnecessary. I'll just adjust to whatever the new system is like usual

[Guest]

That's not a problem with the scoring though, that's a problem with the engine. In reality whats more impressive, nearly snapping somebodies arm off, or landing a couple of strikes in GnP?

 

I do agree the sub spammers need to be punished but think it's not a scoring issue - it's something that needs to be stopped in engine.

I don't think every half assed sub attempt should be granted points, just like low dmg strikes hardly get anything

[Mentor]

I have a better idea. How about the orgs pick the type of judges? Basically you can have pick judges which favor striking, others which favor the ground game, wrestling or the clinch etc. This will also give orgs a certain difference between them as some orgs can possibly be more orientated towards certain styles (you can of course pick judges which are balanced or neutral).

 

If you suddenly change the whole system, fighters which thrived on the previous system will get killed. I am not sure that is fair as it took them over a year to develop a fighter in a certain way based on the current system.

 

That said i am pretty much against sub attempts being so strong because some people are spamming sub attempts like crazy.

[Duratan]

i dont think misses should be judged differently based on sliders, a miss is a miss, i do think damage done matter maybe 0.5 to 3 for head punch then scale it to the rest of the scoring system, with bonuses if opponent gets stunned and/or KD'd

 

i do like the ideas about judges being biased

[Comte]

How about standing up into the clinch? You know sometimes when the fight goes up fighters are still clinching.

 

PS> Bush beer is questionable.

[Mentor]

Personally, i do not like how in real life takedowns and control in the clinch is rated. I think damage is the major factor in any fight. I guess a near submission should get rated high as well, but bottom line it comes to damage. I think a significant strike should be significantly higher rated than a strike which had no effect.

 

I also think orgs should have more of a saying in ref tendencies as well. For example some orgs allow ground fights to continue even without significant action, the same goes for the clinch, where as other orgs prefer more action.

 

One other thing, by making a change as suggested, does it really enhance the gameplay? Not necessarily. Some managers which favored the ground game will be happy, but what about those which focused on stand up? The only thing i see that makes sense here is to enhance the game and the only way we can enhance it, without screwing some people, is to give orgs the power to choose their own styles. This will also allow for certain orgs to create grappling orientated orgs, Boxing or whatever (which is being done now, but they have little to help them in their task)

[JLP]

I have a better idea. How about the orgs pick the type of judges? Basically you can have pick judges which favor striking, others which favor the ground game, wrestling or the clinch etc. This will also give orgs a certain difference between them as some orgs can possibly be more orientated towards certain styles (you can of course pick judges which are balanced or neutral).

 

If you suddenly change the whole system, fighters which thrived on the previous system will get killed. I am not sure that is fair as it took them over a year to develop a fighter in a certain way based on the current system.

 

That said i am pretty much against sub attempts being so strong because some people are spamming sub attempts like crazy.

Letting the orgs pick the judges would open the door to unprecedented levels of abuse.

[Guest]

It's been said by others but I figure it can't hurt to say it again...it seems like this sort of setup would favor both high aggression and high accuracy punchers in the standup and sub spammers on the ground.

For the standup, I think that head and body kicks should get a lot more credit than head and body punches (maybe double), and damage should factor in a lot more (maybe have knockdowns and strikes that cause cuts get a massive bonus). With the posted numbers, throwing 25 pawing jabs with nothing on them (77.5 points) counts for more than twelve huge shots which all rock the opponent (72 points). I think something like 1 flat point per attempt with a head punch and a scale of .1 to 10 for successful shots based on damage would be more realistic with something like a 5 being a very solid shot and a 10 reserved for something that rocks the opponent. I have a similar opinion on the clinch (knees should count much more than punches and damage is a huge factor).

For the ground, I think you should only count a certain number of sub attempts per round unless they end up being really close (say 5 per round). After that, in reality, it should be so obvious what you're spamming that the subs wouldn't be close and you would just use them to transition, so they shouldn't count for anything. Also, the damage scoring for GNP could be a lot higher as a powerful shot from mount should score several times as many points as a jab with nothing on it.

[Mentor]

Letting the orgs pick the judges would open the door to unprecedented levels of abuse.

 

No it wont. It is MUCH easier to not join an org which favors certain judging or simply reject fights which are under different rules from those you accepted when you signed your contract. Where as if Mike simply changes the whole scoring system, some guys are screwed permanently and nobody will ever be able to do anything about it. Every time we change something so global, we end up losing top notch managers. I do not think we can afford to lose top notch managers.

 

I have also come up with something better. Instead of having "Judges" which favor various styles, the best option is simply have the org run sliders which will look something like this:

 

You will have a bar from 1 to 20 for each slider.

On the one side you will have the 2 extremes.

Striking vs Grappling (if you have it totally to the right it will mean you score Grappling more than you do Striking)

Volume vs Power (in regards to striking)

Punches vs Kicks (what scores higher)

Control vs Action (in the clinch and on the ground)

 

So you get the idea of how this will work. The scoring will apply to all parts of the system.

 

All of this will be totally visible to all managers before every fight and will also be visible on org pages. If the sliders get changed, the manager will get warned. Org owners WONT be allowed to change the scoring once an event is booked. The changes will only apply to future "unbooked" events. So you wont be able to have org owners changing the scoring bias 2 hours before the event to screw everyone on the card.

 

Also there is one other thing. This will give managers which pay attention to the details on the booking an advantage. I mean if you know the org scoring favors volume striking and you think your chin is solid, you could try to go for the points win as you know your opponent is more of a power puncher. Or if you are versatile standing and know the org favors kicks, you could use those more than you would usually. Adding org power to the formula ads a totally new part of strategy to the game. If we simply "change" the scoring, it wont give us anything other than a new scoring system which some people will agree to and others wont.