Liquid Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Maybe it is just me but for some reason I do not think this fight should have been called like this: "Well Strauss has outscored his opponent in every aspect of the fight today. Only a scarily incompetent judge or two will keep him from a well deserved win... Over to the ring announcer for the scorecards." Naturally I feel that my fighter did more and should have won. This being said loss via split decisision would have looked realistic too but this "Well Strauss has outscored his opponent in every aspect of the fight today. Only a scarily incompetent judge or two will keep him from a well deserved win... Over to the ring announcer for the scorecards." really looks like a flaw in the game engine. Here the fight and also an example of current GnP system: http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=35767 - Basically fighter A landed effective GnP doing damage and several times coming close to referee stoppage, at least according to commentary. - Fighter B landed on good punch at the start of the match and then for rest of the time submission spammed being very ineffective at it. - Positionally both fighter had their good and bad times. The question is this: so fighter A does damage via lot of punches to opponents face on ground while fighter B does no damage but a single punch at start of the match. Fighter A goes for GnP and lands his attacks causing damage, fighter B goes for submissions and fails to land his attacks causing no damage. Should in this situation fighter A or B win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Maybe it is just me but for some reason I do not think this fight should have been called like this: "Well Strauss has outscored his opponent in every aspect of the fight today. Only a scarily incompetent judge or two will keep him from a well deserved win... Over to the ring announcer for the scorecards." Naturally I feel that my fighter did more and should have won. This being said loss via split decisision would have looked realistic too but this "Well Strauss has outscored his opponent in every aspect of the fight today. Only a scarily incompetent judge or two will keep him from a well deserved win... Over to the ring announcer for the scorecards." really looks like a flaw in the game engine. Here the fight and also an example of current GnP system: http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=35767 - Basically fighter A landed effective GnP doing damage and several times coming close to referee stoppage, at least according to commentary. - Fighter B landed on good punch at the start of the match and then for rest of the time submission spammed being very ineffective at it. - Positionally both fighter had their good and bad times. The question is this: so fighter A does damage via lot of punches to opponents face on ground while fighter B does no damage but a single punch at start of the match. Fighter A goes for GnP and lands his attacks causing damage, fighter B goes for submissions and fails to land his attacks causing no damage. Should in this situation fighter A or B win? I fought this guy before and I thought my fighter won too. Idk maybe you get a lot of points for sub attempts or something. On paper looks like your guy won, too lazy to read the commentary. Check Logan's fight with Go Okami. That's when my fighter had fought this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyBlayze Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Maybe it is just me but for some reason I do not think this fight should have been called like this: "Well Strauss has outscored his opponent in every aspect of the fight today. Only a scarily incompetent judge or two will keep him from a well deserved win... Over to the ring announcer for the scorecards." Naturally I feel that my fighter did more and should have won. This being said loss via split decisision would have looked realistic too but this "Well Strauss has outscored his opponent in every aspect of the fight today. Only a scarily incompetent judge or two will keep him from a well deserved win... Over to the ring announcer for the scorecards." really looks like a flaw in the game engine. Here the fight and also an example of current GnP system: http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=35767 - Basically fighter A landed effective GnP doing damage and several times coming close to referee stoppage, at least according to commentary. - Fighter B landed on good punch at the start of the match and then for rest of the time submission spammed being very ineffective at it. - Positionally both fighter had their good and bad times. The question is this: so fighter A does damage via lot of punches to opponents face on ground while fighter B does no damage but a single punch at start of the match. Fighter A goes for GnP and lands his attacks causing damage, fighter B goes for submissions and fails to land his attacks causing no damage. Should in this situation fighter A or B win? You lost by submission spam - it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 I just took a closer look at his attacks and found something interesting. Here is what his so called submission spam looked like: - Strauss is working for a guillotine from mount but Rajala frees his head quite easily. - Strauss is looking for a triangle but Rajala pushes his legs off easily. - Strauss escapes his hips to the side and looks to be working for an armbar. Rajala gives him a little smile and shakes his head. No chance. - Strauss working from the bottom, still in full guard. He's managed to get a loose triangle. Rajala doesn't seem to be doing much to defend here, obviously he feels comfortable in the position. Rajala manages to throw the legs off his shoulder and he's back into guard - no problem. Here is what my attacks looked like: - BOOM! Rajala connects with a massive shot to the dome! - Rajala is still in mount, landing shots to his trapped opponent. Strauss can't stay in a position like this for much longer. - Rajala postures up and cracks his opponent a couple of times before moving back into close ground control. Strauss looks a forlorn figure. - Rajala working away diligently from side control. Landing strikes effectively there - that will score him some points on the judges scorecards. Basically all his so called submission attacks were weak and he never even came remotely close at performing a successful submission. In essence non of his submission attempts were a real threath. It looks like by basically doing nothing of relevance or importance (spamming WEAK submission attempts that have no realistic change of submitting opponent) a fighter is able to rack up points to win a round. This all the while the opponent is actually doing damage and coming close to ending the match. The way the fight engine and submission spam seems to work is that it is totally irrelevant if the attack itself poses a real treath or is just done so that the fighter looks active and just for the show. Submission spammed without any control whatsoever gives lot of points, win the fight, while having no change of actually working (no change of actually resulting in a submission). Now I actually feel like my fighter DOMINATED and should have won easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviAJones Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 It's flavor text. It is not actually representative of how the fight engine is determining damage done. The fight engine runs its calculations and comes up with "successful ground strike" then picks flavor text at random from the list of pre-written flavor text. There are not actual announcers watching a 3D sim somewhere in cyberspace and calling the action. These whining threads are getting ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 "It is not actually representative of how the fight engine is determining damage done." So basically the Play by Play text has nothing to do with the fight itself. Ok thanks for the information. Might as well remove the whole play by play and just give us raw numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 If you look at the stats, he actually controlled the ground game better than you (your guy was successful @ improve position only 43% of the time, compared to his 63% improve pos conversion). Plus, the fight was judged by the entire contest, not round-by-round. The judges obviously gave a lot of weight to the first punch he landed, since it rocked you. Considering the amount of GNP you laid on him, I'm surprised it made it to the judges, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backelie Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 "It is not actually representative of how the fight engine is determining damage done." So basically the Play by Play text has nothing to do with the fight itself. Ok thanks for the information. Might as well remove the whole play by play and just give us raw numbers. Now you're just sulking. It has roughly as much to do with the fight itself as any other (real) fight commentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted August 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Considering the amount of GNP you laid on him, I'm surprised it made it to the judges, though. His opponent has good enough strenght for decent GnP so maybe he just has very good chin. What I find to be interesting is that according to judges he dominated. It is like all that GnP is totally irrelevant when it comes to scoring the fight. Somewhat strange. It seems that weak submission attemps do score a lot. Anyway I am not too sure what to say about the improve position part as in general a GnP guy would rather keep GnPing than passing the guard (improving position) for example (or would rather hit the opponent those few more times than take his back when situation comes up). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Heres hopin cause one of my fighters next fights is against a guy with Remarkable boxing and a white belt... so im going to take him down and GnP the shit out of him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Heres hopin cause one of my fighters next fights is against a guy with Remarkable boxing and a white belt... so im going to take him down and GnP the shit out of him bring home a limb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBR Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 you should of mixed in a sub attempts with all your strikes --- you getting rocked in the first helped him though -- 48 sub attempts is a lot but have seen more -- didnt read the commentary that much but by the numbers if nothing else a draw --- just chalk it up as one of those deals -- you really should mix sub attempts into your plan though or at least try a couple not saying as many as the guy your fighting but instead of 100% GnP maybe 90% and 10% sub attempt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsumi Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Well the reason I think he won was because he blocked more than half you attemps to improve position. This doesn't really make sense since you were punching him the whole time, but I doubt it is the sub attemps adding up points for him. This is the only reason I can think of other than "durr...game is broken". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis84 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The commentary is not second by second so inbetween the landed GnP stuff he may have been adding points for himself with other work which isn't showing up on the commentary, same as on the feet when there is seemingly nothing to comment on for the commentators Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.