Taking a look at this scoring criteria, I feel that this can go a long way for the scoring system in UFC 4, if it can be implemented. The scoring in UFC 3 is much better than UFC 2, but I definitely feel that there are things that can be done better and that can be added. (prepare for a lot of Copy and pasting)
A. All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.
B. The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
C. Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
D. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
...
J. The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:
i. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
ii.a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
iii. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
iv. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
I think these are totally things to be reconsidered in the judging system for UFC 4, it would bring a lot more fun to offline and ranked play. Playing Career mode and seeing CPU's have draws in their record when I first started playing UFC 3 led me to believe, hmm what are the odds those are actually in the game?
Unfortunately, the chances of draws are nil, and with that, the game is always forced to choose a winner, even if it is a relatively even fight, reason being:
(From Skynet)
"Part 1 - The How:
So! Draws have actually been a part of the judging system since UFC 1, and we've had to do extra work to account for the fact that we can't allow them. Draws can be scored by individual judges just fine, however, the overall outcome of the fight cannot be a draw. When the judges do end up scoring a fight as such (which does happen) we have to modify the scores by a single point to cause the end result not to draw.
We do this as fairly as we think possible.
For example, if you have a fight where two judges pick one fighter but the third ties them for the second fight as in Aero's example, we award it to the fighter who got 2/3 judges. If it's a clean draw with one judge split, and the other two perfectly opposite, then it's a 50% random chance.
The actual criteria to cause a draw is incredibly rare, as the fight has to be suuuper closer. This is nearly impossible by chance, and even difficult if you're trying to cause it while still having an actual fight.
Part 2 - The Why:
Budget, yo. Originally, back in the UFC 1 erra, it was mostly bang-for-buck cost analysis. The time it would have taken us to add all the presentation, screens, stats, animation, logic, etc. for draws was not worth it compared to other features. Ideally, draws happen super rarely if ever (Aero's 3/4000 anecdote shows this), and even when they do, many people hate getting them. A lot of fighting game fans would rather have a loss than a draw.
We would have been pouring a bunch of resources into a feature that most people would intentionally never see, some would dislike when they did come across it, and it would have been taking away from other things that everyone could enjoy instead. I stand by this decision, and think it quite reasonable.
Fast-forward to the UFC 3 erra, and the stakes haven't changed a whooole lot. Essentially, it will now cost us more to add them than it would have during UFC 1, but we're less averse to the proposition itself. This still leaves us in a stale-mate of not doing it.
For completeness and authenticity's sake, we'd like to add draws. However, they'd have to get integrated into soo many things. People really underestimate the amount of work this involves. Potentially weeks/months of man-hours across relevant disciples. We'd likely have to still keep them disabled in competitive modes, but not elsewhere, as has been noted.
Basically, it's still too much work given the current payoff, compared to other tasks that could use those resources.
I do honestly hope that they get in at some point, and I think they will. But not right now.
This concludes the story of the missing draw."
With regards to scoring and draws, and 10-10 rounds and what not, take a look at this mission statement from the current rules in place now:
"To evolve Mixed Martial Arts Judging Criteria to focus on the result of action (versus action itself), it must be stated that criteria is to be used in specific order. These criteria may not move from one to the next without the prior criterion being 100% even in the judges' assessments."
Essentially, the document clarifies that an MMA fight should be judged on a single criterion: Effective Striking/Grappling. Only if Effective Striking/Grappling (In UFC 3's Case, 'Damage' on the feet and 'Damage' in dominant positions on the ground + Ground Control) is 100% equal, would a judge move to the second criterion (Plan B) of Effective Aggressiveness. And only if Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal, would a judge move to the third criterion (Plan C) of Cage/Ring Control.
In other words, fighter complaints about losing even though they were moving forward the whole time should be pretty much dismissed. This is already in place in UFC 3, thankfully.
A 10-10 scoring option where all criteria are 100% equal is a necessity since incomplete rounds sometimes must be scored when there may have been little to no action. The new criteria make clear that at the end of a 5-minute round, "If there is any discernible difference between the two fighters during the round the judge shall not give the score of 10-10."
Effective striking/grappling is defined with the word "damage" removed from the previous proposal.
"Impact" is the substitute for "damage." (I assume KDs over strikes landed and whatnot in game) The definition is meant to train judges' attention towards effectiveness over things like flashiness or top control without - dare we say - any damage.
Effectiveness in striking/grappling is about [B]"impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match,"[B/] with immediate impact receiving more weight than cumulative impact.
The new criteria also explain that, whether on top or bottom, fighters should be assessed more on the "impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position." So if a bottom fighter's throwing nasty elbows from guard while the top fighter's hanging out with body, body, head every once and a while, the bottom fighter's winning.
^Seeing fighters like Nick Diaz, Kenny Florian, Mike Bisping, Ortega on bottom dealing notable damage with elbows from bottom is something I wish could be replicated without having to have Rubber Guard. If Elbows from Bottom Full Guard could slightly boosted w/ damage, I wonder how much it would change the landscape of grappling in Game.
With regards to consistently having more 10-8 rounds-
"In addition to clarifying the proper order of the scoring criteria and the role of effectiveness over flashiness, the new judging criteria slightly liberalizes the use of a 10-8 score and more precisely defines the factors surrounding a 10-8 round.
The technical definition of a 10-8 round did not change: when one fighter wins by a large margin. But the specifications of what exactly comprises a "large margin" did.
The new criteria make clear that a fighter doesn't have to steamroll, or as McCarthy put it, "almost murder" the opponent, for all 5 minutes to earn a 10-8. In fact, "If a fighter has little to no offensive output during a 5 minute round, it should be normal for the judge to award the losing fighter 8 points instead of 9."
The unwritten old criteria of a 10-8 round was dominance and damage (i.e., impact). The new criteria add a third possible element: duration. If two of these three elements are present in a round, a 10-8 "shall be seriously considered." If all three are present, a 10-8 "shall be awarded." In the latter case, the judge has no leeway. They are obligated to score a 10-8."
10-7 Rounds should definitely be RARE, and should only be in fights that consists of insane amount of drops, stuns, etc etc.
Watch Round 2 of Neil Magny vs Héctor Lombard as a Round that is CLEARLY a 10-7.
Tied in to that, would be the addition of Standing TKOs, which (for the sake of balance in game) should happen when the opposing fighter is not mounting any significant form of defence over a certain period of time after getting dropped twice in + plus an audible ref warning moments before potentially calling the TKO.
Overall, after most of you read this, I would like to hear your thoughts on adding 10-10, 10-8, 10-7 rounds + Standing TKOS, now that you've read the criteria for scoring.
A. All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.
B. The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).
C. Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.
D. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.
...
J. The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:
i. a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;
ii.a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;
iii. a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
iv. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
I think these are totally things to be reconsidered in the judging system for UFC 4, it would bring a lot more fun to offline and ranked play. Playing Career mode and seeing CPU's have draws in their record when I first started playing UFC 3 led me to believe, hmm what are the odds those are actually in the game?
Unfortunately, the chances of draws are nil, and with that, the game is always forced to choose a winner, even if it is a relatively even fight, reason being:
(From Skynet)
"Part 1 - The How:
So! Draws have actually been a part of the judging system since UFC 1, and we've had to do extra work to account for the fact that we can't allow them. Draws can be scored by individual judges just fine, however, the overall outcome of the fight cannot be a draw. When the judges do end up scoring a fight as such (which does happen) we have to modify the scores by a single point to cause the end result not to draw.
We do this as fairly as we think possible.
For example, if you have a fight where two judges pick one fighter but the third ties them for the second fight as in Aero's example, we award it to the fighter who got 2/3 judges. If it's a clean draw with one judge split, and the other two perfectly opposite, then it's a 50% random chance.
The actual criteria to cause a draw is incredibly rare, as the fight has to be suuuper closer. This is nearly impossible by chance, and even difficult if you're trying to cause it while still having an actual fight.
Part 2 - The Why:
Budget, yo. Originally, back in the UFC 1 erra, it was mostly bang-for-buck cost analysis. The time it would have taken us to add all the presentation, screens, stats, animation, logic, etc. for draws was not worth it compared to other features. Ideally, draws happen super rarely if ever (Aero's 3/4000 anecdote shows this), and even when they do, many people hate getting them. A lot of fighting game fans would rather have a loss than a draw.
We would have been pouring a bunch of resources into a feature that most people would intentionally never see, some would dislike when they did come across it, and it would have been taking away from other things that everyone could enjoy instead. I stand by this decision, and think it quite reasonable.
Fast-forward to the UFC 3 erra, and the stakes haven't changed a whooole lot. Essentially, it will now cost us more to add them than it would have during UFC 1, but we're less averse to the proposition itself. This still leaves us in a stale-mate of not doing it.
For completeness and authenticity's sake, we'd like to add draws. However, they'd have to get integrated into soo many things. People really underestimate the amount of work this involves. Potentially weeks/months of man-hours across relevant disciples. We'd likely have to still keep them disabled in competitive modes, but not elsewhere, as has been noted.
Basically, it's still too much work given the current payoff, compared to other tasks that could use those resources.
I do honestly hope that they get in at some point, and I think they will. But not right now.
This concludes the story of the missing draw."
With regards to scoring and draws, and 10-10 rounds and what not, take a look at this mission statement from the current rules in place now:
"To evolve Mixed Martial Arts Judging Criteria to focus on the result of action (versus action itself), it must be stated that criteria is to be used in specific order. These criteria may not move from one to the next without the prior criterion being 100% even in the judges' assessments."
Essentially, the document clarifies that an MMA fight should be judged on a single criterion: Effective Striking/Grappling. Only if Effective Striking/Grappling (In UFC 3's Case, 'Damage' on the feet and 'Damage' in dominant positions on the ground + Ground Control) is 100% equal, would a judge move to the second criterion (Plan B) of Effective Aggressiveness. And only if Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal, would a judge move to the third criterion (Plan C) of Cage/Ring Control.
In other words, fighter complaints about losing even though they were moving forward the whole time should be pretty much dismissed. This is already in place in UFC 3, thankfully.
A 10-10 scoring option where all criteria are 100% equal is a necessity since incomplete rounds sometimes must be scored when there may have been little to no action. The new criteria make clear that at the end of a 5-minute round, "If there is any discernible difference between the two fighters during the round the judge shall not give the score of 10-10."
Effective striking/grappling is defined with the word "damage" removed from the previous proposal.
"Impact" is the substitute for "damage." (I assume KDs over strikes landed and whatnot in game) The definition is meant to train judges' attention towards effectiveness over things like flashiness or top control without - dare we say - any damage.
Effectiveness in striking/grappling is about [B]"impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match,"[B/] with immediate impact receiving more weight than cumulative impact.
The new criteria also explain that, whether on top or bottom, fighters should be assessed more on the "impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position." So if a bottom fighter's throwing nasty elbows from guard while the top fighter's hanging out with body, body, head every once and a while, the bottom fighter's winning.
^Seeing fighters like Nick Diaz, Kenny Florian, Mike Bisping, Ortega on bottom dealing notable damage with elbows from bottom is something I wish could be replicated without having to have Rubber Guard. If Elbows from Bottom Full Guard could slightly boosted w/ damage, I wonder how much it would change the landscape of grappling in Game.
With regards to consistently having more 10-8 rounds-
"In addition to clarifying the proper order of the scoring criteria and the role of effectiveness over flashiness, the new judging criteria slightly liberalizes the use of a 10-8 score and more precisely defines the factors surrounding a 10-8 round.
The technical definition of a 10-8 round did not change: when one fighter wins by a large margin. But the specifications of what exactly comprises a "large margin" did.
The new criteria make clear that a fighter doesn't have to steamroll, or as McCarthy put it, "almost murder" the opponent, for all 5 minutes to earn a 10-8. In fact, "If a fighter has little to no offensive output during a 5 minute round, it should be normal for the judge to award the losing fighter 8 points instead of 9."
The unwritten old criteria of a 10-8 round was dominance and damage (i.e., impact). The new criteria add a third possible element: duration. If two of these three elements are present in a round, a 10-8 "shall be seriously considered." If all three are present, a 10-8 "shall be awarded." In the latter case, the judge has no leeway. They are obligated to score a 10-8."
10-7 Rounds should definitely be RARE, and should only be in fights that consists of insane amount of drops, stuns, etc etc.
Watch Round 2 of Neil Magny vs Héctor Lombard as a Round that is CLEARLY a 10-7.
Tied in to that, would be the addition of Standing TKOs, which (for the sake of balance in game) should happen when the opposing fighter is not mounting any significant form of defence over a certain period of time after getting dropped twice in + plus an audible ref warning moments before potentially calling the TKO.
Overall, after most of you read this, I would like to hear your thoughts on adding 10-10, 10-8, 10-7 rounds + Standing TKOS, now that you've read the criteria for scoring.
Comment