Circling Out --- Sprint Option For UFC 4

[Lauriedr1ver]

Any other points to bring up? Good discussiin to be having.

[ZombieRommel]

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

His arguments have already been addressed (ironically the points he's making I already made earlier but ignored). His main concern is not adding things like lateral sprint in a vacuum but rather come with holistic tuning. It's already been laid out by several people way this can be achieved. Most people obviously would prefer changes that account for the meta. Also the comparison he provided is disingenuous as he compares aggression with planting, not actual 'running'... he goes on to try to defend this position by saying, "(ignoring that runners only run SO THAT they can plant and leverage forward-moving vuln)". This already applies to pressure fighters, they pressure you then plant after trapping you near the cage. With less space available to the evader, planted strikes cause damage for moving into them- vulnerability here could increase tho. Punishment for moving forward: - There is a huge frame startup penalty for throwing forward moving strikes - There is a large frame recovery penalty for throwing forward moving strikes - There is a block meter penalty for absorbing strikes while moving forward - Forward-moving combos stop linking after two hits - Forward pressure strings can be major-lunged for positional reset - Walking away backwards and diagonally causes game engine issues that make many forward-moving strikes whiff & bounce off ("forcefield") x Punishment for moving away strikes: - Vulnerability for moving into strikes - Cutting off (circling along) - Herding (moving them into one direction) - Strikes - Circling strikes - Cage - Space now available for backward movement for pressure fighters Punishes both: - Planting (Planted strikes enjoy greater startup speed; planted strikes recover quicker; planted strikes enjoy less vulnerability; planted strikes can be linked from 4-6 hits without pause) - Grappling (SL v moving away; DL v moving toward; clinch) - Lunges (cut off v circle away) - Dictating location - Range - Do the same to them Among the several reasons already mentioned (including making cage cutting more effective with decreased speed and stamina for sprinting laterally back against the cage, similar tunings can apply to basic movement), here's something that hasn't yet- an actual clinch range (classic inside fighting not the pocket). A similar 'forcefield' exists here preventing you from entering any closer than pocket striking range... A major issue. Irl MMA cutting someone off can also involve cutting off the path of the opponent's movement in one direction as your leg can literally block the path of their movement. There's way more points, I'll make the rest of the post soon.

This is a kind of messy reply you've written but I'll see if I can make sense of it and respond.

Look at my list of penalties for forward strikes and movement. Notice that my list mentions specific and testable facts about the mechanics - things like frames, meter penalties, and strike limits. These items are very specific and I made them specific on purpose.

Now let's look at your list of "penalties" for backward strikes and movement:

Quote:

Punishment for moving away strikes: - Vulnerability for moving into strikes - Cutting off (circling along) - Herding (moving them into one direction) - Strikes - Circling strikes - Cage - Space now available for backward movement for pressure fighters

"Vulnerability for moving into strikes" - yes, there is a little bit.

"Cutting off" - not sure what this means. My entire point is that the aggressor has no good movement tools to cut off the cage.

"Herding" - it sounds like you are making your previous point with a different word.

"Strikes", "Circling strikes," and "Cage" - no idea what any of these actually mean on a mechanics level. I assume by "cage" you mean that someone who runs is more likely to be grappled against the cage, but I'm only talking about striking right now.

"Space now available for backward movement for pressure fighters" - that's not a disadvantage of running on a mechanics level. That's the logical result of an overly defensive style on a strategic level.

In other words, go back and look at my list. My list either contains testable, mathmatical statements (increased frame penalty, increased damage due to vulnerability, increased block damage) or binary and testable yes/no statements (a lunged forward-moving strike results in a positional reset).

Your list contains vague assertions regarding the strategic disadvantages inherent to playing an overly defensive style. The only real testable claim you have regarding how the mechanics work is that damage, block stun, and bleedthrough are increased for circling into strikes (this isn't how you said it, but I think it's what you meant). This is correct. However, that alone doesn't remotely address my argument about how cage-cutting via movement is weak to nonexistent and how the game mechanics themselves punish forward movement and forward moving strikes disproportionately.

This was a good attempt and I applaud you for being one of the few people in this thread to take an honest stab at tackling the arguments I put forward instead of just calling me a beta male and saying you'd jab me to death.

Before I go, let me address this:

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

Why are running and planting conflated here? Aggressive fighters can plant just as much as someone who 'runs'. Planting is being stationary... the opposite of 'running'/movement. In fact good pressure/aggressive fighters in game and reality pressure not only with strikes but with movement. They can cage you in then plant and rip as someone tries to move in any direction.

The critical element you're ignoring is that going forward and eating a planted combo does FAR more damage than being stationary or going backward and eating a planted combo. Throwing a forward-moving strike and eating a planted combo is even more devastating.

So planting randomly is inherently more threatening when used in conjunction with a defensive / running style due to the damage amplification effects of catching someone who is moving forward. You are trying to pretend that an aggressor stopping to throw a planted combo is just as threatening, but your claim here holds no water, because being stationary does not amplify the damage and moving backward mitigates it. Moving forward into the combo amplifies the damage.

[bmlimo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZombieRommel

This is a kind of messy reply you've written but I'll see if I can make sense of it and respond. Look at my list of penalties for forward strikes and movement. Notice that my list mentions specific and testable facts about the mechanics - things like frames, meter penalties, and strike limits. These items are very specific and I made them specific on purpose. Now let's look at your list of "penalties" for backward strikes and movement: "Vulnerability for moving into strikes" - yes, there is a little bit. "Cutting off" - not sure what this means. My entire point is that the aggressor has no good movement tools to cut off the cage. "Herding" - it sounds like you are making your previous point with a different word. "Strikes", "Circling strikes," and "Cage" - no idea what any of these actually mean on a mechanics level. I assume by "cage" you mean that someone who runs is more likely to be grappled against the cage, but I'm only talking about striking right now. "Space now available for backward movement for pressure fighters" - that's not a disadvantage of running on a mechanics level. That's the logical result of an overly defensive style on a strategic level. In other words, go back and look at my list. My list either contains testable, mathmatical statements (increased frame penalty, increased damage due to vulnerability, increased block damage) or binary and testable yes/no statements (a lunged forward-moving strike results in a positional reset). Your list contains vague assertions regarding the strategic disadvantages inherent to playing an overly defensive style. The only real testable claim you have regarding how the mechanics work is that damage, block stun, and bleedthrough are increased for circling into strikes (this isn't how you said it, but I think it's what you meant). This is correct. However, that alone doesn't remotely address my argument about how cage-cutting via movement is weak to nonexistent and how the game mechanics themselves punish forward movement and forward moving strikes disproportionately. This was a good attempt and I applaud you for being one of the few people in this thread to take an honest stab at tackling the arguments I put forward instead of just calling me a beta male and saying you'd jab me to death. Before I go, let me address this: The critical element you're ignoring is that going forward and eating a planted combo does FAR more damage than being stationary or going backward and eating a planted combo. Throwing a forward-moving strike and eating a planted combo is even more devastating. So planting randomly is inherently more threatening when used in conjunction with a defensive / running style due to the damage amplification effects of catching someone who is moving forward. You are trying to pretend that an aggressor stopping to throw a planted combo is just as threatening, but your claim here holds no water, because being stationary does not amplify the damage and moving backward mitigates it. Moving forward into the combo amplifies the damage.

This is the problem just look at the mechanic and gaming aspects, the guys on the topic are interested in the fighting aspects.

[Lauriedr1ver]

Quote: Originally Posted by bmlimo

This is the problem just look at the mechanic and gaming aspects, the guys on the topic are interested in the fighting aspects.

How else do we talk about the game though? Gameplay mechanics are how these are replicated in the game.

Some things in the game are completely arcady and aren't really based on real life fighting aspects.

[bmlimo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lauriedr1ver

How else do we talk about the game though? Gameplay mechanics are how these are replicated in the game. Some things in the game are completely arcady and aren't really based on real life fighting aspects.

In my opinion u have to understand how real life aspects works than try to replicate in the game, now, Romeo only talk about how the game works and the game mechanics...but those mechanics and gameplay are correct in fighting aspects?

[1212headkick]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZombieRommel

This is a kind of messy reply you've written but I'll see if I can make sense of it and respond. Look at my list of penalties for forward strikes and movement. Notice that my list mentions specific and testable facts about the mechanics - things like frames, meter penalties, and strike limits. These items are very specific and I made them specific on purpose. Now let's look at your list of "penalties" for backward strikes and movement: "Vulnerability for moving into strikes" - yes, there is a little bit. "Cutting off" - not sure what this means. My entire point is that the aggressor has no good movement tools to cut off the cage. "Herding" - it sounds like you are making your previous point with a different word. "Strikes", "Circling strikes," and "Cage" - no idea what any of these actually mean on a mechanics level. I assume by "cage" you mean that someone who runs is more likely to be grappled against the cage, but I'm only talking about striking right now. "Space now available for backward movement for pressure fighters" - that's not a disadvantage of running on a mechanics level. That's the logical result of an overly defensive style on a strategic level. In other words, go back and look at my list. My list either contains testable, mathmatical statements (increased frame penalty, increased damage due to vulnerability, increased block damage) or binary and testable yes/no statements (a lunged forward-moving strike results in a positional reset). Your list contains vague assertions regarding the strategic disadvantages inherent to playing an overly defensive style. The only real testable claim you have regarding how the mechanics work is that damage, block stun, and bleedthrough are increased for circling into strikes (this isn't how you said it, but I think it's what you meant). This is correct. However, that alone doesn't remotely address my argument about how cage-cutting via movement is weak to nonexistent and how the game mechanics themselves punish forward movement and forward moving strikes disproportionately. This was a good attempt and I applaud you for being one of the few people in this thread to take an honest stab at tackling the arguments I put forward instead of just calling me a beta male and saying you'd jab me to death. Before I go, let me address this: The critical element you're ignoring is that going forward and eating a planted combo does FAR more damage than being stationary or going backward and eating a planted combo. Throwing a forward-moving strike and eating a planted combo is even more devastating. So planting randomly is inherently more threatening when used in conjunction with a defensive / running style due to the damage amplification effects of catching someone who is moving forward. You are trying to pretend that an aggressor stopping to throw a planted combo is just as threatening, but your claim here holds no water, because being stationary does not amplify the damage and moving backward mitigates it. Moving forward into the combo amplifies the damage.

First off your trying to reason for arcade like mechanics. From top to bottom this games based on arcade fighters. From overhead attacks to cancels etc. We argue from realism. If we base things on real life thats when your argument has 0 merit. You cant throw 200 strikes around on the block and not be gassed and irl theres more defensive tools like framing and lateral movement and step feints. Most high level ufc fighters are good at avoiding strikes because theres no chain on them saying they cant circle out.

Also theres no power modifier to allow us to choose between hard and soft strikes. Thats the most crucial but left out mechanic of striking in the game. You cant say "fight back" when you cant choose your own rhythm. Pausing is only one small part of rhythm manipulation. And you cant move laterally which is the most basic footwork in martial art. You need to know about real striking before you think your so knowledgeable . Its so evident by the things you say.

[Lauriedr1ver]

Quote: Originally Posted by 1212headkick

First off your trying to reason for arcade like mechanics. From top to bottom this games based on arcade fighters. From overhead attacks to cancels etc. We argue from realism. If we base things on real life thats when your argument has 0 merit. You cant throw 200 strikes around on the block and not be gassed and irl theres more defensive tools like framing and lateral movement and step feints. Most high level ufc fighters are good at avoiding strikes because theres no chain on them saying they cant circle out. Also theres no power modifier to allow us to choose between hard and soft strikes. Thats the most crucial but left out mechanic of striking in the game. You cant say "fight back" when you cant choose your own rhythm. Pausing is only one small part of rhythm manipulation. And you cant move laterally which is the most basic footwork in martial art. You need to know about real striking before you think your so knowledgeable . Its so evident by the things you say.

Yous aren't arguing at all in the same things, yous are basically talking to yourselves. If you want to actually want to get anywhere actually argue with the opposing view point. I know your hearts in the right place but this is letting our side down, no offense.

[Haz____]

Just a small observation-

If defensive fighting was as OP as Rommel is trying to make it out to be, more people would do it. I mean, simple as that. Many players are just going to do whatever is the easiest way to get the W, it doesn't matter what that strategy happens to be...

But here's the thing, I can play UFC 3 for days on end sometimes before I find someone who uses a lot of movement, and plays paced and technical. I mean, I'll seriously just get fight after fight after fight after fight of pressure combo guys. It's almost unbelievable to me sometimes that soooooooooooo many people seriously play this game like that.

And there's a reason for that: Because pressure gets you easy Ws. The level of mechanical understanding and skill you need to be effective with pressure is just massively disproportionate to the mechanical skill, timing, and understanding of all game mechancis to be effective at technical outside fighting. To say this game doesn't hugely incentivise pressure and volume is just kind of stupifying to me.


**edit**
@Rommel
If you truly believe that at a deep mechanical level defensive fighting is so powerful, why do you think it is hardly anyone actually plays like that, or fully utilizes those mechanics to the potential you're describing?

What do you think can be done to incentivise more realistic fights?