So, why should i attack first?

[WarMMA]

I already know alot of ppl will try and lay back and play counter fighter now that they will finally be rewarded the way they should. I can't wait to pick them apart.

[Solid_Altair]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dave_S

What if fighter throwing first has much better hand speed?

... and is using a fast technique, like a jab or a straight... you can't interrupt him. Is this what you mean to ask?

This is precisely how you strategize vulnerability (along with other factors, too). You could do this to some extent in EA MMA, even though th eframes were messy. In EA UFC 3, with tuned frames, you can expect the "timing" meta game to be much more advanced and fair.

And remember, who gets to throw first depends on frame advantage, which depends on "what just hapenned". This is how things can be tuned so that the fights have a realistic flow. Do people tend to try to attack or defend, after such attacks lands? Questions like these can be answered in the tuning,
to make it so the striking can have a very realistic pace (even aside from stamina).

[Malaach]

How does vulnerability play a role when getting hit when taunting? And do taunts have the same effect as strikes to be cancelled via block? Will vulnerability make players less hesitant to taunt?

[Dave_S]

Quote: Originally Posted by Solid_Altair

... and is using a fast technique, like a jab or a straight... you can't interrupt him. Is this what you mean to ask?

Yes it was.

[ZombieRommel]

As someone who dislikes when players do nothing but fish for counters, I've spent most of my combat sim gaming career walking down and goading these types of players into their undoing.

The first thing to recognize about a counter fighter is that they are most at home in the center of the ring. From there they can play matador as you come in with your offense, sometimes stabbing you with a strike, sometimes using lateral movement or a back step to make you whiff and punish you.

The second thing to recognize about a counter fighter is that they thrive on telegraphed strikes and predictable patterns.

Look at what happened to Forrest Griffin against Anderson Silva. It's a prime example. You had a big slow guy winging wild punches in the middle of the ring. Anderson was in his absolute element. He could do whatever he wanted.

So you, as the aggressor, should have three primary objectives at the top of your head:

• Cut off the cage
• Give minimal openings
• Employ staccato rhythm

You can think of a counter fighter like a small flame, barely burning. Wild strikes and predictable patterns are like gasoline and the counter-fighter's embers can only blaze into an inferno with the proper fuel.


Therefore, you starve the fire. You give minimal opportunities to the counter-fighter and you pressure him backward, where his escape routes are limited and he becomes akin to a trapped rat who, instead of having the leisure of choosing when and how to respond to you is now forced to react to you if he wants to avoid damage.


When advancing, you want the strikes you throw to be fast and low risk, and your rhythm should be staccato. Your only real goal is to apply pressure safely to constrict the cage and therefore the counter-fighter's available range of motion. As you take away the counter-fighter's defensive options, you stifle his ability to employ defense as a means to hurt you. It's very much like starving a fire of oxygen.


Once the counter-fighter is to the cage, your safe offense options open up. The back step is completely neutralized, so as long as you maintain proper range and stay on the end of your punches and kicks, your danger is minimized. The counter-fighter can't step back to make you whiff for the follow-up punish. He can move laterally and you can punish accordingly with rounded strikes. Or you can threaten with an instant thai plum against the cage. I couldn't tell you how many counter-fighters I wiped out in UFC2 with the cage thai plum.


If you get a lead in the fight (one you feel is significant), there's no pressure to finish. What I'll often do, especially if I don't like the guy I'm fighting, is build up a lead with smart aggression in the first half of the fight and then just hang back. Now the pressure is on the counter-fighter to do what he likely doesn't know how to do - bring the fight to you. If you can build up a lead, then oftentimes the best way to get the counter-fighter to crumble is to become just as passive as he is. This also has a damning psychological effect on many opponent. As desperation sets in, they start coming forward, and they get lit up. The realization that they've ignored a full half of the striking game is sometimes too much to bear. The amount of rage quits and hate mail I've received as a result of this strategy is absurd.


A counter fighter, absent an opponent who gives him the fuel he needs to thrive, is a desperate man indeed.

[Supreme_Bananas]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZombieRommel

As someone who dislikes when players do nothing but fish for counters, I've spent most of my combat sim gaming career walking down and goading these types of players into their undoing. The first thing to recognize about a counter fighter is that they are most at home in the center of the ring. From there they can play matador as you come in with your offense, sometimes stabbing you with a strike, sometimes using lateral movement or a back step to make you whiff and punish you. The second thing to recognize about a counter fighter is that they thrive on telegraphed strikes and predictable patterns. Look at what happened to Forrest Griffin against Anderson Silva. It's a prime example. You had a big slow guy winging wild punches in the middle of the ring. Anderson was in his absolute element. He could do whatever he wanted. So you, as the aggressor, should have three primary objectives at the top of your head: Cut off the cage Give minimal openings Employ staccato rhythm You can think of a counter fighter like a small flame, barely burning. Wild strikes and predictable patterns are like gasoline and the counter-fighter's embers can only blaze into an inferno with the proper fuel. Therefore, you starve the fire. You give minimal opportunities to the counter-fighter and you pressure him backward, where his escape routes are limited and he becomes akin to a trapped rat who, instead of having the leisure of choosing when and how to respond to you is now forced to react to you if he wants to avoid damage. When advancing, you want the strikes you throw to be fast and low risk, and your rhythm should be staccato. Your only real goal is to apply pressure safely to constrict the cage and therefore the counter-fighter's available range of motion. As you take away the counter-fighter's defensive options, you stifle his ability to employ defense as a means to hurt you. It's very much like starving a fire of oxygen. Once the counter-fighter is to the cage, your safe offense options open up. The back step is completely neutralized, so as long as you maintain proper range and stay on the end of your punches and kicks, your danger is minimized. The counter-fighter can't step back to make you whiff for the follow-up punish. He can move laterally and you can punish accordingly with rounded strikes. Or you can threaten with an instant thai plum against the cage. I couldn't tell you how many counter-fighters I wiped out in UFC2 with the cage thai plum. If you get a lead in the fight (one you feel is significant), there's no pressure to finish. What I'll often do, especially if I don't like the guy I'm fighting, is build up a lead with smart aggression in the first half of the fight and then just hang back. Now the pressure is on the counter-fighter to do what he likely doesn't know how to do - bring the fight to you. If you can build up a lead, then oftentimes the best way to get the counter-fighter to crumble is to become just as passive as he is. This also has a damning psychological effect on many opponent. As desperation sets in, they start coming forward, and they get lit up. The realization that they've ignored a full half of the striking game is sometimes too much to bear. The amount of rage quits and hate mail I've received as a result of this strategy is absurd. A counter fighter, absent an opponent who gives him the fuel he needs to thrive, is a desperate man indeed.

Interesting piece indeed, although I can't imagine how that worked in UFC2 since counters were so ineffective, unless you fished for parries all fight

[HereticGabriel]

Reading that was nice... but one thing stood out to me.

Please tell me the initial clinch against the cage isn’t still the thai plum? I found that stupid how being against the cage was an auto thai clinch when it should be over under or single collar

[The meticulous Esp]

[quote=HereticGabriel;2049102317]Reading that was nice... but one thing stood out to me.

Please tell me the initial clinch against the cage isn’t still the thai plum? I found that stupid how being against the cage was an auto thai clinch when it should be over under or single collar[/

Absolutely this, no more auto Thay Clinch near the cage !!! This is crucial !!