A couple of changes needed to balance standup

[Zeta Reticulan1]

Quote: Originally Posted by xtremeba1000

Hooks don't always beat side sway. There is some kind of issue with hit detection on them. I can throw a left right hook combo with someone swaying left and right and one will miss and one will graze them and only lower head heath about 10% temporarily

Not sure if this is an intended mechanism or not. Might want to post this in the bugs thread.

[jettosu134408]

Movement is always the number one most important thing in fighting especially striking... i dont understand everyones issue with it....footwork, range, head movement... those are all key elements to strikiing... if you cant move your feet/head well then guess what... youre a ****ty fighter and you should probably never try to strike with anyone... the issue is every fighter moving the same... the head movement aspect of the game is not broken... the head movement ratings are for some reason irrelevant. That's the real issue...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Boiler569]

Quote: Originally Posted by Zeta Reticulan1

Not sure if this is an intended mechanism or not. Might want to post this in the bugs thread.

There are definitely some hit detection issues in-game. Perhaps some of them are explained away by poor angle of attack/etc (similar to real life, where a shot may land but do little damage b/c of the angle or other factors) --- but there are some game engine tweaks that could be made with hit boxes from my experience

[xFINISHxHIMx]

I can also comment on hit detection issues it's a real thing... that never happened in UFC 2. The hit detection and the ko rag doll after connecting was a wonderful feeling in 2.

[tomitomitomi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phillyboi207

3) Stand still shots need to do more power than moving strikes. Right now the game is balanced so that moving strikes come out slower than standing strikes. For kicks I love this idea. Punches? Not so much. A punch doesnt necessarily lose speed when your feet arent planted. You can flick a jab, toss a check hook, circle into an uppercut without losing speed. You’d be using mostly your arms however which would mean the power you’d normally get from your hips/lower body isnt there. When you sit down on a strike you’re able to balance yourself to properly transfer weight from your lower body/hips into your punch. What this change would do: A) Put emphasis on planting feet to throw. Meaning forward pressure is now risk/reward. You can come forward but risk your opponent stopping and countering with a more powerful shot. B) Make it someone’s goal to cut the cage off and then strike vs just chasing you throwing forward strikes. Anthony Johnson is a great example of someone who really sits down on his punches and gets his lower body involved. Watch the torque from hips. That’s not possible while moving unless you’re pivoting to the same side(orthodox lead pivot to lead hook)

I've been lurking the forums for quite a while but this point is so unbelievably baffling that I could not help but create an account just to address it.

1. Stationary strikes are not more powerful than strikes where you step in. The basics physics should make it apparent that if you put your body into your strike you carry the extra momentum and force with you. If you have played football (=soccer) five minutes in your life you know how much more power you get in your kick if you move into it rather than literally just stay still and swing your leg at it. Some of the most legendary KOs (Bisping Hendo comes to mind first) are from guys taking big forward steps to put their whole weight into the punch. A lot of the "stationary KOs" are more big counters than just brute force (Rampage vs Wandy 3, Rumble vs Teixiera).

2. For sake of clarity, what exactly do you consider stationary? Using UFC 3 as an example, stationary lead body kick results in your character just lifting his lead leg and smacking the opponent, whereas the forward lead body kick has him take a step with the opposite foot, then throwing the kick. If you are talking about a guy stepping into his strike then that is not stationary by the game's logic. I would accept the premise if the logic was to decrease the vanilla power but increase counter damage which would then prioritize landing quick strikes over long-winded loopy ones but you still run into the issue of guys fishing for counters.

If anything, I would rework the forward strike so it only involves a small step forward (as how FNC did it) rather than the weird jogging movement that body straights most notably have. That way stationary jabs would be just arm punches meant to occupy your opponent while forward jab would resemble what GSP used to do in his jab decisions.

3. This would completely break the balance of the game. If you have ever played any traditional fighting game, the rule of thumb is that faster strikes deal less damage (and in those games, have less reach too). Combat sports games are practically simplified fighting games (which is not a bad thing) and a lot of footsies concepts apply to both MMA game and real-life striking so I think the comparison is very fair. Speed and damage are considerably more important than range. That's why people hardly throw kicks in the game.

The main thing that people pre-patch complained about, sway strikes, were literally standing strikes that were faster and did more damage than regular attacks. People weren't lunging forward with them. Similarly, body knees and elbows were a thing even without the forward momentum. Closing the distance is not difficult at the moment, so why would the aggressive fighters not just get in your face and use stationary strikes? I don't see how that is any different from them swaying in your face while you try to counter sway them back. Seriously. Using your argument of "the guy coming forward risking getting countered" is the exact same thing that happened when they went for duck uppercuts, as they risk getting sway hooked.

4. People will always play aggressively. Playing aggressive results in quicker matches and therefore quicker ranked process (why win 1 decision when you can go 2-1 or 3-0 being aggressive in the same time frame). Even FNC, which people rave about, was filled with Mike Tyson players who spun around and tried to get big counters off. The same way guys in UFC 2 tried to get in your face and do 1-2-kick mixups. The issue is less severe in UFC 3 because the ranking prioritizes winning matches over playing matches but still.

5. I think the actual issue with super aggressive playstyles is that it is considerably easier to execute it than it is to defend against it. If you want to reduce it, then make it so the attacker has to make outplays and be efficient or he suffers severe penalties (e.g. give whiffed sway strikes more stamina drain or increase the body/leg vulnerability to a point where doing it predictably costs you).

[Phillyboi207]

Quote: Originally Posted by tomitomitomi

I've been lurking the forums for quite a while but this point is so unbelievably baffling that I could not help but create an account just to address it. 1. Stationary strikes are not more powerful than strikes where you step in. The basics physics should make it apparent that if you put your body into your strike you carry the extra momentum and force with you. If you have played football (=soccer) five minutes in your life you know how much more power you get in your kick if you move into it rather than literally just stay still and swing your leg at it. Some of the most legendary KOs (Bisping Hendo comes to mind first) are from guys taking big forward steps to put their whole weight into the punch. A lot of the "stationary KOs" are more big counters than just brute force (Rampage vs Wandy 3, Rumble vs Teixiera). 2. For sake of clarity, what exactly do you consider stationary? Using UFC 3 as an example, stationary lead body kick results in your character just lifting his lead leg and smacking the opponent, whereas the forward lead body kick has him take a step with the opposite foot, then throwing the kick. If you are talking about a guy stepping into his strike then that is not stationary by the game's logic. I would accept the premise if the logic was to decrease the vanilla power but increase counter damage which would then prioritize landing quick strikes over long-winded loopy ones but you still run into the issue of guys fishing for counters. If anything, I would rework the forward strike so it only involves a small step forward (as how FNC did it) rather than the weird jogging movement that body straights most notably have. That way stationary jabs would be just arm punches meant to occupy your opponent while forward jab would resemble what GSP used to do in his jab decisions. 3. This would completely break the balance of the game. If you have ever played any traditional fighting game, the rule of thumb is that faster strikes deal less damage (and in those games, have less reach too). Combat sports games are practically simplified fighting games (which is not a bad thing) and a lot of footsies concepts apply to both MMA game and real-life striking so I think the comparison is very fair. Speed and damage are considerably more important than range. That's why people hardly throw kicks in the game. The main thing that people pre-patch complained about, sway strikes, were literally standing strikes that were faster and did more damage than regular attacks. People weren't lunging forward with them. Similarly, body knees and elbows were a thing even without the forward momentum. Closing the distance is not difficult at the moment, so why would the aggressive fighters not just get in your face and use stationary strikes? I don't see how that is any different from them swaying in your face while you try to counter sway them back. Seriously. Using your argument of "the guy coming forward risking getting countered" is the exact same thing that happened when they went for duck uppercuts, as they risk getting sway hooked. 4. People will always play aggressively. Playing aggressive results in quicker matches and therefore quicker ranked process (why win 1 decision when you can go 2-1 or 3-0 being aggressive in the same time frame). Even FNC, which people rave about, was filled with Mike Tyson players who spun around and tried to get big counters off. The same way guys in UFC 2 tried to get in your face and do 1-2-kick mixups. The issue is less severe in UFC 3 because the ranking prioritizes winning matches over playing matches but still. 5. I think the actual issue with super aggressive playstyles is that it is considerably easier to execute it than it is to defend against it. If you want to reduce it, then make it so the attacker has to make outplays and be efficient or he suffers severe penalties (e.g. give whiffed sway strikes more stamina drain or increase the body/leg vulnerability to a point where doing it predictably costs you).

I appreciate the feedback. Glad I inspired you to create an account

1) I have not played soccer but I have boxed and trained in MMA. That extra power from the step is still involving the hips and getting torque from your lower body. Simply over extending yourself by moving forward will not lead to extra power. Werdum vs Stipe is a perfect example of that. So yes stationary strikes are more powerful. If thrown with proper technique you're still putting your body into it except you're able to get your hips under you when balanced and transfer that energy properly.

2)Stationary strikes are the ones where the player isn't pressing forward. If we were talking about strikes thrown without any windup into them I'd agree with you. I'm talking about stationary strikes being used to "sit down" on your strikes. Just because your fighter is in place doesn't mean he isn't involving his lower body when striking.

3) Remember that this is all in conjunction with the other changes I've suggested. I don't think it works with the current meta but if there's an increase to footwork/lunges then it wouldn't be super easy to get in someone's face. So getting there and standing and planting becomes a different ball game. Plus that would make the meta more realistic. You have the option of over extending or sitting down to do some real damage. It would force you to focus on cutting off the cage.

And yes I've also played other fighting game but this isn't one. Stamina also matters and if stationary strikes did more damage they would come with a higher stamina penalty and greater vulnerability. I actually think the speed should be about the same as moving strikes.

4) Not sure of your point here or its relevance to this topic. I'm not against any particular playstyle. I just want balance amongst them.

5)There is no issue with super aggressive playstyles. The issue is the defensive options are limited to being super aggressive back (with counters) lol. I just want all playstyles to be viable.

Hope that helped

[FCB x Finlay]

I can post some clips of me trying to fighting om the outisde. 2 wins 2 losses. Just want to see what you guys think, taking ages to load tho

[FCB x Finlay]

http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/FCB%20x%20F...video/45487750
http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/FCB%20x%20F...video/45487730
http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/FCB%20x%20F...video/45486441
http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/FCB%20x%20F...video/45481665
http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/FCB%20x%20F...video/45481763

3 wins 2 losses. Not the best but some use of movement