Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • aholbert32
    (aka Alberto)
    • Jul 2002
    • 33106

    #931
    Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

    Originally posted by johnmangala
    It's not about anyone responding in particular. It's about the general undermining of feedback that goes against the established meta. Like I said, there should be a division of game-samers. Y'all smear ideas of people like me then beg the question by not supporting your premise that an unbeatable AI would be a waste of resources. Y?

    The thing is I am not in the ever in the mood to defend evolving this game. Y'all constantly force people like me to argue by smearing and running away. I have generally present ideas only for established actors to swoop in and defend their status quo.


    It's proved that these ideas can lead to more $ as they accommodate more demand and meets basic needs.


    Also you missed the point on devs taking credit for unpatented ideas people presented here. You acknowledged people like Romero, etc having contributed to this game in that same thread by the same criteria... In that same and similar threads devs (including GPD, MM, you, Zombie, Altair, Zhunter, etc) under the same criteria ideas I campaigned are already in the game too... for example single collar stuns... Y'alls echo chamber is showing.

    I know my feedback is better since I've inspired this collective evolution. It already exists in the game, like many entrance animations and anonymous mode (UT). It requires some abstraction but the idea is rooted -> practical and novel.

    I understand I have been tone deaf and my framing has sucked but I've been reflecting back what I see. I am trying to filter it better now.

    An unbeatable AI

    Spoiler
    I honestly have no idea about what you are talking about. I wont talk about anyone else. I'll talk about me.

    I said in the past that I dont recall a single time where a thread or idea of yours was brought up behind the scenes in a positive way. I do recall where several other people here have had other threads that were and some of those ideas were built on by the devs. I also recall running a search in our old GC Slack just to confirm what I said and my search confirmed it.

    I stand by that statement. I swear on my child that if there was evidence of an idea that originated with you appearing in the game...I would tell you.

    No one is smearing your idea. I dont like the idea. I can dislike an idea without it being a smear.

    I also dont have to write paragraphs defending my position every time that I disagree with someone. Just like I dont write paragraphs agreeing about ideas I agree with. I like it....and move on. I say I dont like it....and try to move on. The issue is you wont let anyone move on.

    Let me restate something again: Just because something you write here appears in the game doesnt mean that you were the one who came up with the idea. For example, I'm sure I can find someone on this forum who said we should add driving takedowns and now we have driving takedowns. Now its possible that GPD saw that post and said "Lets add driving takedowns at the next mo cap session". Its also possible that driving takedowns have been on his mo cap list for years (well before the post) and he wasnt able to get them in the game until recently.

    Finally, if you cant tell, I like to argue and debate. I'm a lawyer. Its part of what I do everyday and I love it. With that said, I dont enjoy debating you because the debates go down the same rabbit hole and its stops being worth my time. Like I could lay out every reason I think an unbeatable AI is a waste of resources. I do stuff like that all the time when defending a position. The problem is based on past experiences, I know you arent going to move one inch off of your current position and you will likely just restate what you said over and over again.

    Also, your focus is completely wrong. You waste SO MUCH time trying to convince GCs about your ideas. Having GC support would be nice but there are a good amount of ideas that have been added to the game that dont have full or any GC support.

    You want your unbeatable AI to be added to the game? Convince Skynet. Dont get mad because Solid wont "like" your post. Dont get mad at me because I dont feel like having a full out debate with you about this subject. I think its a bad idea but here is the thing...if Skynet puts it in the game, it doesnt matter to me. I just wouldnt ever play that mode/difficulty level. Thats why I didnt comment on it.

    Your current approach isnt likely to convince anyone so focus on ways to correct that instead of who likes your idea.
    Last edited by aholbert32; 08-07-2019, 09:46 AM.

    Comment

    • johnmangala
      MVP
      • Apr 2016
      • 4525

      #932
      Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

      Originally posted by aholbert32
      I honestly have no idea about what you are talking about. I wont talk about anyone else. I'll talk about me.

      I said in the past that I dont recall a single time where a thread or idea of yours was brought up behind the scenes in a positive way. I do recall where several other people here have had other threads that were and some of those ideas were built on by the devs. I also recall running a search in our old GC Slack just to confirm what I said and my search confirmed it.

      I stand by that statement. I swear on my child that if there was evidence of an idea that originated with you appearing in the game...I would tell you.

      No one is smearing your idea. I dont like the idea. I can dislike an idea without it being a smear.

      I also dont have to write paragraphs defending my position every time that I disagree with someone. Just like I dont write paragraphs agreeing about ideas I agree with. I like it....and move on. I say I dont like it....and try to move on. The issue is you wont let anyone move on.

      Let me restate something again: Just because something you write here appears in the game doesnt mean that you were the one who came up with the idea. For example, I'm sure I can find someone on this forum who said we should add driving takedowns and now we have driving takedowns. Now its possible that GPD saw that post and said "Lets add driving takedowns at the next mo cap session". Its also possible that driving takedowns have been on his mo cap list for years (well before the post) and he wasnt able to get them in the game until recently.

      Finally, if you cant tell, I like to argue and debate. I'm a lawyer. Its part of what I do everyday and I love it. With that said, I dont enjoy debating you because the debates go down the same rabbit hole and its stops being worth my time. Like I could lay out every reason I think an unbeatable AI is a waste of resources. I do stuff like that all the time when defending a position. The problem is based on past experiences, I know you arent going to move one inch off of your current position and you will likely just restate what you said over and over again.

      Also, your focus is completely wrong. You waste SO MUCH time trying to convince GCs about your ideas. Having GC support would be nice but there are a good amount of ideas that have been added to the game that dont have full or any GC support.

      You want your unbeatable AI to be added to the game? Convince Skynet. Dont get mad because Solid wont "like" your post. Dont get mad at me because I dont feel like having a full out debate with you about this subject. I think its a bad idea but here is the thing...if Skynet puts it in the game, it doesnt matter to me. I just wouldnt ever play that mode/difficulty level. Thats why I didnt comment on it.

      Your current approach isnt likely to convince anyone so focus on ways to correct that instead of who likes your idea.
      That includes me, I also campaigned for driving TDs (mobile TDs as a clinch position rather than canned animation).

      Also the things like clinch defense stance I was the one of the few here demanding it, if not the only one. GPD attests.

      Let's bring in GPD and ask him about them ideas. I know he doesn't like arguing the status quo with me either because I don't venerate him like others here. But he has already admitted to my contributions and that ideas I've presented are already in the pipelines for UFC 4 {target/aim, better accuracy stat, more variable meta) as have you before...

      ... for example single collar stuns.

      I have no problem trying to convince Skynet too but he has to reply first. We are entitled to the facts, so I understand Skynet doesn't have to reply if he doesn't want to but we all here are entitled to a fair and balanced meta and it's already been shown that the game is not fair (punch skew) despite all the hoorah about a 'consistent meta'.

      I and others have proven that the meta is skewed since punches are exaggeratedly stun magnets -> immersion breaking accuracy all the while we can just hold low block to auto check leg kicks. Sadly the same thing applies to grappling with predenying => clinch/TD defense stance.

      You said before I don't counter your arguments and I just repeat (yet that's what you are doing now), so what exactly is the criteria? But I see my approach has failed since my framing has sucked. So I'll get better at it.

      Comment

      • aholbert32
        (aka Alberto)
        • Jul 2002
        • 33106

        #933
        Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

        Originally posted by johnmangala
        That includes me, I also campaigned for driving TDs (mobile TDs as a clinch position rather than canned animation).

        Also the things like clinch defense stance I was the one of the few here demanding it, if not the only one. GPD attests.

        Let's bring in GPD and ask him about them ideas. I know he doesn't like arguing the status quo with me either because I don't venerate him like others here. But he has already admitted to my contributions and that ideas I've presented are already in the pipelines for UFC 4 {target/aim, better accuracy stat, more variable meta) as have you before...

        ... for example single collar stuns.

        I have no problem trying to convince Skynet too but he has to reply first. We are entitled to the facts, so I understand Skynet doesn't have to reply if he doesn't want to but we all here are entitled to a fair and balanced meta and it's already been shown that the game is not fair (punch skew) despite all the hoorah about a 'consistent meta'.

        I and others have proven that the meta is skewed since punches are exaggeratedly stun magnets -> immersion breaking accuracy all the while we can just hold low block to auto check leg kicks. Sadly the same thing applies to grappling with predenying => clinch/TD defense stance.

        You said before I don't counter your arguments and I just repeat (yet that's what you are doing now), so what exactly is the criteria? But I see my approach has failed since my framing has sucked. So I'll get better at it.
        John,

        I dont know how else to make this clear for you.

        Just because you were the first one on OS to post about an idea (assuming that you were the first), doesnt mean that the reason a version of that idea is in the game is because of you. As I said before, the devs may have thought of that idea previously....a GC may have suggested before you did....someone on Reddit, Twitter or some other social media may have suggested it before.

        Im not going to speak for GPD but based on interacting with him for the last 5 years I'll guess that he isnt likely to jump in here to discuss this subject. He's in the middle of developing the next game and he rarely comes here and comments during development. He's also not likely to comment on whether or not you played a role in inspiring many of the ideas he's added to the game.

        I do want to correct one thing:

        "But he has already admitted to my contributions and that ideas I've presented are already in the pipelines for UFC 4 {target/aim, better accuracy stat, more variable meta) as have you before..."

        This is false. I havent spoken at all publicly about what I know is in UFC 4. I actually have no idea if UFC 4 will have a better accuracy stat or more variable meta (which at this point is kind of hard to determine anyway) or anything related to target aim. I have no plans to comment on what i know because I'm not interested in violating my NDA. I also dont recall saying "single collar stuns" originated with you. I'd appreciate if you could find the post where i said that. If you can find it I'll admit I was wrong.

        I also dont recall GPD confirming much about what will be in UFC 4 but maybe I missed a thread he was in.

        Finally, you arent entitled to ****. Nothing. You pay $60 every two years and you get a game. Thats the deal.

        The devs dont have to post here.

        They dont have to respond to your posts.

        They dont have to go into depth defending their positions.

        They dont have to provide you with Facts.

        They dont have to explain their answers.

        They dont have to go back and forth with you.

        They dont have the explain the inner workings of the game to you.



        They do so because they choose to but you arent entitled to anything. Skynet gave you a response. You didnt like the response. He may choose to respond again but he doesnt have to.

        Finally, you keep talking about how you approach has failed and you will try to get better at it but I'm not seeing it. You are doing the same style of argument you always do. I have the patience for it (within reason) but others dont.

        If your goal is to get your ideas in the game, get credit for those ideas and have a healthy back and forth with the devs, GCs and your fellow OSers, you are failing at that goal. You arent going to reach your goal by attacking GCs because they like other people's posts and not yours or demanding answers from a Dev who isnt obligated to even talk to you.

        Comment

        • Kingslayer04
          MVP
          • Dec 2017
          • 1482

          #934
          Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

          Another note - the AI backs up way too easily. Not just counter strikers but guys like Holloway, too. You move forward and they'll back up all the way to the fence. I'd like to see certain AIs stand their ground, the Holloways, the Gaethjes, the Fergusons. Even the counter guys should look to avoid getting cornered and look to circle when the cage gets too close. Right now you can easily corner anyone.

          Also, I've mentioned this before, but I'd love for us to be able to edit fighter stats, but also their sliders (in case 100 power once again doesn't mean anything, hopefully that won't be the case), and then save them to the fighter so you don't have to tinker with sliders before every single fight.

          Another thing — number the slider values. Right now we just have the slider but it would be great to have 0 for neutral and then -/+ # to know exactly what setting we've applied to whom. It would also be great to be able to adjust as many things as possible, such as punching power/kicking power. You don't want to up someone's punching power and have them become a Cro Cop level kicker as well. Hopefully that's a simple thing to do since those should be separated in the stats as well. Tinkering with Grappling/Striking stamina separately would be great, too.
          Last edited by Kingslayer04; 08-09-2019, 01:47 AM.

          Comment

          • johnmangala
            MVP
            • Apr 2016
            • 4525

            #935
            Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

            Originally posted by aholbert32
            John,

            I dont know how else to make this clear for you.

            Just because you were the first one on OS to post about an idea (assuming that you were the first), doesnt mean that the reason a version of that idea is in the game is because of you. As I said before, the devs may have thought of that idea previously....a GC may have suggested before you did....someone on Reddit, Twitter or some other social media may have suggested it before.

            Im not going to speak for GPD but based on interacting with him for the last 5 years I'll guess that he isnt likely to jump in here to discuss this subject. He's in the middle of developing the next game and he rarely comes here and comments during development. He's also not likely to comment on whether or not you played a role in inspiring many of the ideas he's added to the game.

            I do want to correct one thing:

            "But he has already admitted to my contributions and that ideas I've presented are already in the pipelines for UFC 4 {target/aim, better accuracy stat, more variable meta) as have you before..."

            This is false. I havent spoken at all publicly about what I know is in UFC 4. I actually have no idea if UFC 4 will have a better accuracy stat or more variable meta (which at this point is kind of hard to determine anyway) or anything related to target aim. I have no plans to comment on what i know because I'm not interested in violating my NDA. I also dont recall saying "single collar stuns" originated with you. I'd appreciate if you could find the post where i said that. If you can find it I'll admit I was wrong.

            I also dont recall GPD confirming much about what will be in UFC 4 but maybe I missed a thread he was in.

            Finally, you arent entitled to ****. Nothing. You pay $60 every two years and you get a game. Thats the deal.

            The devs dont have to post here.

            They dont have to respond to your posts.

            They dont have to go into depth defending their positions.

            They dont have to provide you with Facts.

            They dont have to explain their answers.

            They dont have to go back and forth with you.

            They dont have the explain the inner workings of the game to you.



            They do so because they choose to but you arent entitled to anything. Skynet gave you a response. You didnt like the response. He may choose to respond again but he doesnt have to.

            You arent going to reach your goal by attacking GCs because they like other people's posts and not yours or demanding answers from a Dev who isnt obligated to even talk to you.
            You miss the point again.

            You acknowledged people like Romero, etc having contributed to this game in that same thread by the same criteria... In that same and similar threads devs (including GPD, MM, you, Zombie, Altair, Zhunter, etc) under the same criteria ideas I campaigned are already in the game too... for example single collar stuns

            Y'all demonstrate the that you already entitle people (special treatment) by not treating everyone fairly under the same criteria. Plus I didn't mean that you said any mechanic originated from me, but that y'all have liked ideas of mine that are in the game now... but when y'all get venerated and someone presents an idea you might acknowledge them (Romero, etc) if they are elite.


            It would be great to see a driving clinch btw. It would be great to see the AI just grab you and not be forced to be a perfect counter striker. I earnestly see I have condescended and attacked the devs. It's just odd to be that y'all are allowed to do such things to average posters but fair enough that's how it is.

            But you are correct in some ways.

            Originally posted by aholbert32
            Finally, you keep talking about how you approach has failed and you will try to get better at it but I'm not seeing it. You are doing the same style of argument you always do. I have the patience for it (within reason) but others dont.

            If your goal is to get your ideas in the game, get credit for those ideas and have a healthy back and forth with the devs, GCs and your fellow OSers, you are failing at that goal.
            Yes this is what I want, when I tried way earlier this is the approach I tried but it didn't work either because y'all would come in and defend the status quo. Then I started reflecting back what I see y'all do to others back at y'all. I see that hasn't worked either.

            I am honestly trying to reset this situation now, it has gone sour.

            I realize you've said I repeat my arguments (I do because often my arguments are talked over as now and never directly addressed... as you've just admitted). What exactly is the criteria for healthy discussions?

            I'd like to see unbeatable AI... at least if not officially somehow doctored through sliders and toggles.

            Comment

            • aholbert32
              (aka Alberto)
              • Jul 2002
              • 33106

              #936
              Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

              Originally posted by johnmangala
              You miss the point again.




              Y'all demonstrate the that you already entitle people (special treatment) by not treating everyone fairly under the same criteria. Plus I didn't mean that you said any mechanic originated from me, but that y'all have liked ideas of mine that are in the game now... but when y'all get venerated and someone presents an idea you might acknowledge them (Romero, etc) if they are elite.


              It would be great to see a driving clinch btw. It would be great to see the AI just grab you and not be forced to be a perfect counter striker. I earnestly see I have condescended and attacked the devs. It's just odd to be that y'all are allowed to do such things to average posters but fair enough that's how it is.

              But you are correct in some ways.



              Yes this is what I want, when I tried way earlier this is the approach I tried but it didn't work either because y'all would come in and defend the status quo. Then I started reflecting back what I see y'all do to others back at y'all. I see that hasn't worked either.

              I am honestly trying to reset this situation now, it has gone sour.

              I realize you've said I repeat my arguments (I do because often my arguments are talked over as now and never directly addressed... as you've just admitted). What exactly is the criteria for healthy discussions?

              I'd like to see unbeatable AI... at least if not officially somehow doctored through sliders and toggles.
              - I have no idea who is "elite" nor do I give a **** who is "elite". The only elite person I know is Kenetic. Ive heard of a few other guys simply through word of mouth but unless they fight during the first 2 mos of release (when I actually watched some ESFL fight).

              - I like good ideas. For example, Haz_ and I constantly disagree but when he posts a good thread that I like...I like it. No one has to "venerate" me. I just dont understand why you have such a need for people to like your ideas. The cream rises to the top. If its a good idea, people will like it. I think an unbeatbale AI is a bad idea and likely others here do too since no one has chimed in and agreed with you or even liked your posts on it.

              - On other thing is you constantly throw passive aggressive attacks on people who disagree with you. An example is in your last post: A few people including a dev dont think your idea for an unbeatable AI is a good idea. We dont like the idea. But instead of either reflecting on if maybe your idea is a bad idea or analyzing why no one seems to agree with you.... you attack us by saying we "are defending the status quo".

              Whats funny is that in my original reply to you, I said that I never planned to address your idea. I disliked it from the jump but there was no reason to. The dev who is over AI didnt like it and even if he did like it, I just would never play that aI so it didnt affect me. I wasnt "defending the status quo". The only reason I responded was because your reply to Solid was whiny and kinda outta line.

              - I'm not a dev. You have never seen a dev condescend or attack a user on OS. It doesnt happen. The flip side is you have to treat the the same way. You cant condesend or attack them.

              Now you can condescend me all you want. You can attack my ideas all you want. Just like I can do the same to you. The line is personal attacks. Its attacking the post and not the person. Mods here have told you this before. Its a clear line and its the reason why I havent been banned.

              - Finally, can we just move on? This thread is very beneficial to Skynet, myself and anyone who helps with AI. I would appreciate if it wasnt clogged up by you arguing with me about a feature that a dev has already indicated isnt likely to be added to the game.

              Comment

              • johnmangala
                MVP
                • Apr 2016
                • 4525

                #937
                Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                Originally posted by aholbert32
                - I have no idea who is "elite" nor do I give a **** who is "elite". The only elite person I know is Kenetic. Ive heard of a few other guys simply through word of mouth but unless they fight during the first 2 mos of release (when I actually watched some ESFL fight).

                - I like good ideas. For example, Haz_ and I constantly disagree but when he posts a good thread that I like...I like it. No one has to "venerate" me. I just dont understand why you have such a need for people to like your ideas. The cream rises to the top. If its a good idea, people will like it. I think an unbeatbale AI is a bad idea and likely others here do too since no one has chimed in and agreed with you or even liked your posts on it.

                - On other thing is you constantly throw passive aggressive attacks on people who disagree with you. An example is in your last post: A few people including a dev dont think your idea for an unbeatable AI is a good idea. We dont like the idea. But instead of either reflecting on if maybe your idea is a bad idea or analyzing why no one seems to agree with you.... you attack us by saying we "are defending the status quo".

                Whats funny is that in my original reply to you, I said that I never planned to address your idea. I disliked it from the jump but there was no reason to. The dev who is over AI didnt like it and even if he did like it, I just would never play that aI so it didnt affect me. I wasnt "defending the status quo". The only reason I responded was because your reply to Solid was whiny and kinda outta line.

                - I'm not a dev. You have never seen a dev condescend or attack a user on OS. It doesnt happen. The flip side is you have to treat the the same way. You cant condesend or attack them.

                Now you can condescend me all you want. You can attack my ideas all you want. Just like I can do the same to you. The line is personal attacks. Its attacking the post and not the person. Mods here have told you this before. Its a clear line and its the reason why I havent been banned.

                - Finally, can we just move on? This thread is very beneficial to Skynet, myself and anyone who helps with AI. I would appreciate if it wasnt clogged up by you arguing with me about a feature that a dev has already indicated isnt likely to be added to the game.
                You've done the same with me. You've all liked (supported) many of my ideas.. especially earlier but lately it seems y'all have collectively decided to drown my feedback through your echo chamber.

                How hard is it to just address points, but all you do is personally attack me and deflect. GPD has done it, you've done it, your cronies here do it... it's clear what's happening.

                What would it take it have a honest discussion.. why are you literally undermining feedback BECAUSE YOU don't personally like it. Where's your evidence that if such a experience is possible through toggles and sliders why not allow it to be an option for practice?

                Comment

                • aholbert32
                  (aka Alberto)
                  • Jul 2002
                  • 33106

                  #938
                  Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                  Originally posted by johnmangala
                  You've done the same with me. You've all liked (supported) many of my ideas.. especially earlier but lately it seems y'all have collectively decided to drown my feedback through your echo chamber.

                  How hard is it to just address points, but all you do is personally attack me and deflect. GPD has done it, you've done it, your cronies here do it... it's clear what's happening.

                  What would it take it have a honest discussion.. why are you literally undermining feedback BECAUSE YOU don't personally like it. Where's your evidence that if such a experience is possible through toggles and sliders why not allow it to be an option for practice?
                  John,

                  You are preventing this thread from its stated purpose. You had an idea. A dev responded that he didnt think it was a good idea. I agreed with the dev. Move on.

                  Also if the devs are attacking you (they arent but lets say they are), my cronies (I dont have any but say I have some) hate your ideas, I dislike your ideas....why dont you just move on?

                  Even though I dont like the large majority of your ideas, I dont think you should leave but if whats the point of presenting ideas that according to you are hated by the people you need to convince (the devs)? Its just going to frustrate you.

                  Finally, if you dont have another AI related comment to present here, you are risking getting banned here by clogging up this thread with pouting about one of your ideas being turned down or a GC not liking your comment. I'm not the one who can ban you but I've been here long enough to know how this goes.

                  Come back with another idea and give it a shot. Maybe they will like that one.

                  Comment

                  • Skynet
                    EA Sports UFC Developer
                    • Mar 2015
                    • 703

                    #939
                    Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                    Right. I'm jumping in. If you two wish to continue this (please don't...) then do so privately. You've both contributed to clogging the thread without giving much if any useful content to it or those reading it. You've had more than enough time to figure yourselves out.

                    John, if you want to have a healthy discussion then you need to be able to bring up an idea, defend some points, and agree to disagree. You do not, and should not, have to convince anyone of anything. You simply need to try and enlighten them to your idea, and if it's good enough they might agree with some/all of it. If someone has brought up a counter point to your idea, then you can either address it with a point of your own or possibly accept that they are right in that context. Every idea has holes. The point of a discussion is to flesh out an idea, not to convince other people that you're right.

                    Aholbert, the lawyer in you is getting the better of you. You seem to want the last word more than you want to discourse to end. If you're done, just stop replying to him. His post are all replies to your own, so by replying to him you're just as guilty of continuing it. At least in my mind.

                    Let's get back to discussing ideas, and what their strengths and weaknesses are! Thanks folks.

                    On that note, I think the 'unbeatable' AI is perhaps just a poor wording which breeds misunderstanding. I will always strive to have the most competent and difficult AI in the game that I can manage, while requiring that it not feel like it's cheating. I want the Legendary AI to pose a real challenge to users while still being a fair fight. 'Unbeatable' to me invokes thoughts of cheating/unfair abilities and that is simply not something I'm going to do as it has happened in the past and is proven to not be a good solution.

                    If you want an AI that is equally as skilled but harder to defeat, then you can indeed use sliders to modify damage/stamina so that the AI has an edge on you.

                    Comment

                    • Kingslayer04
                      MVP
                      • Dec 2017
                      • 1482

                      #940
                      Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                      I thought I'd chime in with a piece of advice for UFC 3 that you guys may want to follow. If you play on Legendary and want cardio-freaks to really not gas, lower the stamina tax by a lot, not just a notch. I'm talking -5, -6. Lower the damage a bunch too, though. You'll get hit with volume, rather than power.

                      I've mentioned how you can easily corner anyone but yesterday I fought a Legendary Aldo, with slider tweaks (to make him gas slower, to hit a tad harder and to transition a bit faster). It was an awesome experience. He didn't back off apart from the reasonable/occasional back tracking, stands his ground, moves well, throws great combos and all in all is a great challenge that is fair.

                      I don't know if this is helpful to anyone but if I'm gonna give feedback on things I don't like, I thought I'd give some feedback when I had a positive experience as well.

                      Comment

                      • sdpdude9
                        Rookie
                        • Sep 2017
                        • 448

                        #941
                        Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                        One thing I would like to see is the AI making more realistic strike selections. Often they counter leg kicks with high kicks which just isn’t what you would do and you never see that. The proper choice would be punches down the middle. Another is choosing to throw kicks when up close in boxing range, there’s no room for kicks and it leads to an awkward animation where the fighter automatically comes back to get the kick in and it doesn’t look realistic. And finally countering body kicks with body punches, just doesn’t make sense.
                        Last edited by sdpdude9; 08-15-2019, 04:24 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Kingslayer04
                          MVP
                          • Dec 2017
                          • 1482

                          #942
                          Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                          Here's another one I enjoyed — Pettis vs Diaz, 5 rounds. Here's how I set it up, for those who want to do that in view of their upcoming fight (I was Pettis):

                          Difficulty: Legendary
                          Stamina Cost: Pettis +1, Diaz -6
                          Damage: Pettis +1, Diaz -4
                          Transition Speed: +3 for both
                          Submission Speed: +3 for both

                          I was winning the fight on points but eventually I was like "I'm winning but he'll just out-cardio me". Eventually I got finished in Round 5, having led 3-1. He did get visibly tired, just not as much as I did, and it showed. I hope you enjoy it if you do try it.

                          Comment

                          • johnmangala
                            MVP
                            • Apr 2016
                            • 4525

                            #943
                            Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                            Originally posted by aholbert32
                            John,

                            You are preventing this thread from its stated purpose. You had an idea. A dev responded that he didnt think it was a good idea. I agreed with the dev. Move on.

                            Also if the devs are attacking you (they arent but lets say they are), my cronies (I dont have any but say I have some) hate your ideas, I dislike your ideas....why dont you just move on?

                            Even though I dont like the large majority of your ideas, I dont think you should leave but if whats the point of presenting ideas that according to you are hated by the people you need to convince (the devs)? Its just going to frustrate you.

                            Finally, if you dont have another AI related comment to present here, you are risking getting banned here by clogging up this thread with pouting about one of your ideas being turned down or a GC not liking your comment. I'm not the one who can ban you but I've been here long enough to know how this goes.

                            Come back with another idea and give it a shot. Maybe they will like that one.
                            Originally posted by Skynet
                            Right. I'm jumping in. If you two wish to continue this (please don't...) then do so privately. You've both contributed to clogging the thread without giving much if any useful content to it or those reading it. You've had more than enough time to figure yourselves out.

                            John, if you want to have a healthy discussion then you need to be able to bring up an idea, defend some points, and agree to disagree. You do not, and should not, have to convince anyone of anything. You simply need to try and enlighten them to your idea, and if it's good enough they might agree with some/all of it. If someone has brought up a counter point to your idea, then you can either address it with a point of your own or possibly accept that they are right in that context. Every idea has holes. The point of a discussion is to flesh out an idea, not to convince other people that you're right.

                            Aholbert, the lawyer in you is getting the better of you. You seem to want the last word more than you want to discourse to end. If you're done, just stop replying to him. His post are all replies to your own, so by replying to him you're just as guilty of continuing it. At least in my mind.

                            Let's get back to discussing ideas, and what their strengths and weaknesses are! Thanks folks.

                            On that note, I think the 'unbeatable' AI is perhaps just a poor wording which breeds misunderstanding. I will always strive to have the most competent and difficult AI in the game that I can manage, while requiring that it not feel like it's cheating. I want the Legendary AI to pose a real challenge to users while still being a fair fight. 'Unbeatable' to me invokes thoughts of cheating/unfair abilities and that is simply not something I'm going to do as it has happened in the past and is proven to not be a good solution.

                            If you want an AI that is equally as skilled but harder to defeat, then you can indeed use sliders to modify damage/stamina so that the AI has an edge on you.
                            Yeah maybe unbeatable AI was bad wording.

                            The idea in my head is an AI showcase of sorts for the meta.. An AI that doesn't feel like it's just playing around and is a counter God. There's no tension when facing the AI for me and it can be immersion breaking. I have used sliders and the experience I am looking for is not possible in the game right now.

                            Basically I want an AI gauntlet like experience. My point is it doesn't have to be a separate mode, it can just be just through sliders. Like sliders for stuns, evasion action, counter ability, vulerability, RNG, KDs etc. But I hear what you are saying about fairness. That is the point for me, training unfair conditions (as reality). An experience that simulates the .. for example people being born into great genes and environment (luck) vs less privileged people -> (Legend vs can).

                            Apparently I'm not referring to things that aren't possible either, evidently. I've already been highlighting less used features in the game that appeals to a variety of customers... like Microtransactions offline (p2w is good for offline not online based on public feedback), or vice versa like such as anonymity (UT), sliders for online, practice, etc. These are great underutilized features that are already in the game. Ideas like this would benefit from being streamlined to threading the offline and online experience closer together.

                            Comment

                            • Kingslayer04
                              MVP
                              • Dec 2017
                              • 1482

                              #944
                              Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                              I played vs. Legendary AI Jeremy Stephens today, why was he shooting so much? He was throwing wild stuff which was great but yeah, shot after shot too.


                              Oh, I have a question — how do you adjust sliders in career? I've looked everywhere but couldn't find it. Also, can you adjust them before every fight? Thanks!
                              Last edited by Kingslayer04; 09-12-2019, 11:40 AM.

                              Comment

                              • Phillyboi207
                                Banned
                                • Apr 2012
                                • 3159

                                #945
                                Re: Fighter AI Realism vs Difficulty

                                Hey Skynet do you think we could have pro difficulty be for the “sim guys?

                                Have the fighters tuned to their real life counterparts regardless of relentless pressure or running?

                                I’d love to have Nate keep coming forward or Wonderboy to keep running.

                                Legendary can be for comp guys and casuals can have hard and below.

                                If this is doable I’d be more then happy to post AI suggestions. I can even include gifs if needed.

                                Comment

                                Working...