Buff Dan Hooker.

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

Lets be clear here. Burns is a savage and is insultingly under rated. Easily 1 of the highest level jits games in UFC and has been knocking guys lights out. He never stops competing, whether hes taking MMA fights, or BJJ super fights the dude is always out there getting at it and getting even better. The Hooker fight its known that Burns suffered a super bad weight cut and even Hooker himself came out and said that probably contributed to Burns performance.

I personaly feel like when you look at Burns backround and experience, his stats are criminally under rated.

People stopped bringing him up because we know how this works and theres no point. If Hooker is any evidence, you apparently need to destroy 5 guys in a row before EA is willing to give you decent stats.

This is an example of why I've gone away from discussing stats publicly. I'm not a big fan of misinformation and I'm kinda of over arguing with this community about misinformation.

I'm bored so I'll make an exception.

Gilbert Burns has 2 TKOs against low tier opponents and 3 from outside the UFC. If thats an example of "being a savage" or "knocking guys lights outs"...we need to redo the entire power ratings for every fighter.

Why I like doing the stats is that I'm not personally connected to these guys in anyway. I have favorite fighters but I tend to shy away from putting my input into those guys so that I'm not biased. I can look at a fighter and not use reasons like "he never stops competing" or "he had a bad weight cut" to justify a buff. I judge their performance alone...the devs and other GCs review it...and they tend to agree with me.

Regarding your last statement, all you have to do is take a look at the 50-75 we've updated to know thats not true. We've buffed people off of losses (like your boy Burns). We've nerfed people off of one loss. We've buffed people like Justin Scoggins ALOT who 95% of the community doesnt care about and 99% probably dont use.

So it doesnt take "destroying 5 guys" to get a buff. You would know that simply looking at the work we've done but that doesnt fit your narrative so thats likely why you ignore that.

[Haz_____]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

Look brother, i'm not here to get worked up, and argue with people. It's hard to tell through txt but it seems like you're coming off a bit aggressively? You have my full respect, and I respect your opinion. Im not trying to craft any narrative except what I personally see and believe.

There's only 1 or 2 other guys with the World Class BJJ acumen that Burns has. And when he's knocking guys out hes not peppering them into TKOs, hes putting them out.

From what I've seen Burns striking never looked that crisp until he started training under Henry Hooft. That's when something clicked and his striking has looked like hes reached a new level since.

Im not saying you need to give him RDA stats...

To me, in my opinion, I believe his stats are underwhelming, compared to the skill he posseses IRL.


Also bro. Come on man, you know me from UFC 2 and how much effort I put into helping out with stats and moves. And when you look at any of the CAFs ive made and posted formulas for, I try to keep things as humble and realistic as possible. Realism is what I'm most interested in.

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

Look brother, i'm not here to get worked up, and argue with people. It's hard to tell through txt but it seems like you're coming off a bit aggressively? You have my full respect, and I respect your opinion. Im not trying to craft any narrative except what I personally see and believe.

There's only 1 or 2 other guys with the World Class BJJ acumen that Burns has. And when he's knocking guys out hes not peppering them into TKOs, hes putting them out.

To me, in my opinion, I believe his stats are underwhelming, compared to the skill he posseses IRL.


Also bro. Come on man, you know me from UFC 2 and how much effort I put into helping out with stats and moves. And when you look at any of thr CAfs ive made and posted formulas for, I try to keep things as humble and realistic as possible. Realism is what I'm most interested in.

No offense but if thats the point you are trying to make....make that point. Dont say **** like "you need to destroy 5 guys to get decent stats" when you know its not true. I can respond to you straight forward (like I did with Philly) or with sarcasm and snark (which I did because of that BS line you ended your post with).

Regarding Burns, I just disagree. He KO'd 2 people. They were impressive KOs. We gave him a buff because of them coming off of a loss. Yancy Medieros has 2 also (against stronger comp) and him and his Power is about the same.

We are working in a range of about 20 points when it comes to power and Burns is in the toughest and highest populated division in the game. Buffing him a ton simply because he KO'd two low level guys will affect how we rate everyone when it comes to power.

[Phillyboi207]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

....and Hooker is in the upper mid tier. I just gave you guys the stats.

It also depends on what you do in the fight. People are asking for Hooker grappling buffs off of one fight (Diakese). Thats it. When we have the Knight, Rodriguez and Blanco fights to show that his grappling isnt even topmid tier imo. So the Diakese fight alone is supposed to erase everything we know about his grappling? In a way, his quick finishes have prevented us from being able to justify a grappling buff.

Its also not inconsistent. With Costa and Zabit, we had a clean slate. We judged them on all of their current fights AND had a better understanding of how ratings affect the game. They werent just numbers. We knew how those numbers would work.

With Hooker, he was 4-3 at the time we did the ratings and hadnt done much to show that he was going to go on the run he did. The ratings were still lower than I wanted but at the time, you could argue that he wasnt even a mid tier guy. His biggest win was over Pearson. There were no consistent ratings updates until really around April and in his next fight WE BUFFED THE HELL OUT OF HIM. 8 categories.

So he is a high mid tier striker in the game. You want a grapple stamina buff? Tell me why. Is it just because of Diakese? Ok, well I'm not a big fan of buffing or nerfing someone off of one fight unless we've really gotten it wrong and right now I dont see how that is really wrong based on his fights.

As a striker I think he should be low upper tier but overall a low mid tier guy. I’m not arguing for his grappling and I think him having a pronounced weakness is perfect. I just think he has been outclassing dudes on the feet. Like not even close.

My main issue has to do with health stats.

Lower tier guys seem to be given lower health stats to start and it seems difficult to get them buffed.

Im just not sure how you can say there isnt any inconsistencies when Moicano has a way better resume than Zhabit but his ratings are worse even after multiple top 10 wins.

And please dont take any of this the wrong way. Overall I still think the ratings are by far better than they’ve ever been. I just think the lower guys are kinda sold short especially when it comes to health ratings. I know you dont have 100% control of the ratings as well. Again, I love the ratings given to the newer fighters. I just wish guys were buffed to the same standard when showing improvement.

[RetractedMonkey]

Buff Dan Hooker.

aholbert has a wholly different outlook on stats than almost everyone else, including me. He looks at it like “what has this fighter done compared to other fighters (especially in relation to the top 10)”. I look at it as “is this fighter drastically worse/better than others in his weight class”.

There are some that ARE just that damn good or really over the hill. Those should be the ones with low 80s in stats or high 90s. Everyone else should have high 80s to low 90s in EVERY stat, with slight buffs and nerfs to match their areas of expertise.

In real life, the skill gap for most fighters be they top 15 or unranked is just not that big. This is even the case for some champions. Any given day an unranked fighter could probably ice one of the champs. It’s just how it is. There are outliers like Khabib and Cormier or on the lower end like Diego Sanchez.

The stats should reflect this in my opinion. There doesn’t need to be a huge gulf between the top tier and mid tier.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

aholbert has a wholly different outlook on stats than almost everyone else, including me. He looks at it like “what has this fighter done compared to other fighters (especially in relation to the top 10)”. I look at it as “is this fighter drastically worse/better than others in his weight class”.

There are some that ARE just that damn good or really over the hill. Those should be the ones with low 80s in stats or high 90s. Everyone else should have high 80s to low 90s in EVERY stat, with slight buffs and nerfs to match their areas of expertise.

In real life, the skill gap for most fighters be they top 15 or unranked is just not that big. This is even the case for some champions. Any given day an unranked fighter could probably ice one of the champs. It’s just how it is. There are outliers like Khabib and Cormier or on the lower end like Diego Sanchez.

The stats should reflect this in my opinion. There doesn’t need to be a huge gulf between the top tier and mid tier.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

That is a complete mischaracterization of how I see stats. In fact, you know what takes up most of my Sunday each fight weekend? Comparing stats among people within the division. Almost to the point where I should get paid for the amount of time it takes.

It would be EASY as hell for me to say "Burns knocked out two guys clean. He needs a stat bump in Power. A 93 would give him a good amount of power. Done." That would save me a ton of time.

But I dont do that. I look at the entire division and I say "Well Pettis has a 93. Dustin has a 93 too. Eddie has a 92 in Power. Has Burns showed that his power is on their level?" I do that for every ratings change we make.

I also have to justify these changes and they typically have to be justified with actual fights. I also disagree about the skill gap difference. I believe that in certain divisions there is a significant skill gap between unranked fighters and the top tier (that elite players mainly use online).

I really cant speak a ton for the ratings that were done before release. I 100% worked on them but we had the UFC's input and things done for balance (to please elite online fighters like you) that affected them. We also didnt really have a great feel for how certain stats would affect the game meta until the game was released.

I can speak to all of the changes made since April. I'll say this. Plenty of people are happy with the way I do stats. Are they perfect? Hell no but from the devs to the people who PM me at OS or Twitter or PSN to the people who publicly complement me on the stats here....there are people who are happy with them.

If they werent, I wouldnt have any input at all. So I disagree that my outlook is "wholly different than almost everyone else" because if it was this forum, the discord and the devs wouldve been flipping out about the stats.

[MysticJack541]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

aholbert has a wholly different outlook on stats than almost everyone else, including me. He looks at it like “what has this fighter done compared to other fighters (especially in relation to the top 10)”. I look at it as “is this fighter drastically worse/better than others in his weight class”.

There are some that ARE just that damn good or really over the hill. Those should be the ones with low 80s in stats or high 90s. Everyone else should have high 80s to low 90s in EVERY stat, with slight buffs and nerfs to match their areas of expertise.

In real life, the skill gap for most fighters be they top 15 or unranked is just not that big. This is even the case for some champions. Any given day an unranked fighter could probably ice one of the champs. It’s just how it is. There are outliers like Khabib and Cormier or on the lower end like Diego Sanchez.

The stats should reflect this in my opinion. There doesn’t need to be a huge gulf between the top tier and mid tier.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Agreed, take Conor and Nate for example. Both fights were very competitive in the striking department, but the stats would suggest Conor is a league above Nate. Conor has some serious inflated stats. He has five different stats that are 95+ in the striking department which is absolutey insane. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really like fighters stats to exceed 95 in almost any category, to me it just feels a little super human and something you would see on a CAF.

Not to mention in competitive play it really limits options. If I run into a good Whittaker player, or Romero player with Kelvin Gastelum, i'm pretty much f*cksville. I would like to see the stats be a little closer between the top 10 of each division, and not have fighters stats being blown up into the high 90's or have them be really low like 84 and below unless they really deserve it.

For example I think Conors striking stats should be maxed out at 93, except for accuracy which I think should be 95, and switch stance which should be 89. Or Demian Maia having 95 sub offence.

I guess I would categorize these as "stand out" stats. Only a few people should get stand out stats whether they are low, or high, for example Conors accuracy, Maias sub offence, Overeems chin, Hunt or Ngannous power, Wonderboys footwork.
To end this ramble I guess all i'm saying is that most top 10 fighters should fall inbetween 88-93 in any given stat, and should only go above or below that window if really deserved and I feel like it should be pretty rare and would give those fighters a slight advantage, but not anything insane.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Operation Sports mobile app

[RetractedMonkey]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

That is a complete mischaracterization of how I see stats. In fact, you know what takes up most of my Sunday each fight weekend? Comparing stats among people within the division. Almost to the point where I should get paid for the amount of time it takes.

It would be EASY as hell for me to say "Burns knocked out two guys clean. He needs a stat bump in Power. A 93 would give him a good amount of power. Done." That would save me a ton of time.

But I dont do that. I look at the entire division and I say "Well Pettis has a 93. Dustin has a 93 too. Eddie has a 92 in Power. Has Burns showed that his power is on their level?" I do that for every ratings change we make.

I also have to justify these changes and they typically have to be justified with actual fights. I also disagree about the skill gap difference. I believe that in certain divisions there is a significant skill gap between unranked fighters and the top tier (that elite players mainly use online).

I really cant speak a ton for the ratings that were done before release. I 100% worked on them but we had the UFC's input and things done for balance (to please elite online fighters like you) that affected them. We also didnt really have a great feel for how certain stats would affect the game meta until the game was released.

I can speak to all of the changes made since April. I'll say this. Plenty of people are happy with the way I do stats. Are they perfect? Hell no but from the devs to the people who PM me at OS or Twitter or PSN to the people who publicly complement me on the stats here....there are people who are happy with them.

If they werent, I wouldnt have any input at all. So I disagree that my outlook is "wholly different than almost everyone else" because if it was this forum, the discord and the devs wouldve been flipping out about the stats.

I don't know what you thought I was trying to say, but your explanation is exactly how I tried to word my perception of your opinion. I said you compare the stats of the fighter in question to others in the division (especially the top 10) and then you go and say that you ranked Burns comparatively to those in his division and used two top 10 fighters as your example.

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

And please dont take any of this the wrong way. Overall I still think the ratings are by far better than they’ve ever been. I just think the lower guys are kinda sold short especially when it comes to health ratings. I know you dont have 100% control of the ratings as well. Again, I love the ratings given to the newer fighters. I just wish guys were buffed to the same standard when showing improvement.

Many of those low health and stamina ratings at launch were for online balance reasons. The reality is the devs arent going to allow me or Solid or anyone to go through and bump every low level fighter's stamina and health to average levels just because. Looking at the chart, that would probably be 50-70 fighters.

Now you may have noticed that over the past 4 mos, I've been suggesting boosts to fighters who were were wrongfully low. Anderson, Guida, Markos, Aubin-Mercier, Mendes, Carmouche, Wineland, Felder and Hooker are examples just within the last 2 mos. So piece by piece, we are trying to improve them.

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

I don't know what you thought I was trying to say, but your explanation is exactly how I tried to word my perception of your opinion. I said you compare the stats of the fighter in question to others in the division (especially the top 10) and then you go and say that you ranked Burns comparatively to those in his division and used two top 10 fighters as your example.

I look at it as “is this fighter drastically worse/better than others in his weight class”.


Thats what I do. The only difference is I use their performances as one of the guidelines. Not just stats. Not just my opinion of the fighter. All of those things combined.

Thats how I determine if someone is better or worse than someone else in the division. When I talk about beating someone in the "top 10" thats just short hand for the forums. I look at Yancy Medieros' two KO's over Alex Olivieria and Erick Silva and those two finishes rank higher to me than Burns' KO's over Saggo and Moret.

Now I watched all of those fights live. I was impressed by Burns' power but I will disagree with anyone who thinks those KO's were over better competition than Medieros'. I have no idea if Medieros' comp was ranked at the time. I just have seen them fight and I know how tough they are. So if you ask me RIGHT NOW who should be rated higher in power based on their UFC fights, its Medieros.

So thats the thought process. Its not purely using stats (stats weigh more in my mind for things like TDD and accuracy) or where someone is ranked. Its a combination of a lot of things.

[Phillyboi207]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

Many of those low health and stamina ratings at launch were for online balance reasons. The reality is the devs arent going to allow me or Solid or anyone to go through and bump every low level fighter's stamina and health to average levels just because. Looking at the chart, that would probably be 50-70 fighters.

Now you may have noticed that over the past 4 mos, I've been suggesting boosts to fighters who were were wrongfully low. Anderson, Guida, Markos, Aubin-Mercier, Mendes, Carmouche, Wineland, Felder and Hooker are examples just within the last 2 mos. So piece by piece, we are trying to improve them.

Yeah it’s definitely getting better. Felder is another good example tho. Dude has taken serious damage from Barboza and Perry. Everything indicates his health stats should be higher than someone like Iaquinta (who got a boost for being jabbed to death by Khabib lol).

I’m just hoping if a guy proves himself against top 10 competition he’d see more of a boost. Leon Edwards beat Cerrone who is a monster in game. If you look at their current ratings Edwards doesnt really stand a chance.

Good discussion tho. It’s always cool to get more background in what criteria is used to determine ratings.

[RetractedMonkey]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

I look at it as “is this fighter drastically worse/better than others in his weight class”.


Thats what I do. The only difference is I use their performances as one of the guidelines. Not just stats. Not just my opinion of the fighter. All of those things combined.

Thats how I determine if someone is better or worse than someone else in the division. When I talk about beating someone in the "top 10" thats just short hand for the forums. I look at Yancy Medieros' two KO's over Alex Olivieria and Erick Silva and those two finishes rank higher to me than Burns' KO's over Saggo and Moret.

Now I watched all of those fights live. I was impressed by Burns' power but I will disagree with anyone who thinks those KO's were over better competition than Medieros'. I have no idea if Medieros' comp was ranked at the time. I just have seen them fight and I know how tough they are. So if you ask me RIGHT NOW who should be rated higher in power based on their UFC fights, its Medieros.

So thats the thought process. Its not purely using stats (stats weigh more in my mind for things like TDD and accuracy) or where someone is ranked. Its a combination of a lot of things.

But, that quote highlighted isn't how you do the stats. The operative word is "drastically". I feel you have a more nitpick style (which is fine), whereas I am perfectly okay with making wide changes even if they aren't as close to accurate as humanly possible. For the sake of gameplay and in my view that the top 10 in any given division is not that much better than your average unranked UFC prospect.

I believe we've already come to the conclusion that we just have a difference of opinion in the way stats should be done. I GET why you do it the way you do. I just think the gameplay and replayability suffers with your way.

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

Agreed, take Conor and Nate for example. Both fights were very competitive in the striking department, but the stats would suggest Conor is a league above Nate. Conor has some serious inflated stats. He has five different stats that are 95+ in the striking department which is absolutey insane. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really like fighters stats to exceed 95 in almost any category, to me it just feels a little super human and something you would see on a CAF.

Not to mention in competitive play it really limits options. If I run into a good Whittaker player, or Romero player with Kelvin Gastelum, i'm pretty much f*cksville. I would like to see the stats be a little closer between the top 10 of each division, and not have fighters stats being blown up into the high 90's or have them be really low like 84 and below unless they really deserve it.

For example I think Conors striking stats should be maxed out at 93, except for accuracy which I think should be 95, and switch stance which should be 89. Or Demian Maia having 95 sub offence.

I guess I would categorize these as "stand out" stats. Only a few people should get stand out stats whether they are low, or high, for example Conors accuracy, Maias sub offence, Overeems chin, Hunt or Ngannous power, Wonderboys footwork.
To end this ramble I guess all i'm saying is that most top 10 fighters should fall inbetween 88-93 in any given stat, and should only go above or below that window if really deserved and I feel like it should be pretty rare and would give those fighters a slight advantage, but not anything insane.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Operation Sports mobile app

I'd argue that most already do. Especially if they are in the top 5.

[aholbert32]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

But, that quote highlighted isn't how you do the stats. The operative word is "drastically". I feel you have a more nitpick style (which is fine), whereas I am perfectly okay with making wide changes even if they aren't as close to accurate as humanly possible. For the sake of gameplay and in my view that the top 10 in any given division is not that much better than your average unranked UFC prospect.

I believe we've already come to the conclusion that we just have a difference of opinion in the way stats should be done. I GET why you do it the way you do. I just think the gameplay and replayability suffers with your way.

I understand your way and I just disagree with it completely. We come from different persepctives when it comes to this. I have similar arguments with Zombie and some of the other online GCs. I completely think that there is a huge difference in skill between Dustin Poirier and Jake Matthews and I think the game should show it.

My goal isnt to make more ranked players viable. You know I dont give a **** about that. If real life makes them viable then the stats should show that. If not than you either have to deal with that handicap or not use him. I also doubt that elite online ranked players would even use more fighters if we rated them your ways. Comp people always want to use the best when it comes down to it even if there isnt a huge difference between the best.

I always find it strange that this game is the only game where I see arguments like this. I dont see anyone playing NBA 2k saying that Steph Curry and Otto Porter should have ratings in the same just because they are both in the NBA. The stats and the tape show that Curry is significantly better so there is no room for debate. Same thing here.

[xtremeba1000]

Re: Buff Dan Hooker.

Do you have a response about Dan Hooker's switch stance stat?
I think you may have missed my comment earlier.
Please watch the Hatsu Hioki fight and Yair Rodriquez fight and reassess Hooker's switch stance stat of 80, the lowest possible. When he switches just as much as Wonderboy does ( 99 switch stance) and has KO's from both stances