EA Sports UFC 2 Video - The Ins and Outs of the Grapple Advantage

[BL8001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phobia

Side note, this should also be how long term stamina is reduced for "highlight" strikes like spinning attacks or jumping attacks. There should be a huge penalty for just throwing them repeatedly.

This 100%. A great cumulative fatigue affect.

If a fighter is Sub and trying to buck the Dom off the first try would not be too taxing, but the more attempts the greater the fatigue.

Look at it just like lifting weights. You can lift 150 pounds once without as great an effort as the 10th time you lift it.

Just like cardio, if I box jump once it's not taxing. But the 60th time I do it I want to die.

The game seems to tax only the punch, kick, transition, take down, etc as a one off occurrence penalty wise. So if .01 fatigue is taken off the first kick, .01 is taken off of each successive kick. Which mean's the 80th kick is as easy to do as the 1st one.

I really like your compounding fatigue model. That applied to multiple facets of this game would really help the realism and help fights play out much better fatigue wise.

You look at some fighters who throw hands and kicks early in a fight looking for a quick win barely able to lift their arms to defend in later rounds because of the fatigue affect.

Or like when two heavyweights in an all out war are just leaning on each other in the later rounds because they are exhausted. Never seen that in this game and it would be thrilling.

[Phobia]

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

FYI, I'm not ignoring your post, I'm just all of a sudden pretty busy and need a bit of time to read and type a response. Soon...

Awesome GDU!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by BL8001

This 100%. A great cumulative fatigue affect. If a fighter is Sub and trying to buck the Dom off the first try would not be too taxing, but the more attempts the greater the fatigue. Look at it just like lifting weights. You can lift 150 pounds once without as great an effort as the 10th time you lift it. Just like cardio, if I box jump once it's not taxing. But the 60th time I do it I want to die. The game seems to tax only the punch, kick, transition, take down, etc as a one off occurrence penalty wise. So if .01 fatigue is taken off the first kick, .01 is taken off of each successive kick. Which mean's the 80th kick is as easy to do as the 1st one. I really like your compounding fatigue model. That applied to multiple facets of this game would really help the realism and help fights play out much better fatigue wise. You look at some fighters who throw hands and kicks early in a fight looking for a quick win barely able to lift their arms to defend in later rounds because of the fatigue affect. Or like when two heavyweights in an all out war are just leaning on each other in the later rounds because they are exhausted. Never seen that in this game and it would be thrilling.

The one area in most games which always struggles with realism is stamina. Its a hard concept to deliver on properly because it is so subjective. Plus there is so many different routes which can be done to simulate the desired effects. It becomes more complicated with a sport such as MMA which features so many different "intangibles" which take a stamina toll.

Across the board the game is pretty much on point. I'd venture to say 98% of the gameplay I want to remain exactly how it is. Power seems perfect, accuracy realistic(maybe a tad to accurate), Ground and Pound is ruthless once postured up, Transitions are good except slightly to often, Parries seem good, and so pretty much across the board I'm happy.

The only two areas I really see an opportunity to improve on would be stamina related.

1) Ground/Transition stamina much more taxing. Ground work should be a draining affair which is a huge killer on guys who suck on the ground. Someone like Mike Tyson in real life would have a good chance on the feet just from "a punchers chance". Yet if he was taken down, placed on his back, then fought and struggled to move with someone else weight, he would be gassed in 1 round. The ground game need to reflect the chess match nature. Now that doesn't mean the ground game would be devoid of movement. It just would mean, panicking and EXCESSIVE movement would be detrimental. Setting up pass attempts with light strikes or faking which direction you intend to pass should take precedence over just brute force of spamming attempts until a R2+ Deny is missed.


2) Highlight Strikes such as spinning and jumping moves much more taxing. I talking 50% more taxing. No one is throwing 30 to 50+ highlight strikes a fight in real life(Hell look at Conor vs Nate to see what 1 round of heavy attacks does to someone). In the game, anyone can do it and still have stamina to spare. Most fights break down to the basic attacks, jabs, straights, cross, uppercut, leg kick, body kick, and the head kick every now and then. I also would like to see head kicks in general be much more taxing. You don't see guys throw nearly the amount of head kicks the game allows. Even guys known for kicking like Stephen Thompson or ol Cro Cop.

[TheDeej]

I would also love to see stamina affect submissions a little different.

Right now stamina plays a role but if some one is good with the sticks they can still fairly easily get a 2 gate submission even at a huge stamina disadvantage.

I would like to see a change when the fighter trying the submission has less stamina than the fighter he is submitting.

I think when this occurs pushing in the correct direction doesn't stop progression but just slows it. If you want to stop progression fully you would have to time submissions and pull them off when you have a stamina advantage.

[GameplayDevUFC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Phobia

So long term stamina is reduced during the ground game? If so, it has very little effect because you can't notice it so I'd say absolutely! Now, judging by what you are saying......stamina is only reduced on the ground if a transition is denied?

No.

Every time your short term stamina is drained from any action in the game (standup or ground) a small % of your long term stamina is drained as well. So if you get 10 points of short term stamina taken off, you get 1 point of long term.

20 short term, 2 long term.

Not the real numbers, but you get the idea.

On the ground, I added a multiplier so that when you are denied, the stamina tax on long term is 1.5 times more.

So 10 short term would take off 1.5, 20 short term would take off 3.

This was to make denial more punishing in the long term.

So my initial question was if you think this multiplier was not drastic enough. Or do you think all activity on the ground should take more?

And to what end? Realism or to reward a certain style of gameplay? Or to reward success?

Quote: Originally Posted by Phobia

If I had the debugging options in front me, I'd fiddle with each area until you can get someone with excellent wrestling top control (Sonnen is good example) to maintain positional control while draining the sub(When facing a terrible ground fighter....ala Mike Tyson).

I think this would be achieved by increasing the multiplier. Because holding someone in position means denying them successfully over and over.

Quote: Originally Posted by Phobia

We need two things, 1) Slow down the non-stop transitioning game the ground game currently has. It is much better than last years version but its a "cocaine" version of real life. Entirely to fast and constant. Slowing it down should be key. 2) Ground work should be MUCH more taxing on long term stamina. Plus the sub should be taking a large stamina drain from being controlled and being forced to carry someone else weight.

It's a tough balance. I don't want to force inactivity on the ground through artifically means. And players who are playing the game want to do something. So there's always going to be activity.

I think the trick is trying to nudge it towards the right kind of activity through proper rewards and punishment. But that isn't going to guarantee anything, just make the incentives there.

Right now, I think the incentives are there. Getting denied as the biggest penalty by far, so good players should be a bit more measured on the ground, not transitioning recklessly and getting denied over and over.

But maybe the penalties need to be harsher.

[Phobia]

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

No. Every time your short term stamina is drained from any action in the game (standup or ground) a small % of your long term stamina is drained as well. So if you get 10 points of short term stamina taken off, you get 1 point of long term. 20 short term, 2 long term. Not the real numbers, but you get the idea. On the ground, I added a multiplier so that when you are denied, the stamina tax on long term is 1.5 times more. So 10 short term would take off 1.5, 20 short term would take off 3. This was to make denial more punishing in the long term. So my initial question was if you think this multiplier was not drastic enough. Or do you think all activity on the ground should take more? And to what end? Realism or to reward a certain style of gameplay? Or to reward success?

Thanks for getting back to these GPD!

I'd say "to what end" being realism as the gold standard. For instance, lets use a 5 round fight currently in the game as the "max stamina" reduction you can see.

If the fight NEVER goes to the ground you will normally see fighters struggling to throw 2 or 3 punch combos by the end of the 5th because the stamina is reduced enough to make it difficult(maybe 25 to 30% stamina bar remaining). I feel this looks correct and realistic for stamina in the stand up game. Its still slightly on the "to many punches" side of things to achieve the desired results, but it is far more realistic than the ground game currently.

If you did the opposite of the above and kept the fight on the ground the entire 5 rounds, your stamina would be very high, far higher than it would be if kept standing(maybe 50 to 60% higher than the standup example).

It should be completely reversed, the stand up game slightly more forgiving while rolling around on the ground the entire fight should be sheer exhausting for both fighters.

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

I think this would be achieved by increasing the multiplier. Because holding someone in position means denying them successfully over and over.

I think it could be done in a couple ways if the ability is within the code to do it.

1) Is ground strikes and stand up strikes setup to take different stamina penalties or is all strikes whether ground or standing the same type of penalty(obviously type of strike I know is a factor)?? If so you can slightly raise the stamina cost to throw strikes on the ground. Which then leads into #2

2) Increase stamina cost for modified transitions.

3) Increase stamina cost for denials like you mentioned

4) Lastly, apply a stamina penalty if getting reversed.

I believe if you make slight changes to multiple areas so no one thing is being heavily changed you could achieve a more taxing ground game. I do believe from a gameplay perspective denials should be the most influential area to dictate who is taking the heaviest stamina toll. Now, I also feel everything ground related needs to cost more on the ground. I think if anything this is my biggest point-of-view of the current ground game.

A stand up fighter, say someone like Cro Cop should not have a stamina advantage just because of his specialty. I say that with the mind set of this example. Say I have a ground guy who sucks badly on the feet. My strength would be to take Cro Cop down and avoid his deadly kicks. Now from a transition/denial area I might have an advantage of holding him down, BUT if he can work back to the feet, the stamina penalty I just applied to him by holding him down for say 2 rounds will not be noticeable. Our stamina will be nearly equal. He should be slower from the taxing ground work of me making him carry my weight. Thus when/if it gets back to the feet, the stand up is little more in my favor. The current system, we will get back to our feet and both of our stamina will be nearly the same, resulting in him still having an advantage.

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

It's a tough balance. I don't want to force inactivity on the ground through artifically means. And players who are playing the game want to do something. So there's always going to be activity. I think the trick is trying to nudge it towards the right kind of activity through proper rewards and punishment. But that isn't going to guarantee anything, just make the incentives there. Right now, I think the incentives are there. Getting denied as the biggest penalty by far, so good players should be a bit more measured on the ground, not transitioning recklessly and getting denied over and over. But maybe the penalties need to be harsher.

I think a good 50% harsher would be a very rough estimate for me.

[GameplayDevUFC]

50% harsher short term, long term or both?

Because the denials are pretty damn harsh short term right now.

But I could definitely see 50% harsher long term being within the realm of possibility.

[Phobia]

Quote: Originally Posted by GameplayDevUFC

50% harsher short term, long term or both? Because the denials are pretty damn harsh short term right now. But I could definitely see 50% harsher long term being within the realm of possibility.

For sure long term, i should of clarified ive always felt short term is good. Its long term removal which is low.


Sent from da lil phone.