THIS is how Undisputed rounds are scored.

[TXI]

After paying close attention to the way rounds are scored, this is why you're losing your rounds;

The main way to win a round is to throw more shots than your opponent. In EVERY type of punch. For example. if you throw 55 hooks, 55 jabs, 55 uppercuts and 55 crosses (and land them) you will win all the punch % categories even if the other person has even one less in every category, like 54.

If you focus on out punching your enemy, you will win every time. Combos aren't really meant to reward you with KO's, but to reward you with round wins as you would have thrown MORE of DIFFERENT shots.

In my opinion this is a problematic way to score a fight because it pushes players to ONLY play faster characters. I hate Larry Holmes because now EVERYBODY plays Larry Holmes for his speed. Bro needs a speed nerf ASAP. He's also quite powerful which leads me to the next point;

The second way is obviously a knockdown. A knockdown will make a round 8-10 no matter what. Even if you were getting your ahh beat for 2 minutes and threw a lucky power punch and knocked em down, you win that round.

Counter punching also has it's own category and you COULD try and win that (as it counts as a punch category) but this is more unreliable.

As you can see, the MAIN ways of winning a fight are obviously skewed in favour of faster opponents. Aggression, ring control, centre control and defence are NOT taken into consideration when scoring. This means fighters like Larry Holmes and Tyson Fury will ALWAYS win a 12-round fight if they just rely on speed. It puts fighters who are more focused on power like Deontay Wilder at a serious disadvantage.

Hope this helps.

[Fdpulpe]

Originally posted by TXI:

After paying close attention to the way rounds are scored, this is why you're losing your rounds;

The main way to win a round is to throw more shots than your opponent. In EVERY type of punch. For example. if you throw 55 hooks, 55 jabs, 55 uppercuts and 55 crosses (and land them) you will win all the punch % categories even if the other person has even one less in every category, like 54.

If you focus on out punching your enemy, you will win every time. Combos aren't really meant to reward you with KO's, but to reward you with round wins as you would have thrown MORE of DIFFERENT shots.

In my opinion this is a problematic way to score a fight because it pushes players to ONLY play faster characters. I hate Larry Holmes because now EVERYBODY plays Larry Holmes for his speed. Bro needs a speed nerf ASAP. He's also quite powerful which leads me to the next point;

The second way is obviously a knockdown. A knockdown will make a round 8-10 no matter what. Even if you were getting your ahh beat for 2 minutes and threw a lucky power punch and knocked em down, you win that round.

Counter punching also has it's own category and you COULD try and win that (as it counts as a punch category) but this is more unreliable.

As you can see, the MAIN ways of winning a fight are obviously skewed in favour of faster opponents. Aggression, ring control, centre control and defence are NOT taken into consideration when scoring. This means fighters like Larry Holmes and Tyson Fury will ALWAYS win a 12-round fight if they just rely on speed. It puts fighters who are more focused on power like Deontay Wilder at a serious disadvantage.

Hope this helps.

I think Deontay Wilder should be increased in speed, he is not fast enough, he deserves an increase because he is very difficult to play with due to his pitiful stamina.

[Slick Dimitry]

UH.....NO its not

[aston316]

Surely throwing and landing more punches is being more aggressive.
Knocking an opponent down = winning a round because its a rule of boxing. Now if you were losing a round and got a flash knockdown you should win the round 10-9. If you were winning a round anyway and then got a knockdown its a 10-8 round again those are rules of boxing.

Saying Larry Holmes needs a decrease shows you know nothing about a young Larry Holmes

[aston316]

Originally posted by Fdpulpe:

I think Deontay Wilder should be increased in speed, he is not fast enough, he deserves an increase because he is very difficult to play with due to his pitiful stamina.

Wilder isn't that fast and does actually have poor stamina hence why he ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about wearing a heavy suit during his ring walk when he lost to fury

[Fdpulpe]

Originally posted by aston316:

Originally posted by Fdpulpe:

I think Deontay Wilder should be increased in speed, he is not fast enough, he deserves an increase because he is very difficult to play with due to his pitiful stamina.

Wilder isn't that fast and does actually have poor stamina hence why he ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about wearing a heavy suit during his ring walk when he lost to fury

Fury is the best heavyweight for sure, but Wilder doesn't do combinations above 2 or 3 punches but he is fast and quite precise in these strikes and that's not really the case here

[aston316]

He is not precise at all he swings wild but hits hard. He barely throws a jab. Hence why he says "they need to be perfect for the entire fight to beat me but I only need to be perfect for a second to beat them"

[TXI]

Originally posted by aston316:

Surely throwing and landing more punches is being more aggressive.
Knocking an opponent down = winning a round because its a rule of boxing. Now if you were losing a round and got a flash knockdown you should win the round 10-9. If you were winning a round anyway and then got a knockdown its a 10-8 round again those are rules of boxing.

Saying Larry Holmes needs a decrease shows you know nothing about a young Larry Holmes

Oops my bad, I did mean 10-9. I was writing it out mid-match while experimenting with a friend.

Also the issue wasn't knocking down, I think the knocking down is fair and accurate.

Also if we balance the game around how the fighters "really fought" with no consideration for balancing then we might as well make Muhammad Ali have 1 shot power because as the "GREATEST" surely nobody could beat prime Ali?

How about prime Tyson? You think ANYBODY in Undisputed HW could beat prime Tyson Fury? Hell no.

Balancing around REAL traits can only go so far, which I agree it SHOULD play a role, but with how fast Larry Holmes is... it's not fair at all for 99% of fighters facing him. He gets dazes super fast and 8/10 of my last online matches were all Larry Holmes. That alone proves he's OP because his pickrate is through the roof.

[Fdpulpe]

Originally posted by aston316:

He is not precise at all he swings wild but hits hard. He barely throws a jab. Hence why he says "they need to be perfect for the entire fight to beat me but I only need to be perfect for a second to beat them"

thank you for this information

[aston316]

Originally posted by TXI:

Originally posted by aston316:

Surely throwing and landing more punches is being more aggressive.
Knocking an opponent down = winning a round because its a rule of boxing. Now if you were losing a round and got a flash knockdown you should win the round 10-9. If you were winning a round anyway and then got a knockdown its a 10-8 round again those are rules of boxing.

Saying Larry Holmes needs a decrease shows you know nothing about a young Larry Holmes

Oops my bad, I did mean 10-9. I was writing it out mid-match while experimenting with a friend.

Also the issue wasn't knocking down, I think the knocking down is fair and accurate.

Also if we balance the game around how the fighters "really fought" with no consideration for balancing then we might as well make Muhammad Ali have 1 shot power because as the "GREATEST" surely nobody could beat prime Ali?

How about prime Tyson? You think ANYBODY in Undisputed HW could beat prime Tyson Fury? Hell no.

Balancing around REAL traits can only go so far, which I agree it SHOULD play a role, but with how fast Larry Holmes is... it's not fair at all for 99% of fighters facing him. He gets dazes super fast and 8/10 of my last online matches were all Larry Holmes. That alone proves he's OP because his pickrate is through the roof.

Again you've shown that you have limited boxing knowledge, Ali never had one shot power, he was supper fast danced around the ring and was brilliant with his shots. He was also as tough as a cheap overcooked steak.

This is supposed to be a simulation boxing game, therefore some fighters are just going to be better than others. What you're saying is the same as saying lets make Luton town as good as or close to man city so i have a decent chance of winning if i pick Luton. If you want something like that go and play ready to rumble or a rocky game

[TXI]

Originally posted by aston316:

Originally posted by TXI:

Oops my bad, I did mean 10-9. I was writing it out mid-match while experimenting with a friend.

Also the issue wasn't knocking down, I think the knocking down is fair and accurate.

Also if we balance the game around how the fighters "really fought" with no consideration for balancing then we might as well make Muhammad Ali have 1 shot power because as the "GREATEST" surely nobody could beat prime Ali?

How about prime Tyson? You think ANYBODY in Undisputed HW could beat prime Tyson Fury? Hell no.

Balancing around REAL traits can only go so far, which I agree it SHOULD play a role, but with how fast Larry Holmes is... it's not fair at all for 99% of fighters facing him. He gets dazes super fast and 8/10 of my last online matches were all Larry Holmes. That alone proves he's OP because his pickrate is through the roof.

Again you've shown that you have limited boxing knowledge, Ali never had one shot power, he was supper fast danced around the ring and was brilliant with his shots. He was also as tough as a cheap overcooked steak.

This is supposed to be a simulation boxing game, therefore some fighters are just going to be better than others. What you're saying is the same as saying lets make Luton town as good as or close to man city so i have a decent chance of winning if i pick Luton. If you want something like that go and play ready to rumble or a rocky game

Absolutely not what I was suggesting. I never claimed Muhammad Ali had one shot power, I claimed he *might as well* because nobody in the roster could beat him.

My words didn't say "Muhammad Ali had one shot power therefore he should have it in the game" my words were "we might as well make Muhammad Ali have 1 shot power because as the "GREATEST" surely nobody could beat prime Ali?"

Might as well means if nobody has a chance against him, why even bother fighting him?

If we balance around real traits and feats then basically the message given to players is "don't play any fighter not in the top 3 in their weight division because they're not good IRL so there's no point them even being in the game."

But Larry Holmes is not in the top 3, and he never was even in real life. Yet his speed means he can spam hooks and get dazes on fighters ranked 10+11 points above him. This is clearly a balancing flaw.

Also no idea if you've played online recently but Featherweight and Heavyweight are completely BORING because of these balancing divisions. Sugar Ray Robinson VS Sugar Ray Robinson. Sugar Ray Robinson Vs Canelo. Sugar Ray Robinson VS Sugar Ray Robinson. Muhammad Ali VS Tyson Fury. Larry Holmes VS Larry Holmes. Larry Holmes VS Muhammad Ali.

Out of the 10~15 fighters in Featherweight only 4 at max are played. How does that make the game fun? Or interesting? Or remotely balanced? Heavyweight is a bit more diverse but it's usually people ranked 84+ that get picked, so 40% of the entire division.

Let me ask you a question, if you believe the game should be balanced around real traits, why even have fighters ranked below 84? There's no way in real life a fighter ranked at 84 or less could beat anybody ranked 88+, correct?

Just to hammer in my point = balancing around real fighting skills is boring. And although BOXING has levels to it, it's a sport in which anybody can win with a lucky shot or good performance on the night. RANKING in a video game should be way more balanced than it is now. Afterall, whens the last time you played Eddy Hall? Why is he in the game other than for fun? Right? So why make him so unplayable?

[JAPAN SAMURAI 武 FURY]

To beat by points
Should I land more punches than my opponent?
Doesn't counter punch matter?
That would be a lie

[Darth NVious]

yay
now you know

[aston316]

Larry Holmes won 48 matches in a row and was world champion from 78 until 85 so he was definitely a top 3 fighter of his time and is considered one of the best heavyweights of all time.

As i said earlier this is supposed to be a simulation boxing game with real fighters so yes i believe the fighters should be based around the actual traits they had at either their absolute peak in the case of a retired or a fighter nearing the end of their career or their current fighting ability in the case of up and comers. Yes in real life huge underdogs win look at douglas vs tyson or Rahman vs Lewis and Toney vs Jones for examples. But i would say in all of those wins the underdog had their one day against a heavy favorite. That can still happen in this game but I see so many people moaning if they get flashed k.oed in an online game when winning heavily.

In online people will always pick the highest rated fighter or the fighter that suits the meta thats just how it is.

People like eddie hall are in the game for offline players. Players need people to practice against and also i know there will be someone who takes Eddie hall or George Davey and takes them to the top in career mode. Eddie Hall is also there because he was fighting that Norwegian strongman at the time and helped promote the game.

If Eddie hall could legitimately hang with the top fighter in game then people would complain that its totally unrealistic and rightly so. He has to be the worst by a long way as hes not a professional boxer

[M]

Larry Holmes is meta in HW atm.

[Chimpson]

Originally posted by aston316:

Originally posted by TXI:

Oops my bad, I did mean 10-9. I was writing it out mid-match while experimenting with a friend.

Also the issue wasn't knocking down, I think the knocking down is fair and accurate.

Also if we balance the game around how the fighters "really fought" with no consideration for balancing then we might as well make Muhammad Ali have 1 shot power because as the "GREATEST" surely nobody could beat prime Ali?

How about prime Tyson? You think ANYBODY in Undisputed HW could beat prime Tyson Fury? Hell no.

Balancing around REAL traits can only go so far, which I agree it SHOULD play a role, but with how fast Larry Holmes is... it's not fair at all for 99% of fighters facing him. He gets dazes super fast and 8/10 of my last online matches were all Larry Holmes. That alone proves he's OP because his pickrate is through the roof.

Again you've shown that you have limited boxing knowledge, Ali never had one shot power, he was supper fast danced around the ring and was brilliant with his shots. He was also as tough as a cheap overcooked steak.

This is supposed to be a simulation boxing game, therefore some fighters are just going to be better than others. What you're saying is the same as saying lets make Luton town as good as or close to man city so i have a decent chance of winning if i pick Luton. If you want something like that go and play ready to rumble or a rocky game

Big problem with this mindset is that you don't get to choose your opponents while playing online.
When fighting fury or robinson guy for the 5th time in a row it feels non-fun even if it is "realistic"(which the gameplay is not really anyway)