Some thoughts on lulls in combat

[ErhnamDJ]

I know there's been a lot of discussion on this topic on these forums. I've heard a few UFC fighters say some interesting things recently which got me thinking about lulls in combat again. Why they happen, specifically. I found it enlightening to hear fighters talk so directly about this.

First, Mike Perry. Here's what he said in an interview recently. I've had to slightly edit this, since he was sort of rambling.

Originally Posted by UFC fighter, Mike Perry

You know, what do you think when your coaches are yelling at you [from the sidelines], because they're telling you to do stuff, and I'm like… I wish I could just be like, “Shut up, yo!” Like, look, we’re both tentative, like… trying to get to each other, and you gotta feint, feint, feint, feint, feint… think, feint… think. You just keep on and neither person wants to go first, because then you might get caught and then they’re, like, yelling: “Go, Mike! You gotta go! Go!” and I’m like: “[Expletive]! You go! I don’t want to get hit right now! [Expletive]!”]

The thrust of this, and what I've seen other fighters say, is that they're not falling into these lulls because they're tired (though they do get tired, and later in the fight that will cause things to slow down), but rather because they don't want to engage unless they're sure they're the one who's going to come out ahead in the exchange.

Middleweight champion Israel Adesanya recently had a veeery boring fight against Yoel Romero, where both fighters did nothing for pretty much the entire fight.

Some background for this fight: Yoel Romero is very big and hits very hard, but his cardio is extremely suspect. He likes to sit back and throw a few big shots per round.

And so for this entire fight, Adesanya (one of the best strikers in the sport--a significantly better striker than his opponent here), circled around and feinted, and wound up doing nothing, because he couldn't find any openings.

Originally Posted by UFC middleweight champion, Israel Adesanya

My plan was to close up his right eye, but when you’re 100% defense, or 98% defense, it’s hard, because when you throw a jab—when you attack—you always leave yourself open. Every time I attack, I leave myself open: I take risk. You guys have seen my résumé. I don’t have to tell you this. I take risks. He didn’t. He was 98% defense. He never went below, like, 85%, 86% defense. He was constantly on the defensive and expecting me to attack so he can just open up and attack me

He also said:

Originally Posted by UFC middleweight champion, Israel Adesanya

I’m gonna fight to the level that you’re giving me. This is a dance, fighting. I don’t know if any of you actually spar or even train, but, like, there’s a flow of energy. There’s a flow of body language, so you have to do something for me to react. I have to read you. I have to give you it like you saw. The first two minutes, I was trying to probe reads and he just stood there still, with his arms up fully 100% defense, and then slowly started to, like, release a little bit, like .1%, .5% it’s like… what are we doing… and then he caught me when I made a mistake and that was because I played into his game plan. I, maybe… I got frustrated and I thought: “Okay, let me attack him,” and I attack wrong. I attacked down the center line and then I was like: “Ooh,” but then, I mean, thank God that didn’t knock me out.

As far as game implications here, I can see a few things: guys generally don't attack unless they've set something up first (which maybe we need a more detailed system than the way current feints work to represent). There is also a psychological, Will-based aspect, where sometimes guys just aren't willing to take the risk right now. They know that if they don't engage, they can sit back and safely defend, so unless there's some compelling reason to do otherwise (such as seeing some big opening), they're often content to sit back on the defensive and not get hit right now. This also has the side benefit of preserving their stamina.

[Taneli]

Could simply see this as both parties making Feints (in GURPS terms) and not succeeding well enough to go through with the actual attacks?

[Anders]

The Last Gasp (Pyramid #3/44) produces lulls by tracking Activity Points. It's a bit fiddly but completely doable, especially in a one-on-one fight. Evaluate is another option.

[DouglasCole]

I played around with using some variant of control points to represent temporary advantage or opportunity; they'd work like Evaluate plus a random number generator. This would allow you to strike through a foe's defenses. Notionally.

Of course, your opponent is watching YOU too. Can spend those CP to cancel yours.

Defenses might need to be higher in general to make this work, but maybe not.

But what you'd have - and I'm honestly not sure it'd be worth it - is a situation where two fighters have excellent parry fu, and lots of skill spent in observing the other guy. An attack would almost certainly have to burn through those high defenses just to land at all, and that means you're less able (by virtue of spending points) to resist the follow-up.

It would, perhaps, mean the first person to attack does so into the teeth of someone with very boosted defenses by virtue of spending some of their CP. (Thinking about it, having CP spent add to attacks, or defenses, at 1:1 privileges their use in defense, so that might work just flat-out). The defender could probably counter that attack...and have some CP left over, which means the counter-stroke is probably advantaged.

That sets up a situation where defense against that first strike is pretty high (true based on the fighters' statements in the OP), a counter-blow is likely more effective than the initial attack (true), but once the two fighters are engaged, it's ON until they separate, and things get crazy (also true based on the fights I've seen).

While The Last Gasp help here from a "too tired to throw punches" perspective (and thanks for the call-out), I think the operative fear-factor here is "I don't want to get punched in the face, and I WILL if I throw the first blow."

[ErhnamDJ]

The gist of what they're saying is this: attacking is more dangerous than feinting.

Which isn't the case in GURPS. You can generally attack and be no worse off than if you had feinted.

I like the idea of some sort of mechanism where you can attack and put yourself into a bad position--which your opponent might not see.

Originally Posted by Douglas Cole

That sets up a situation where defense against that first strike is pretty high

The mindset in MMA is that the first and second strikes generally don't land. You have to get into the third and fourth strikes in a combination for things to start landing. But once you get there, no one can defend against those later strikes in a combination.

Originally Posted by Douglas Cole

An attack would almost certainly have to burn through those high defenses just to land at all

GURPS gives you cumulative defense penalties, but they reset each turn. That's every second. That might be another place to look. You could continue to build up those points you mentioned as long as you're able to press the attack.

A couple of other things worth mentioning here: less damage attacks are easier to land with. Anyone can flick out a jab and get it to land some decent percent of the time, but that's not the kind of strike that's going to cause fight-ending injury. It's just going to open you up to being countered once the other guy figures out your timing. This is why the jab isn't as common in MMA as in boxing: there are a lot more ways you can take advantage of an opponent opening themselves up during an attack.

Also: during that fight I mentioned between Adesanya and Romero, where Adesanya never could find a way to engage, Adesanya was a significantly better striker. He's a decorated kickboxing champion. His striking always looks very impressive. Romero, on the other hand, is a wrestler (thought a credentialed one, having had success at the Olympics), with nothing more than a right hand. What made this surprising to me was that I would have expected someone with a huge skill advantage to do a better job finding opportunities against a hyper-defensive opponent.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

The gist of what they're saying is this: attacking is more dangerous than feinting.

Which isn't the case in GURPS. You can generally attack and be no worse off than if you had feinted.

Yah. I understand bias for action in game design. "Who attacks first loses" makes for a rough game.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

"Who attacks first loses" makes for a rough game.

That wouldn't be the case in most roleplaying combats, though.

MMA fights are very even because they have weight classes. If you had a featherweight fight a heavyweight, the heavyweight wouldn't be at all hesitant to press the attack, because they would know the featherweight couldn't hurt them.

And they tend to do matchups that are somewhat competitive skillwise. In that fight I mentioned, Adesanya did have a big skill advantage, but Romero was still competent.

Plus the fights are one-on-one. Once you start looking at big disparities in strength, skill, number of combatants, and equipment, the roleplaying combats would probably still function how players expect.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

That wouldn't be the case in most roleplaying combats, though.

MMA fights are very even because they have weight classes. If you had a featherweight fight a heavyweight, the heavyweight wouldn't be at all hesitant to press the attack, because they would know the featherweight couldn't hurt them.

And they tend to do matchups that are somewhat competitive skillwise. In that fight I mentioned, Adesanya did have a big skill advantage, but Romero was still competent.

Plus the fights are one-on-one. Once you start looking at big disparities in strength, skill, number of combatants, and equipment, the roleplaying combats would probably still function how players expect.

I was thinking this too, and agree with the logic, but upon further reflection one sided fights aren't great role playing either. An overwhelming enemy robs the PCs of effective agency and a pushover enemy is boring. Neither one makes for a particularly good fight scene except, perhaps in the case of a PC sacrifice in a final fight. But not many players will want to sacrifice their PC to forestall an overwhelming enemy too often.

[Gnome]

My group has played out a number of gladiatorial duels in gurps, and there are quite a few Evaluates used as fighters are closing distance.
You could view the MMA fighters as taking Waits in order to interrupt the attacker and get effectively two turns in a row before the other guy’s defenses reset. A more defensive fighter might use Wait while the more aggressive one is taking Evaluates to make that first series of attacks more effective.
Perhaps Evaluate and Wait should be combinable under certain conditions (like Wait and Aim when you take opportunity fire on a single hex).

[RyanW]

There's the "Distance and Defense" Tweak from Pyramid #34. In short, you get a +2 to defense against an opponent who is not within reach at the start of his turn. That makes striking first hugely risky.

I think it would be amazing combined with The Last Gasp.