Maybe this is how it is supposed to be but it appears to me that the odds of a certain boxer winning a match is mostly based upon Ring Generalship? Is that the case? I have seen cases where I have a boxer with a 20 in ring generalship that will have a very high percentage of winning like 77% even though the opponent has a much higher score in the other attributes. I just am thinking the percentage of winning the match is weighted to heavy with ring generalship.
It’s certainly a big factor. Alongside Defence, Punch Accuracy, Chin, Punch Power and resistance it is one of the five big model factors.
Sounds good. What I notice though is when I add points to Defence, chin, punch etc, they won’t change the odds of the match. If you add one point to the Generalship attribute, you will see an increase of 3-5% on the overall odds. A fight that is showing a 60% chance of willing will increase to 65% with that additional Generalship point. However.
If I add the point to any other attribute, the chance of willing remains at 60%. Maybe it is a case where you might need to see 2 points toward these other attributes to see an increase in your likelihood of winning. But what that tells me is Generalship is the attribute that has the most net effect.
When you say don’t change the odds. Do you mean the estimated odds in the matchmaker?
Or the infinitely superior (in terms of odds compilation) when it comes to betting real money at fight night?
Sorry, I should had specified. I am referring to the estimated odds in the matchmaker. I am NOT referring to the betting of money on fight night.
Then that is the world’s most simplified way of estimating odds. It is only intended as the roughest of rough of estimates and yes it’s almost entirely compiled using Ring Generalship. We don’t want to run the Monte Carlo there it feels unrealistic to do so. This should be considered as the roughest “finger in the wind” estimate.
Thanks
I totally agree with you. I think the betting odds does a little better job but you wont know until you actually have the fight setup. I dont think we would want to slow down performance by doing a true estimate with all variables. Obviously, it is important for you to look at all of the attributes of the boxer and see how you should develop a strategy. I think right now, the game is too easy as we talked about especially by how quickly you can basically “buy” top talent after just a few weeks instead of having to work your way up through time and proving yourself that you can bring a 0-0 fighter to a top 10 talent.
One thing I am trying to do is determine which attributes have the most influence. Obviously, you don’t want to share that as it would be “cheating” but I am having fun trying to determine that. I do think that Boxing Power is very very important and has a lot of influence. I have seen very powerful boxers who have a weak chin and they can usually hold their own unless they have an opponent with an equal or more powerful punch. I am not seeing stamina or conditioning having that much of an effect on the overall game right now. It seems they all tend to lose a lot of stamina during the matches and those last few rounds both opponents seem to be totally exhausted. However, that is probably how it is in real life. If you have never been in a real boxing match, you would never know how hard it is to even be in a ring fighting for 60 seconds. You get exhausted very, very quickly. Thanks again for all you are doing for the game.
All we can say here really is that the estimated win percentage in the matchmaker has zero connection with the fight engine components and the actual win percentage. Just a visual aid.
Stamina and energy take on more effect later in the fight. If you look for correlation in the round by round stats you will see it between Stamina/Energy/Fitness and diminished punch resistance and a whole load of other smaller correlations. There is by our analysis very much a hockey stick type effect as a result of the diminishing energy and fights ending.
Update day tomorrow with a STACK of bug fixes 
Can’t wait for the update. Thanks for the explanations