Any benefit to filler and unexciting fighters?

[nrallen]

Is there any reason to have fights between crappy guys or to keep dull/unexciting fighters on your roster? I know they can be used to build up other fighters or to earn wins and built up for future fights. However, if someone is dull to watch it appears there is no benefit to having them fight. I think personality shouldn't really play into things and all fights should be booked purely on fighting style and attributes.

[BlackJackRob21]

I wonder this myself. The game only seems to look at the main two fights, and does not seem to note the card for any other reason.

[samuricex]

[QUOTE=BlackJackRob21;428927]The game only seems to look at the main two fights, and does not seem to note the card for any other reason.[/QUOTE] But it still effects your event's rating and popularity increase/decrease. There is a benefit to them besides what you have listed though. If they are popular in an area their fights will produce a higher rating. The first time I played the game I took the Alpha organization and Hassan Fezzik's fights almost always did 4-5 stars because he was insanely popular. If you took two boring fighters that are "great" in popularity they will have a pretty decent chance to produce a 3-4 star rating fight, which will help your event instead of hurt it. Also look at charisma, more charisma means their popularity rises faster.

[Eyeball]

So what would be the most beneficial with regards to booking a show: Booking five awesome, exciting matches and then 7 matches featuring boring nobodies or just booking the five exciting matches? Do the boring matches actually detract from the show's popularity?

[BuddyGarner]

Always book the maximum amount of matches. You need to build up fighters. If you don't have enough fighters on your roster than many of your fighters will be underranked.

[samuricex]

It depends. I for instance run four shows a month (3 TV shows and 1 PPV) and I put on 6 fights per TV show and 6-8 fights per PPV. I barely ever have an "exciting" fight. If I do, it's usually only one and I put it on the PPV. I find that exciting fights help make you successful in an area, but it's the popular fighters that maintain your popularity. If you are popular in an area, then putting on boring fights will bring down your popularity. If you are unknown in an area, then just about any fight will actually help your organization. There are a lot of details, too much to list them all here. Though I wouldn't recommend putting on the maximum amount of fights because the game averages the number of fights into how successful an event is. The more fights you have, the harder it is to put on a successful show.

[ProphetX]

Thanks for the info in this thread. It's answered some of the questions I have. I've basically become the Vince McMahon of my MMA world and had been on a spending spree for fighters, For nothing else than to keep the other feds from getting them. (Side note: I managed to finish off WEFF and BCF as promotions so only my fed, Alpha-1 and Gamma are left) So now that I'm talent heavy I'm finding that I can get really exciting matches but I have to do two things: 1)Mix it up some and stop using the same fighters. Even if it means throwing in someone who isn't very exciting to watch. 2)Move my shows around a bit. I keep being recommended to throw shows in California, Kanto, Kinki (or however it's spelled) and Florida. I have yet to have a good show in Florida despite what my rating for the fight says. California has been up and down as has been Kanto. So I alternate occasionally by throwing an event in Ontario; Canada, Arizona, Nevada, Quebec, Some parts in Asia, and sometimes London.

[nrallen]

[QUOTE=Eyeball;429278]So what would be the most beneficial with regards to booking a show: Booking five awesome, exciting matches and then 7 matches featuring boring nobodies or just booking the five exciting matches? Do the boring matches actually detract from the show's popularity?[/QUOTE] This is something I'd like to know. Am I right in thinking that a boring, dull and unexciting fighter can still have a well rated fight if they're high in popularity? I guess this makes them somewhat useful. It just seems too risky having dull fighters compete if it's going to bring the whole event down in rating. An ideal update/sequel would include more post-fight/post-show analysis giving more of an idea of what the crowd thought of the show and its fights. This would help in seeing what works for future events.

[BuddyGarner]

Well, in the Cornellverse there's not enough feeder feds to build up fighters, unless you hold shows infrequently so you pretty much have to use all 10/12 matches. And there's ALPHA-1 or GAMMA to contend with so if you don't sign fighter X the other fed will sign them. But in RL, the UFC doesn't try to dominate the top ten or get every decent fighter so the UFC model may work.

[Jacko00]

Just create and import new companies, in real life there were quite a few small companies around then and now there are loads.

[Eyeball]

[QUOTE=Jacko00;429802]Just create and import new companies, in real life there were quite a few small companies around then and now there are loads.[/QUOTE] Only problem with that is that your loadtimes go through the roof when you have loads of orgs, at least that's what it seems like in my experience.

[nrallen]

I'm playing as BCF in the UK. A fighter like Richard Smith, for example, is noted as being fairly dull. However, should I continue using him as his charisma and popularity are decent? There are a few similar fighters. Something else I noticed; when matching two fighters noted as being dull the advice screen will tell you this is a bad idea and will likely result in a low rated fight - even if it's not amongst the top two fights on the card. Therefore, I assume it's okay to have dull fighters so long as they have other benefits (popularity) and you try to avoid putting them against one another. Yay or nay?

[Shalabi]

Ive been using the MW3 mod and immediately signed Ricardo Arona who is considered very boring by noob/TUF fans. Well, Arona kept on winning (like he does) and it wasnt great for business. However, after winning the championship and defending twice he seemed to be given the same chance for a good fight as an exciting fighter, this despite that 11-of-13 fights went to decision. Bottom line, it just takes less exciting guys a bit longer than exciting ones. But if they're good, it can be worth it in the long run.

[Capelli King]

[QUOTE=BuddyGarner;429791]Well, in the Cornellverse there's not enough feeder feds to build up fighters, unless you hold shows infrequently so you pretty much have to use all 10/12 matches.[/QUOTE] yep, you are pretty much forced to do many matches if you want to have talent 5-10 years along the road (most people do not play that long though:D)