barkflex Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that the rankings system is totally flawed. These are some of my major gripes with it: 1. Fighters with 100% rep seem to change top spots randomly. 2. Does the belt even matter? The number one contender is ahead of the champ even though they have the same rep. 3. This one is especially bugging me. It should just not be possible. In December 2007, I had Neil Napier challenge Buddy Garner for the middleweight strap. Garner totally destroyed Napier, subbing him in under 3 minutes. Napier gets a bounce back fight against a can and now he's number one P4P all of a sudden just cause his rep went back to 100 (which it shouldn't have in the first place). What's even more annoying is the fact that he shouldn't even be top ten P4P given he's only 4-2 in his last 6 fights, yet he's ahead of current champs who have defended their belts multiple times. His stats can't ne the reason either, as age has caught up to him and he's not much more than an average blue belt across the different categories. Only reason he can even maintain such a high rep is because my org is huge and he gets to fight plenty of lesser talent so he rarely drops below 85. Anyway, I'd like to see this fixed if possible, because as of right now, the rankings aren't of any use at all to me. I can't remember ever having issues with the rankings in WMMA1 so what gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkflex Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share Posted December 29, 2009 Not that I'm begging for attention here but I would've expected at least some replies after 36 views - either telling me I'm way out of line or also asking for a change. Anyway, if there is something about the rankings I don't get, which makes the current system understandable, please enlighten me. Maybe I'm obsessing too much, but it's been one of my major issues with the game for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="barkflex" data-cite="barkflex" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25652" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Not that I'm begging for attention here but I would've expected at least some replies after 36 views - either telling me I'm way out of line or also asking for a change. Anyway, if there is something about the rankings I don't get, which makes the current system understandable, please enlighten me. Maybe I'm obsessing too much, but it's been one of my major issues with the game for a while.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> 1. If people are tied then the order will be randomly decided.</p><p> </p><p> 2. Same as 1, anad the belt doesn't matter.</p><p> </p><p> 3. Reputation isn't the same as talent. It goes up based on wins and down based on losses. You beat someone with a high rep then you gain more rep. Lose to someone with a high rep, you lose less. Sounds like Napier has been facing top notch (in terms of rep) opposition so it's not a shock. Other divisions are probably weaker with lower rep guys, so it's harder to build their reps up. Building a women's division is a good way to highlight that if you've never tried it. It's all relative. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p><p> </p><p> So.... hopefully that puts you back in line. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkflex Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share Posted December 29, 2009 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="derek_b" data-cite="derek_b" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25652" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>1. If people are tied then the order will be randomly decided.<p> </p><p> 2. Same as 1, anad the belt doesn't matter.</p><p> </p><p> 3. Reputation isn't the same as talent. It goes up based on wins and down based on losses. You beat someone with a high rep then you gain more rep. Lose to someone with a high rep, you lose less. Sounds like Napier has been facing top notch (in terms of rep) opposition so it's not a shock. Other divisions are probably weaker with lower rep guys, so it's harder to build their reps up. Building a women's division is a good way to highlight that if you've never tried it. It's all relative. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> So.... hopefully that puts you back in line. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But doesn't this bother you? I mean I understand the mechanics of the system but I doesn't sit well with me to see a guy ahead of another guy in the rankings who just got beat very badly. Garner has been champ for two years and destroyed Napier in his last fight. So he has 100 rep, too. I wish something would be added to account for recent fights. There's just no way that Napier should be ahead of Garner. Maybe it could be implemented that the belt acts as a kicker if two fighters have the same rep and fight in the same org, or maybe have performance decide rankings if two fighters have equal rep.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="barkflex" data-cite="barkflex" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25652" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>But doesn't this bother you? I mean I understand the mechanics of the system but I doesn't sit well with me to see a guy ahead of another guy in the rankings who just got beat very badly. Garner has been champ for two years and destroyed Napier in his last fight. So he has 100 rep, too. I wish something would be added to account for recent fights. There's just no way that Napier should be ahead of Garner. Maybe it could be implemented that the belt acts as a kicker if two fighters have the same rep and fight in the same org, or maybe have performance decide rankings if two fighters have equal rep.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Doesn't bother me at all. But any way of improving the game is good, I just answered the questions provided. <img alt=":)" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/smile.png.142cfa0a1cd2925c0463c1d00f499df2.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png"></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansLanda11 Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 In one of my games Hassan Fezzik has won all of his fights, he started 26-0 and now he's 41-0 and he still has never been the #1 P4P fight in the world. Other guys in the HW division have but not him, even after he's beaten then. I just thought this was weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephrinn Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I think for the most part, rankings aren't suppose to be perfect nor should you expect them to be (like real life). The rankings in the game are sort of a "matter of opinion" based on the blurcat magazine or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkflex Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Nephrinn" data-cite="Nephrinn" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25652" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think for the most part, rankings aren't suppose to be perfect nor should you expect them to be (like real life). The rankings in the game are sort of a "matter of opinion" based on the blurcat magazine or whatever.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not expecting perfection. It's just that I couldn't see any particular way in which you could argue for putting Napier above Garner in my example. I'm fine with it as long as there is a legitimate case that could be made for it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjones1087 Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 There's always those times, no matter what happens, that people feel someone is better than another person regardless of the outcome of the matches. As you say Napier might be on the downward, but perhaps the "opinions" (i "" it because it's clearly just a random computer picking on who's number one and what not) could be that Garner's win was a fluke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkflex Posted January 1, 2010 Author Share Posted January 1, 2010 There's always those times, no matter what happens, that people feel someone is better than another person regardless of the outcome of the matches. As you say Napier might be on the downward, but perhaps the "opinions" (i "" it because it's clearly just a random computer picking on who's number one and what not) could be that Garner's win was a fluke? I think I've stated it before, at the time of the fight Garner had already been champ for 2 years and was on a seven fight win streak against the best the division had to offer and then he comes into the fight, takes Napier down, takes his back and chokes him out just like that. Hardly a fluke. Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm not losing sleep over this but it's something i'd like to see changed in an otherwise great game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.O. Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 The one thing I do say is wins/losses, and the quality of them should be the only bearing on rankings. A belt should never ever have any bearing on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Like someone says, it's all relative. Harrison was no.1/2 for a while with me, while his stats were like C/B. He just happened to beat top notch people. Fezzik, the unchallenged, fought to decisions against opponents. Perhaps it's considered less dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HansLanda11 Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 1. If people are tied then the order will be randomly decided. This explains alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vunsev Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I know it's already been said but the rankings are displayed as a internet pages opinion. So I don't think it should be stat accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.