TK Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 After reading in the General Game Discussion about more can crushing from the games biggest can crusher, Joel Nicola, it dawned on me to have a tool to show the fairness of fights orgs put on. It would work like the opponent manager ranking, where the rankings are tallied and your average opponent manager ranking is shown to give an idea of the level of competition someone has been facing. The org fight fairness tool would be similar. Every fight set would have the difference in ranking between the two fighters, with the totals being tallied and recorded for all the fights the orgs put on. This would be clearly displayed on the org page, giving prospective managers info on whether the org offers fair fights. Granted, there are many factors which would affect/influence the rating, but on the whole, it would give a clue about the org's match-making habits. In fact, it could be detailed enough to highlight record mis-matches etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eveas Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 i supported you in that thread and I do here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 After reading in the General Game Discussion about more can crushing from the games biggest can crusher, Joel Nicola, it dawned on me to have a tool to show the fairness of fights orgs put on. It would work like the opponent manager ranking, where the rankings are tallied and your average opponent manager ranking is shown to give an idea of the level of competition someone has been facing. The org fight fairness tool would be similar. Every fight set would have the difference in ranking between the two fighters, with the totals being tallied and recorded for all the fights the orgs put on. This would be clearly displayed on the org page, giving prospective managers info on whether the org offers fair fights. Granted, there are many factors which would affect/influence the rating, but on the whole, it would give a clue about the org's match-making habits. In fact, it could be detailed enough to highlight record mis-matches etc. A good idea and I would rate it using a word system rather than a number so the noobs would be able to see it. Should go out as a note with every contract offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindsided Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Just take the average of rank difference of every fight offered and then the average would fall into a word category. >500 Excellent >1000 Very Good >2000 Good >3000 Average >4000 Bad >5000 Very Bad Obviously this could be broken down a lot more if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Instead of all of this why dont we have a Shit List for managers that manipulate the game like Joel. If you got put on it your rank could be frozen( and by that i mean he/she would the last or one of the last ranked managers on the game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 My 2 cents! - Create MMA Tycoon's Wall of Shame page, managers page of those who "cheat" the system like ahh Joel Nicloa, have a big "BANNED" sign over the manager avatar photo, have the link on the spoiler page. - IP address frozen, meaning you can't re-join MMA Tycoon using the old IP address, because your FLAGGED! - All fighters are automatically "Retired" no going to the free agents list! - All companies you own, closed! PS: Hey Joel Nicola that nice win streak you got going and your ranking means absoluty "DICK"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Just take the average of rank difference of every fight offered and then the average would fall into a word category. >500 Excellent >1000 Very Good >2000 Good >3000 Average >4000 Bad >5000 Very Bad Obviously this could be broken down a lot more if needed. Yeah, like it, something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 This would also be an easy way to add another area for orgs to distinguish themselves by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajperok Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 My 2 cents! - Create MMA Tycoon's Wall of Shame page, managers page of those who "cheat" the system like ahh Joel Nicloa, have a big "BANNED" sign over the manager avatar photo, have the link on the spoiler page. - IP address frozen, meaning you can't re-join MMA Tycoon using the old IP address, because your FLAGGED! - All fighters are automatically "Retired" no going to the free agents list! - All companies you own, closed! PS: Hey Joel Nicola that nice win streak you got going and your ranking means absoluty "DICK"! You can't ban someone for playing within the rules. Your more or less suggesting that if you don't approve of a mismatch you should kick the guy out. Joe Niccola may be in poor form, but that doesn't make it illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 You can't ban someone for playing within the rules. Your more or less suggesting that if you don't approve of a mismatch you should kick the guy out. Joe Niccola may be in poor form, but that doesn't make it illegal. Agree, the ban would be silly. The ratings would be awesome though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 You can't ban someone for playing within the rules. Your more or less suggesting that if you don't approve of a mismatch you should kick the guy out. Joe Niccola may be in poor form, but that doesn't make it illegal. Yeah, this is true. It wouldn't hurt if Mike added a penalty (hype hit/manager rank hit) if you do shit like that though. TK's idea though is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PUREEVIL Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Just take the average of rank difference of every fight offered and then the average would fall into a word category. >500 Excellent >1000 Very Good >2000 Good >3000 Average >4000 Bad >5000 Very Bad Obviously this could be broken down a lot more if needed. we should use similar ratings to those of our fighters so that even the newer managers can get a good idea of what the true org rank is . ie useless , abysmal, exceptional and so on , im sure anyone can get the meaning of useless. also why cant we make it to where if the fighter id's (or creation date , hype ) are more than x amount of difference the org and manager takes a negative hype hit . not sure how to do this as there are a lot of projects out there that this could have an effect on but it sounded good to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I'd like to see a system where fighters who are more than xx ranking places apart simply cannot fight. Make it like as if an Athletic Commission was approving fights. If you're more than 8000 p4p ranks apart, you can't make the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eveas Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Agree, the ban would be silly. The ratings would be awesome though. His match making may not be breaking the rules, but having family in his org which he matchmake's for is against the rules and worthy of losing VIP according to the rules. When Mike allows people to have family play he tells them to never cross paths and try to play in different cities. Joel broke that rule. It may not be the one you want him punished for, but it is a broken rule with a consequence. His brother is not trash like Joel is, so I would hope just Joel loses VIP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 His match making may not be breaking the rules, but having family in his org which he matchmake's for is against the rules and worthy of losing VIP according to the rules. When Mike allows people to have family play he tells them to never cross paths and try to play in different cities. Joel broke that rule. It may not be the one you want him punished for, but it is a broken rule with a consequence. His brother is not trash like Joel is, so I would hope just Joel loses VIP. Realistically Joel prolly made another account to give himself fights since everybody pretty much blacklisted him, and when he would sign with an org, he was too scared to accept any fights. So eventually, he prolly made another account, an org, and hired himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindsided Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I like the 8000 p4p ranks idea. Except for QFC's of course. Maybe even up it to 10k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 His match making may not be breaking the rules, but having family in his org which he matchmake's for is against the rules and worthy of losing VIP according to the rules. When Mike allows people to have family play he tells them to never cross paths and try to play in different cities. Joel broke that rule. It may not be the one you want him punished for, but it is a broken rule with a consequence. His brother is not trash like Joel is, so I would hope just Joel loses VIP. Family playing from the same IP is indeed against the rules when they cooperate. Family from different IP's isn't. Have no idea if JN is using family "from the same computer" or whatever but if it isn't from that they can cooperate all they like without issue or rulebreaking. Adding bans to to OP's good idea wouldn't ne a good thing. Simply calculating the ratings and making them go along with every contract offer would solve the issue of noobs not knowing what they are in for. If noobs sign on with him despite that? Well you know what they say in Southern Russia: "Tough shitski." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Just take the average of rank difference of every fight offered and then the average would fall into a word category. >500 Excellent >1000 Very Good >2000 Good >3000 Average >4000 Bad >5000 Very Bad Obviously this could be broken down a lot more if needed. I'd like to see a system where fighters who are more than xx ranking places apart simply cannot fight. Make it like as if an Athletic Commission was approving fights. If you're more than 8000 p4p ranks apart, you can't make the fight. +1 to these two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegroovemonkey Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I'd like to see a system where fighters who are more than xx ranking places apart simply cannot fight. Make it like as if an Athletic Commission was approving fights. If you're more than 8000 p4p ranks apart, you can't make the fight. But Joel fight's in Tokyo where there is no commission and they have notoriously bad mismatches. Your rule would actually take away from the realism... just sayin In all honesty, I think projects, early on in their career, would kill this rating and contribute to more can crushing. Limiting who can fight who or making the org owner more conscious of both fighters ranks means that he will be more leery to give an untested project one of his orgs grizzled journeymen becuase the rank will be very different so the project will get fed some sacrificial lambs instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted January 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 But Joel fight's in Tokyo where there is no commission and they have notoriously bad mismatches. Your rule would actually take away from the realism... just sayin In all honesty, I think projects, early on in their career, would kill this rating and contribute to more can crushing. Limiting who can fight who or making the org owner more conscious of both fighters ranks means that he will be more leery to give an untested project one of his orgs grizzled journeymen becuase the rank will be very different so the project will get fed some sacrificial lambs instead. Good point about projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts