Comp rating

[lordweird]

I know I said I was done with the forums but I need to ask a question of all of you and since most of the knowledgeable managers post here...

 

Lately I have been accused of dodging fights that are 'even' to pad my ranking. That I avoid any fights with managers of equal or greater hype. Well I'm going to show why accusations like that or even using Comp Rating is a stupid idea. Of course there are extreme cases like Joel Nicola. And optimally, the highest ranking manager WITH ALSO the best comp rating would be considered extremely skilled and the best. He wouldn't ever be accused of dodging or padding.

 

Perhaps some people accept any fight they are given. They are warriors who go at it win, lose or draw. They are like Sargent Slaughter. Never back down!!!!

http://www.dvdlink.ca/images/Movies%20Covers/6979/33/1225681927_1225998581.jpg

 

Well that's a perfectly fine way to feel. But, let me ask: Who here out of those who practice MMA (or have even professionally fought) would willingly accept a fight versus Urijah Faber if Faber wasn't famous? It's the same as offering me an unfair fight in a small org. You'd take your loss and severe beating and not really feel like you "let it all out in the cage". You got your ass kicked and now you've dropped rank.

 

See this fight: http://www.mmatycoon.com/fightcommentary.php?FTID=427887 . Storm has good physicals but still got destroyed without any chance. I accepted it because as it was a title fight I think the better fighter should win and be champion. But if some starter org that my fighter is in does not have a good range of fighter IDs or isn't restricted somehow, I will always decline fights that do nothing but prevent me from being #1. I already feel confident that I could win vs any manager with everything equal other than sliders so I don't need to pick only fights I will win.

 

Which reminds me. Who always looks at the manager of the fighters they get offers against? Especially newer managers (like me)? Most players who have been playing as long as I have are lower rank. I do not have a fighter below 159,000 ID. I started with all 25 year olds and now want only a couple and the rest to be project fighters since fights arent important to me as much as growing fighters the right way.

 

So I ask everyone: Just how much can you really tell based on comp rating?

 

edit: Mails to me from an org owner.

 

anybody can get a great rating by turning down fights. Fight some competition, pussy. Worst Comp Rating Lance Templeton (-284,622)

Jonathan Brookins (-50,208)

Jay Bittner (-21,208)

Mike Melton (-16,427)

Pat Miletich (-14,933)

Nicholas Wolfwood (-5,290)

Mack Dervius (-5,182)

 

You decline all the equal fights. Not only are you a pussy, but you're one of the biggest pussies in the world. Your pussiness is even ranked. Worst Comp Rating Lance Templeton (-284,622)

Jonathan Brookins (-50,208)

Jay Bittner (-20,247)

Mike Melton (-19,092)

Pat Miletich (-14,858)

Mack Dervius (-5,900) People only have to click on you to see what a coward you are.

[Guest]

Comp rating means nothing.

[j666]

Comp rating means nothing.

i could not agree more.

[lordweird]

So I'm right? Whew.

[Guest]

So when is old butt-chin ready to go?!?!

[Face Kicker]

fighter matchups are the most relevant. comp rating doesn't really mean that much, but it does mean something.

 

if two managers have similar fighter matchups and are close to each other in the manager rankings, the one with the lower comp number (number closer to zero) would be the more impressive of the two, since he would have done it against better ranked managers (which are, on the average, better at the game than lower ranked managers).

 

if my sole purpose was to get to be the #1 ranked manager, then my comp rating would look like shit, because really low ranked managers are typically much easier to beat than high ranked managers, and i would seek out those fights like a pussy, instead of taking on anybody.

[Guest]

Yea but the whole calculation for comp rating is bad and grows exponentially as your rank gets better. Also one single qfc can completely screw your comp rating which is why it doesn't mean much. A guy who takes 19 fights vs top 100 manages and 1 vs the #7000 manager doesn't fight worse comp than a guy who fights 20 top 200 managers. Comp rank if low means you fight really good competition, comp ranking if high can mean anything. Comp rating on the other hand is a weird number and you can't even come close to a fair comparison between #1 and even someone as high as #5.

[Face Kicker]

Yea but the whole calculation for comp rating is bad and grows exponentially as your rank gets better. Also one single qfc can completely screw your comp rating which is why it doesn't mean much. A guy who takes 19 fights vs top 100 manages and 1 vs the #7000 manager doesn't fight worse comp than a guy who fights 20 top 200 managers. Comp rank if low means you fight really good competition, comp ranking if high can mean anything. Comp rating on the other hand is a weird number and you can't even come close to a fair comparison between #1 and even someone as high as #5.

 

i was actually confusing comp rating with best comp (since with comp rating a higher number is better, as opposed to a lower number being better for best comp), but yeah there are definitely more factors to consider other than just the number itself.