Ranked Point Awards Too Weighted

[DaisukEasy]

Quote: Originally Posted by SaucyJacky

I don't care what the perceived skill differential is between two players, Akhmedov/Woodley is a tough fight to fight.

Not true at all. The gap between two players is quite often large enough to make the actual fighters used borderline irrelevant.

The only thing that should matier in ranked is who you beat.

It might be more fun to add bonuses because there will likely be more variety and maybe it's worth it to some people because of that. But bonuses guarantee that you'll see players who use low tier fighters outrank players that are better and have objectively better records and better wins.

If the point of ranked is to reflect who the best players are as accurately as possible bonuses aren't the way to go..

[UFCBlackbelt]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaisukEasy

Not true at all. The gap between two players is quite often large enough to make the actual fighters used borderline irrelevant. The only thing that should matier in ranked is who you beat. It might be more fun to add bonuses because there will likely be more variety and maybe it's worth it to some people because of that. But bonuses guarantee that you'll see players who use low tier fighters outrank players that are better and have objectively better records and better wins. If the point of ranked is to reflect who the best players are as accurately as possible bonuses aren't the way to go..

Someone who can beat GSP with CM Punk is a better player.
Right now we are forced to pick certain characters because there is no incentive at all.

[Counter Punch]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaisukEasy

Not true at all. The gap between two players is quite often large enough to make the actual fighters used borderline irrelevant. The only thing that should matier in ranked is who you beat. It might be more fun to add bonuses because there will likely be more variety and maybe it's worth it to some people because of that. But bonuses guarantee that you'll see players who use low tier fighters outrank players that are better and have objectively better records and better wins. If the point of ranked is to reflect who the best players are as accurately as possible bonuses aren't the way to go..

Ok so you’ve made several proclamations here and made no effort to argue their logical merits.

I think it would be obvious if you actually thought critically about what you’re saying that it makes no sense.

Also, it’s not a “bonus” if you get more points for beating GSP with CM Punk. It would be an appropriate reward based on a valuation of the skill involved.

[resscrowds]

This and I think ranked matches should have a ban system. A system where you ban like 3-5 fighters for division, and you and your opponent cant use this fighters.

It should work only in non tittle matches, and champions should be able to use any fighter they want in non tittle matches too.


I think it would make people use a more varied range of fighters, and tittle fights would be a lot more fun because the champion would have a lot more to lose.

I dont think only giving more points would make people drop Cormier or Connor. Most people want to win, the ranking is just a system to show them how much they win...


Think how good it would be, to use the best fighters you would have to earn it!

[The meticulous Esp]

Quote: Originally Posted by resscrowds

This and I think ranked matches should have a ban system. A system where you ban like 3-5 fighters for division, and you and your opponent cant use this fighters. It should work only in non tittle matches, and champions should be able to use any fighter they want in non tittle matches too. I think it would make people use a more varied range of fighters, and tittle fights would be a lot more fun because the champion would have a lot more to lose. I dont think only giving more points would make people drop Cormier or Connor. Most people want to win, the ranking is just a system to show them how much they win... Think how good it would be, to use the best fighters you would have to earn it!

For me there's no debate; best players are those guys in Top 100 without a OP Champ fighter !!!!

[Solid_Altair]

They vary too much by player skill, but not enough for fighter level.

[DaisukEasy]

Quote: Originally Posted by UFCBlackbelt

Someone who can beat GSP with CM Punk is a better player.

A better player than who?

Quote:

Right now we are forced to pick certain characters because there is no incentive at all.

Which isn't really relevant to my point.

Quote: Originally Posted by Counter Punch

Ok so you’ve made several proclamations here and made no effort to argue their logical merits.

I made one real point and didn't elaborate because i thought it was obvious.

Quote:

Also, it’s not a “bonus” if you get more points for beating GSP with CM Punk. It would be an appropriate reward based on a valuation of the skill involved.

That is literally what a bonus is.

Here's why I think it's a terrible idea.


Player A plays 18 people + Player B with GSP and beats all of them for 10 points per win.

Player B plays 18 people with CM Punk and beats all but player A for 11 points per win (cause, low tier).

Player A record. 19 wins, 0 losses 190 points.
Player B record. 18 wins, 1 loss 209 points.

Player B be would ranked higher even though player A beat the exact same players and won the head to head. I honestly don't see how that's fair or favorable.

These are obviously arbitrary numbers, but this is what inevitably happens when you increase rewards for using low tier fighters.

I care more about the integrity of the rankings than I do variety of the fighters used. If you dont, that's fine. I just want you to understand the consequences.

[Phillyboi207]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaisukEasy

A better player than who? Which isn't really relevant to my point. I made one real point and didn't elaborate because i thought it was obvious. That is literally what a bonus is. Here's why I think it's a terrible idea. Player A plays 18 people + Player B with GSP and beats all of them for 10 points per win. Player B plays 18 people with CM Punk and beats all but player A for 11 points per win (cause, low tier). Player A record. 19 wins, 0 losses 190 points. Player B record. 18 wins, 1 loss 209 points. Player B be would ranked higher even though player A beat the exact same players and won the head to head. I honestly don't see how that's fair or favorable. These are obviously arbitrary numbers, but this is what inevitably happens when you increase rewards for using low tier fighters. I care more about the integrity of the rankings than I do variety of the fighters used. If you dont, that's fine. I just want you to understand the consequences.

You’re not making sense

The CM Punk player should absolutely be considered better/ ranked higher in that scenario

It takes infinitely more skill to win with Punk than someone like GSP.

The ranking integrity is already compromised since everyone just picks the best fighters