Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

[Bigg Cee]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

I’m pretty curious how the new ranking system works in UFC 3. Maybe GPD or the dev who is in charge of that department can give us some info into the new ranking system?

[Solid_Altair]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The whole reason I'm advocating filters is because I acknowledge that two players can have competitive fights using lower ranked fighters. So what exactly is your point?
- Your system wouldn't actually do this in practical terms, if the filters would mess with the rewards so much.

No.

A filter is part of the matchmaking process to prevent mismatches. You'll fight any opponent granted their stats are within a reasonable distance of your own. Again, it's the same reasoning for weight classes in real life.

A ban on the other hand puts restrictions on your opponents options, even when those options wouldn't inherently be unfair. That is cherry picking. Something I'm not at all in favor of.
- But your filter could totally be used a ban. It wouldn't be about matching with a guy, then preventing him from picking someone. It'd be about only matching with players who don't pick someone, which is still a way of banning competion from a certain fighter.

...................

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

- Your system wouldn't actually do this in practical terms, if the filters would mess with the rewards so much.

In my opinion, the whole point of rankings is to list players from most likely to win to least likely to win at the peak of their abilities. Using low ranked fighters means the player is not playing to the peak of their ability almost by definition.

So unless you're willing to fight everyone and are able to beat them at their best (read: using elite fighters), of course your wins shouldn't count as much.

That's an entirely separate issue from having the ability to have competitive fights when both players use low ranked fighters.

- But your filter could totally be used a ban. It wouldn't be about matching with a guy, then preventing him from picking someone.

That is what a ban is.

It'd be about only matching with players who don't pick someone

No, it's not about picking any particular anything. It's about finding opponents with similar stats to prevent blowouts. Within that range everyone is free to pick whoever they want. Even outside that range they're free to pick whoever they want, they'll just not get matched up with you.

No one is prevented from picking any particular fighter. It's not a ban.

which is still a way of banning competion from a certain fighter.

By that logic, if you pick TJ Dillashaw, you "ban" people from using Tyron Woodley.

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The whole reason I'm advocating filters is because I acknowledge that two players can have competitive fights using lower ranked fighters. So what exactly is your point?



No.

A filter is part of the matchmaking process to prevent mismatches. You'll fight any opponent granted their stats are within a reasonable distance of your own. Again, it's the same reasoning for weight classes in real life.

A ban on the other hand puts restrictions on your opponents options, even when those options wouldn't inherently be unfair. That is cherry picking. Something I'm not at all in favor of.

Yeah, prevents mismatches in cutting half the roster off if you so wanted it to be. Meaning cutting the playerbase that would pick those that don't enter the range lvl you chose.

Banning, let's you ban one or more fighters from being chosen before playing against you.

A filter, makes it so it filters out mismatches as you say. In the case that your filter removes 90+ ovrl fighters , it would filter out all fighters that would be higher than 89, removing more than a few from all weight classes.

So you can now duck all players that chooses top fighters, even make it so you would never have to fight against a Jon Jones, or DJ ever again... Pretty similar ain't it? Except it's even worse in a sense.

Filters/bans have nothing to do being in ranked matches.

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

Yeah, prevents mismatches in cutting half the roster off if you so wanted it to be. Meaning cutting the playerbase that would pick those that don't enter the range lvl you chose.

Yup.

Banning, let's you ban one or more fighters from being chosen before playing against you.

Yup.

A filter, makes it so it filters out mismatches as you say. In the case that your filter removes 90+ ovrl fighters , it would filter out all fighters that would be higher than 89, removing more than a few from all weight classes.

Correct.

So you can now duck all players that chooses top fighters, even make it so you would never have to fight against a Jon Jones, or DJ ever again..

Correct.

Pretty similar ain't it?

No. Bans can be used to give you an advantage. Filters cannot.

Filters/bans have nothing to do being in ranked matches.

I personally don't care for either. I'd prefer no bans, no filters, no DC. Just pick your fighter, get matched up with someone, fight. No BS.

The thing is, people apparently don't like that very much because they don't want to be matched up in unwinnable fights due to stats (Ie: Lowest ranked fighter in LHW vs Jon Jones). That's why I suggested a filter so more people can enjoy playing ranked, without ruining the integrity of the online rankings.

You and I lose nothing, Ace. But more people are happy.

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

Yup.



Yup.



Correct.



Correct.



No. Bans can be used to give you an advantage. Filters cannot.



I personally don't care for either. I'd prefer no bans, no filters, no DC. Just pick your fighter, get matched up with someone, fight. No BS.

The thing is, people apparently don't like that very much because they don't want to be matched up in unwinnable fights due to stats (Ie: Lowest ranked fighter in LHW vs Jon Jones). That's why I suggested a filter so more people get to enjoy playing ranked, without ruining the integrity of the online rankings.

You argue that a Elo rating system would skew rankings, yet gives this filter as a solution. that's what don't make sense, buddy.

Choosing a low rated fighter and going up against a top rated fighter should earn you a bonus since the top fighter, as you say, has the player in his peak condition.

Nothing at all prevents him from continuing playing with top rated fighters, all it means is that he'll need to win that much more against fighters rated much lower than his.

A champion reigns with the belt confronting all contenders, until he loses one single fight and drops back down the ladder and tries to go up the rankings once again. That champion could have lost to a lesser skilled opponent and a huge underdog going in, he'd still have everything to lose compared to his opponent gaining the belt.

What I mean is, it's easier to stay at the top when taking the best fighters as a player in video games. Having yourself be at the top while being the underdog in the majority of your fights against players who are in the same division as you though? Now that takes skills and should be rewarded.

Doesn't matter if it's your favorite fighter, there would still be that certain gap the opponent needs to get over to win. Should be easier for you, should be harder for him, now what entices him to choose his favorite fighter if he has ****ty stats? That's where the Elo ranking system (or similar to it) comes in.

Adding filters is just goofy and a poor solution since you could duck many players that way. Having a rewarding system where you go in there and confront the best players (with the top fighters) with fighters with some of the worst stats, it's just..logical.

edit: And what do you mean I lose nothing? Because I don't give a F about leaderboards? Thing is, I would give a F if it a system similar to the Elo system was in place.

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

You argue that a Elo rating system would skew rankings, yet gives this filter as a solution. that's what don't make sense, buddy.

The filters don't skew the rankings if you significantly decrease if not cap the rewards when filters are used.

Choosing a low rated fighter and going up against a top rated fighter should earn you a bonus since the top fighter, as you say, has the player in his peak condition.

Again, by doing so, the top ranked player could potentially have a worse record and a lose head to head to a lot of players that are lower than they are.

Nothing at all prevents him from continuing playing with top rated fighters, all it means is that he'll need to win that much more against fighters rated much lower than his.

See previous answer.

A champion reigns with the belt confronting all contenders, until he loses one single fight and drops back down the ladder and tries to go up the rankings once again. That champion could have lost to a lesser skilled opponent and a huge underdog going in, he'd still have everything to lose compared to his opponent gaining the belt.

Agreed. What's your point?

What I mean is, it's easier to stay at the top when taking the best fighters as a player in video games. Having yourself be at the top while being the underdog in the majority of your fights against players who are in the same division as you though? Now that takes skills and should be rewarded.

See previous answer.

KO, TKO, submission, decision. A win's a win and should be rewarded the same. How or with whom you do it cannot be considered when it comes to your global ranking or the list becomes inaccurate.

The more I say this the more I want to not reward any points towards the leaderboards at all when using filters. Climbing up in divisions is fine though.

Doesn't matter if it's your favorite fighter, there would still be that certain gap the opponent needs to get over to win. Should be easier for you, should be harder for him

I don't understand at all what you're saying here..

Now what entices him to choose his favorite fighter if he has ****ty stats?

What can entice someone to play a bad character?

- It's their favorite fighter
- They have natural affinity with their move set and attributes
- They enjoy challenging themselves by being the underdog (in stats)
- They want to learn how to play the game with worse stats and improve their understanding of the game
- They want their opponent to underestimate them and gain a mental advantage
- To troll

That's where the Elo ranking system (or similar to it) comes in.

It's not the games responsibility to encourage people to use the entire roster. Players should play what they want to for their own reasons.

Adding filters is just goofy and a poor solution since you could duck many players that way.

In the same way you duck players when you're not playing the game mode. If you can't exploit the filters to boost your own ranking, why do you care so much?

Having a rewarding system where you go in there and confront the best players (with the top fighters) with fighters with some of the worst stats, it's just..logical.

Find me a competitive fighting game community that rewards players more for winning with low tiers?

Also, when are you going to address the flaw I brought up of your system?

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The filters don't skew the rankings if you significantly decrease if not cap the rewards when filters are used.



Again, by doing so, the top ranked player could potentially have a worse record and a lose head to head to a lot of players that are lower than they are.



See previous answer.



Agreed. What's your point?



See previous answer.

KO, TKO, submission, decision. A win's a win and should be rewarded the same. How or with whom you do it cannot be considered when it comes to your global ranking or the list becomes inaccurate.

The more I say this the more I want to not reward any points towards the leaderboards at all when using filters. Climbing up in divisions is fine though.



I don't understand at all what you're saying here..



What can entice someone to play a bad character?

- It's their favorite fighter
- They have natural affinity with their move set and attributes
- They enjoy challenging themselves by being the underdog (in stats)
- They want to learn how to play the game with worse stats and improve their understanding of the game
- They want their opponent to underestimate them and gain a mental advantage
- To troll



It's not the games responsibility to encourage people to use the entire roster. Players should play what they want to for their own reasons.

We're talking about in ranked, what entices them to choose them in rank. If they keep up the same thing as the last 2 games, the answer is absolutely nothing.

Where's that image someone posted with the point passing high over the head of someone.

Point is, having top fighters and winning is easier done than with low rated fighters, how you don't understand that baffles me to no end.

It's not the games responsibility to encourage people to use the entire roster.

Oh you mean like the featured fighters that was in EA UFC 2? You don,t think that wasn't meant to be something to encourage players to play as different fighters that they normally would? And guess what, they were rewarded for doing so. Now it was most likely random seeing how sometimes there were top fighters in it, but the majority of time I would get in ranked they were lower stats fighters.


Nah you're right, you should constantly be encouraged to play with the top fighters seeing how you have the better chance of winning, right? ... And to top it all there's nothing whatsoever that entices people to vary between fighters, unless they themselves want to change things up cause they are tired as hell of fighting the same fighters all the time. (which is the #1 reason why a Elo system is even being talked about, that and mirror matches happenning so much more in ranked due to what's been said above)

I guess I just don't comprehend how after two games you don't see how that poses a problem in any way


What flaw by the way? That a player with lesser wins than someone else would be higher up in the rankings due to him having the cojones to play as a fighter other than the top ones and winning at that? That ain't a flaw. It's called a upset since two players within the same division that plays against each other has one being the favorite due to having a fighter with much better stats than the other player. Upsets should be rewarded.

It's a sport game before being a fighting game. Fighting games tend to want all of their fighters to have balance between them even tho tiers and favorites happens.That can't be the case with real athletes in a real sport. Same as with teams in FIFA, Madden, Basketball and Baseball games.

There's a reason why one would bet for the underdog going into a fight, it's cause the risk involving losing more than winning, means the earnings are bigger.

Someone with a low rated fighter which could happen to be his favorite fighter would also want to fight as him, same as someone else's favorite being part of the top fighters. What would entice picking the low rated fighter in rank would be that even though he risk losing that much more, he still has the possibility to earn a tad bit more if he goes up against a top fighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

"The Elo system was originally invented as an improved chess rating system, but is also used as a rating system for multiplayer competition in a number of video games,<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[1]</sup> association football, American football, basketball,<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[2]</sup> Major League Baseball, Scrabble, board games such as Diplomacy and other games."

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

We're talking about in ranked, what entices them to choose them in rank. If they keep up the same thing as the last 2 games, the answer is absolutely nothing.

That entire list applies to ranked. You don't know what you're talking about Ace.

Where's that image someone posted with the point passing high over the head of someone.

I didn't miss your point, I answered it.

Point is, having top fighters and winning is easier done than with low rated fighters, how you don't understand that baffles me to no end.

I understand that it's easier to win with high rated fighters compared to low rated ones, that's true by definition in almost every match up.

What I don't agree with is rewarding that with more points towards your global ranking.

If you want to reward them in a different way that doesn't compromise the integrity of the rankings, I'm neutral towards that.

Oh you mean like the featured fighters that was in EA UFC 2?

I didn't care for that either.

Nah you're right, you should constantly be encouraged to play with the top fighters seeing how you have the better chance of winning, right?

No.You shouldn't be encouraged to do anything. You should do whatever you want.

And to top it all there's nothing whatsoever that entices people to vary between fighters, unless they themselves want to change things up cause they are tired as hell of fighting the same fighters all the time.

That's the nature of an actual competitive community.

I guess I just don't comprehend how after two games you don't see how that poses a problem in any way

The way you solve that is by balancing the game and making more fighters viable at all levels. Not by encouraging players to use more of the cast through rewards that compromise the integrity of the rankings.

What flaw by the way? That a player with lesser wins than someone else would be higher up in the rankings due to him having the cojones to play as a fighter other than the top ones and winning at that? That ain't a flaw. It's called a upset since two players within the same division that plays against each other has one being the favorite due to having a fighter with much better stats than the other player. Upsets should be rewarded.

Player A uses a low tier and gains 10 points per win
Player B uses a high tier and gains 5 points per win

Player B beat all the fighters player A beat.
Player B beat all the fighters player A lost to.
Player B beat player A head to head.

Rankings
#1 Player A 7 - 3 / 70 points
#2 Player B 10 - 0 / 50 points

You don't think that's a flaw?

It's a sport game before being a fighting game. Fighting games tend to want all of their fighters to have balance between them even tho tiers and favorites happens.That can't be the case with real athletes in a real sport. Same as with teams in FIFA, Madden, Basketball and Baseball games.

Sure it can, but I don't see how this ties into our disagreement?

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

Player A uses a low tier and gains 10 points per win
Player B uses a high tier and gains 5 points per win

Player B beat all the fighters player A beat.
Player B beat all the fighters player A lost to.
Player B beat player A head to head.

Rankings
#1 Player A 7 - 3 / 70 points
#2 Player B 10 - 0 / 50 points

Since everything else in your post isn't worth a answer to, I'll just tackle this nonsense.

I'm guessing the 5 points earned by Player B is the Default amount of points you earn, right? Or is it only against the lowest of rated fighters?

Anyway even if it was or wasn't... Your exemple (even tho exagerated with the difference in points) would only work if at all times, Player A would go up against top fighters, which at that point the Elo system would already be in place to basically entice more people to take other fighters than the top. Which means more fair fights for the low rated fighter, hence no bonus points awarded.

But let's change a couple numbers and say, the default amount of point instead is 7, 5 the number of points you'd earn against low rated fighters while being a top fighter, and 10 points if going against a top fighter while being a low rated one.

In a surprising but not that shocking event, Player A does indeed ends up fighting against nothing but top fighters and winning 7 out of those. He'd end up with 70 points.

Now let's say Player B ends up winning all of his 10 fights, 1 of them being against Player A, what are the chances now he'd go up against 9 other low rated fighters? Again, let's just go with it and say he also ends up fighting against as low rated fighters as with Player A 100% of the time. Player B would end up with 50 points.

Now what if Player A happens to fight one single fair match due to the Elo system and win? Whoop, it drops to 67.

Now what if Player B ends up with only going 50% of his time against low rated fighters as opposed to the 100% from earlier ( and let's be honest here, 50%? really? Even with the Elo system in place, I'd be shocked to see such a huge number, but okay) Player B would then end up with 60 points.

It's a difference of 7 ****ing points. And that's if the low rated player wins 6 times as a underdog and 1 time only against a fair match up.

Player B in this case would have 5 fair fights to win, and 5 where he's the favorite to win. And again, 50% is a huge number.

It's all about finding the right numbers to make it fair and to entice just a bit more of a variety in the fighters chosen. Pick your exemple better next time. It could be a +2 bonus instead of 3, or the default number of point being higher, and the penalty for the top fighters to be of 1 freaking point instead of 2.

Can't anyone else remember how tiresome it was to fight nothing but the best fighters in ranked? There's a reason why some wants double confirmation or the Elo ranking system. They want something to change, and your filters certainly aint the solution when there's already 10 weight classesand other modes to take note of on a player base much smaller than for exemple, FIFA and NBA2k.

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

Since everything else in your post isn't worth a answer to, I'll just tackle this nonsense.

I'm guessing the 5 points earned by Player B is the Default amount of points you earn, right? Or is it only against the lowest of rated fighters?

Base vs Base + Bonus.

Anyway even if it was or wasn't... Your exemple (even tho exagerated with the difference in points) would only work if at all times, Player A would go up against top fighters, which at that point the Elo system would already be in place to basically entice more people to take other fighters than the top. Which means more fair fights for the low rated fighter, hence no bonus points awarded.

Yes, my example is exaggerated to highlight the problem. But it doesn't go away just because you're not always fighting high ranked players.

Any bonus for using lower rated fighters will inevitably open up the door for that to happen. It doesn't matter if it's a 2x bonus or a 0.05 bonus. Rewarding equal wins with unequal points towards the global ranking fundamentally breaks the ranking.

But let's change a couple numbers and say, the default amount of point instead is 7, 5 the number of points you'd earn against low rated fighters while being a top fighter, and 10 points if going against a top fighter while being a low rated one.

Let's.

In a surprising but not that shocking event, Player A does indeed ends up fighting against nothing but top fighters and winning 7 out of those. He'd end up with 70 points.

Now let's say Player B ends up winning all of his 10 fights, 1 of them being against Player A, what are the chances now he'd go up against 9 other low rated fighters?

Again, let's just go with it and say he also ends up fighting against as low rated fighters as with Player A 100% of the time. Player B would end up with 50 points.

Now what if Player A happens to fight one single fair match due to the Elo system and win? Whoop, it drops to 67.

Now what if Player B ends up with only going 50% of his time against low rated fighters as opposed to the 100% from earlier ( and let's be honest here, 50%? really? Even with the Elo system in place, I'd be shocked to see such a huge number, but okay) Player B would then end up with 60 points.

It's a difference of 7 ****ing points. And that's if the low rated player wins 7 times as a underdog with only one of those being a fair fight.

Player B in this case would have 5 fair fights to win, and 5 where he's the favorite to win. And again, 50% is a huge number.

Zero. They're fighting the same people and each other in this hypothetical, otherwise there's no point in comparing the points.

I don't know what you're trying to prove by changing the numbers or opponents they play. If your system at any point allows player A to be ranked above player B with objectively worse results, your system is fundamentally flawed.

It's all about finding the right numbers to make it fair and to entice just a bit more of a variety in the fighters chosen. Pick your exemple better next time. It could be a +2 bonus instead of 3, or the default number of point being higher, and the penalty for the top fighters to be of 1 freaking point instead of 2.

There is no right number, it can't be made fair.

If you lower the bonus, all that does is make the problem less apparent at a lower number of matches but it's still there.

The example I gave you was for simplicity's sake.

Can't anyone else remember how tiresome it was to fight nothing but the best fighters in ranked? There's a reason why some wants double confirmation or the Elo ranking system.

The answer is more balanced game play. Less exaggerated difference in physical ability between fighters.

The devs always exaggerate the differences between champions and lower level fighters, when the main difference is usually in fight IQ and experience rather than raw physical gifts (freaks like Yoel & Ngannou notwithstanding).

They want something to change, and your filters certainly aint the solution when there's already 10 weight classesand other modes to take note of on a player base much smaller than for exemple, FIFA and NBA2k.

Did you ever experience a problem finding matches? Did you play a lot of rematches? I didn't. I don't see how a filter would make that much of a difference.

But like I said, the actual solution to you problem of people only using the top fighters is a balanced roster. Not a filter, DC or awarding bonuses.