Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The character you pick shouldn't reward or penalize you at all.

Rather I think the amount of points you gain/lose should directly correlate with your comparative rankings.

That don't make sense to me, most players are high ranked due to constantly choosing the best fighters available. Having them earn less points when against lower ranked fighters in this case gives them incentive to vary their fighters and opening up their game. The best player shouldn't be judged by how good he is with the top fighters, but how good he is with and without them. Players that pick lower ranked fighters and win should absolutely be rewarded when against top fighters. And players with top fighters if winning against a lower fighter should gain less than they would. Or let's say simply be the default points awarded, which in this case would mean that the player with the lower ranked fighter would have a bonus percentage.

Not rather, it should already be implemented that way. If a white belt goes against a black belt for exemple, he should absolutely earn more with a win than the opponent, no questions about it.

[Player2793]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

No equalized stats please - takes away from the individuality of the fighter. Absolutely not.

The individuality is in the moveset, it makes for an actual balanced and competitive environment if the stats are equal.

[Find_the_Door]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The individuality is in the moveset, it makes for an actual balanced and competitive environment if the stats are equal.

Nope - heart and chin for example can't be replicated. No thanks .

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The individuality is in the moveset

Mostly only for the top fighters though or the more flashy ones.. Undisputed had it in player matches and it flopped. The general consensus was pretty much the lack of individuality, and there were more unique moves in Undisputed 3 than there are in ea ufc 3.

[Solid_Altair]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

The weaknesses are an important part of the individuality. And they're mostly represented by the attributes. You don't have a lvl. 1 Move for Submission Defense.

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

- FIFA's divisions would not count like the weightclasses at all.

Oh you meant weight classes. No, Fifa doesn't have that. It has more divisions though and the filter based on team strength.

- Meaning the filter would take too long and would therefore not be reliable?

No.

The filter likely won't cause problems 99.99% of the time, but if you do experience problems finding games because you already have a fairly limited pool of opponents (due to bad connection or whatever), you should be able to turn it off.

Besides, it should be off by default anyway.

- There would be a risk of fighting a player with worse fighter than mine, which would be terrible.

That won't happen.

Filter
Minimal overall - xx
Max overall - xx (at least your fighter's overall +3) <-- This number is arbitrary, 3 might be too high or low..

If you want to challenge yourself, set the minimal overall higher than your own overall.

- Wasn't that your Ben Arsken point? I thought you meant that if people want to cherry pick to reach a high spot, they should be able to do it, then the community otself would adapt by branding the player a cherry picker who's rank isn't legit.

No, I meant that having the filter on should significantly cut your rewards.

Say you play someone, beat that person and you'd gain 50 points towards your global ranking. Having the filter on should drop your rewards to 10 or maybe even 5 or lower.

The rankings should always matter, your record not so much.

The filter should purely be there for people to be able to enjoy ranked with lower rated fighters, without being able to abuse it and climb the rankings.

- I disagree. I think both should count. Such bonuses per fighter would help with the variety of choices in the roster.

Why is that so important? And why should you lose out on points just because you don't enjoy playing with a lower ranked fighter?

[Solid_Altair]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

No, I meant that having the filter on should significantly cut your rewards.

Say you play someone, beat that person and you'd gain 50 points towards your global ranking. Having the filter on should drop your rewards to 10 or maybe even 5 or lower.

The rankings should always matter, your record not so much.

The filter should purely be there for people to be able to enjoy ranked with lower rated fighters, without being able to abuse it and climb the rankings.


- Then any half-competitive player wouldn't use the filter and we would run into mismatches over and over again, just like with classic blind pick.

Why is that so important? And why should you lose out on points just because you don't enjoy playing with a lower ranked fighter?
- It's important because it sucks to have a big roster along with gigantic incentives not to use most of it. And I should lose out om (win fewer) points when usinga better fighter because it's easier.

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

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

That don't make sense to me, most players are high ranked due to constantly choosing the best fighters available.

And?

In any competitive endeavor people try to play to their peak ability and maximize their chances of winning. That's the point. It doesn't matter that you're a one-trick pony if your trick gets the job done.

Having them earn less points when against lower ranked fighters in this case gives them incentive to vary their fighters and opening up their game.

That should be entirely up to them without the game pressuring them to do so.

The best player shouldn't be judged by how good he is with the top fighters, but how good he is with and without them.

Nonsense. Broken characters/tactics set aside, the best player should be judged solely on his ability to win fights.

If I can literally beat anyone on the planet consistently and convincingly using Daniel Cormier, it doesn't matter how good I am with Patrick Cummins, I'm the best LHW player in the world.

Players that pick lower ranked fighters and win should absolutely be rewarded when against top fighters. And players with top fighters if winning against a lower fighter should gain less than they would. Or let's say simply be the default points awarded, which in this case would mean that the player with the lower ranked fighter would have a bonus percentage.

I disagree with that fundamentally. All that should matter is your ability to win fights. Whether you win by KO, TKO, submission or decision with Artem Lobov or Conor McGregor doesn't matter.

If you won, you should get full points. How you did it shouldn't affect your global ranking at all. If you don't, you're ironically ****ing with the system.

With bonuses that affect your ranking based on the character you use, we could end up with a player that's #1 for winning with a low rated fighter, while being unable to beat a significant portion of the lower ranked players with any fighter. How does that make any sense?

I don't mind the idea of rewarding players for using low rated fighters in UT coins, UT cards or even UT packs though.

Not rather, it should already be implemented that way. If a white belt goes against a black belt for exemple, he should absolutely earn more with a win than the opponent, no questions about it.

Agreed.

- Then any half-competitive player wouldn't use the filter and we would run into mismatches over and over again, just like with classic blind pick.

Any competitive player shouldn't use terrible fighters in ranked to begin with, unless they don't mind losing. The filter is there purely so you can play decent competition without horrible mismatches, it's not there so you can climb the rankings quicker. If you want to climb the rankings, use a fighter that gives you the best chance of winning with the filter off.

Also, the numbers I put up are arbitrary. It's entirely possible that what I'm suggesting is too low.

- It's important because it sucks to have a big roster along with gigantic incentives not to use most of it.

It's not so much a problem as it is the nature of competitive games. It's an inescapable part of having different move sets.

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

You're probably one of the only ones that don't want to encourage a variety of fighters being played in rank, and at the same time offer "solutions" that instead would literally encourage players to duck some of the "best" players because you don't want to face Jon Jones for exemple? Add in filters? Bans on fighters? What is this lol

Btw, you would only be rewarded a bonus percentage of points if you were to win as a low rated fighter against top fighters. There's no penalty given per say, only that players with top fighters arnt rewarded for their mundane choice of fighters. It'd basically be like with the featured fighters in ufc 2, except this time around you'd have the choice of which low rated fighter you'd want to fight as.

[Solid_Altair]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

Any competitive player shouldn't use terrible fighters in ranked to begin with, unless they don't mind losing. The filter is there purely so you can play decent competition without horrible mismatches, it's not there so you can climb the rankings quicker. If you want to climb the rankings, use a fighter that gives you the best chance of winning with the filter off.
- It doesn't have to be this way. Players can play competitively, both choosing low level fighters in a DC set up.

It's not so much a problem as it is the nature of competitive games. It's an inescapable part of having different move sets.
- This isn't about having different move sets, though, which can be about assymetrical balance. People can be competitive just fine, using low level fighters, as long as the match-ups are fair on the fighters' "level".

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

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

You're probably one of the only ones that don't want to encourage a variety of fighters being played in rank

I don't mind that, just not at the cost of the rankings integrity.

and at the same time offer "solutions" that instead would literally encourage players to duck some of the "best" players because you don't want to face Jon Jones for exemple?

Not at all. I'm just saying that if you want to play the best players, play them at their best.

Wanting the best players to handicap themselves so you have a better chance at winning defeats the purpose of playing them to begin with, no?

Add in filters? Bans on fighters? What is this lol

Never said anything about banning fighters.

Btw, you would only be rewarded a bonus percentage of points if you were to win as a low rated fighter against top fighters. There's no penalty given per say, only that players with top fighters arnt rewarded for their mundane choice of fighters. It'd basically be like with the featured fighters in ufc 2, except this time around you'd have the choice of which low rated fighter you'd want to fight as.

Again, that skews the rankings and you could end up with the scenario I described.

- It doesn't have to be this way. Players can play competitively, both choosing low level fighters in a DC set up.

I'm not saying you can't, obviously you can. Even without filters you could.

But if the goal in ranked is to win fights, choosing a lower rated fighter means you're actively working against your own best interest.

- This isn't about having different move sets, though, which can be about assymetrical balance. People can be competitive just fine, using low level fighters, as long as the match-ups are fair on the fighters' "level".

I never said that people using lower rated fighters can't be competitive. If you're good enough and/or the match up is favorable, you can.

[TheGentlemanGhost]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

My main issue is actually just mirror matches. I generally will pick whom ever any giving fight, so it doesn't both me seeing who my opponent is or not.

[Solid_Altair]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

I'm not saying you can't, obviously you can. Even without filters you could.

But if the goal in ranked is to win fights, choosing a lower rated fighter means you're actively working against your own best interest.

I never said that people using lower rated fighters can't be competitive. If you're good enough and/or the match up is favorable, you can.

In both cases I mean being competitive (fair) while both players using low rated fighters.

[Acebaldwin]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

Never said anything about banning fighters.

Putting filters makes it so you literally don't have to fight top fighters if you wish too, isn't that what a ban would also do? Not because they don't share the same term that they do not serve the same purpose in oneway or another.

[DaisukEasy]

Re: Is ranked still gonna be blind pick?

In both cases I mean being competitive (fair) while both players using low rated fighters.

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?

Putting filters makes it so you literally don't have to fight top fighters if you wish too, isn't that what a ban would also do? Not because they don't share the same term that they do not serve the same purpose in oneway or another.

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.