[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by RetractedMonkey

But, that quote highlighted isn't how you do the stats. The operative word is "drastically". I feel you have a more nitpick style (which is fine), whereas I am perfectly okay with making wide changes even if they aren't as close to accurate as humanly possible. For the sake of gameplay and in my view that the top 10 in any given division is not that much better than your average unranked UFC prospect. I believe we've already come to the conclusion that we just have a difference of opinion in the way stats should be done. I GET why you do it the way you do. I just think the gameplay and replayability suffers with your way.

I understand your way and I just disagree with it completely. We come from different persepctives when it comes to this. I have similar arguments with Zombie and some of the other online GCs. I completely think that there is a huge difference in skill between Dustin Poirier and Jake Matthews and I think the game should show it.

My goal isnt to make more ranked players viable. You know I dont give a **** about that. If real life makes them viable then the stats should show that. If not than you either have to deal with that handicap or not use him. I also doubt that elite online ranked players would even use more fighters if we rated them your ways. Comp people always want to use the best when it comes down to it even if there isnt a huge difference between the best.

I always find it strange that this game is the only game where I see arguments like this. I dont see anyone playing NBA 2k saying that Steph Curry and Otto Porter should have ratings in the same just because they are both in the NBA. The stats and the tape show that Curry is significantly better so there is no room for debate. Same thing here.