My Matchmaking Rules (Universe Mode)

[TheRizzzle]

DORK UNIVERSE MATCHMAKING RULES

Over the years I've developed a game within the game that pushes my Universe Mode along quite nicely. I will warn you, it's a little intense, but it's relatively instinctual once you get into a rhythm.

Now, all of this works if you have some sort of scenario engine you use in your Universe Mode. If you don't, there are several different options that I've seen used on these forums. Check em out and see what works best for you.

Once you have this established, the attachment outlines how I've been doing it, with a slight tweak to my rankings formula from a user whose name escapes me (was recent, my apologies for not being able to find it and give credit).

Word of caution, feel free to make it your own. I like the intensity of feeling like I have to offer fights that I might not otherwise want to make if I was the promoter. It simulates the legal obligations the UFC has and why the matchmakers sometimes come up with fights that make you go "huh, wonder why they went that direction?"

A lot of times matchmaking is simply a function of:
-Who do we owe fights too?
-Who is available?
-What dates on the calendar do we need to book?
-What is most interesting?

We pay a lot of attention to that last bullet, but it's often not the only consideration that can be made if you have a contract with a fighter.

That's the end goal for my outline. So don't take it too seriously. Modify it. Make it your own. Have fun with it.

[aholbert32]

I've been developing a rankings system using WMMA5 for the past 2 yrs and its tough. I'm really impressed by what you have been able to do so far. A couple of questions/comments:

- Do you never schedule ranked fighters against non ranked fighters? For example, say fighter 1 is ranked #5 and loses to an unranked fighter (fighter 2). Under the rules, fighter 2 would be ranked fifth and leap frog 5 other fighters simply because of one win.

You also run the risk of lower rated fighters being leapfrogged when they have more wins than an unranked figher. Using the example above, lets say fighter 3 is ranked 7 and on a 4 fight winning streak with 2 by decision. Is it fair that fighter 2 should be higher ranked based simply on one KO win over a ranked figther?

- Dropping people a number of spots based solely on how they are finished could be problematic at times. For example in my Universe, Zabit had a 7 fight win streak, got a title shot and got stopped in the first. Using the rules, he would drop to 4th simply because of the loss even though he stopped 2 of the fighters that were now ranked higher than him.

[TheRizzzle]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I've been developing a rankings system using WMMA5 for the past 2 yrs and its tough. I'm really impressed by what you have been able to do so far. A couple of questions/comments: - Do you never schedule ranked fighters against non ranked fighters? For example, say fighter 1 is ranked #5 and loses to an unranked fighter (fighter 2). Under the rules, fighter 2 would be ranked fifth and leap frog 5 other fighters simply because of one win. You also run the risk of lower rated fighters being leapfrogged when they have more wins than an unranked figher. Using the example above, lets say fighter 3 is ranked 7 and on a 4 fight winning streak with 2 by decision. Is it fair that fighter 2 should be higher ranked based simply on one KO win over a ranked figther? - Dropping people a number of spots based solely on how they are finished could be problematic at times. For example in my Universe, Zabit had a 7 fight win streak, got a title shot and got stopped in the first. Using the rules, he would drop to 4th simply because of the loss even though he stopped 2 of the fighters that were now ranked higher than him.

I think it largely comes down to how you view the rankings and what they are trying to accomplish. I've seen two predominant schools of thoughts here.

1) The rankings serve to show who the top fighters are in the world in numerical order.

Or the one I use as a guiding philosophy...

2) The rankings are serving as a guide for who gets the next title shot.

By subscribing to the second philosophy I justify the scenarios you present as fair because I view each fight as the higher ranked fighter defending their ranking. If I'm number five and you beat me, you're now fifth.

A couple things on that note...

My scenario engine I use has an option for a fighter to reject any fight for a set number of months unless "they get a fight against someone ranked higher than them."

What this does is force me into situations where fighters who have earned a certain spot only want to fight up so they can grab someone's spot, rather than risk giving their spot to someone else.

The other note is that I generally have three principles I look for before simply finding whatever match up is available:

1) Match winners vs. winners
2) Match losers vs. losers
3) Try to have as many 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6 type fights as possible.


By using the rankings as a title fight pecking order and matching up fighters who are coming off same results, I've found that the results are usually fair IMO.

However, those unique situations where an odd leap takes place and it does seem unfair, well that's just a good storyline and rivalry waiting to happen.

If I see where it feels unfair that someone got leapfrogged, that suddenly becomes a fight I like to make. I want to match those guys up and let the aggrieved fighter earn his spot back, or allow the aggressive riser to justify his newfound position.

It creates some natural tension among the matchups that keep it fresh. I actually love those imperfect moments the best honestly.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[TheRizzzle]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I've been developing a rankings system using WMMA5 for the past 2 yrs and its tough. I'm really impressed by what you have been able to do so far. A couple of questions/comments - Dropping people a number of spots based solely on how they are finished could be problematic at times. For example in my Universe, Zabit had a 7 fight win streak, got a title shot and got stopped in the first. Using the rules, he would drop to 4th simply because of the loss even though he stopped 2 of the fighters that were now ranked higher than him.

This part gets largely solved because I won't allow someone to sink below someone coming off a loss.

More often than not, that means in your scenario, Zabit likely wouldn't fall as far as the rules dictate he could (3 spots) UNLESS the people below him were all coming off wins.

Even still, if you use my philosophy that the rankings are sorting a list in order of who you'd call for the next title shot, given Zabit just got one and got finished in the first round, it's fair he'd drop below other contenders coming off wins.

It's not so much who you've beat in the past, but more what have you done for me lately.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk