BoxRec

JDC wrote:I think the pool should be locked soon, and you should only be allowed one win per CPU opponent. The pool is pretty tough apart from a few poor fighters.

Yes there is an idea. Maybe we should move some of the exceptionally poor fighters (like Crumble, Zelenoff, Esch) out of the weight pools, and just keep in good fighters.

Crease wrote:

JDC wrote:Set them all as active heavyweights (create a new rating using their best stats)

But if you move all fighters into the Heavyweight Division, isn't there a possibility that you take something away from them? For example can you see Roberto Duran being a good Heavyweight?

You'd be changing his weight class, his ratings would remain the same in every category. I did it as a mock and it worked well to get the rankings. We'd lose the first too weeks if we did it now though. It's an option for subsequent seasons, not to worry.

Crease wrote:

JDC wrote:I think the pool should be locked soon, and you should only be allowed one win per CPU opponent. The pool is pretty tough apart from a few poor fighters.

Yes there is an idea. Maybe we should move some of the exceptionally poor fighters (like Crumble, Zelenoff, Esch) out of the weight pools, and just keep in good fighters.

2 or 3 bums like these are fine. If you have bad form they're the best option. No more added though?

JDC wrote:You'd be changing his weight class, his ratings would remain the same in every category. I did it as a mock and it worked well to get the rankings. We'd lose the first too weeks if we did it now though. It's an option for subsequent seasons, not to worry.

If the Sim-public decide that they don't like this points system - I can still refer back to the one I used at the end of the Heavyweight season.

Standings updated through Week two.


The joint top-ranked fighters for this week were:

Benny Leonard – 6 pts
Muhammad Ali – 6 pts
Abe Attell – 6 pts

Henry Armstrong – 5 pts
Naseem Hamed – 5 pts
Gene Tunney – 5 pts
Eder Jofre – 5 pts
Barney Ross – 5 pts
Roberto Duran – 5 pts

DetroitHxC wrote:This also does not take into account the way fights turn out.
I mean, what if you whip the shit out of a guy and then lose on some dumb cut?
There needs to be more thought into this, simplye human or CPU seems like some shit I would have made up in Kindergarten.
Seriously, this is too damn simplified, it's not even fair.

First off, I applaud the fact that you have highlighted the flaws of the current points system, it shows that you care. Secondly, neither Buzz nor I can run the Sim quite like the way that TF did and so - we are just trying to do our best, and all of this is a "feeling out" process.

You want to make the awarding of points more complicated? I hear you, and I accept that examples can be given where victory points might seem unfair, it kinda goes back to what I was saying to Jai about the whole "perception" thing.
For example, if 2 people fight CPU opponents - Fighter A fights and beat George Foreman, whereas Fighter B fights and beats Eric Crumble - they are given the same amount of points.

I'm sure that we would all agree that Foreman respresents a far more formidable adversary that the Crumbler, yet if we were to go down this train of thought it would ultimately leave us at the juncture of: establishing the varying quality of unmanaged opponents.

But in that case we are talking about overcomplicating the Sim just for the sake of it - and when me and Buzz discussed taking the Sim onward, we both agreed that simplicity was the best way. And bearing that in mind, the points system will stay for 8 more weeks.

Please don't think that I am disregarding your opinion, I have really considered it and I'm taking all criticism and information on board so that we may get it better next time... After Week 10 I will probably do a poll as so what rankings system the Sim public prefer, I have currently 4 alternatives in mind... So you (like everyone else) will have your chance to vote and have your say.


Once again, please don't take this as a sleight against you, it really isn't.
;;-)

And with that, let's bring closure to this discussion for the time being.

Bare in mind that Crease has take time to workout all these rankings, do the results & match-up threads, Prizefighter and fit in his day to day noobery. If they're more complex it'll take longer to workout. We have something to work from which doesn't look too different to the early stages of most seasons imo. Once the rankings are established we'll be able to group them as people are suggesting, thus adding a more correct weighting value to each match-up.

Thanks for doing them Crease.

Crease wrote:

DetroitHxC wrote:This also does not take into account the way fights turn out.
I mean, what if you whip the shit out of a guy and then lose on some dumb cut?
There needs to be more thought into this, simplye human or CPU seems like some shit I would have made up in Kindergarten.
Seriously, this is too damn simplified, it's not even fair.

First off, I applaud the fact that you have highlighted the flaws of the current points system, it shows that you care. Secondly, neither Buzz nor I can run the Sim quite like the way that TF did and so - we are just trying to do our best, and all of this is a "feeling out" process.

You want to make the awarding of points more complicated? I hear you, and I accept that examples can be given where victory points might seem unfair, it kinda goes back to what I was saying to Jai about the whole "perception" thing.
For example, if 2 people fight CPU opponents - Fighter A fights and beat George Foreman, whereas Fighter B fights and beats Eric Crumble - they are given the same amount of points.

I'm sure that we would all agree that Foreman respresents a far more formidable adversary that the Crumbler, yet if we were to go down this train of thought it would ultimately leave us at the juncture of: establishing the varying quality of unmanaged opponents.

But in that case we are talking about overcomplicating the Sim just for the sake of it - and when me and Buzz discussed taking the Sim onward, we both agreed that simplicity was the best way. And bearing that in mind, the points system will stay for 8 more weeks.

Please don't think that I am disregarding your opinion, I have really considered it and I'm taking all criticism and information on board so that we may get it better next time... After Week 10 I will probably do a poll as so what rankings system the Sim public prefer, I have currently 4 alternatives in mind... So you (like everyone else) will have your chance to vote and have your say.


Once again, please don't take this as a sleight against you, it really isn't.
;;-)

And with that, let's bring closure to this discussion for the time being.

That's all sweet, Crease. Just one more thing though. I can't remember anyone fighting a difficult computer opponent. If someone fights a CPU they're 99% gonna' be walkovers. I.e. my whole argument for lowering the points total.

I'm fine with these rankings for the time being.

In the TB rankings Sanchez would be top with two early KOs over CPUs. He only has 2/3s of the leaders points totals as it is.

Rankings updated through week three.


The joint top-ranked fighters for this week were:

Benny Leonard – 9 pts
Abe Attell – 9 pts

Eder Jofre – 8 pts

Roberto Duran – 7 pts
Rocky Marciano – 7 pts
Ezzard Charles – 7 pts
Ray Robinson – 7 pts

DetroitHxC wrote:What do the asterisks mean?

Lost to a CPU fighter.

Standings updated through Week four.


The joint top-ranked fighters for this week were:

Benny Leonard – 12 pts
Abe Attell – 12 pts

Roberto Duran – 10 pts
Rocky Marciano – 10 pts
Ray Robinson – 10 pts

Shouldn't Saddler be on 7pts? ( 2 wins, 1 draw)

kevo wrote:Shouldn't Saddler be on 7pts? ( 2 wins, 1 draw)

Indeed he should. I made an error and give the win to Charles when it should have went to Saddler. My bad.

Anyways, I've opened up a new Excel document to help me keep track of the points, should make things a lot cleaner and simpler.

ANy fighter rated under double digits should carry with it a corresponding negative in the 10th's A win over zellenoff would bring 1 point rather than two...since he is flaming zero........a fighter rated 5 would bring a 1.5 point win value.

10 and above would carry no such "surcharge". Get my meaning here? NO managed fighters are rated under 10.

This would be a small but significant variance that could help sort some of the nuances. I suggest this begin with the coming week.

CRease, I can deliver that info in the spoilers. The info will ONLY appear when a fighter enters the ring who has a lower than 10 rating.

Also after fight 6 I will deliver the raw point data totals weekly just to add controversy. People can argue the merits of both systems.

BoxBuzz wrote:ANy fighter rated under double digits should carry with it a corresponding negative in the 10th's A win over zellenoff would bring 1 point rather than two...since he is flaming zero........a fighter rated 5 would bring a 1.5 point win value.

10 and above would carry no such "surcharge". Get my meaning here? NO managed fighters are rated under 10.

This would be a small but significant variance that could help sort some of the nuances. I suggest this begin with the coming week.

CRease, I can deliver that info in the spoilers. The info will ONLY appear when a fighter enters the ring who has a lower than 10 rating.

Also after fight 6 I will deliver the raw point data totals weekly just to add controversy. People can argue the merits of both systems.

I like this, but how about it being ranking based rather than rating. The crap fighters will be at the bottom of either system. Form fighters are harder to beat than highly rated poor performing guys, and rewards should be higher for beating the top ranked fighters.

Sounds reasonable, keep in mind that I'm just attempting to help crease "evolve" his system. This sounds like a logical "next step" once rankings have been established.

BoxBuzz wrote:ANy fighter rated under double digits should carry with it a corresponding negative in the 10th's A win over zellenoff would bring 1 point rather than two...since he is flaming zero........a fighter rated 5 would bring a 1.5 point win value.

10 and above would carry no such "surcharge". Get my meaning here? NO managed fighters are rated under 10.

This would be a small but significant variance that could help sort some of the nuances. I suggest this begin with the coming week.

Let's leave the points system the way that it is until Week 10, as originally planned, Mr Buzz.

That said, I would be more than happy to go along with these suggestions afterward, I would also recommend that we include this condition:

BigJuicyHog wrote:If you lose to a computer opponent, then you lose a point or two.

You dont lose points for losing to a human controlled opponent.

That would bring more balance to the risk/reward ratio.

I assume that too will be left until the 10th week.

A loss to Foreman remains equal to a loss to Zellenoff......for the time being.

BoxBuzz wrote:I assume that too will be left until the 10th week.

A loss to Foreman remains equal to a loss to Zellenoff......for the time being.

Just until we get the rankings sorted out (with the title champions) and get them settled. I am and have always been open to suggestions...

However there may come a time when a loss to Loi is less "painful" than a loss to Foreman I suppose.

But the idea of promoting that there be more mixing it up between live managers is compelling.

To clarify; if there is a change to the ranking after week ten will it be an expansion from the established rankings?

ie, we're not going to go back and change the weighting of match-ups already had, are we?