|
Cuts?
Sept 21, 2012 9:04:34 GMT -5
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 21, 2012 9:04:34 GMT -5
In real life, if you lose many, many, many consecutive fights, you are cut from an organization. Here, we have guys on 5 fight losing streaks. Should we keep these guys in the league, since its a fantasy league and its just for fun, or should we force a release to FA (cut them) once they hit a certain number of consecutive losses (5-7)?
Once at FA, they would not be deleted or anything, they would just be a regular FA. If someone wanted to swap a fighter for that guy, they still could (including his old team).
The other tweak we can add is we can say if no upgrade points are put into someone (after like, 4 straight losses), then they can be cut after the 5th/6th/7th (whatever we decide).
This way we don't have guys stagnating and wasting fight card slots when other guys are winning and moving up the ranks.
Personally, I am torn on this issue and am just throwing it out as a suggestion for people to think about. I would post something like a warning list or something with fighters who hit 4 straight losses, then the fighter would need at least 1 upgrade point or a win before hitting 5 (or 6 or whatever) straight losses.
It creates a real need to win and might prevent people from neglecting their lower-end guys.
[note, if it effects anything, when I am booking, I book winners vs. winners and losers vs. losers. So only guys with lots at stake would be fighting in the -5 range matches (meaning -4s and -5s would be fighting, not a -4 vs. -1 or +s)]
[Also note, it is INCREDIBLY rare that guys get up to -5. They occasionally get to -4 (we have 6 at -4 right now, which is our most ever) and often get to -3 (we have 7 right now). Aside from Rickson, I don't remember any -5s at all, offhand]
|
|
Ferocity
Black Belt (5th Degree)
Posts: 3,455
|
Cuts?
Sept 21, 2012 11:03:53 GMT -5
Post by Ferocity on Sept 21, 2012 11:03:53 GMT -5
"The other tweak we can add is we can say if no upgrade points are put into someone (after like, 4 straight losses), then they can be cut after the 5th/6th/7th (whatever we decide)."
that sounds ok to me.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 21, 2012 15:58:45 GMT -5
Post by The Rocketmen on Sept 21, 2012 15:58:45 GMT -5
Yeah, I chose as long as there's no upgrades, cause someone might continue to lose against big time opponents but is also too good to be fighting shitty guys he'd/she'd walk through.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 21, 2012 23:00:01 GMT -5
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Sept 21, 2012 23:00:01 GMT -5
I've gotta say that I'm on the fence on this. 1) For the simple reason I have guys I like on my team and I don't want to drop them. 2) I'm not quite understanding the add/drop here. Would we be being forced to drop these guys for other fighters? Or would we just be losing them outright? I'm also not getting the the +'s and -'s either lol ("What are you, new?" ...Yes, I'm fucking new! lol)
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 2:58:04 GMT -5
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 22, 2012 2:58:04 GMT -5
- If people voted for the third option "Only if no upgrades have been used after 4 losses", then all you have to do to NOT have your guy be cut is put an upgrade point into him. That essentially re-sets his losing streak.
- RE: Add/drop question - In this case, it would be a loss. You would lose the guy who is on the losing streak outright. NOT a switch for a new fighter. The only time a switch would come into play is if you REALLY wanted to keep your losing streak guy (and didn't put any upgrade points into him), you COULD swap anopther fighter on your team for him to get him back after he was cut. In that sense, you would be losing a fighter outright.
- The +4 and -4 I keep talking about are win and loss streaks. WHen I say -4, I mean on a 4 fight losing streak. Sorry for any confusion.
- I should add the theory behind this suggestion is that it makes you actually work on your shit guys instead of neglecting them. A guy like MArk COleman SHOULD be VERY good, but needs very specific upgrades to compete here (STAMINA). Since his team is not providing it, the Cut thing I suggest here would allow another team to basically get a free shot at having the fighter and giving him a second chance, since his current team is neglecting him.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 7:29:28 GMT -5
Post by xx - Team Ramrod on Sept 22, 2012 7:29:28 GMT -5
I like the idea of focusing on the lesser fighters with upgrade points but when you only earn 1 point for a predictor point and 1 point for every 50 posts there's not a lot of points to go around. Spending 1 point on a fighter is pretty much useless. You need to use a few points I would think to see any results.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 10:38:13 GMT -5
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Sept 22, 2012 10:38:13 GMT -5
I've gotta agree with Ramrod here. I mean, unless we're all doing banners for you and putting up 100 posts a day, there's only so many points to go around and more fighters than there are points. If there were more points being handed out, then this would likely be feasible, but you've already cut the banner points from 3 to 2, and you're trying to minimize roster sizes with how we did the draft this year. I can't see many GMs being too happy with this unless there's more points being given out.
I'm also not in favor of losing the fighter outright either, because of the above reason. If we're being forced to drop a fighter, we should be able to option up and pick up someone from the FA list since we don't get alot of points to put into all our fighters. Not to mention the fact that if you implement this soon, I'll likely be losing atleast 2 fighters (Lashley & Koch) right off the bat, and that's crap. Sorry, but it is.
I like the idea, in principle, but as of right now, my vote is no, unless other things change. It just doesn't seem fair because of the points issue.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 12:00:05 GMT -5
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 22, 2012 12:00:05 GMT -5
You understand a 5 fight losing streak a) rarely, if ever, happens, and b) takes place over the course of more than a season, right? So about 22 ManMMA events? That's 22 predictor challenges you can win, 22 titles you can win, 154 fights you can comment on. If you can't rack up a single point in that time, I donno what to tell ya.
And if we implemented it, it would only be any 4 fight losing streaks from that point forward, it would NOT affect guys currently on 4 fight losing streaks. They would need to reach 8 losses to be cut any time soon.
Again, I don't want people to misunderstand - this was to a) clean up the league, since every 1-9 fighter takes up the fight slot of a 9-1 fighter, and b) stop people from neglecting guys who could be champions with about 2-3 points. I REALLY think with 3 points in stamina, Coleman could be at least a contender. He almost finishes every fight. But then gasses. Not a single upgrade has been given to him. If he was cut, someone could make something of him.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 12:18:52 GMT -5
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Sept 22, 2012 12:18:52 GMT -5
The key word there for the predictor is CAN Win up to 22 points; those aren't guaranteed points. You make it sound like that's alot of points over the course of a season when it's really not if you don't win the predictor.
From the point it's implemented is fine. Thanks for the clarification.
We're not trying to neglect fighters, we just don't have the points to put into them. Look, even with your limitations on how you get points and your higher post count to get points for posts, you generate points faster than anyone on this site, Sandman, since you post the cards, matches, etc. And while it might be easy for you to put points into these fighters... believe it or not, it's not as easy for the rest of us to accumulate points as it is for you. That's just a fact.
I get that you're trying to clean things up, and I agree with you in that there are fighters like Coleman, Koch, and alot of others, that if the right upgrades were put into them, they would be contenders at the very least, but you're also trying to penalize GMs for "neglecting" their fighters when most of us just don't have the point generation to keep up and put into all our fighters all at once. As Ramrod said, it's generally a waste to put 1 point into something, as I've found out on a few occasions already.
The idea is there, but you're not seeing the bigger picture, that while you want to limit points and prevent fighters from maxing out, some fighters are going to get upgrades less frequently than others because we don't accumulate alot of points because of the limitations on points that are distributed.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 12:45:02 GMT -5
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 22, 2012 12:45:02 GMT -5
More facts: - I get one point for 200 posts (4xs everyone else). I post the cards (which you can post on), the fights (which you can post on), and the results (which you can post on). ANything I post "updated" on, you can post on. Every single post I make, you can comment on. So really, there is no reason for me to take the 1/4th points everyone else gets to begin with. But I am a good guy.
- Koch is not Coleman. Coleman is one of the best fighters ever, when he was in his prime, and here he is crap because he needs a small tweak to stamina. If I had Coleman, which I might try to do, his cardio would no longer be an issue and he could actually NOT be Rickson 2.0.
Lastly, Offhand I am pretty sure only 1 (MAYBE 2) fighters have EVER had 5 fight losing streaks. Meaning in the history of ManMMA, Rickson Gracie would have been cut, Josh Barnett ALMOST would have been cut (his team cut him when he was at 3, he lost 2 since then, so he would have a new steak with his new team). Same with Ellenberger. His team cut him at 4 losses, so though he would hit 5 if he lost his next one, he would have to lose 5 with his new team to be cut.
THREE FIGHTERS IN THE HISTORY OF MANMMA WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT DUE TO 5 FIGHT LOSING STREAKS. And that doesn't take the upgrade exception into account. AND, as I said, once they move teams, it would re-set too.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 12:54:09 GMT -5
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 22, 2012 12:54:09 GMT -5
Look, even with your limitations on how you get points and your higher post count to get points for posts, you generate points faster than anyone on this site, Sandman, since you post the cards, matches, etc. And while it might be easy for you to put points into these fighters... believe it or not, it's not as easy for the rest of us to accumulate points as it is for you. That's just a fact. Here's the fact you were searching for, in relation to that argument: Points awarded due to posts: HammerFists - 13 Sandman - 12 Ferocity - 11 Ramrod - 9 (2 posts away from 10)
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 13:06:11 GMT -5
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Sept 22, 2012 13:06:11 GMT -5
I never said Koch was Coleman, but I grouped him with that because on all his fights you've commented on either Stamina or Aggression being what needed to be built on to put him over the hump.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 22, 2012 13:08:04 GMT -5
Post by The Sandmen on Sept 22, 2012 13:08:04 GMT -5
K, but my point with Coleman is he IS over the damned hump. He SHOULD BE good enough to win big fights, and he DOES destroy big competition. Then gets totally gassed and is a punching bag.
|
|
|
Cuts?
Sept 24, 2012 17:40:55 GMT -5
Post by Lord Byron's Conquistadors on Sept 24, 2012 17:40:55 GMT -5
ill put my points into coleman then. i like this cut system thing i think but when will we know??? when does vting close???
|
|
Ferocity
Black Belt (5th Degree)
Posts: 3,455
|
Cuts?
Oct 2, 2012 20:13:48 GMT -5
Post by Ferocity on Oct 2, 2012 20:13:48 GMT -5
I want to know the same thing Byron.
|
|