Suggestion RE: Last Place Teams / 1st Overall Pick

[xx - Camp Cannon]

Mar 25, 2015 11:33:02 GMT -5 xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club said:

Mar 25, 2015 7:35:05 GMT -5 Ferocity said:

Back it up. GAP says his training camp idea (which was a great one) was changed from his original intent. Fine. Most suggestions change according to the input that is left after them
So you have one possible example. Where are the others?

I'm not saying that The Sandmen is perfect, or that ideas never get changed. I'm just tired of what in my profession if I were stupid enough to say anything like it at work would amount to slander. Why is it slander? Because there is no reasonable proof that it's true.

The constant "Sandman is a jerk, he's just a big bully who does whatever he wants on his own site" is pointless. I think we all love parts of what we have here and are working to fix the parts we don't. Sometimes there are clear solutions, many times there are not, but someone, somewhere, has to make the decision and since in all deference to polls and voting The Sandmen does that, we do have to accept it. If you have some adolescent difficulty with basic power structures please feel free to talk it out with your therapist and not act it out on here.[/q-suggestion he made was posted already above and it was different than what was implemented. Fact is that you're right, most suggestions do get altered... actually all except Sandman's own ideas that always get implemented verbatim no matter how hairbrained it is or if it's not even needed. Am I really the only one that sees a problem with that Ferocity? You call it slander and claim that it's just calling Sandman a "big jerk" for no reason, well when half the shit that comes out of his mouth is him belittling people for having a different opinion or not agreeing with him, it says otherwise. But maybe in your profession, belittling people is acceptable behavior, it's not in my world but if you're doing it someone else then you deserve to have it done right back to you... and he resorts to that every time someone isn't being convinced of his view... but when anyone stands up to him, and calls him on his shit, they get painted as a whiny bitch and somehow his actions get completely ignored... why? Cuz he's the admin and that gives him license to treat folks like shit when they don't agree with everything he says and does? Screw that... he needs to be accountable for himself and his actions too, not just pointing the finger at everyone else all the time and just expect folks to take his crap... cuz you're absolutely right, he's not perfect... he just hasn't got that memo or he just chooses to ignore it cuz by the way he acts, he sure thinks he is... for whatever reason.

xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Mar 25, 2015 12:04:34 GMT -5 The Rocketmen said:

We all realize that this site is a game right? I hope that's not lost in everything and is probably why people brush off the complaints here. It's a game, it's light-hearted, and if it's taken any seriously than that then I would suggest that that person needs to re-examine their priorities in life.

The site's fine. Let's all just have a good time.

Yes, we all realize this is a game site and that it's supposed to be lighthearted and fun, but that's not the case; if it were, there wouldn't be any complaints. The fact is that not everyone on the site likes what happens around here. It's set up so that the top teams stay.at the top and the bottom teams stay at the bottom, and any time one of those bottom teams gets good enough to compete, there's a new rule change that's implemented to make more difficult for those bottom teams to continue getting better with the format we have, when it's already difficult enough to be competitive. Yet when these teams speak up and suggest something to help the folks at the bottom's situation, it's all the top teams that come up with opposition to it and nothing ever gets done, but when it's the opposite, and the bottom teams oppose a suggestion that makes it more difficult for them and easier for the top teams, it's implemented almost immediately with virtually no discussion about it. So to say there's nothing wrong with the site, that couldn't be any more wrong.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

Mar 27, 2015 18:10:44 GMT -5 xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club said:

Mar 25, 2015 12:04:34 GMT -5 The Rocketmen said:

We all realize that this site is a game right? I hope that's not lost in everything and is probably why people brush off the complaints here. It's a game, it's light-hearted, and if it's taken any seriously than that then I would suggest that that person needs to re-examine their priorities in life.

The site's fine. Let's all just have a good time.

Yes, we all realize this is a game site and that it's supposed to be lighthearted and fun, but that's not the case; if it were, there wouldn't be any complaints. The fact is that not everyone on the site likes what happens around here. It's set up so that the top teams stay.at the top and the bottom teams stay at the bottom, and any time one of those bottom teams gets good enough to compete, there's a new rule change that's implemented to make more difficult for those bottom teams to continue getting better with the format we have, when it's already difficult enough to be competitive. Yet when these teams speak up and suggest something to help the folks at the bottom's situation, it's all the top teams that come up with opposition to it and nothing ever gets done, but when it's the opposite, and the bottom teams oppose a suggestion that makes it more difficult for them and easier for the top teams, it's implemented almost immediately with virtually no discussion about it. So to say there's nothing wrong with the site, that couldn't be any more wrong.

is that were true i wouldnt have went from winning grand prix last year too not in granmd prix at all

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Mar 27, 2015 19:42:25 GMT -5 xx - Camp Cannon said:

Mar 27, 2015 18:10:44 GMT -5 xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club said:

Yes, we all realize this is a game site and that it's supposed to be lighthearted and fun, but that's not the case; if it were, there wouldn't be any complaints. The fact is that not everyone on the site likes what happens around here. It's set up so that the top teams stay.at the top and the bottom teams stay at the bottom, and any time one of those bottom teams gets good enough to compete, there's a new rule change that's implemented to make more difficult for those bottom teams to continue getting better with the format we have, when it's already difficult enough to be competitive. Yet when these teams speak up and suggest something to help the folks at the bottom's situation, it's all the top teams that come up with opposition to it and nothing ever gets done, but when it's the opposite, and the bottom teams oppose a suggestion that makes it more difficult for them and easier for the top teams, it's implemented almost immediately with virtually no discussion about it. So to say there's nothing wrong with the site, that couldn't be any more wrong.

is that were true i wouldnt have went from winning grand prix last year too not in granmd prix at all

Yah actually it would... your team isn't uber sick or anything either bro... we both had a good run in the GP. I mean, your your women are really good but the way you've only been upgrading them was bound to catch up with you eventually, unfortunately. That's not meant to be mean or anything.. my team has it's flaws too but generally speaking, you do make the GP more often than not, but you're fighting it out at or near the bottom to get in to the GP; and yes I do realize you've been in 1st twice since season 6, but usually you're between 5th-7th every season.

[The Sandmen]

"Facts, history, precedent. Who needs all that, when I can just say whatever and declare it true"
- Kruze, 27/7

You're starting to make an ass of yourself. Seriously, you are. I would just stop babbling about things you have been proven wrong about over and over again.

This "there are good and bad teams" is historically wrong - Cannon proved that wrong, GP history proves that wrong, and the history of standings proves that wrong.

"Sandmen only does suggestions he wants" - Ferocity absolutely owned you on that bullshit lie.

Just focus on this God damned suggestion. We get it; you think there is a problem becuase your team sucks. Pitch some suggestions to fix that.

And honestly, don't bother replying here with an essay about anything else said before or above - I won't read it, and everyone else is tiring of it. Just use this suggestion box to write a solution, rather than perpetual bitching about a problem you seem to be having.

THIS IS THE SUGGESTION BOX. MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO FIX YOUR PROBLEM!

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Mar 28, 2015 1:38:30 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

"Facts, history, precedent. Who needs all that, when I can just say whatever and declare it true"
- Kruze, 27/7 Sandman

Fixed that for you, since you've ignored all 3 of those things in a majority of the new rules and judgments you've implemented and made here that were of your own concwption.

Mar 28, 2015 1:38:30 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

You're starting to make an ass of yourself. Seriously, you are. I would just stop babbling about things you have been proven wrong about over and over again.

On the contrary, nothing I've said has been proven wrong at all and just because you say it has, doesn't make it fact. Refer to your statement above that you claim I've made and never have once.

Mar 28, 2015 1:38:30 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

This "there are good and bad teams" is historically wrong - Cannon proved that wrong, GP history proves that wrong, and the history of standings proves that wrong.

We're actually not talking about the GP here, we're talking about the regular season since we go by season stats in determining the 1st & 2nd overall picks, and the history of the standings actually does reflect/support my stance and that I'm more right about this than you'll ever admit cuz it doesn't suit your argument nor can you ever admit that you're wrong about anything. But here you go, you want facts?

Sandmen: Top 5 Finishes = 9/11 (81%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/11 (0%)
S13: 1st
S12: 1st
S11: 1st
S10: 2nd
S9: 2nd
S8: 2nd
S7: 2nd
S6: 6th
S5: 1st
S4: 3rd
S3: 8th**

**Has never finished out of the GP, but gave PHX his spot in S3; PHX's 1st season

Rocketmen/Hammerfists: Top 5 Finishes = 7/11 (63%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 1/11 (0.09%)
S13: 3rd
S12: 4th
S11: 4th
S10: 8th
S9: 4th
S8: 9th
S7: 4th
S6: 5th
S5: 7th
S4: 4th
S3: 12th

KO's: Top 5 Finishes = 6/11 (55%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/11 (0%)
S13: 4th
S12: 7th
S11: 2nd (Tie)
S10: 9th
S9: 8th (Tie)
S8: 4th
S7: 8th
S6: 3rd
S5: 9th
S4: 5th
S3: 5th

Cannon: Top 5 Finishes = 4/10 (40%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 2/10 (20%)
S13: 9th
S12: 5th
S11: 5th
S10: 1st
S9: 7th
S8: 1st
S7: 7th
S6: 7th
S5: 6th
S4: 11th

Ferocity: Top 5 Finishes = 4/11 (36%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/11 (0%)
S13: 8th
S12: 11th
S11: 9th
S10: 4th
S9: 1st
S8: 6th
S7: 5th
S6: 9th
S5: 3rd
S4: 6th
S3: 2nd

GAP: Top 5 Finishes = 3/9 (33%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 4/9 (44%)
S13: 5th
S12: 13th
S11: 6th
S10: 3rd
S9: 11th
S8: 12th (Return season)
S6: 12th (Season quit)**
S5: 8th
S4: 2nd

Bullies: Top 5 Finishes = 1/4 (25%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/4 (0%)
S13: 7th
S12: 2nd
S11: 7th
S3: 7th

Ducks: Top 5 Finishes = 0/5 (0%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 1/5 (2%)
S13: 6th
S12: 6th
S5: 11th
S4: 7th
S3: 11th

LBC: Top 5 Finishes = 1/11 (0.09%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 3/11 (27%)
S13: 2nd
S12: 14th
S11: 10th
S10: 5th
S9: 8th (Tie)
S8: 10th
S7: 6th
S6: 11th
S5: 5th
S4; 8th
S3: 13th

Phoenix: Top 5 Finishes = 0/11 (0%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 7/11 (64%)
S13: 10th
S12: 8th
S11: 12th
S10: 10th
S9: 11th
S8: 8th
S7: 10th
S6: 8th
S5: 10th
S4: 10th
S3: 9th

---

Significant Teams No Longer With ManMMA

Ramrod: Top 5 Finishes = 5/6 (83%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/6 (0%)
S8: 7th
S7: 1st
S6: 2nd
S5: 4th
S4: 1st
S3: 3rd

Grapplemuch: Top 5 Finishes = 4/6 (67%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/6 (0%)
S12: 12th
S7: 3rd
S6: 4th
S5: 2nd
S4: 9th
S3: 1st

UnderDogs: Top 5 Finishes = 3/7 (42%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 2/7 (29%)
S12: 3rd
S11: 2nd (Tie)
S10: 11th
S9: 6th
S8: 5th
S7: 9th
S6: 10th

Rebel Storm: Top 5 Finishes = 3/6 (50%) | Bottom 2 Finishes = 1/6 (17%)
S11: 11th
S10: 6th
S9: 5th
S8: 3rd
S7: 11th
S6: 1st

Bulldozers: Top 5 Finishes = 0/3 | Bottom 2 Finishes = 0/3
S12: 10th
S11: 8th
S10: 7th

By these numbers and facts, you can CLEARLY see that there are Top-Tier teams, Mid-Tier teams & Bottom-Tier teams and it's been consistently the same, for the most part, since Season 3. Any spike of a bottom-tier or a mid-tier team to the next level up, has been immediately been followed by a drop back down to where they were the next season; with the exception of the UnderDogs.... but also with the Top tier teams spiking down for one season then the very next they're right back up where they were.

Mar 28, 2015 1:38:30 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

"Sandmen only does suggestions he wants" - Ferocity absolutely owned you on that bullshit lie.

No, once again you've misquoted me; I've never said that nor would I. What I have said though, is that any idea you've ever come up with has been implemented verbatim without any "tweaks" to them whatsoever, but anyone else's suggestions have been implemented have all been altered, changed and made into your idea instead of giving anyone else's ideas a shot to work or not work. So she didn't own me in any respect because I haven't lied once through this entire thread cuz there would be no point to.

Mar 28, 2015 1:38:30 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Just focus on this God damned suggestion.
Just use this suggestion box to write a solution, rather than perpetual bitching about a problem you seem to be having.

THIS IS THE SUGGESTION BOX. MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO FIX YOUR PROBLEM!

I have been focusing on the damn suggestion and providing facts to back up pretty much everything I've been saying in this thread; especially now with the team data I've compiled above. It's in fact been you, and a couple others, that have brought up irrelevant facts and conjecture to cloud the issue and subsequently steer away from the suggestion itself, which is to:

Raise the point values of the 1st & 2nd overall picks (1st = 4-6 points - 2nd = 2-4 points) to give them more value in trade should the bottom teams elect to trade them for a more significant piece to help their team OR to allow them the freedom to improve their team/fighters internally, more significantly, so that we don't always have the same teams in pretty much every position every single season and provide some parity to the league as a whole, instead of what we currently have, which I've outlined above.

Now, I will concede that, in the short term, by the numbers I've provided, that this could likely benefit my team most to start off with; there's no argument from me there at all, just based on law of averages and percentages. However, should we look at this more seriously and in a long term scope, we'll be seeing more and more that this will add parity to the league as we start to see different teams in those bottom two slots because of these added point values and the bottom teams able to do more with the top 2 picks as we progress forward. I'm not, nor am I always in those bottom 2 slots right now either, despite having been in them a majority of the time over my time here, so it's not always going to be me reaping the benefits of this, especially when you consider the long term scope of this, not just the short term.

That being said, and this just came to me now... as an addition to the original suggestion, I'd also like to suggest that if we happen to get a new team mid-season, as we have many times over the last 14, that perhaps the new be awarded the 1st overall pick automatically, unless we have a situation like we had with Team 3lite or Bullies recent return, whereby we'd just had a team or two disbanded and/or we're holding off some fighters to be auctioned or until the draft and the new team effectively gets "pick of the litter", so to speak.

[The Sandmen]

Noticed you conveniently forgot to include GP wins in all those stats. You know, the equivalent of winning the Stanley Cup - the whole reason we have a regular season. But that doesn't matter - we are no longer arguing about whether there is a problem, we are pretending there is for the purpose of making everyone happy.

As for your bold suggestion, the only part I read after I realized you did not properly collect stats), we have 10 teams in the league right now. I am interested in why you think the only 2 teams that do not make the playoffs should be rewarded with a prize equal to, or greater than, winning the GP itself. You are saying getting Conor McDavid is of greater value than winning the Stanley Cup.

NOW, in the interest of complete fairness, how would you feel if, when determining the draft, we used a team's top 8 fighters, rather than their whole record? That way, a team such as yourself who has 2-3 of the best fighters on the site, is not in a skewed position compared to someone like Byron, who has no good fighters, but is good as a team? That takes all of the bias out of your suggestion, so people know you are not just suggesting it because you have a project-heavy team that perpetually finishes near last.

I am also interested in why you think exemption from FiD is not a viable solution, since if teams are legitimately struggling as you suggest, this allows them to focus wherever they want, instead of having to worry about project fighters getting cut.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

hmm the reason your team sucks and your bottom two each season is because u juggle and have like 30 fighters on the go, and here u finished last instead of taking the god damn 2 point your drafting new guys for free.. you want your team out of the last spot drop half your team n spend the point on your good fighter rather than the mediocre fighters…

[The Sandmen]

Mar 28, 2015 16:28:00 GMT -5 xx - Camp Cannon said:

hmm the reason your team sucks and your bottom two each season is because u juggle and have like 30 fighters on the go, and here u finished last instead of taking the god damn 2 point your drafting new guys for free.. you want your team out of the last spot drop half your team n spend the point on your good fighter rather than the mediocre fighters…

This is true, but this is not what I want to focus on here in the suggestion thread. Let's work on fixing the problem. Currently, we do this for shitty teams:
- charity trades
- preference in game-changer auctions
- 2-point 1st overall pick
- more lenience in FiD

That is apparently not enough, so let's focus on what else can be done without devaluing a GP win.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

Mar 28, 2015 16:30:03 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Mar 28, 2015 16:28:00 GMT -5 xx - Camp Cannon said:

hmm the reason your team sucks and your bottom two each season is because u juggle and have like 30 fighters on the go, and here u finished last instead of taking the god damn 2 point your drafting new guys for free.. you want your team out of the last spot drop half your team n spend the point on your good fighter rather than the mediocre fighters…

This is true, but this is not what I want to focus on here in the suggestion thread. Let's work on fixing the problem. Currently, we do this for shitty teams:
- charity trades
- preference in game-changer auctions
- 2-point 1st overall pick
- more lenience in FiD

That is apparently not enough, so let's focus on what else can be done without devaluing a GP win.

the lenience with fid in danger only phx had problem not me! this debate or suggestion will never fly cause pbxs is a baby..

[The Sandmen]

The lenience is something I do right now, now that we have a subjective FiD system. I often give struggling teams an extra fight or so before putting someone on FiD. It's separate from the FiD exemption suggestion I put forward, or Byron's modification of that suggestion.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Oh really?! Tell me more about:

Mar 28, 2015 1:38:30 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

And honestly, don't bother replying here with an essay about anything else said before or above - I won't read it.

So, what's got you spooked now bub? Let's see...

Mar 28, 2015 16:11:58 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Noticed you conveniently forgot to include GP wins in all those stats. You know, the equivalent of winning the Stanley Cup - the whole reason we have a regular season. But that doesn't matter - we are no longer arguing about whether there is a problem, we are pretending there is for the purpose of making everyone happy.

No convenience. The GP winner is the Stanley Cup Champion of ManMMA. But as I've said numerous times now, the GP itself has no relevance to this discussion. The regular season, as it pertains to the 1st & 2nd overall picks, does, because the end of the season stats determine who is 1st & 2nd overall pick.

Mar 28, 2015 16:11:58 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

As for your bold suggestion, the only part I read after I realized you did not properly collect stats), we have 10 teams in the league right now. I am interested in why you think the only 2 teams that do not make the playoffs should be rewarded with a prize equal to, or greater than, winning the GP itself. You are saying getting Conor McDavid is of greater value than winning the Stanley Cup.

1) This just accentuates my stance further that you only read only what you want to read and not what's actually there.
2) The stats were collected properly. You just continue to bring up the GP to try and make your point
3) In the current situation we're in, in this this league... Yes, in terms of awards and what you're calling "rewards", Connor McDavid should be worth more than the Stanley Cup; not in stature or prestige, but in terms of being able to make their team better when "the Stanley Cup winner" is already at the top or near the top, then absolutely. Does it always work that way? No. {See the current Edmonton Oilers}.

Mar 28, 2015 16:11:58 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

NOW, in the interest of complete fairness, how would you feel if, when determining the draft, we used a team's top 8 fighters, rather than their whole record? That way, a team such as yourself who has 2-3 of the best fighters on the site, is not in a skewed position compared to someone like Byron, who has no good fighters, but is good as a team? That takes all of the bias out of your suggestion, so people know you are not just suggesting it because you have a project-heavy team that perpetually finishes near last.

There was actually no bias to my suggestion to begin with. It was only when I did the numbers compilation above that I realized how large my own bottom 2 number actually was. I knew it was high, but I wasn't even expecting it to be that high.

As to your counter proposal there, I'd need to actually see how that would work exactly to make a proper assessment... simply because, just saying that someone has 2-3 of the best fighters on the site doesn't mean they have the best team on the site; my own team record actually proves that. We're discussing team performance here, not individual fighter performance. Stick to topic please.

Mar 28, 2015 16:11:58 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

I am also interested in why you think exemption from FiD is not a viable solution, since if teams are legitimately struggling as you suggest, this allows them to focus wherever they want, instead of having to worry about project fighters getting cut.

It does allow them to focus where they want for one season, but it's not a viable solution for the simple reason that FiD is actually an important tool in upgrading. And I have found this being that I tend to get allot of fighters on the FiD, cuz of the make up of my team or bad season for good fighters... you name it, I've lived it.

FiD exemption would be a wonderful thing for someone like me that tries to pay attention to all my fighters with upgrades as much as possible. The adverse of that is a team like Cannon, who's sole upgrading purpose (right now) is to upgrade his women to try and raise the women's cap so that he can continue to upgrade his best fighter in that division (Rousey). I'm not oblivious to that nor do I condone it cuz I don't practice it myself BUT for once, Cannon does actually have some logic atleast... although misguided. lol Cuz there are a ways to balance the women's division even further, and I've suggested two... the way he's going about it will take forever.

In any event, FiD exemption is great, in theory, but if we don't know who is struggling on our teams... we also don't know who to help with our upgrades... and after a year of exemption, you might be exactly where you were before the exemption, because you didn't help the right fighters, at the right time... and thusly be no better off than you were before.

[The Sandmen]

Mar 28, 2015 18:03:42 GMT -5 xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club said:

I'd need to actually see how that would work exactly to make a proper assessment... simply because, just saying that someone has 2-3 of the best fighters on the site doesn't mean they have the best team on the site; my own team record actually proves that.

This ranking criteria:
1. Any ranked fighters
2. Overalls or overall Records - whatever you prefer of the 2.


When you look at the teams, it get's pretty obvious fast.

Dominick Cruz (46-24) for example, is a better fighter than Mike Brown (17-21).

[The Sandmen]

That being said, I don't like that change either, because it's stupid. But it kind of shows my point. You cannot compare a team like xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club to The West Coast Knockouts. One carries a huge team of project fighters that bring him out of a GP position every year (while his best fighters fight for titles and get better), and the other carries the absolute fewest number of fightersyou can have while still theoretically participating in the GP. WHile holding onto, and sometimes upgrading, a very very good core.

[xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club]

Mar 28, 2015 16:30:03 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

Mar 28, 2015 16:28:00 GMT -5 xx - Camp Cannon said:

hmm the reason your team sucks and your bottom two each season is because u juggle and have like 30 fighters on the go, and here u finished last instead of taking the god damn 2 point your drafting new guys for free.. you want your team out of the last spot drop half your team n spend the point on your good fighter rather than the mediocre fighters…

This is true, but this is not what I want to focus on here in the suggestion thread. Let's work on fixing the problem. Currently, we do this for shitty teams:
- charity trades
- preference in game-changer auctions
- 2-point 1st overall pick
- more lenience in FiD

That is apparently not enough, so let's focus on what else can be done without devaluing a GP win.

More passive-aggressive BS guys?! C'mon... You both already know that I've been carrying a 25(-ish) fighter roster because every off-season my PPP comes into question cuz I'm so damn active on the site.

As for your points there Sandman:

1) I've received one charity trade in 14 seasons; Ortiz this off-season.
2) Preference in game-changers I have no control over nor have you ever really made that known to the general site.
3) 2 points for the 1st Overall pick is nothing when it already costs 2 points to pick up any fighter off the FA list
4) Again, nothing you've ever made known to the site until now... but even still, I'm likely not the only one you've given leniency with. So that point is moot.