|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Aug 21, 2016 18:19:21 GMT -5
It's funny because you clearly don't understand, so you keep talking. YOu are proving my point over and over again when you think you are arguing it.
I'll try dumbing it down even more for you.
Basic fact #1 - smaller teams have less fighters. Larger teams have more fighters.
Basic Fact #2 - EVERY team gets 3 fights per card.
Therefore, basic fact #3 - fighters on smaller teams will get more fights in a season.
You will notice that because it's all VERY basic math, there is no subjectivity there at all. I am not choosing to book smaller teams fighters more, they get more fights because they need 3 fighters per card. As do large teams. Do you get this yet, or are you still confused?
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Aug 21, 2016 21:45:51 GMT -5
It's funny because you clearly don't understand, so you keep talking. YOu are proving my point over and over again when you think you are arguing it. I'll try dumbing it down even more for you. Basic fact #1 - smaller teams have less fighters. Larger teams have more fighters. Basic Fact #2 - EVERY team gets 3 fights per card. Therefore, basic fact #3 - fighters on smaller teams will get more fights in a season. You will notice that because it's all VERY basic math, there is no subjectivity there at all. I am not choosing to book smaller teams fighters more, they get more fights because they need 3 fighters per card. As do large teams. Do you get this yet, or are you still confused? No, I believe you are this time... or you're just so hellbent on making this arguement that you're willing to prolong it. Show your actual (Grade 3) numbers then... Show us all the real numbers... Full roster sizes... and broken down in weight classes... and I guarantee you, I'll show you why you're wrong cuz roster size isn't the issue, in this case. You're looking at it wrong now cuz of how it used to be when I had 27 fighters. It's the weight classes you need to be looking at. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Aug 21, 2016 22:02:22 GMT -5
Really...?
Okay, so there are 20 events in a year. You have 20 fighters. Therefore your team will fight 60 times in a season. 60 (total fights) divided by 20 (your total fighters), gives us 3. Therefore, your fighters will fight, on average, 3 fights each. Thus, your FiD number is 3.
Knockouts has 14 fighters. Therefore, his fighters will fight an average of 4.28 times a year. After grade 1 rounding, his FiD number is 4.
Better?
As for weight classes, they are not relevant. I do not book 3 fighters per weightclass per team, per card, as that would put us at about 36 fights per card... When booking, I grab the FIGHTER on your team who is most due for a fight (weightclass is not relevant in this decision) then find them a worthy opponent. Unless you want to start explaining what you mean clearer, I don't see how weight class is relevant to this change.
And here's what's getting lost in this whole thing - you are basically fighting over a hypothetical that has about a 0.25% change of happening. For you (or me, or GAP) to lose a fighter via FiD, they have to lose 6 straight fights, without a single win, substantial upgrade, or exceptional performance. Again, at 3 fights a season, that is 2 full seasons without a win, substantial upgrade, or noteworthy performance. What you are saying is that you cannot handle that, and that you need 1 additional fight before FiD comes into play because you expect to lose a plethora of fighters to FiD as a result of 6 straight losses without decent upgrades, a win, or a great fight? You have that little faith in your team? Ouch...
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Aug 21, 2016 23:21:26 GMT -5
Really...? Okay, so there are 20 events in a year. You have 20 fighters. Therefore your team will fight 60 times in a season. 60 (total fights) divided by 20 (your total fighters), gives us 3. Therefore, your fighters will fight, on average, 3 fights each. Thus, your FiD number is 3. Knockouts has 14 fighters. Therefore, his fighters will fight an average of 4.28 times a year. After grade 1 rounding, his FiD number is 4. Better? As for weight classes, they are not relevant. I do not book 3 fighters per weightclass per team, per card, as that would put us at about 36 fights per card... When booking, I grab the FIGHTER on your team who is most due for a fight (weightclass is not relevant in this decision) then find them a worthy opponent. Unless you want to start explaining what you mean clearer, I don't see how weight class is relevant to this change. And here's what's getting lost in this whole thing - you are basically fighting over a hypothetical that has about a 0.25% change of happening. For you (or me, or GAP) to lose a fighter via FiD, they have to lose 6 straight fights, without a single win, substantial upgrade, or exceptional performance. Again, at 3 fights a season, that is 2 full seasons without a win, substantial upgrade, or noteworthy performance. What you are saying is that you cannot handle that, and that you need 1 additional fight before FiD comes into play because you expect to lose a plethora of fighters to FiD as a result of 6 straight losses without decent upgrades, a win, or a great fight? You have that little faith in your team? Ouch... So therefore, you're fighting over a hypothetical as well then. You honestly have no idea how any of that is going to work out because it's all projections and theory. We've had so much movement lately, that you literally have no idea how it's going to shake out either... you're making a knee jerk reaction to possible issue that hasn't even materialized yet, if it even ever does. The weight class thing is simple really. What you're doing right now is looking at it as an entire roster number problem, and refusing to look at anything else, when team roster numbers isn't actually the problem at all. I mean, I honestly don't believe there's any problem anymore when there's only a 6 fighter differential between the "largest" team to the "smallest team", on the grand scale... However, I am willing to concede that the douche that came up with the "potential loophole" of FiD circumvention COULD be problem. But with what you're attempting to fix, I think it needs to be on a more acute scale than just penalizing just the "Top 3" teams that have the largest rosters. Cuz as I said, not every fighter fights every fighter... we have divisions/weight classes... Just pinpoint it. If a guy has 6 HWs and others have 3-4, then the guy with 6 HWs is at the FiD disadvantage cuz he's holding a larger percentage of that weight class than anyone else. Same idea for the rest, because, that way, you actually have folks accountable for their weight class numbers cuz that guy with only 14 fighters could be that guy with 6 HWs and have 2 in every other weight class and while he has the lowest total roster number, he's still at an advantage to everyone else in HW that has 3-4 HWs but have a larger roster than him but lower FiD numbers in that division because his fighters at HW will still get more fights than the guy with 3-4 cuz he has 14 fighters and someone else has 19-20. What you're trying to implement isn't fair to everyone. It's only an advantage to those that have a small roster of fighters that you could have a large number in one weight class, and shit all in the rest of them but then a fully balanced team in every weight class, like mine, gets shafted because of volume not bulk. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. If some guy has 6-7 HWs and I have 4... why the fuck am I getting penalized and he's not? |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Aug 21, 2016 23:28:09 GMT -5
1) Your team-balance (or someone elses lack thereof) is irrelevant. Nearly 100% of the time, as I said, I grab your FIGHTER who is most overdue for a fight, and they get a fight - their weight class, or your depth of that weight class is irrelevant. Sometimes you will get 2-3 fights on 1 card in a single weight class, other times, none. It just depends how the season unfolds, and who needs opponents.
2) I'm not looking at a hypothetical problem, I'm looking at a real, practical problem that has presented itself over the past season and a half, and has been discussed with me privately by 2 other members of this site.
With the change, as it sits now, there is absolutely no inherent advantage or disadvantage when it comes to roster size. None. So that previously-existing problem is gone. If you don't want your fighters to get cut, don't neglect them for 6 straight losses. It's pretty simple - you have full control over this, and I'm not sure why you are fighting to keep your advantage over other people. Since I don't believe you have ever even had someone in high-level danger (and since you can choose to reduce someone's FiD level with points), you have nothing to worry about. You are fighting over literally nothing. Do you plan on having fighters lose without work for 2 straight seasons? If so, then sure, you have a problem, but they would be on FiD at that point anyway, even without this change. So...move on with your life now?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Aug 22, 2016 7:35:14 GMT -5
I skipped everything and only read the emoticons. That let me know all the information I needed from emotional-behind-the-keystrokes of Kruze and Sandmen's discussion.
... just kidding, I read everything because I hate myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mighty Ducks on Aug 22, 2016 9:58:12 GMT -5
Justin: 2 + 2 = 4
Kruze: HOW?!
Justin: Because if you had 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 you get a total of 4.
Kruze: GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Justin: 1 X 4 = 4
Kruze: PROVE IT
Justin: 8 ÷ 2 = 4
Kruze: FUCK YOU, RIGGED, CONSPIRACY, SHENANIGANS
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Team GAP on Aug 24, 2016 11:47:29 GMT -5
How about... instead of lets pick on teams that have more fighters we pick on the teams who have been more successful... thus a team who has won 12 gp and 1649 belts can have a more problems with fid to content with while a team that hasnt done anything can have a break on fid so they can concentrate more on building their team? Size of team doesnt mean anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Aug 24, 2016 12:29:04 GMT -5
FiD is part of building your team. Since a fighter basically has to go 2 full seasons without a win, upgrades, or decent performance to be in any real FiD danger, this will basically have no impact on you at all. Unless your plan was to neglect a certain fighter for 3 seasons. Then it might put a wrench in things...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Aug 24, 2016 12:53:54 GMT -5
I honestly don't get how this is even a problem for anyone unless they completely neglect their team for five seasons...
Like, ever actual season we have lasts at least a few months. Let's say 4 months per actual season.
That's minimum 16 weeks, or 32 points. You can't put a few of them into someone who lost a few fights? And it takes like 2 seasons to reach the point where that fighter would be on the threshold of being cut, so like 32 weeks for 2 full seasons is 64 points...
I don't get the frustration.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Team GAP on Aug 25, 2016 10:28:53 GMT -5
I have zero energy to argue.. or i would. I dont plan on neglecting fighters... yet some of my fighters have never reached a good amount of wins.. thus a couple on fid.. but i try and try and get nowhere... its obvious why im frustrated
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Aug 25, 2016 11:55:59 GMT -5
There's still a big difference between being ON FiD and getting cut FROM FiD. I think people see FiD, don't do the math, then get freaked out. When someone shows up on FiD, you will have enough time to upgrade them off FiD. Their next fight will likely be in 1-2 real life months, and all it takes is 2 weeks of upgrades to move them down a level.
Peeps need to stop worrying about FiD. It's more like your phone saying "My battery is at 50%" than it is "My battery is going to die in 3 seconds OMG HELP!".
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club on Aug 27, 2016 9:41:39 GMT -5
There's still a big difference between being ON FiD and getting cut FROM FiD. I think people see FiD, don't do the math, then get freaked out. When someone shows up on FiD, you will have enough time to upgrade them off FiD. Their next fight will likely be in 1-2 real life months, and all it takes is 2 weeks of upgrades to move them down a level. Peeps need to stop worrying about FiD. It's more like your phone saying "My battery is at 50%" than it is "My battery is going to die in 3 seconds OMG HELP!". It's still partly the principle of it that it 100% still looks like you're targeting 2 teams and just adding yourself to make it seem "fair". I mean, I get we had our convo and all, but I'm still not completely sold on this. The two other teams, other than yourself, involved in this are still struggling teams, as a whole, yet you're still placing sanctions and restrictions on them as if they are one of the top teams in the league when they're just simply not. You're also still fixing a "problem" that doesn't even exist, all because some wingnut/yo-yo mentioned to you that he COULD do _______. But rather than have it happen first and fix it then, you're choosing to penalize teams that never had any inclination whatsoever to doing what you're suggesting. It's been, in fact, quite the opposite... especially in my case, when I've been dropping in roster size and not adding to it to help even out the league so that we didn't have this issue of large vs. small rosters anymore. I honestly still feel like I'm being penalized again for doing exactly what I was asked to do, which was to drop my roster size. Everyone is at, or around, the same number of fighters on their teams now... this should not even be an issue anymore unless said wingnut/yo-yo decides that he's going to do what he suggested and there's a team that gets up to beyond 20 fighters again. This is just too much man... It was right from the beginning. You're trying to compensate for something that wasn't happening and hasn't happened and, I'm sorry to say, you're making GAP and I the scapegoats for it, when neither of us deserve it at all. I do see the merit in nipping the potential problem, but this also isn't a one-dimensional issue either, and I still see breaking it down into a weight class FiD, as opposed to this collective roster size based FiD, as the fairest way the entire league. We're all on an even playing field here now with points & number of fights per, and regardless of one team's collective roster size, there's "smaller" teams out there that have 5-6 HWs, so why should my entire team get penalized for him hoarding 1/4 of that division or whatever? That's the part that doesn't make any sense to me at all. |
|
|
|
Post by The Rocketmen on Aug 27, 2016 11:40:27 GMT -5
OMG. No. I'm not reading that. Everyone shut up.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Aug 27, 2016 13:34:01 GMT -5
xx - Former Phoenix Fight Club, it's like you remember nothing from our phone call. As I said then: 1) it doesn't matter "what it looks like", it's math. Cold, uncaring math. 2) It's not a problem of what people COULD do. That is part of it. It's a problem of what IS happening, which can cause more people to do it. As I said, it's a problem I observed, then was later mentioned to me as well. 3) Just because you keep saying the problem doesn't exist doesn't mean it's true. Book a season (yes, using that Master Roster document you told me on the phone was so damned intimidating to you) and THEN you will understand. Right now, you are talking about something you know nothing about, and your main argument is "No, cuz just no". It's silly. 4) You seem so concerned about the 2 members this is targeting. While the same number of members mentioned the problem to me, so if 2 matters, then 2 matters. You can't pick and choose which 2 members' opinions matter just because you are part of one group, guy. 4)If you want to officially propose your "FiD based on weight class" solution, please do. Write-up the math in a suggestion thread. I think, as we saw on the phone, people will see it gets awfully messy, and you would still be sitting at 3 straight losses for FiD per season, but if you think that is more fair, I'm sure people like Byron (who would get about 6 straight losses for FiD for some fighters) would support it. Seriously, post it. Talk is cheap. I'm just as on board with your change as I am my proposed change, so go ahead and get others on board with it and I'll express my support for it in the thread, once you make it.
|
|
Have 9 points in celebration of this monumental achievement!