i have been playing with 19 different formulas over the past month or so in an effort to determine a fair way to determine the #1 contender for ANY belt

we all agree that game rank is flawed...but that is all that we have to go by besides current winning streak

the contenders rank is not important at all...all that is important is how long has he been winning and how strong are the opponents that he is beaten

the length of the streak has long been considered (my interpretation of the countless arguments) to be a little more important than strength of schedule

so


(opponents average current rank during your winning streak)

divided by

length of strength multiplied by 1.2


giving streak a 20% bump in importance

i probably wont be back on until around 12am tonight but i fully hope and expect for this method to be argued for and against


to the several people who i have emailed my previous formulas with and have discussed them with i thank you for your input and time spent

So basically

A = Average Current Rank
L = Length of Streak


So the formula looks like

1.2(A/L)

I think I did that right.

What is avg current rank? Just whatever your current rank is?

I think its the opponents average rank.. like the average rank of the people you are beating during the steak.

I like this idea but I'd rather just see rank improved

that way the number one contender can just be the highest ranked dude

the champ should not give at title shots.. I think title shots should be determined by a mathematical equation

We talked a little bit about it, and I still dont understand how over all rank (which includes different weights as well as different organizations) is pertinent information to this equation? We are trying to decide who gets a shot within a certain org. Our most important factors are Streak within an org and quality of wins within that streak.

I also don't understand how 20% was derived, seems like an arbitrary number used to weight the denominator slightly. What if people say "no streak is much more important than 20% its 80%" then that 20% is not accounting for what people feel the equation should represent and you are left with a skewed formula that doesn't represent how the mass gives title shots.

The end result of this equation should give us who deserves the title shot in the majority's eyes. So as you are coming up with values for variables and such, i think it would be helpful if you took an example, asked a bunch of vets who they think deserves the shot, and test your results against that.

That is essentially taking away a huge part of the game as we are the coaches and the match makers. Taking away our right to determine who deserves the title shot is like taking away our right to choose what style we fight with. We play this game to play, not have it played for us.

you would still get to choose your style

and there's major difference between choosing a fight and choosing a style so your argument commits the fallacy of weak analogy..
haha there's my college education paying off..

I feel that by allowing a person to choose who they fight they may not always picked the number one contender because people are biased..

You fighter fights over 100 fights if you do not incubate.. have the computer select 10 opponents for you is not going to harm the game

maybe the computer only picks the number 1 contender for the efc or something like that.. there's a lot more that goes into the game then choosing the number one contender

Let's break the game down into action items.
Spar your stats
Pick your style
Pick your org
Pick your fight

then we have lesser items

Pick your clothes
Customize your fighter

Now out of the things that actually make up playing the game competitively, I think most would agree picking your style and picking your fights are the two biggest factors and if either were changed it would be greatly altering game play (hence why I said they were analogous).


There's a major difference between fallacy of weak analogy and you just not being able to see an analogy because the neglect strengthens your case.

Edit: Oh yeah, I went to college too.

Comparing not being able to pick your fights in a title shot compared to not be able to pick your style is definitely a weak analogy..

The fact of the matter is that in a title shot you are supposed to pick the most deserving contender. A system that can statistically figure out who is the number one contender without biased is completely different then having the computer pick your style for you.

I'm strictly talking about computer selected opponents for title shots in the higher organizations, maybe even just the EFC. Clearly, there is no correlation between picking your style and picking your fights in a title shot because you aren't supposed to be able to truly pick you opponent when giving a title.

According to the "unwritten rules" of the game titles shots are too be given to the most deserving fighter. You aren't really supposed to have a choice, you are simply just supposed to determine who has the most deserving win streak. The computer would simply just figure this out without bias.