Quote:
Originally Posted by John Dewey
I just think that for the sake of consistency the official parameters of the game should be generally (though not necessarily absolutely) kept to. A fighter with a PA/CP rating of 22 is a pretty dismal boxer. Only when competing against fellow TCs is such a fighter competitive, and then anything can happen. And, using the new templates makes a fighter who is rated by such unfairly penalized when facing a fighter with a similiar record who had been rated by the earlier template system. That's my opinion anyway. If I download a fighter whose stats I'm unhappy with, I have the option to tweek them as I see fit, so it's no real problem. But I've already violated my policy of not stating my opinion on this forum so I will now speak no more about it.
|
I would have said that same thing not long ago myself but have spent some time looking at this end of the pool. I am convinced that the official parameters are just arbitrary and are themselves not consistent at all.
What I mean by that is that if we have a scale of 0 to 15, the top needs to represent the best possible fighter and the bottom the worst. In the case of the TBCB sim, the bottom is demonstrably not the bottom. Use the CF and PL floors of 4 and 22 and run 10,000 bouts against Ali. If that truly represented the worst fighter possible, it would never beat Ali. But it does. In my opinion, that worst fighter does not have a chance against Ali and should litterally never win against him. We aren't talking about a bad fighter or a guy that tries hard but looses. We are talking about the guy that boxrec ranks
6,000 slots behind that 1-2-0 South African HW I mentioned above. He should never win, but he does (in the sim).
Well, if the bottom of our scale is quite clearly not the bottom, I thought that we could do one of two things:
1) Recognize that 1-2-0 guy as the average fighter and assume that to be the bottom of our scale. No one worse than that can be depicted in the sim because it just isn't designed to accomodate that..
2) Find out how many 'true' levels could be derived from the zero category so that we can have some space to work below that average fighter and create a range of ratings whereby the bottom of the sim moves a little closer to the bottom that is found in real life.
It's a problem of perception to me really, I think that if you ask a lot of people here what the average fighter rating is, they'll tell you 4, 5,6 even. When, in real life, the average fighter is a 1-2-0 pug and a rating at the top end of the zero scale is in real life recognized by us as a pretty good fighter.
I see what you mean about earlier templates though, I get that but I truly think that litterally everything ever rated here as a 1 and below (and Lord knows that a lot of them were done by me) are entirely too good. They are un-realistically inflated. Fighters that are south of the average fighter line by a wide margin have a rating in the game that pushes them well above the average mark.
It is just opinion and we can all change and do as we please but why on earth would you have a policy of not saying anything? That's sort of the point of a message board.
Thunder (on this board) had some great ideas about this stuff at one time. His thinking directly opposed my way of reasoning this all out but thankfully we talked a lot and I saw that there was a lot of merit to what he was saying. I have since completely changed my mind. That's good, not bad. Talking about this stuff is what makes this fun and while there are a few folks that unfortunately get too irritated when something that doesn't line up with their thinking is presented, I'd hope that we all can still talk. Just don't comment directly to that person that is too touchy - that's what I choose to do.