Jump to content

Official UFC Camp League 2018


MasterLeader

Recommended Posts

Okay it's pretty even across the board in terms of votes, I've not voted so I'm going to make the decision to include a new ranking for "finishes" rather than giving extra cash.

Total funds will be monitored but no points for funds in the overall scores and replaced with "finishes". This however will change the game so I'm editing the poll for this.

See new poll - two questions, given there is currently heavy incentives to just waste cash on as many fighters as possible, it may be worthwhile selecting the second option in question two. For example I had something like 34 fights this year and maybe 10 finishes from 19 wins which isn't great and so if we used "absolute" figures for rankings i'd deck all of you. On the other hand someone may be careful and wise with their spending, resulting in 9 finishes from 13 wins and rank below me.

 

Let me know what you guys think, given we may be replacing "total funds" which deterred reckless spending I think option 2 works best...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont really like the total finishes as a stat, especially if we are removing the money total as a stat. That's just going to encourage the "throwing shit at the wall" strategy. If you dont need to care about keeping a bank roll for stat purposes, then i could have bought up every decent fighter left in Sept/Oct and there would have been almost no doubt in who was going to win months ago.

My suggestion to curb that will be team fighter finishes(wins) - fighters finished(losses) = net finishes. Using net finishes makes a little more thought go into it.

 

Honestly though, I dont think many of you even really put much thought into how the scoring system worked in the first place. Adding more scoring stats and making it a little more complicated is probably going to cause more errors in the tabulation and take more strategy out of it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My suggestion to curb that will be team fighter finishes(wins) - fighters finished(losses) = net finishes. Using net finishes makes a little more thought go into it.

 

 

I think this is good, it is a middle ground for those in favor and not in favor. Let's just make this the final change to the game. The way it was set up before is good - no need to change too much.

 

 

Also

 

Just in case people are trying to bring more people on board for the last 2 spots.... Don't! We only want active players who join because they actually want to and follow the sport enough. Last season there were a few who only pitched up for the draft and hijacked some good fighters. 14 is a good number anyway, if someone comes in here and wants to sign up for the last 2 spots then that is cool but let's not reach out to people as if we need them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont really like the total finishes as a stat, especially if we are removing the money total as a stat. That's just going to encourage the "throwing shit at the wall" strategy. If you dont need to care about keeping a bank roll for stat purposes, then i could have bought up every decent fighter left in Sept/Oct and there would have been almost no doubt in who was going to win months ago.

My suggestion to curb that will be team fighter finishes(wins) - fighters finished(losses) = net finishes. Using net finishes makes a little more thought go into it.

 

Honestly though, I dont think many of you even really put much thought into how the scoring system worked in the first place. Adding more scoring stats and making it a little more complicated is probably going to cause more errors in the tabulation and take more strategy out of it.

 

I completely agree with you and the net finishes is a great idea/solution. Let's keep the funds stat and add the net finishes that seems like the best way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion to curb that will be team fighter finishes(wins) - fighters finished(losses) = net finishes. Using net finishes makes a little more thought go into it.

 

 

 

Already thought about this mate, see my suggestion a couple posts earlier:

 

 

See new poll - two questions, given there is currently heavy incentives to just waste cash on as many fighters as possible, it may be worthwhile selecting the second option in question two. For example I had something like 34 fights this year and maybe 10 finishes from 19 wins which isn't great and so if we used "absolute" figures for rankings i'd deck all of you. On the other hand someone may be careful and wise with their spending, resulting in 9 finishes from 13 wins and rank below me.

 

Let me know what you guys think, given we may be replacing "total funds" which deterred reckless spending I think option 2 works best...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

net finishes is a good idea ...

but I still think camp funds stat should be taken into count as we have another statistic in Camp Value .. in that way participation will be more in the interested parties in buying new fighters, bets etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

net finishes is a good idea ...

 

but I still think camp funds stat should be taken into count as we have another statistic in Camp Value .. in that way participation will be more in the interested parties in buying new fighters, bets etc.

Camp Funds will still be monitored and remain the lifeblood of the game so I don't see the relevance of keeping it in the scoring criteria especially if we use finishes as a percentage of total wins.

 

We'll wait to see the outcome of the poll.

 

I'm going to suggest the following:

 

1) If we keep total funds criteria, then use absolute finishes as an additional criteria

2) If we remove total funds criteria, then use finishes as a % of total wins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question:

 

To speed up the draft would you guys be offended if we were to split the participants into two groups based on time zone and then I'll begin by drawing which group participants are selected from first?

 

E.g. Positive GMT (i.e. UK and to the right) in one group and negative GMT (i.e. to the left of UK, so North & South America) in the other group

 

Obviously whichever group is drawed first will pick fighters last in the second round due to the serpentine draft structure.

 

Draft took ages last year partly due to a UK person picking then a US person being asleep for several hours etc...

 

I would assume everyone's "home town" in their MMA tycoon manager profile is correct, otherwise let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camp Funds will still be monitored and remain the lifeblood of the game so I don't see the relevance of keeping it in the scoring criteria especially if we use finishes as a percentage of total wins.

 

We'll wait to see the outcome of the poll.

 

I'm going to suggest the following:

 

1) If we keep total funds criteria, then use absolute finishes as an additional criteria

2) If we remove total funds criteria, then use finishes as a % of total wins

 

Keep camp funds as a scoring criteria and introduce net finishes as a scoring criteria. done.

 

Another question:

 

To speed up the draft would you guys be offended if we were to split the participants into two groups based on time zone and then I'll begin by drawing which group participants are selected from first?

 

E.g. Positive GMT (i.e. UK and to the right) in one group and negative GMT (i.e. to the left of UK, so North & South America) in the other group

 

Obviously whichever group is drawed first will pick fighters last in the second round due to the serpentine draft structure.

 

Draft took ages last year partly due to a UK person picking then a US person being asleep for several hours etc...

 

I would assume everyone's "home town" in their MMA tycoon manager profile is correct, otherwise let me know.

 

IMO we should keep it how it is but perhaps have a time limit of say... 8 hours to pick otherwise you are moved to the end of the queue for that round and it goes back to normal in the next round.

 

Another thing that helps is if people send their next few picks in order to you so there is more chance of a free flowing draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Keep camp funds as a scoring criteria and introduce net finishes as a scoring criteria. done.

 

I don't think it makes sense to keep total funds AND have proportionate finishes.

 

The reason we're introducing proportionate finishes is since removing total funds means managers will just squander all their funds in the later months.

 

If we keep total funds then careful spending will continue and we're better off with using absolute finishes.

 

With your suggestions the game becomes overly conservative and people won't take risks and spend too carefully.

 

Time limit on draws is probably the best. If you're going to sleep then send your next couple of picks so that you don't get kicked to the bottom of the draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it makes sense to keep total funds AND have proportionate finishes.

 

The reason we're introducing proportionate finishes is since removing total funds means managers will just squander all their funds in the later months.

 

If we keep total funds then careful spending will continue and we're better off with using absolute finishes.

 

With your suggestions the game becomes overly conservative and people won't take risks and spend too carefully.

 

Time limit on draws is probably the best. If you're going to sleep then send your next couple of picks so that you don't get kicked to the bottom of the draw.

 

There has never really been careful spending though. As I've shown in the 2017 season pretty much everyone has plenty of funds and whenever someone wants to buy a fighter they do just that without breaking a sweat. The way I see it adding net finishes is just simply adding a new scoring criteria to make people perhaps use a slightly different strategy when drafting fighters.

 

Anyway, I am getting tired of this back and fourth. I handed the game over to you so I suppose it's your decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There has never really been careful spending though. As I've shown in the 2017 season pretty much everyone has plenty of funds and whenever someone wants to buy a fighter they do just that without breaking a sweat. The way I see it adding net finishes is just simply adding a new scoring criteria to make people perhaps use a slightly different strategy when drafting fighters.

 

Anyway, I am getting tired of this back and fourth. I handed the game over to you so I suppose it's your decision.

I know I've avoided picking up fighters in the last months, because I'm likely to drop places for it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Timqwe. As it stands there is relatively careful spending due to the "total funds" criteria, if we introduce total finishes on an absolute basis, people will still be as cautious as they were in 2017 due to the total funds criteria remaining part of the game and so for that reason and taking account the results of the voting, we will implement the following:

 

1) Total finishes will be the new criteria (not net or proportionate basis)

 

2) Total funds will remain part of the game (to maintain careful spending and the strategic element as JLP mentioned)

 

3) There will be a 8 hour time limit per selection during the draft, however this may reduce if the draft is lagging behind. Managers are permitted to send their next 2 picks to myself if they're likely to go offline during this period, however if not the draft will continue without them and they can make their selection when they return online

 

4) See pink font for other new rules highlighted in original post

 

5) Follow "MasterLeaderMMAT" on instagram so that you can have access to the live stream of the draft order when it happens. I will endeavour to keep things as transparent as possible during the draft, given this is an area for manipulation

 

6) Also - I remember some debate over the price of a fighter who moves weightclass. The price will always be the maximum possible price per UFC rankings as at date of purchase. If GSP is ranked top 5 MW and moves to WW he will be priced at $50,000 not lower to account for his potential WW ranking.

 

Also, I've never done a live stream before - can these be viewed retrospectively by anyone or can they only be watched live? I got a feeling they can be viewed retrospectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Timqwe. As it stands there is relatively careful spending due to the "total funds" criteria, if we introduce total finishes on an absolute basis, people will still be as cautious as they were in 2017 due to the total funds criteria and so for that reason and taking account the results of the voting, we will implement the following:

 

1) Total finishes will be the new criteria (not net or proportionate basis)

 

2) Total funds will remain part of the game (to maintain careful spending and the strategic element as JLP mentioned)

 

I feel like #2 contradicts your first paragraph. Are we still rewarding points for total funds or not? I honestly cant figure out what you are trying to say.

Total finishes is horrible, especially if we dont award points for total funds. There will be no strategy involved for the last 3-4 months because every decent fighter will be taken by that point. I think we needed a couple minor tweeks, like your 6 and the banning of selling fighters back right after a loss. The rule changes you are planning on are going to really complicate things but not make it any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like #2 contradicts your first paragraph. Are we still rewarding points for total funds or not? I honestly cant figure out what you are trying to say.

Total finishes is horrible, especially if we dont award points for total funds. There will be no strategy involved for the last 3-4 months because every decent fighter will be taken by that point. I think we needed a couple minor tweeks, like your 6 and the banning of selling fighters back right after a loss. The rule changes you are planning on are going to really complicate things but not make it any better.

No no no removing total funds and introduce total finishes would be so dumb.

 

I'm saying we are keeping total funds in and as a consequence of doing that careful spending will continue as in 2017 thus adding "total finishes" rather than "proportionate finishes" makes more sense.

 

The poll results were in agreement with the above which seems reasonable for the aforementioned reasons.

 

Also - I feel like last year there was a max limit to number of fighters which can be signed in the initial draft. Wasn't it 7 or am I remembering things wrong?

 

EDIT:

 

On second thought, I'm not sure "total finishes" is the fairest scoring criteria. I think I've focussed too much on conservative spending but what's stopping someone from just buying 20 cheap fighters and winning this criteria by only a handful of fighters finishing? Introducing "total finishes" incentivises buying more unranked fighters and not splashing out on the big guns.

 

For this reason I am leaning towards introducing "% wins by finish" as scoring criteria. Can anyone give me a good argument against this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no removing total funds and introduce total finishes would be so dumb.

 

I'm saying we are keeping total funds in and as a consequence of doing that careful spending will continue as in 2017 thus adding "total finishes" rather than "proportionate finishes" makes more sense.

 

The poll results were in agreement with the above which seems reasonable for the aforementioned reasons.

 

Also - I feel like last year there was a max limit to number of fighters which can be signed in the initial draft. Wasn't it 7 or am I remembering things wrong?

 

EDIT:

 

On second thought, I'm not sure "total finishes" is the fairest scoring criteria. I think I've focussed too much on conservative spending but what's stopping someone from just buying 20 cheap fighters and winning this criteria by only a handful of fighters finishing? Introducing "total finishes" incentivises buying more unranked fighters and not splashing out on the big guns.

 

For this reason I am leaning towards introducing "% wins by finish" as scoring criteria. Can anyone give me a good argument against this?

% of finishes from total wins is a good idea ... let's keep that

 

and during the draft, if a manager misses the deadline of 8 hours ( haven't send the picks to you ), will he gets the chance to pick the fighters as he comes online straight away or will he be moved to the back of the line ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

% of finishes from total wins is a good idea ... let's keep that

 

and during the draft, if a manager misses the deadline of 8 hours ( haven't send the picks to you ), will he gets the chance to pick the fighters as he comes online straight away or will he be moved to the back of the line ?

 

I think back of the line is the fair choice here. Then in the next round of the draft they go back to their original position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aight lets just finalize all these rules then and get this draft order sorted. Buzzin m8's.

Okay I think we can agree on "% wins by finish" as well as keeping total funds and the other rules already highlighted.

 

I'll fix the main post shortly, difficult to format on my phone.

 

The draft itself will begin once the rankings are finalised following the next event which will most likely be 3rd January right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...