Rankings Question

[mking55]

In a group I am running, the rankings of some of the boxers look funky to me. I am not talking about organizational (WBC, etc) rankings here. These are the rankings in the fighters list that I am referring to.

I have 4 fighters tied for #1. One of the fighters had 1 fight, lost, and scored -4.0 pp.

I have several fighters who are ranked lower with many more fights, of which they won most of them.

I have a few fighters with 1 fight that they lost in the top 10.

Are these not rankings of performance points? (I think I saw something about the last 10 matches only). People who lose 1 fight shouldn't be near the top, should they?

Please enlighten me. Thank you.

[swampdragon]

There is a negative bias in the performance points to the extent that 0-1 is usually better than 6-3. It gets better when everyone has 10 fights and the rankings are official, but I believe the negative bias can still work some mischief. I suspect a fighter just starting out who has destroyed 10 cream puffs will outrank a veteran fighting other contenders who is 8-2 in his last 10 fights, because the negative effect of the losses is so large. Maybe Rocco can tell us whether Gerhard Zech is his top ranked heavyweight.

[mking55]

Jim, Tom, Andreas, somebody?

[Jim Trunzo]

To answer the question completely, I would need to see a complete list of the fighters involved, etc. Let me try to address several issues on Rankings here:

1) A new system is already in place that has been PLAY TESTED thoroughly and seems to be much improved over anything prior to this.

2) The problems have stemmed from one issue: trying to walk a very thin line between variation in rankings issued by each organization and realistic rankings overall.

3) To a lesser degree, the current system should have been tested better before I authorized a release on it. My fault entirely.

4) I am going to do something here that I really didn't want to do but feel that I must, under the circumstances:

Rankings are determined by: Performance Points (which factor in opposition level, type of win, type of loss). Then a modifier is applied for each organization, based upon a factor that would not be very politically correct to state but which definitely exists. However, we discovered that even doing that didn't produce the results that we wanted. So the system has been redesigned with yet another very important factor included and the results have produced variances up to four places! For example: in one test, we had Wladmir Klitscho rated 2, 3, 3 and 5 by the various organizations and James Toney rated 2, 5, 6 and 8! The new ranking system (and hopefully the last one) will be released in the upcoming patch.

[vistaman44]

Jim; Despite the frustrations involved, thanks for staying after this and continuing to strive to make it the best.

[Cap]

Jim, I have dispensed with the alphabet soup boys entirely and formed a world body and a regional body. I want these groups to accurately rank their fighters. You wouldn't have to display all fighters in a group, just the top 20 or 25 at most.

I understand where the other guys are coming from. They want the real-life chaos associated with the present day bodies. Fine.

I want one world body and one or more regional bodies (ie EBU, NABF, etc.) with accurate rankings. If I pull up the EBU, for instance, I don't want to see Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. Just as when I pull up world rankings, I don't want to see retired fighters, or featherweights in the heavyweight ranks. (I'm finding the "ALL" button annoying)

Well, that's my two and a half cents.

Cap

[mking55]

I'm not sure my question was answered. I am not talking about the organizations. I am talking about the regular rankings on the fighters list.

Here is a picture:


This shows the fighters list and Stanley Ketchel. Stanley Ketchel is one of 4 fighters ranked number 1. Mr. Ketchel has 1 fight and he has a negative pp.

Now this is a fighter ranked 6th:


My question is, is this a bug or why is it like this?

Thanks.

[Cap]

Mking. Looks like the "ALL" button has been pressed. Would that affect things?

Cap

[mking55]

Cap,

No, it wouldn't. I am showing a group named "ATC". There are only about 50 or so fighters in this group, most of them heavyweights.

And in my limited mathematical knowledge, a negative number never has a higher value than a positive number.

I just realized I should have shown Larry Holmes. He has had 9 fights and won them all. Yet he is only ranked number 4 on the fighter list.

Martin

[swampdragon]

They're only being ranked in their weight class, Ketchel is the No 1 Middleweight?

[mking55]

Swampdragon,

Thank you. I am grateful. Sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees.

I got confused because I set up a heavyweight championship replay universe and some people who fought for the heavyweight championship were in other weight classes and I forgot.

Thank you for solving this mystery for me.

[Antonin]

mking55: This doesn't relate to the topic of this thread, but I'm curious to know how you got the type font that appears in your "history" screen? Mine only shows white letters, with the various fields running on to each other...

[mking55]

Antonin,

I am not sure I understand your question. The type font? I just tooka picture of the screen.

Please explain exactly and I will try and respond.

[Hollywood Blond]

If Antonin is referring to the yellow lettering, that comes from when a bout is fought for a title.

[Antonin]

My history screen does have yellow lettering for title bouts, but all of the print is of a different font from what you have on your screen shots. The letters are thin, and the different data fields run together.

My video card is 8MB, I have a 17 inch monitor and I'm running the game at 1024 x 786, using 3d acceleration or whatever it's called.

The data are readable, but I was just wondering why your history screen looks so much neater and easier on the eye.

It's probably down to the fact that my computer is 5 years old. Oh well.

Sorry for taking your thread OT...

[mking55]

No problem Antonin.

Someone already pointed out my idiocy and I was finished.

I suggest to be sure that you get Andreas to answer your question. Perhaps your computer does not contain the default font the game uses and he can tell you what font to get.

[Speck]

Antonin, I had the same problem until I changed the size of the fonts to "small". Also, the game fonts do look much better in Windows 2000 than Windows 98.

To see (and/or change) the size of the font you're currently using:

1. Start -> Settings -> Control Panel
2. Double click the "Display" icon
3. Click the "Settings" tab (upper right of Display Properties window)
4. Click the "Advanced" button (bottom right of window)
5. Click "General" tab

It should either list that you have "small fonts" or "large fonts" chosen. If large, then click the dropdown box and select "small fonts". You'll probably need to reboot before you see any changes. Hope that helps more than it confuses .

Speck