Riot 530: GIGANTAUR

[Michael Morrison]

 

MOORE(160) vs BELLE(170)

And we have our first incident where someone lost the match on-screen (she was pinned) but had more in-ring points.

 

It was almost a draw, with both sitting at 170, but I had to deduct 10 points from Ashley Moore for using the Running Bulldog at least 4 times in one match. She also used the Hair Pull Slam quite a few times, but I’m fairly lenient towards certain transition/quick grapples if they tell a story, or if they don’t seem out of place (a lot of standard moves get repeated a lot, like scoop slams or hip tosses).

 

For example, Ashley did back-to-back Hair Pulls at the start of the match, but it fits her character, so it tells a story. I’d also forgive repetitive moves if it turns into a contest of One-Up, where opponents keep hitting each other with the same move as a way of saying: I can do it better.

 

Either way, I think it was clear to see that Ashley was more aggressive, but Belle was the better performer in this particular match. I don’t think Belle repeated any moves at all and pulled off a wider array of moves in general... like she was trying to use as much of her move-set as possible.

 

Now, I’m a big fan of Ashley Moore’s character --it’s actually one of my favorites-- and I won’t take away from her ability to play the game; it just happens that in this case, Belle looked better losing, than Ashley did winning... but not by a large margin. I still enjoyed Ashley’s signature leg moves and her “Mean Girls” attitude in the ring. A good start to Super RIOT.

 

SIDE NOTE: I swear I could hear clicking, or button mashing during some parts of the match.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

KD(0) vs EP(0)

So, this was is upsetting, because I spent 11+ minutes ranking this match, only to just call it a day, because around the 11 minute mark, the video zooms in, only showing the top left corner... and I tried for a bit to keep track, but after a while I gave up on it.

 

It’s a shame because up to that point, KD was just dominating this match, and probably would have had some decent points at the end.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

AISU(235) vs BOURNE(145)

I want to make a GIF of the first move that Aisu does on Bourne.

 

Despite the moderate gap in points, this was actually a pretty decent match. Typically, someone will hit a flurry of moves, then their opponent will hit a flurry, so on and so forth --Damian just never got a chance to get his 2nd flurry as Aisu took the lead and quickly ended the match as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

REESE(70) vs MATTEO(195)

This felt like a really short match, with more defense than offense, but Matteo still managed to get close to the 200’s when it comes to points.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

KAT(95) vs VALKYRIE(265)

Valk proves that she has what it takes to win matches and points --just running a clinic in this contest, and breaking the previous top-score of 235 held by Aisu, B17, Cohle, and Stevens.

 

Sure, it’s only been a couple of shows since I started the new Ranking Systems, but is anyone surprised that she’s already at the top of the mountain?

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

MISTICO(120) vs B17(220)

Not the match I was expecting, but an interesting swerve. The match also reminded me that I never came to a decision, concerning what to do when a match ends via DQ... but this is now resolved.

 

B17 has been quite impressive, having had two consecutive matches where he scored above 200 points.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

MINIO(130) vs GREEN(220)

Doc Green almost broke Valkyrie’s ceiling of 265 points; however, the match went beyond the 15-minute marker, so points were deducted.

 

When a match runs long, you obviously have more chances to collect points, so one could easily exploit this fact by simply having super long matches.

 

To deter people from doing this, anything beyond 15 minutes will be hit with a deduction of 20%. 100 points would now be 80 points; 200 points would turn to 160, and 300 points would change to 240.

 

If you think that’s harsh, let me tell you this: If Valkyrie’s match went on for 16 minutes, she would have likely had 360 points --based on points per minute.

 

Bottom line: try to keep it under 15 minutes if you don’t want deductions.

[Ashley Moore]

 

MOORE(160) vs BELLE(170)

And we have our first incident where someone lost the match on-screen (she was pinned) but had more in-ring points.

 

 

Yes, I only won (got her earlier to red) because I focused my damage more on the head.

 

I was called out for doing the Running Bulldog too often already. I just can't stop doing it so often in a match, because it is the left+X move (will try to use it less)

 

The clicking sound must have been in your head. There was only the ingame sound used during the match.

[KANG DOC]

 

When a match runs long, you obviously have more chances to collect points, so one could easily exploit this fact by simply having super long matches.

 

To deter people from doing this, anything beyond 15 minutes will be hit with a deduction of 20%. 100 points would now be 80 points; 200 points would turn to 160, and 300 points would change to 240.

 

If you think that’s harsh, let me tell you this: If Valkyrie’s match went on for 16 minutes, she would have likely had 360 points --based on points per minute.

 

Bottom line: try to keep it under 15 minutes if you don’t want deductions.

 

I don’t feel like if this is the way you’re going to track people’s ‘ability’ on the sticks, that people should be hindered for having longer matches. If someone’s having a long and boring match, that should show through because they won’t be getting awarded points for keeping it interesting, and those who deserve the extra points shouldn’t be hindered because the match is long.

 

In the case of mine and Bobby’s match, it was always going to be long because we both have resiliency and in the match itself, we were pretty well matched throughout. In this system, I don’t think we deserved to be deducted points through something which is no fault of our own. Main event matches realistically should be going longer and if that match is good, it should reflect on the score.

 

Generally, I am of the opinion that the ELO system you had before was better for tracking people’s progress week to week. In this new one, it doesn’t allow people to be compared accurately because some people are booked on more shows than others. The previous system used win percentage and who you beat to come up with your ELO rating, which I think works much better as a comparator.

 

Anyway, I hope you appreciate this feedback and keep up the good work mate.

[Valkyrie]

Thank you for your work Mike, I appreciate it. I had the chance to be in the Point System committee and discuss this early, but now that I'm seeing it in action I'm not entirely sure on whether I should interpret this rankings as match quality, skill or overall showmanship.

 

I'm guessing I got a lot of points because I used different moves, dives, springboards etc. but to be completely honest I didn't feel like my match was the best on the show. The two kickouts allowed me to get more points but didn't make much sense for a low card women's match. There were also other issues in the match that affected its overall quality imho. I still appreciate the feedback and the work you are doing, though.

[Kassidy Hayes]

Valk is the best! Valk #1!

 

 

I don’t feel like if this is the way you’re going to track people’s ‘ability’ on the sticks, that people should be hindered for having longer matches. If someone’s having a long and boring match, that should show through because they won’t be getting awarded points for keeping it interesting, and those who deserve the extra points shouldn’t be hindered because the match is long.

 

In the case of mine and Bobby’s match, it was always going to be long because we both have resiliency and in the match itself, we were pretty well matched throughout. In this system, I don’t think we deserved to be deducted points through something which is no fault of our own. Main event matches realistically should be going longer and if that match is good, it should reflect on the score.

 

Generally, I am of the opinion that the ELO system you had before was better for tracking people’s progress week to week. In this new one, it doesn’t allow people to be compared accurately because some people are booked on more shows than others. The previous system used win percentage and who you beat to come up with your ELO rating, which I think works much better as a comparator.

 

Anyway, I hope you appreciate this feedback and keep up the good work mate.

 

 

the point of this isn't how good you are on the sticks or win/loss, its about putting on a good match and good fpr so thats why old elo was dropped and why mike is doing this and it is still being tweaked and I agree on the match length shouldn't per say remove points, specially not a main event.

[B-17]

Personally I like the idea.

[Michael Morrison]

Just wanted to clarify once again that neither, the ELO ratings or In-Ring rankings are official OCW records. I simply did it on my spare time and thought they could help elevate OCW in one way or the other. Nonetheless, I appreciate the feedback.

 

If you want the simple version of this, just skip to section 5.)

If you want the long version, please read sections 1.) through 4.)

 

1.) QUALITY, SKILL, or SHOWMANSHIP???

 

I also want to clarify that the In-Ring Rankings are not really based on a subjective sense of what makes a match “good”. The rankings are mainly based on difficulty/risk (see below for more detail) with some bonuses here-and-there for fun and/or balance.

 

Same with penalties: there are certain actions that will deduct points to balance the game, or to prevent abuse.

 

The goal is NOT to force my idea of what-makes-a-good-match upon OCW; rather, I just wanted to give OCW incentive to take more risks while providing opportunities for strategizing.

 

2.) LONG MATCH-stick MEN

 

A while back, I collected quite a bit of match data -- think I was hell-bent on removing the need for resets -- so quite a bit of the the Point-System was based on this data. I believe the average match length was roughly 11 minutes, so 15 minutes should be more than enough time to do a match.

 

Whether a match is boring or not has no weight on the ranking -- as I established above, the In-Ring rankings are not based on “match quality”; more so, accumulated points -- so I didn’t want 90% of the matches to be depreciated by the 10%, that run long ... for whatever reason that may be.

 

Also: I understand that ME/PPV matches will likely run a bit long for dramatic purposes, but that’s why certain deductions are not applied to ME/PPV matches (such as kicking out of 2nd/3rd Finishers).

 

I suppose an argument could be made for longer Time-Limits concerning ME/PPV matches if you believe ME Wrestlers should be allowed certain privileges.

 

Even so, the deduction was calculated by percentage and points-per-minute. I decided to just go with a clean 20% to keep it simple, but perhaps this will be a topic of discussion for the Committee.

 

3.) ELO E-LONG GONE

 

I’m sure quite a few people will miss the ELO ratings -- even I’ll miss it a bit, to be honest -- but I feel it eventually became part of the problem. Despite me saying: this means absolutely nothing; I feel that it meant quite a bit, to a good amount of people ... so I had to kill it ded.

 

If this were a UFC league, I would have kept it going, but the more I looked into the gameplay ... and the more anger I saw towards the gameplay in chat, the more I realized that ELO was not the answer.

 

Obviously, if anyone wanted to create their own version of the ELO rating, they could do so, but it is highly unlikely that I will ever return to that form of rating/ranking ... at least for OCW, as it is.

 

4.) SORT IT OUT

 

On the bright side, the In-Ring ranking has more columns than ELO, which means, even more ways to sort data.

 

Currently, the Primary column I use for ranking is the “AVG”, which is created by your average points-per-match. I have quite a few hidden columns used for tie-breakers, in case players have the same “AVG”, but the ranking is so new that even with tie-breakers, some players still share rankings.

 

Having said that, if someone were so inclined, they could sort the ranking by Win%, Number of Wins, Total Points, Current Match Points, Total Matches, Gender, Brand, Console, Date or Event. I could even add a column for kayfabe wins so you can compare Pinfall victories to In-Ring victories.

 

One could also use the “RANK%” to determine Upper/Mid/Low card levels, as it changes color every ⅓.

 

5.) SIMPLE ANSWER

 

In-Ring rankings are obtained by accumulated points during a match, based on degrees of difficulty/risk. If you avoid risk, take shortcuts, or just can’t seem to build momentum, it’s likely (but not definite) that you will have low scores.

 

Lots of data collected and maths to determine match lengths and balancing ... so don’t worry ‘bout it, brah ... just play and have fun. The committee will abide.

 

In-Ring rankings can be sorted by a plethora of categories, not just Average Points.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The main levels of difficulty are EASY, MEDIUM, HARD. Simple enough.

 

EASY = 10 points

MED = 20 points

HARD = 30 points

 

EXAMPLES:

(EASY) HIT YOUR SIG/FIN -- Not much skill is required, it’s as easy as pushing a button; however, SIGs tend to have a time limit and once you obtain a FIN, your opponent’s guard is way up, so it can be a bit tricky to hit successfully -- especially if they know your move-set.

 

(MED.) IRISH WHIP REBOUND ATTACK -- Once you toss someone to the ropes, they know you have limited options. You could punch them or hit a rebound attack, so the window of success is smaller than a SIG/FIN. It can still be difficult for your opponent to get the timing down, especially since they don’t know if you’re going to attempt an attack right away or after a leapfrog maneuver.

 

(HARD) TOP TURNBUCKLE DIVE ATTACK -- First, you gotta down your opponent and hope they stay down (doesn’t roll away, etc.) and then you gotta climb the turnbuckle and pray that they don’t know what dives you have (harder to time if you don’t know what’s coming) and more than likely, they’ll still be able to move out of the way, as you take your time flying towards them like a sack of potatoes with an open parachute.

[EMP]

I'm still on the fence when it comes to the point system and I know its still in the works.

 

But, what if your caw is not much for top rope character? I know its mostly about doing different moves and what not but, Say Mark Reese I don't see him doing turnbuckle dives so that means his missing out on those points becuase its just not part of his character.

 

Everyone can climb the turnbuckle but, not everyone should if it doesn't fit what your caw is about. I try to not use the dive off anything because its just not how i wanted my caw to be.

 

I'm a striking type person and thats what I try to do most even if the game forces me to pick submission moves and stuff. So should I be deducted points because I want to play to what I wanted my character to be verses doing stuff for style even if it doesn't make sense?

[RustCohle]

Kuddos to you Mike and the effort you put into everything that you do. I like this system a lot actually. Better than the previous one.

[Pugh]

Kuddos to you Mike and the effort you put into everything that you do. I like this system a lot actually. Better than the previous one.

 

That's like saying that you like pizza instead of cars... they're very different things.