UFC 2010 Undisputed Overall Ratings Revealed

[sb24]

I dont have a problem with this. I dont think we will see the top guys used all the time now.

[Steve_OS]

For those that still don't believe what I said earlier, one of the Gamezone editors shared w/ me this screenshot. I've been working on getting 360 code, but have no luck. Oh well.

[UNC_Pete]

Even though the ratings are all in the 70s, maybe some of the lower guys have less skills than the higher guys??

[jeremym480]

Quote: Originally Posted by UNC_Pete

Even though the ratings are all in the 70s, maybe some of the lower guys have less skills than the higher guys??

I sure hope so...

[SA1NT401]

I am pretty sure those ratings are so close to each other for no other reason except for making all fighters relatively even for online play so no one fighter would have THAT much of an advantage over the other.

Guess they want people to feel they can select any fighter and still have a EVEN match up....

All fighters seem pretty much the same...WEAK. Hope they change that. But i dont really go online that often so it doesnt bother me that much...

If the 1st paragraph is true....wHATS THE POINT of having so many fighters is they are all more or less equal? Maybe they want fight styles to really be the deciding advantage factor IDK.

Bet they will be changed by the time retail drops.

GSP a 79? WOW....Should be like an 89-95. Guess we will be running into CAF way more than real ones since you can get your CAF up to a 100 with good training.

[filtertmp]

Quote: Originally Posted by SA1NT401

GSP a 79? WOW....Should be like an 89-95. Guess we will be running into CAF way more than real ones since you can get your CAF up to a 100 with good training.

The scale is relative... GSP's rating doesn't matter as its the highest, the only thing you might argue is the lack of distinction between him and the 2nd best welterweight (and third and so on). What if for instance the limit for the real fighters is set at 80 instead of 100? I'd say its fair to score gsp 79/80 as long as grease application isnt a stat (zing.)


As for the CAF having higher ratings, it was the same in the last iteration but there was a filter in matchmaking to avoid CAF fights (something I used often when I found out 99% of created fighters were 6'6" with 115 in sub offense, etc.) Hopefully the same option is in 2010.

[Jukeman]

I have no problem with the ratings, im glad they are low, now lets hope they actually mean something.

Not pissed about the 10 point difference from highest to lowest, it is the UFC and Donna wants the best, plus now online wont be the same 8-10 fighters all the time...

Also move sets might make fighters different more so than the OVERALL rating(Level 3 vs Level 1)

Im more interested on how the other stats look...

[DJ]

How is Rumble the lowest-rated WW? That's nuts.

Can CAF achieve ratings in the 90's? If so, I'm sure you'll be seeing tons of CAF'ers online this year as they'll wind up being more powerful than the actual fighters.