That would be the case depending on what the fighter’s contract situation is and what the reading of the division is. There are reasons other than weight that De La Hoya, Mayweather, Canelo, etc etc etc in recent times move weights in that it’s not the belt but the opponent/fight/pay day. There’s no glamour or necessarily money in being undisputed. It’s just a label. You make the fights where the money is not to hold onto the belts. That said it’s a cool label and we all agree that it shouldn’t be punitive. Far from it.
@KDS1000
Are you in the beta group?
We have been looking at this over the course of the evening in terms of how number of titles held is perhaps OP when calculating contract value in those instances when number of titles is not directly controlled by the player. As is our enthusiasm 
we have changed the emphasis towards number of title fight wins with number of titles currently held still relevant but less so. We think that actually solves most of the issue you describe. (ie much smaller “penalty” in terms of the contract value for vacating).
We will put this in the beta group as well as run tests. As ever, we improve our game through continuous incremental improvements.
1 Like
I think the way you should introduce mandatory challengers in the game is it would only occur if there isn’t a challenger when a champ has more then one belt if that makes any sense
Yeah that would be better.
Your spot on. The penalty factor for vacating is so sever at the moment. For example:-
My heavyweight fighter’s guaranteed fee is $50m because he is undisputed. If I vacate a title I will still have to pay him $50 but earn less gate receipts and sponsorship which makes a massive loss.
Now in the old three title version. I was having heavyweight fights bringing in $107m per fight.
Because of the extra dynamic of a 4th title making undisputed challengers rarer, this is the most I have gotten.
So yeah it is just tweaking, either in the code that determines how often the computer fights, less penalties for having to vacate and fights not getting pissed off for something beyond your control (especially if they are the GOAT and undisputed)
Yeah we see that. What has happened is that the fourth title has simply stretched the process much further than was the case with three.
We have looked at it overnight (such is our unbounded enthusiasm :)) and think we have a better system. It means that contract values will stabilise for champions and be less fluid now we’re in a world of 4 belts and countless permutations. This will appear on beta later today we hope. it will mean a change in all contract values up and down when it kicks in to existing games and contracts 
1 Like
Have a look at how many undisputed champions fight on as undisputed. It’s incredibly rare. They either move weight or vacate belts due to politics. Like it or not this side of the game is very accurate to real life.
Agreed.
We have though off the back of this thread changed the emphasis on titles held and the problem that is being spoken of here is now fixed in our test versions. It’s much better and fairer.
1 Like
I have no problem with vacating titles.
The problem is what has been stated above that the penalties of becoming the best were severe as it was harder to find challengers and there are massive financial penalties for something beyond the players control.
There is a fine balance between creating realism and creating something so realistic that the game gets boring and no one plays it anymore.
IronMike has done the right thing and I praise him for reworking it.
Thing is, there has only been 6 undisputed Champions in the 4 belt era. Which shows how rare it is. For me it’s way to easy to get undisputed in the game currently.
What would end up happening if these rules weren’t in place is every single title would pretty much be undisputed, which would just be stupid. I used to be against the system, but I personally now think it works great.
The contract side of being undisputed is a different thing all together and I agree looking at it was the right thing.
er, seven with Gervonta Davis surely…? 
Ha now if you had said Teofimo you might have an argument there.
1 Like
Wow and after all that @KDS1000 goes and writes a review on the App Store that the game mechanics are broken!
Just for the record not all fighters in the game will end up as heavyweights and the ranking system is not broken and why someone put those untrue negatives into a review is simply beyond us.
We fight on… 
Damn that’s harsh. What other games can you chat to the game developer who makes changes on your recommendation. And then write a bad review. Damn 
. Some people your just never going to please I guess.
1 Like
IronMike,
That was not a bad review (four stars) and I sent it on Tuesday before we spoke.
I stated the truth. But said the game is good and could be great. The mechanics need some work but it is a good game…
With the changes you will get a 5 start review.
We didn’t say you’d written a bad review.
We said you’d written stuff that’s not correct, not least that all fighters will eventually be heavyweight (?!?!) or that the game is stunted by the ranking methodology.
As we discovered, the point you were actually making was about titles being OP in contract value not the ranking method itself as well as your unwillingness to vacate a title as a consequence.
Anyway, beta version out now with those changes…
Yeah it was me that said bad review, and before I had read it so my bad.
Though I don’t really think the mechanics are bad like you state. You could just have signed a new contact when dropping titles. Though Iv not seen the update yet but I’m assuming it now adjusts automatically after you vacate. It used to do that anyway so looks like a good change.
I think what needs appreciated is that boxing irl is like the Wild West. There are literally no rules. Look at where Dillian White is ranked outside WBC for example (he isn’t!). So the devs are essentially creating rules to make the game work as close to boxing as they can. They way the mechanics work mean that belts are dropped and gained in the background. Hugely important. If those rules were not there then every belt would be undisputed by the time the player gets into a title winning position. Making it crazy hard to get a title shot and incredibly unrealistic.
We actually have to make it quite unrealistic is in order to make the game playable. In regular life most fighters have no rankings to speak of, most champions are excluded from others and a lot of the time there is simply no comparison with the fighters in one top 20 of an organisation and those of another. That’s obviously bullshit for all concerned so what we have in Boxing Manager is something that’s about achieving realism against playability.
It’s like mandatory defences. They will halve the number of opportunities to make the fights managers want as opposed to being enforced even if superficially they seem like a good feature. So we sacrifice that realism until we can work out a way to make it more playable. This will probably be much bigger/wider eligibility for voluntary defence contenders than at present (all title fights are voluntary at present) and then fixed mandatories the rest of the time.
We appreciate these discussions because, as we’ve seen, we get a much cooler game as a result.
2 Likes
Can I ask?
Is it just you working on this game IronMike / Alex? Or?
Very impressive if you are.
Something like that yeah.
We now also have some other people locked in A room doing this for android.
But this is as you describe for everything iOS.
1 Like
