I have faith in Mike Tycoon.

[clipper3252]

Hey dont forget tiki and van arsdale lmfao

[Guest]

when I made my toast this morning, I swear there was a likeness of Mike on one of the pieces

[Blindsided]

Here's an idea. Quit bitching. If Mike thinks that his game will be improved by this then he can do it. It's not going to ruin the game.

[Guest]

i <3 Mike Tycoon

 

no homo

[Guest]

I'm of the opinion that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". And in my opinion, the game was awesome before the changes. But what do I know? I'll roll with whatever, but there was nothing wrong with how the game was before.

[Guest]

One think that might help is instead of having ages 18-22 for new fighters make it ages 21-25 or something (perhaps tweak the starting points slightly, especially for physicals). You would also add say 3 or 4 years to all fighters currently in existence. That way if the game speed is not changed, fighters will be hitting realistic ages to peak right now instead of at 21. This will man they are in the game slightly less as well, which will increase fighter turnover and get some of the beasts that have been created using old methods out of the system faster.

 

This could mean Mike would have to consider the age at which peoples stats begin to drop off and how good gains they get from gyms etc (I maintain about 33-35 is a fair age for retirement and perhaps 31 for stat degradation, even if it isnt entirely realistic).

 

Of course I expect some people will hate this, please make an effort to argue a point instead of calling me a twat and riding off into the sunset

[Guest]

Why does everyone want to speed up their fighters retirement? I like my fighters.

 

IMO the faster the fighter turnover, the faster the manager turnover.

[Guest]

Why does everyone want to speed up their fighters retirement? I like my fighters.

 

IMO the faster the fighter turnover, the faster the manager turnover.

 

So do I, but you can have the same fighters for ~4 years currently. 4 years! That is HUGE in any game like this. If its a management game I personally would expect a bit of turnover in my fighters. No game has kept me continually interested for that long.

 

Also, because of the speed of changes, tweaking etc fighters were made in ways in which they would not be able to now. Do you, or others, think it is fair to have managers owning fighters that may very well be impossible for anyone else to have, for the next 4 years?

 

This isnt a dig, I would love an answer. Think about if you started today and saw what the was possible last year, is still around, but wont be feasible soon.

 

Saying 'bootstraps' or 'they should just make do' or 'you cant be the best when you just joined' is not an answer because its not about being the best now, its about the same fighters being the best for the next 4 years and it being very hard to catch up.

 

Mike probably has thought of this, and may very well have an idea how to combat it. Here is one way I think he could is all.

 

Edit: I will hopefully be playing long after my fighters are retired should this game keep being interesting. Also, I think I have fired about 10 fighters. Mostly because my first few batches were made badly and would have little hope of being competitive. Now I have got better at making new guys I wont have that problem (I hope). Still I dont want the same 15 fighters for my whole in game career...

[Guest]

Well I routinely fight guys who are 40k ids lower than my guys, guys who have had been reaping the benefits of top training for a long time with all these advantages. I also routinely beat them, so I don't have much sympathy.

 

Also, by saying that no game has such slow turnover and no game holds your interest for that long kind of proves my point, no? Maybe this game will?

[Guest]

Well I routinely fight guys who are 40k ids lower than my guys, guys who have had been reaping the benefits of top training for a long time with all these advantages. I also routinely beat them, so I don't have much sympathy.

 

Also, by saying that no game has such slow turnover and no game holds your interest for that long kind of proves my point, no? Maybe this game will?

 

As much as I believe you, that is anecdotal evidence. Not everyone can say the same (in fact logically the opposite is true more likely).

 

Hmm that is fair to say, I personally dont think that will hold true though (might not be the same for others). The reason I enjoy this game is less to do with the pacing or even the content and a lot more to do with JMFC to be honest, that and I think now Ive got a better handle on how this game works I can do better at it.

 

I want to have managed a lot of good fighters by the time I deceide to stop, I dont want to wait ~4 years to do it (again this might just be me).

 

Getting one or two good fighters through currently is part luck on hiddens, part getting the best possible training and part sliders. Id love to see more generations of fighters and see if the very best managers around now are still the very best after a few cycles

 

 

[Guest]

One think that might help is instead of having ages 18-22 for new fighters make it ages 21-25 or something (perhaps tweak the starting points slightly, especially for physicals). You would also add say 3 or 4 years to all fighters currently in existence. That way if the game speed is not changed, fighters will be hitting realistic ages to peak right now instead of at 21. This will man they are in the game slightly less as well, which will increase fighter turnover and get some of the beasts that have been created using old methods out of the system faster.

 

This could mean Mike would have to consider the age at which peoples stats begin to drop off and how good gains they get from gyms etc (I maintain about 33-35 is a fair age for retirement and perhaps 31 for stat degradation, even if it isnt entirely realistic).

 

Of course I expect some people will hate this, please make an effort to argue a point instead of calling me a twat and riding off into the sunset

 

personally, i think this makes a lot of sense. The part about it beign 21-25 instead of 18-22. Totally in favor of it. As it is guys starting at 18 are gettign wonderful across the board by like 21

[MMATycoon]

I'm certainly not opposed to it. Now we have a two tiered QFC system the 23+ year olds would just go into the second tier so there would be no inequality in QFCs (the initial reason for making it 22).

[skintchicken]

what i don't understand about all the people that are bitching about these changes (and seemingly any other change ever) is that these changes will apply to everyone, not just some fighters. all managers will be effected just the same. that's why i am fine with it. as long as we all have the same set of rules i'm good.

 

i know i complain about things at times, but if i remember correctly, i mostly complain about stuff in the forums (like the recent decision to make and enforce stricter behavior rules in the forums).

[thegroovemonkey]

The new change to cardio and strength training is great for nutrition companies. Supp companies put a lot of money into quality muscle bulk and stamina supps, only to have them sit on the shelves because a fighter only needs 1 or 2 of them to get to the desired level while recovery sups are a bi weekly need. Now that gains have been slowed, fighters and managers will have to buy more muscle and stamina supps.

[ajperok]

I brought this up in another thread...

 

There are a total of 3339 available points in fighter development (159 * 21 = 3339 or is it 149 * 21?)

 

 

REGARDLESS, it doesn't matter how "fast" we train, that's all about game speed in relation to real life. What matters is what % of that FINITE #3339 will the top fighters be able to achieve? Right now I'm estimating that is over 80%. THAT IS TOO HIGH, IMO.

I wouldn't care if guys trained 10x faster then they do now, as long as they could never achieve instead of 80% of the total available points maybe 40% before they started to decline.

[Anon]

One think that might help is instead of having ages 18-22 for new fighters make it ages 21-25 or something (perhaps tweak the starting points slightly, especially for physicals). You would also add say 3 or 4 years to all fighters currently in existence. That way if the game speed is not changed, fighters will be hitting realistic ages to peak right now instead of at 21. This will man they are in the game slightly less as well, which will increase fighter turnover and get some of the beasts that have been created using old methods out of the system faster.

 

This could mean Mike would have to consider the age at which peoples stats begin to drop off and how good gains they get from gyms etc (I maintain about 33-35 is a fair age for retirement and perhaps 31 for stat degradation, even if it isnt entirely realistic).

 

Of course I expect some people will hate this, please make an effort to argue a point instead of calling me a twat and riding off into the sunset

 

Great points in both this post and the other.

 

I'd actually suggest something slightly more moderate: Start fighters at 20-24 (same points as for 18-22 year olds now except 20 more points for physicals at all ages because there now is a tradeoff if you go 1/10) and raise all current fighters' ages by 2 years.

 

I'd start aging at 30 (which is later than realistic, even though not even you seem to agree), hitting hard enough that the best 26 year olds are better than the best 32 year olds. Some would retire their guys at 30 rather than playing the downside of their careers, while others would hang on as long as their fighters could win in some org and play until 35.

 

Most of the best fighters would be 28-30, meaning you'd have to play a year and a half or two years in real life time to reach the top, an acceptable length, and hopefully this would be enough impression that fighters can't get 80% of available points but more like 60-65%, which at least requires some diversity and weaknesses.

[Guest]

Great points in both this post and the other.

 

I'd actually suggest something slightly more moderate: Start fighters at 20-24 (same points as for 18-22 year olds now except 20 more points for physicals at all ages because there now is a tradeoff if you go 1/10) and raise all current fighters' ages by 2 years.

 

I'd start aging at 30 (which is later than realistic, even though not even you seem to agree), hitting hard enough that the best 26 year olds are better than the best 32 year olds. Some would retire their guys at 30 rather than playing the downside of their careers, while others would hang on as long as their fighters could win in some org and play until 35.

 

Most of the best fighters would be 28-30, meaning you'd have to play a year and a half or two years in real life time to reach the top, an acceptable length, and hopefully this would be enough impression that fighters can't get 80% of available points but more like 60-65%, which at least requires some diversity and weaknesses.

30 yrs old isnt the declining age for most fighters. However who knows how much coding it would take to factor in how many fights as well as how long the fights are in relation to a fighter losing a step. etc. People who have been in long wars and are 30 compared to someone who has had all 1st round ko's at 30 are going to decline differently.

[Guest]

I'm certainly not opposed to it. Now we have a two tiered QFC system the 23+ year olds would just go into the second tier so there would be no inequality in QFCs (the initial reason for making it 22).

 

What are you responding to here Mike? Because if its eliminating the ability to start fighters at 18 I will be really sad.

 

Please allow people to get invested in this game in the long term. People are over reacting to things, don't do anything drastic.

[Anon]

What are you responding to here Mike? Because if its eliminating the ability to start fighters at 18 I will be really sad.

 

Please allow people to get invested in this game in the long term. People are over reacting to things, don't do anything drastic.

 

So a fighter should be able to keep getting better for 4 real life years, and be a stud at 21 and almost perfect at 25, then stay almost perfect for over a real-life year?

 

Mike can't let past mistakes and people's status quo bias stop him from doing what's right for the game.

 

I understand the appeal and fun of starting a fighter very young, but the problem is that he won't get old for 4 real-life years and can lord over the game for 2-3 of those years, along with the other fighters created at the same time.

[djohn]

So a fighter should be able to keep getting better for 4 real life years, and be a stud at 21 and almost perfect at 25, then stay almost perfect for over a real-life year?

 

Mike can't let past mistakes and people's status quo bias stop him from doing what's right for the game.

 

I understand the appeal and fun of starting a fighter very young, but the problem is that he won't get old for 4 real-life years and can lord over the game for 2-3 of those years, along with the other fighters created at the same time.

 

 

Show me a single fighter in this game that is perfect or near at 25. Just becuz there primaries are better than yours, or even astronomically thru the roof, doesn't mean that the fighter is perfect. You're continuing to put way too much weight on primaries alone. I've had fighters as old as 25 that I cut cuz they ended up not being able to stay competitive with older or younger guys.

 

How is he going to Lord over the game for 4 years if there are other fighters in the game the same age or older?

 

You have fighters that are 23, I have fighters that are 19. Obviously my fighters will never be able to catch yours, you're just lording over the game.

 

[Guest]

So a fighter should be able to keep getting better for 4 real life years, and be a stud at 21 and almost perfect at 25, then stay almost perfect for over a real-life year?

 

Mike can't let past mistakes and people's status quo bias stop him from doing what's right for the game.

 

I understand the appeal and fun of starting a fighter very young, but the problem is that he won't get old for 4 real-life years and can lord over the game for 2-3 of those years, along with the other fighters created at the same time.

 

You say this but fighters routinely fall off the top of the P4P charts. The top 5 has a 30,000 variance in creation ID's. None of them are maxed and only one has an Elite skill in any discipline.

 

If someone plays an online game for 4 real life years, then yes if they had one fighter the whole time that should be pretty close to the top of the experience. Even at what... barely 18 months...? This game has very few of it's initial managers and even fewer of those managers have fighters created as part of their initial batch. This is how MMOs work.

 

It just won't happen, this isn't WoW and even for WoW 4 year constant players are not the norm, they are the dedicated minority.

[MMATycoon]

I didn't even see they put 21-25, I just assumed it was 18-25... I wouldn't ever make a the minimum age higher.

[Guest]

I understand tweaking benefits from training classes with more people signed up but taking away benefit from 1 on 1 training is total bullshit.

I'm confused. Where was this stated?

 

[Guest]

The point to me is that there is something done. I do think the fact we have monsters at 21 is a problem. Of course these guys are only going to get better. Talking about p4p is only slightly relevant, if at all.

 

A fighter who is around for FOUR ACTUAL YEARS, is a huge amount of time. Maybe a lot of people dont think so, but I for one do.

 

As for perfect fighters, there are no such thing, but there really should be no 21 year olds who can dominate most other fighters, currently there are a lot. I wont even bother linking any because it should be common knowledge by now.

 

For Mike: The reason I suggest I higher minimum age is because of two reasons. 1- Right now 1-1 gyms mean 21 year old monsters (who trained there) will be around for a fucking age, dominating the game and not getting any worse for a long time. Putting the age up (and adding 4 years to every fighter already created) will mean this affect is minimised. 2- 4 years real time is huge, in my opinion. No one should be around for that long. YB Sol is struggling now, but I bet you anything (that without changes you can make) the new breed, who are 100 times better than he ever was, will not have the same problem for a long long time.

[Guest]

I'm confused. Where was this stated?

 

This wasnt said at all. Some poeple cant read and just project their fears into every post.

 

1-1 should always be good. I dont think it should be as good as it is right now, but its something pretty low on my priority of concerns.