dear org owners

[Guest]

Haha, it does look that way, but he offered me the fight in the morning and I held off until night when I got the go ahead to accept it. But I kept logging back on and off to check my PM's to see what he wanted me to do meaning after so many log ins, it would have auto-accepted that fight.

 

But it was still same say, so the statement stands. Lol

 

Ah, I understand.

[Grasman]

Worse than Fighter Deaths?

Yes, worse than that idea, since it gives others power over my fighters, without me having anything to do with it

 

I'd prefer a random roll hidden that possibly killed off fighters at one point in their carreer or decided the age/time of their retirement. I'd hate to get that roll on one of my good fighters, but i could accept that as a part of the sim.

 

But nothing, and i can't stress this enough, NOTHING can get me to accept an "auto accept" fight system put into action.

Personally, i'd rather do away with user run Orgs than "no manager needed" fighters.

[DougSupreme]

Yes, worse than that idea, since it gives others power over my fighters, without me having anything to do with it

 

I'd prefer a random roll hidden that possibly killed off fighters at one point in their carreer or decided the age/time of their retirement. I'd hate to get that roll on one of my good fighters, but i could accept that as a part of the sim.

 

But nothing, and i can't stress this enough, NOTHING can get me to accept an "auto accept" fight system put into action.

Personally, i'd rather do away with user run Orgs than "no manager needed" fighters.

 

Then just make it so if you leave a fight offer on the table for 3days/a week/a month (whatever), and have logged in 5 times since it was offered, you are no longer allowed to do anything on the site except view the scout page and visit the fight offers page. You would essentially be forced to make a decision. Similar to when you lose VIP and you are forced to choose the fighters you want to drop.

[ArtieBanks]

If it was to get implemented put it in the contracts that its there instead of enforcing it. I would just avoid all of the orgs that put it in the contract. Not because i don't accept fights but because i find it taking away the rights you have to the game. You play this game you play it the way you want to. If you wanna be an ass be an ass. If you wanna be a dictator then be a dictator. Either way you should be able to do what you want to do not get forced to do anything. Its a game, it could be worse. It could be that injuries appear when a fighter is training on the lead up to the fight so you need to find new fighters etc to step up.

[Guest]

The way that it was suggested was this: you get three logins. After the third login, you have three days to accept or decline. I think that is more than reasonable. The time could be changed to a week if people really wanted to whine.

 

Grasman, I trust you that you are a great manager who promptly responds to fight offers. However, there is a small but troublesome minority out there who think "Hey, my fighter wants to take six months to train. I'll sign a contract, steal the signing bonus, and not respond to any fight offers."

 

However, I've said it before and I will say it again. If you don't like auto-accept, that's fine. Simply come up with another way to correct the imbalance. Right now, if an org owner chooses to be a jerk and not offer fights, a fighter can escape with his inactivity clause. However, if a fighter chooses to be a jerk and not respond to fight offers, the org owner has no option other than to let this guy steal the signing bonus and release him.

 

There are other suggestions out there to correct it. Pick one of them. I don't care which one.

[Warwynd]

Honestly, when people uncheck the needs fight box they almost never re-check it. They just forget about it. I have had many managers in the past send me nasty mails demanding to know why I was holding them hostage or simply enacting their inactivity clause when they had the needs fight box unchecked the whole time. As a result I admit I never even look at it anymore. If you are healthy and haven't mailed me about time off then you are getting a fight offer. I mostly got tired of seeing managers use the inactivity clause without ever checking the needs fight box. At least the ones who mailed me allowed me to respond and explain why there was no offer, but losing fighters for such a stupid reason was getting too rampant to let stand anymore.

 

I almost never mess with the needs fight or needs contract tick boxes. I have had to turn down several contract offers for one of my newer fighters because of it. It is just not something I pay any attention to. And Org owners don't seem to pay much attention to them either. One of my project fighters was sent three fight offers while I was still training him up and the needs fight box was unticked. I have yet to decline a single fight (although that is likely to change here pretty soon if org owners don't stop sending me unreasonable offers) so I accepted all three of those fights and got my ass handed to me in two of them. So don't make it sound like I am the douchebag for not uncheking a box that the org owners don't pay any attention to anyway.

 

Yeah, I don't even pay attention to the needs fight box because I haven't been in anyones org who used that. They've just always sent me fight offers whenever they see fit and I keep my box checked at all times. I really don't see a huge point in it honestly as if I'm ready to fight I'll accept the fight but if my fighter is hurt or I want a few extra weeks I'll decline it with a little note. I really just don't see the huge deal with the "needs fight" check box.

 

Now the needs contract check box I'll uncheck immediately and then when I'm ready for contracts I'll contact an org owner or uncheck the box. That box I find very useful and to me so far is the only check box that seems relevant.

 

Prett much this.

 

Grasman, you are completely ignoring the fact that time and time again, we have said that going inactive WOULD NOT result in an auto-accept. It would only take effect if you logged in multiple times and did not respond to a fight. If you lost internet access for a week, you would not get forced into a fight. Auto-accept is only being proposed to eliminate the people who log in every day, but refuse to respond to offers.

 

Auto-accept is not necessary for people who go inactive. When an org owner sees a grey or yellow clock next to a fighter's name, he can assume that person is away and cancel the fight offer immediately. Things don't drag on for days or weeks. However, when someone logs in every day, the least they can do is respond to offers.

 

I don't think anyone (at least any more) is suggesting that you would be forced into an auto-accept if your internet went down and you couldn't get online for a week. It would only apply if you logged in and ignored fight offers.

 

They are talking about a great many things concerning this and I cannot see any permutation of it that I would find acceptable.

 

Worse than Fighter Deaths?

 

Was there really a proposal to have fighters keel over dead or get killed in the ring!?!

 

If it was to get implemented put it in the contracts that its there instead of enforcing it. I would just avoid all of the orgs that put it in the contract. Not because i don't accept fights but because i find it taking away the rights you have to the game. You play this game you play it the way you want to. If you wanna be an ass be an ass. If you wanna be a dictator then be a dictator. Either way you should be able to do what you want to do not get forced to do anything. Its a game, it could be worse. It could be that injuries appear when a fighter is training on the lead up to the fight so you need to find new fighters etc to step up.

 

I agree. I would not accept any contract that had a clause like that in it. The bold part would be realistic and interesting. Not sure if I would get behind that either though due to the amount of shite it would cause org owners.

 

The way that it was suggested was this: you get three logins. After the third login, you have three days to accept or decline. I think that is more than reasonable. The time could be changed to a week if people really wanted to whine.

 

Grasman, I trust you that you are a great manager who promptly responds to fight offers. However, there is a small but troublesome minority out there who think "Hey, my fighter wants to take six months to train. I'll sign a contract, steal the signing bonus, and not respond to any fight offers."

 

However, I've said it before and I will say it again. If you don't like auto-accept, that's fine. Simply come up with another way to correct the imbalance. Right now, if an org owner chooses to be a jerk and not offer fights, a fighter can escape with his inactivity clause. However, if a fighter chooses to be a jerk and not respond to fight offers, the org owner has no option other than to let this guy steal the signing bonus and release him.

 

There are other suggestions out there to correct it. Pick one of them. I don't care which one.

 

IT is still possible ot hold fighters hostage for the entire duration of the contract. It is more difficult than it used to be, but not impossible. I will not tell anyone how to do it, but I will say that it is still totally possible to do so. Mike only fixed the douche move where you would check to see if a guy was online or not, then send him a fight offer which you would then retract ten minutes later and reset his inactivity. Now if the fight offer is retracted it doesn't reset inactivity.

[Lockdown]

[Guest]

 

See what you've started. It's like that Org Merger thread from awhile back.

[BigJoeSullivan]

Ok, here is one hypothetical scenario.

Lets say I had a semi developed fighter who has won 6 fights (4 Qfc's) and received semi decent hype as a result, ranked around 1000 p4p.

I get into an accident, lose internet access or whatever else that can cause me to be away from the game for a week or so.

I had no chance to change anything in the game, as this was a sudden thing.

When i get back, I find that my fighter is locked in a fight against a monster project with no fights and a p4p ranking of +28k.

 

There is nothing i can do about it, since the system fucking "auto accepted" the fight.

 

Obviously this is a fight i would under NO CIRCUMSTANCES accept willingly.

 

Still, the fight takes place and the project easily hammers his way through my youngster,possibly adding a KO and injury, which serves only to shorten my fighters fighting carreer.Afterwards, my fighter is ranked c.a. p4p 13k, while the opponent is ranked c.a. 900 p4p.

And just to top that up to complete the fucking disaster, my managers account is suddenly ranked in the 500's.

 

If we had a perfect Tycoon world, completely rid of douschebags and smelly mancunts fucking other players over, this might work, but that simply isn't the case in MMATycoon.

 

In MMATycoon there are some cocky old pricks, playing along with newcomer pricks, abusing anything they can abuse in this game.

 

Hence, any "Auto Feature" that forces a player to take ANY fight, is a very bad and easily abusable idea.

 

So,, from the bottom of my beating Tycoon heart...... FUCK THAT SHIT!

 

 

It's just one fight, how many of these accidents do you have a year? What orgs are you in that they always try to match you with an unfair fight? Doesn't this seem a little far fetched? It could happen...like once..... Yes sometimes asshat bookers make terrible matches. Not everytime though so that it falls just right with your little accident. It's not like he was aware of your little accident.

 

So there should be NO OPTION for anyone to willingly go into this agreement because someone might have an accident and get screwed over ONE fight? Does that really seem fair to you?

[minark]

If it was to get implemented put it in the contracts that its there instead of enforcing it. I would just avoid all of the orgs that put it in the contract. Not because i don't accept fights but because i find it taking away the rights you have to the game. You play this game you play it the way you want to. If you wanna be an ass be an ass. If you wanna be a dictator then be a dictator. Either way you should be able to do what you want to do not get forced to do anything. Its a game, it could be worse. It could be that injuries appear when a fighter is training on the lead up to the fight so you need to find new fighters etc to step up.

 

I'm with Dino. I really don't see me getting stuck in the situation either way but I would still avoid managers who sent contracts with it because I don't think organization owners should have that power. They control everything about the contracts and I don't think auto accept should be a part of that.

[minark]

 

 

See what you've started. It's like that Org Merger thread from awhile back.

 

Lockdown is such an instigator.

[Guest]

If it was to get implemented put it in the contracts that its there instead of enforcing it. I would just avoid all of the orgs that put it in the contract. Not because i don't accept fights but because i find it taking away the rights you have to the game. You play this game you play it the way you want to. If you wanna be an ass be an ass. If you wanna be a dictator then be a dictator. Either way you should be able to do what you want to do not get forced to do anything. Its a game, it could be worse. It could be that injuries appear when a fighter is training on the lead up to the fight so you need to find new fighters etc to step up.

 

Actually, org owners can't choose to be dictators if they want to be dictators. We have org rating and inactivity clauses to prevent org owners from acting like dictators. I am completely in favor of these rules. Org owners should not be able to act like jerks and get away with it. I just think that there also need to be similar rules in place for fighters.

 

 

IT is still possible ot hold fighters hostage for the entire duration of the contract. It is more difficult than it used to be, but not impossible. I will not tell anyone how to do it, but I will say that it is still totally possible to do so. Mike only fixed the douche move where you would check to see if a guy was online or not, then send him a fight offer which you would then retract ten minutes later and reset his inactivity. Now if the fight offer is retracted it doesn't reset inactivity.

 

I already know how to do it, but I am not enough of a jerk to use it, even against someone who deserves it. I would completely support closing this loophole to prevent dishonest org owners from screwing honest fighters. I am not trying to make a huge dictatorship in favor of org owners. I just want rules in place that prevent jerks from ruining everyone else's game experience. As it is, people who don't respond to fight offers are making the game frustrating for other fighters as well as org owners.

 

I'm with Dino. I really don't see me getting stuck in the situation either way but I would still avoid managers who sent contracts with it because I don't think organization owners should have that power. They control everything about the contracts and I don't think auto accept should be a part of that.

 

This isn't about a balance of power. I am in favor of rules for both org owners and fighters that prevent people from taking advantage of each other or holding the game hostage. However, if it was about power, saying that org owners control everything would be the most ridiculous comment I have read in a long time. Every rule that we have in place in regards to contracts is to protect fighters. There is nothing to protect org owners.

[Guest]

To be clear once again, I'm not 100% in favor of auto-accept. I'm simply in favor of rules that prevent abuses. If you don't like this one, come up with another one. Personally, I think the best solution is allowing orgs to rate fighters just as fighters rate orgs. This way, if a guy pulls the kind of crap we are trying to prevent, he will get a bad rating. After he gets released, other org owners will know that it is best to offer this guy a contract with a low signing bonus to avoid getting screwed.

[ArtieBanks]

Actually, org owners can't choose to be dictators if they want to be dictators. We have org rating and inactivity clauses to prevent org owners from acting like dictators. I am completely in favor of these rules. Org owners should not be able to act like jerks and get away with it. I just think that there also need to be similar rules in place for fighters.

 

http://mmatycoon.com/orgupcomingeventpublic.php?EvID=756009

 

events such as this made to hold fighters hostage who refuse to take fights. They are ways around everything. If anything fighters get the short end of the stick. They in most cases do not choose who they are going to fight nor do they get to choose a date when they wish to fight. In most orgs up pops the fight offer in which you have according to most people 3 log in's to accept or decline? With my internet i would be screwed it goes up and down like a yo-yo. Game should be kept the way it is when it comes to Orgs and these sorts of things. Most managers will pay back signing bonuses etc if they end up not wishing to fight in your org. Most org owners make a big deal about it but in the end its fair, sometimes you just don't like the way things are run.

[Eveas]

All the more reason to focus more on fight pay and less on signing bonuses if you do not have prior experience working with a particular manager. Every time I see these $300k bonuses I think to myself this could end badly in so many ways. I am not for auto-anything, and that is coming from an org owner's perspective who at any given time has at least a couple last minute fights to scramble together due to non-replies. You just have to be wise and calculating about how you do business. If you see a Jacky Chan fighter send almost no bonus and raise the pay enough to compensate and make the contract worth it. If he doesn't fight he doesn't get paid. If you see the fighter of a manager who has been loyal and you have good experiences with you can do more up front. In my org many managers have no loyalty to their fighters, because there is no time spent training them up and growing them. I did this on purpose and cannot complain. It is all on me. They are good managers. They usually make new guys to replace them with. I simply adjusted my business plan to place a much greater emphasis on fight pay and less on up front pay. We have been on the low side due to diminished returns on events, but this week we finally turned a corner with PPV's and will be doubling all future contracts. It is all about proper planning.

[Eveas]

http://mmatycoon.com...php?EvID=756009

HWP is a joke. I have no idea how that has been going on for so long.

[Justus]

http://mmatycoon.com...php?EvID=756009

 

events such as this made to hold fighters hostage who refuse to take fights.

 

Wow. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

 

Why would anybody even sign to that org knowing that shit exists and how does that org have an 88% rating?

[minark]

 

 

Wow. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

 

Why would anybody even sign to that org knowing that shit exists and how does that org have an 88% rating?

 

Multi? No idea otherwise.

[ArtieBanks]

Wow. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

 

Why would anybody even sign to that org knowing that shit exists and how does that org have an 88% rating?

 

The fact i think all his fighters are in the org and those of former alliances mates etc. Org ratings mean nothing anyway i have never checked them and i never will when it comes to signing with orgs. I did just check Ascensions. 97% from 35 rating not to shabby.

[Rambo]

No "Auto accept" fights, no freaking way. It would be abused by some org owners on managers/fighters whom are temporarily inactive.

 

There are some class act org owners, but there are some bad weasels also also amoongst them, hence any auto accepting of fights is a VERY BAD IDEA..

 

Personally i want my old fighters (30+) to fight every 2 weeks, but keep getting fight offers 4 weeks away, often 2 weeks after his last fight. Hence, my fighters sometimes have to wait 6 weeks between fights... THAT SUCKS for old figthers, and damn right i pull them from orgs who cant provide more frequent fights.

 

I want my "middle aged" fighters (22-29) to fight at least every 3 weeks, but my fighting youngsters once a month

 

Fuck waiting a month or more between fights,, fuck that shit with a HUGE silver trout.

 

Amen. I want no more than 16 days between fights for every fighter with the exception of fighters 20 years old or younger. If they aren't injured I'm willing to accept 2-4 fights a week if it was possible... which it isn't... just putting it out there - org owners get on your grind!.

 

 

Auto-accept fight: Absolutely not. Plenty of people decline fights against my fighters but I don't want to see anybody forced to auto accept an ass-kicking delivered by the KO King. If you're scared, it's okay, you should be

 

Signing Bonus/Base Pay/Win Bonus: Win, Lose, or Draw you got to pay me, bitch!

[Eveas]

If they aren't injured I'm willing to accept 2-4 fights a week if it was possible... which it isn't...

2-3 per week is very possible. I had some people go through stints like that in my org plenty of times when they are on a hot quick KO streak and don't blow their energy. Twice per week is common place while 3 times usually comes down to fighter health.

[Guest]

If you see a Jacky Chan fighter send almost no bonus and raise the pay enough to compensate and make the contract worth it. If he doesn't fight he doesn't get paid.

 

This is what I currently do with bad managers, but if you haven't dealt with a manager before, you don't know if he is trustworthy or not. It is all fine and good to say "just offer him less of a signing bonus until you know him", but more often than not, that lower signing bonus is going to cause good managers to sign elsewhere.

 

I'm completely willing to drop the idea of auto-accept in exchange for the ability for org owners to either rate or to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" fighters. When I am recruiting and I see a guy with a bad rating, I can offer him a lower signing bonus until he proves himself. If he has a good rating, I can give him a big signing bonus and lower fight pay.

[Eveas]

If it is added to their base pay they still end up getting the same amount of money. Only a greedy manager would demand it all up front before they earn any of it, and honestly I don't want that type in my org anyways. I have refused many contracts, because I thought the bonus was obscene, so it goes both ways. Any org that sends me something like that won't get my fighter.

[Guest]

If it is added to their base pay they still end up getting the same amount of money. Only a greedy manager would demand it all up front before they earn any of it, and honestly I don't want that type in my org anyways. I have refused many contracts, because I thought the bonus was obscene, so it goes both ways. Any org that sends me something like that won't get my fighter.

 

It is a little different in ID restricted orgs. A lot of the managers want or need a big signing bonus because they cannot afford a good gym without it. By lowering signing bonuses for all managers I don't know, it severely limits my recruiting. In the end, it is not about the money for me. It is about identifying the bad seeds so that they can be avoided or given a contract that will discourage their abuses without losing tons of good managers in the process.

[minark]

What about like a probationary tag? Basically, use a thumbs down and thumbs up that is seen only by the manager who receives the rating until he reaches a certain amount of bad ratings. For example, he gets a bad rating by one organization then he's the only one who knows and sees the rating. Now you continue to anger managers and say out of 10 contracted you have 4 bad reviews. So it's about a 40% negative rating. Once you hit a certain negative percentage after say 5 total ratings, then the rating becomes public. So say 3 out of 5 have rated you a thumbs down, now you get a probationary tag for some length of time. Say you have 10 days to clear a certain percentage of those bad ratings and then the tag is off. If you don't then you have an extended period of time with the tag until you can clear your name and get that bad rating percentage off your record.

 

I know it's not perfect but it cuts down on the sample size issue and makes it so a bad rating from a bad org owner doesn't stay with you forever. If anyone has improvements on this, I'd love to hear them and hash things out but I figured throwing out an alternative was better than re-iterating why I don't like auto-accept or an every rating counts thing.