Exclusive Elite gyms with few members and low fees

[backelie]

Here's one loophole for you:

 

There is a cap on gym fees for a reason. The cap on gym fees implies that a gym shouldn't get more money per fighter than that. Pretty much the point of a cap, right? The ability to push in money via joining several times in the same week was removed for this reason.

One thing you can still do though, is join one or more gyms (every week) that you're not going to be training at, eg make a personal gym with just a few slots, then have ALL your fighters join it, one by one, on sunday, or right before fees or whatever. BAM, extra money for the gym for no real benefit to the fighters who just join and drop.

 

 

[Guest]

Here's one loophole for you:

 

There is a cap on gym fees for a reason. The cap on gym fees implies that a gym shouldn't get more money per fighter than that. Pretty much the point of a cap, right? The ability to push in money via joining several times in the same week was removed for this reason.

One thing you can still do though, is join one or more gyms (every week) that you're not going to be training at, eg make a personal gym with just a few slots, then have ALL your fighters join it, one by one, on sunday, or right before fees or whatever. BAM, extra money for the gym for no real benefit to the fighters who just join and drop.

 

exactly

[backelie]

One of the few things that actually irk me on this forum (and it seems to come up again and again) is when people imply that suggestions aimed at a more even playing field just spring out of jealousy. There are fair advantages that come with being successful, but that doesn't mean any possible advantage we can find or buy is fair.

[Guest]

I know its ridiculous. That was the point.

 

But what loopholes? What funneling? How are you exploiting loopholes or funneling money when you have accumulated enough money to do this? Its not, and its not hurting anyone. Are better fighters not supposed to accept better contracts because then they'd have more money than you - which apparently means they are exploiting the loophole of being too good? You could easily do this yourself if you chose to.

 

well I have nearly 2 million my friends starts a clothing company charges $300 a shirt I buy a 1000 of them whats 300,000 to me then he closes the clothing company and opens a gym with 12elites trainers for 20 of our fighters , and we get to 1 sessions with elite trainers .

 

thats cool right he accumlated the money .

 

you don't see it as a problem cause your enjoying the advantage , it's funny all the managers of influence all have no problem with these personal gyms why cause they are all in them .

 

everyone went crazy when steve had one before anyone else and created a crazy fighter , so mad in fact that steve retired the fighter cause everyone said he was cheating . now they are in every city but it;s cool

[MattyBlayze]

exactly

 

Well, except not exactly. Nothing says companies need to be profitable immediately. Nothing says a gym owner can't use his personal money to fund a gym as he pleases. If he loses all his money, eventually he'll lose his gym and his VIP. He'll need to do something to be profitable, or he won't be around.

 

Next thing you are going to want to restrict is orgs being open by people who previously owned another company, and, thus, have more than the 50k loan to start with. I mean, if we're trying to be "fair" (which I don't think is a good word since ANYONE can do this), its not "fair" to org owners that have to start with 50k and then have someone come in with 200k because they used to have a successful company or they have several successful fighters and start.

 

And while we're at it, let's restrict nutrition companies as well. Its not "fair" that some people can only make 140 quality to start and some people have more than 50k and can start at 150 quality.

 

You know what, to make it "fair", we should just not use money in this game, and then everything will be equal.

 

Is it only me who thinks these things are ridiculous? This is the slope you are trying to go down...

 

[santa]

well I have nearly 2 million my friends starts a clothing company charges $300 a shirt I buy a 1000 of them whats 300,000 to me then he closes the clothing company and opens a gym with 12elites trainers for 20 of our fighters , and we get to 1 sessions with elite trainers .

 

thats cool right he accumlated the money .

 

you don't see it as a problem cause your enjoying the advantage , it's funny all the managers of influence all have no problem with these personal gyms why cause they are all in them .

 

everyone went crazy when steve had one before any else else and created a crazy fighter , so mad in fact that steve retired the fighter cause everyone said he was cheating . now they are in every city but it;s cool

 

I do that myself, in some kind of way. And it should be forbidden. But it is fair in some wicked way because you could do it theoreticaly.

 

 

 

But it is clearly unfair that you can have a clothing company selling stuff and using that money at the same time for a gym because you have 2 companies.

[backelie]

Well, except not exactly. Nothing says companies need to be profitable immediately. Nothing says a gym owner can't use his personal money to fund a gym as he pleases. If he loses all his money, eventually he'll lose his gym and his VIP. He'll need to do something to be profitable, or he won't be around.

Except coach fees are microscopic compared to the potential income from an org, coach fees are even low compared to a really minor org, or the income from a few really good fighters. Right now moderate success = much better training than most for a very long time.

 

1) Next thing you are going to want to restrict is orgs being open by people who previously owned another company, and, thus, have more than the 50k loan to start with. I mean, if we're trying to be "fair" (which I don't think is a good word since ANYONE can do this), its not "fair" to org owners that have to start with 50k and then have someone come in with 200k because they used to have a successful company or they have several successful fighters and start.

 

2) And while we're at it, let's restrict nutrition companies as well. Its not "fair" that some people can only make 140 quality to start and some people have more than 50k and can start at 150 quality.

1) No one is suggesting this, and you can still grow a successful org from the seed of a 50k loan.

2) Nor is anyone suggesting this at all.

 

This is the slope you are trying to go down...

No it's not. I think ridiculing ideas for increased fairness by claiming they want to take away ALL advantages is what's really ridiculous.

[MattyBlayze]

1) No one is suggesting this, and you can still grow a successful org from the seed of a 50k loan.

2) Nor is anyone suggesting this at all.

 

I realize no one is suggesting this, but it'll be next (which is what I said previously).

 

When people asked for increased gym fees, many, myself included, argued that it was unnecessary, and would eventually lead to people saying $600 wasn't enough, and we need $700 or $1000. Everyone said, "No, we just need $600 and that will be perfect." Last week or so, someone posted asking for increased gym fees.

 

When people asked for more fighters, many, myself included, argued that it was unnecessary, and would eventually lead to people saying 15 fighters wasn't enough, and we need 20. This week, I see a thread asking for 20 fighters.

 

So, I will restate...this is the slope you are going down. Now you say, "Orgs and nutrition companies are fine, but gyms are unfair." Tomorrow, you will say, "Gyms were unfair, and we changed that, we should change orgs and nutrition companies because they are unfair for the same reasons". (I'm using the plural "you", not signaling anyone out)

 

[backelie]

I realize no one is suggesting this, but it'll be next (which is what I said previously).

 

When people asked for increased gym fees, many, myself included, argued that it was unnecessary, and would eventually lead to people saying $600 wasn't enough, and we need $700 or $1000. Everyone said, "No, we just need $600 and that will be perfect." Last week or so, someone posted asking for increased gym fees.

 

When people asked for more fighters, many, myself included, argued that it was unnecessary, and would eventually lead to people saying 15 fighters wasn't enough, and we need 20. This week, I see a thread asking for 20 fighters.

 

So, I will restate...this is the slope you are going down. Now you say, "Orgs and nutrition companies are fine, but gyms are unfair." Tomorrow, you will say, "Gyms were unfair, and we changed that, we should change orgs and nutrition companies because they are unfair for the same reasons". (I'm using the plural "you", not signaling anyone out)

 

Neither the idea that 'because we changed one thing we have to change another' nor the idea that 'we must not change one thing because it will lead to futher changes' is valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

 

We can judge each demand for "fairness" on its on merit. Is there something "unfair" related to gyms at the moment? IMO, yes, because there are ways to make so much money that bleeding thousands per week doesn't matter. It's not unrealistic, if you're a multi-millionaire IRL you can also build your own gym with the best possible coaches, but it's simply not good, balanced gameplay.

 

Should gym fees go up to 700 or 1000? Possibly. Under the current system, I don't personally think they need to. But it's something that has pros and cons, neither of which are directly related to the jump from 500 to 600. We (Mike) can 'just say no' at any point, and at no point can we argue that just because something was changed previously something else need to be changed now, except in the cases where a previous change increased a problem and we need a new change to set it right.

 

I think we will see future overhauls to pretty much every aspect of the game - nutrition quality, research costs, org incomes/expenses, gym features/costs and so on. This is a great game, but the economy is the least good part and there are tons of possible changes and saying no to changes on the basis that it's all one big slippery slope down to standardized gym or orgs/companies with no variance in the name of fairness is really silly. I see nothing that points to that at all. Some parts "need" to be more "fair", but only up to a certain point. Calls for increased "fairness" isn't gonna put us on an unstoppable slide into blandness.

[MattyBlayze]

Neither the idea that 'because we changed one thing we have to change another' nor the idea that 'we must not change one thing because it will lead to futher changes' is valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

 

We can judge each demand for "fairness" on its on merit. Is there something "unfair" related to gyms at the moment? IMO, yes, because there are ways to make so much money that bleeding thousands per week doesn't matter. It's not unrealistic, if you're a multi-millionaire IRL you can also build your own gym with the best possible coaches, but it's simply not good, balanced gameplay.

 

Should gym fees go up to 700 or 1000? Possibly. Under the current system, I don't personally think they need to. But it's something that has pros and cons, neither of which are directly related to the jump from 500 to 600. We can "just say no" at any point, and at no point can we argue that just because something was changed previously something else need to be changed now, except in the cases where a previous change increased a problem and we need a new change to set it right.

 

Beyond the fact that you just used wikipedia to try to prove a point...

 

It really comes down to your definition of "fair" apparently.

 

In my view, "fair" is allowing people to reap the benefits of their hard work, and not providing obstacles or hindering their "approach to perfection", if you will, and not allowing that because younger or worse fighters don't have the money for that is unfair.

 

EDIT: I responded before you edited, but my same response applies. I don't deny that the Tycoon economy is "whack", but that's what we need to work on fixing in the name of "fairness" - I don't see this "gym fixing" as being fair as you appear to be arguing.

[backelie]

In my view, "fair" is allowing people to reap the benefits of their hard work

I'm not against this, and I don't think anyone is, but think the work/reward ratio is a bit out of balance when it comes to the effect income can have on training.

 

 

Edit: I wasn't mainly arguing for fixing gyms here though, rather pointing out that the argument "this is gonna lead to that" is pretty much downright objectively wrong

[MattyBlayze]

I'm not against this, and I don't think anyone is, but think the work/reward ratio is a bit out of balance when it comes to the effect income can have on training.

 

 

Edit: I wasn't mainly arguing for fixing gyms here though, rather pointing out that the argument "this is gonna lead to that" is pretty much downright objectively wrong

 

There are definitely holes in the "slippery slope" argument, but it wouldn't be the first time its happened here, and, in the end, I think it all comes full circle with my argument whenever an improvement is suggested that I view as a "quick fix".

 

I think viewing the private gym situation, and assuming the correct handling is to "outlaw" this in some way is short-sighted because I don't think the problem is with gyms at all. I think, and you apparently agree from your comments, that the economy is really the greater issue here. Changing gyms to instill a minimum cap, or adding a minimum coach-to-fighter ratio, or anything is not really going to fix the broader problem.

 

Now, I'm not going to claim I have all the answers, but I think we can much better spend 15 pages of a forum thread on coming up with ideas to fix the economy which, in turn, will make this "gym issue" a non-issue plus provide lots of other goodies that are so plentiful I bet we haven't even discovered half of them yet.

 

So, I'll put it out there to everyone - whether its an innovation on the current institutions, or whether its a completely new idea - how can we improve the Tycoon economy?

[Guest]

I have a private gym, but I have no problems with potential rules to minimize the advantages of a private gym as long as they are the same for everybody. A part of the game is about figuring out the best way to train fighters and you can blame people for using them as long as they exist.

[Guest]

anybody that thinks joining fighters every week for the sole purpose of pumping money into a gym isnt manipulation has issues.

 

i mean, if it was encouraged to do this sort of stuff then the ability to join and unjoin fighters multiple times in a single week would have never been stopped. it would have been celebrated.

 

 

 

you can tell the ones that know theyre in the wrong becos they get really defensive.

 

i cant believe that some ppl honestly think that loop holes are a healthy part of the game. once again, i say charge per session and all problems will be fixed. then at least if these ppl want to join 45 fighters each week then the fighters will have to remain in the gym all week. then they can either train which turns it into a normal gym or they can let there fighters set there and waste away.

 

then the decision would be to have 3 super fighters and 12 useless fighters used for nothing but there money

or

have 15 normal fighters just like everyone else

[MattyBlayze]

anybody that thinks joining fighters every week for the sole purpose of pumping money into a gym isnt manipulation has issues.

 

i mean, if it was encouraged to do this sort of stuff then the ability to join and unjoin fighters multiple times in a single week would have never been stopped. it would have been celebrated.

 

you can tell the ones that know theyre in the wrong becos they get really defensive.

 

You can tell the ones that have no idea what they're talking about because they change the subject to something that was fixed, and stopped being talked about by everyone else, months ago. Thanks for your valued contribution! Have anything to add to to the conversation at hand, or would you like to ask for gym fees to be raised from $500 to $600?

[Guest]

and to argue that it takes manager money to do this is absurd. i could start a gym right now and do this with no money. the fighters are the ones that are paying for it. the manager having money is just a very very small part of it.

 

 

so the "its my money cos i earned it cos ima rich manager" argument can just go down a slippery slope and bump its ass at the bottom becos its irrellevant to this convesation

 

[Guest]

It requires manager money you idiot.

[Guest]

and to argue that it takes manager money to do this is absurd. i could start a gym right now and do this with no money. the fighters are the ones that are paying for it. the manager having money is just a very very small part of it.

 

 

so the "its my money cos i earned it cos ima rich manager" argument can just go down a slippery slope and bump its ass at the bottom becos its irrellevant to this convesation

hah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hah

 

1. The loophole about being able to join a gym as many times as you would like in a week has been fixed. Now you pay 1 time per week and that payment pays for the whole week at that gym.

 

2. It requires manager money because (see #1)

 

/discussion

[Guest]

It requires manager money you idiot.

no it doesnt. not to run a super private elite gym operating way below cost. a manager could do it with $50 bucks.

 

like it was said b4,

 

1. open a gym

2. talk to a couple managers

3. have them join there fighters

4. have them take there fighters out

5. leave only certain ones

6. do this weekly

7. gym fees are paid

8. no manager money required

9. one on one training

10. boom! done. super elite private training

 

 

but yea thats not manipulation lol

[Guest]

Ok you win, but that's just ridiculous.

[Guest]

1. open a gym

2. talk to a couple managers

3. have them join there fighters

4. have them take there fighters out

5. leave only certain ones

6. do this weekly

7. gym fees are paid

8. no manager money required

9. one on one training

10. boom! done. super elite private training

 

 

Good idea, brb doing this instead of using my hoards of cash that I busted my ass for (that I have nothing else to do with anyway) to run a gym for my own fighters.

 

yeah...

yeah.

 

EDIT:

 

Honestly lets get real people. This is a game of generations... We're supposed to have elite fighters that are better than the next generation and so on and so on. Stay in the smaller orgs till its your time, it will come eventually. Wanting to even out the game so soon in its career when it is a game designed to even itself eventually anyway is absurd. Lets let this shit die and see how the games plays itself out.

[Guest]

You are so 2009. FAIL!

well i may very well be

 

 

but see these gyms are not losing money. these managers are not losing money. theyre not gonna lose there vip. these gyms are alive, well, and kickin. they are paying for thereselves every week. theyre doing it thru a loophole but they are paying for themselves. and it has nothing to do with hard work from managers.

 

 

theres probly very few managers that are actually starting gyms at a loss and having the intentions of losing there vip and re-upping and doing it all over again. i actually doubt that ever happens becos who wants to lose 6 fighters every 2 months or however long it is

[Guest]

i'll state it one more time

 

 

CHARGE FEES PER SESSION AND IT STOPS IT ALL

[LeviAJones]

i'll state it one more time

 

 

CHARGE FEES PER SESSION AND IT STOPS IT ALL

 

how does that stop someone from amassing wealth and using it to fund a private gym? do you even know what you're arguing against?

[Guest]

how does that stop someone from amassing wealth and using it to fund a private gym? do you even know what you're arguing against?

 

The answer should be obvious.