Should Managers Accept Every Fight Offered?

[Scottfutile]

Recently I was in a discussion where someone suggested that managers should accept every fight offered by an org.  I disagreed and decided that I would poll MMA Tycoon users.

[Skenoj]

No, people decline fights irl too, its up to you, but if you ask for a fight in your favor that should be a problem 

 

 

[Scottfutile]

When I joined I thought managers would be more involved in the booking process. It’s been somewhat of a disappointment in that regard.

[ArtieBanks]

To give context. 

'Org owners always expect every fight to be accepted - just the way it is. When I ran an org and someone declined a match (I only ran top orgs with top fighters) and they gave me a shitty excuse i'd bin them. That being said almost all of the declines was just people away on holiday at that time and requested it at a future date which I always facilitated.'

'If you get offered a decent enough fight then you should accept it. Its the ethics of the game. I've explained owning an org like having a harem of women. The part I left out is if a woman in the harem starts making life difficult for you as an org owner then just punt them and let them be someone elses problem.'

 

Neither of them suggest that you should accept every fight offered by an org. I gave you insight into how almost every org owner I have encountered has thought including myself. Why would I offer a fight as an org owner expecting it to be declined? That makes no sense. Hence the comment org owners always expect every fight to be accepted because if they look at a fight and see that it makes sense then they offer it - granted not all org owners do this and hence the comment of 'if you get a decent enough fight'. If the fight don't make no sense then by all means decline it. 

The if you get offered a decent enough fight then you should accept it - that has been forever the ethics of accepting a fight. 

 

We also need to give some context to your thoughts on it. 

'

You - 'I never look at the orgs unless the owner asks me to find some fighters I would accept fights with'

Me - i've never had an org owner do that

Me - as long as the hypes make sense i'll take the fight

Me - I don't fight early - so I rarely need to worry about skills

You - 'I have a few I have that relationship with.'

You - 'Because they know I'm choosy its often quicker for me to give them a shortlist I would accept'

 

Just so people can see the differences in philosophies. 

[Scottfutile]

Oddly this discussion is not about you, but well done for trying to make it so. You talk about context but offer one liners from discord which really amounts to little more than a smear campaign. I left your alliance because I have no interest in discussing anything with you. I’m amazed at your arrogance and how you cannot see that you are part of the problem. So do me a favour and go and throw your toys out of your pram somewhere else.

[ArtieBanks]

13 minutes ago, Scottfutile said:

Oddly this discussion is not about you, but well done for trying to make it so. You talk about context but offer one liners from discord which really amounts to little more than a smear campaign. I left your alliance because I have no interest in discussing anything with you. I’m amazed at your arrogance and how you cannot see that you are part of the problem. So do me a favour and go and throw your toys out of your pram somewhere else.

 

You posted this approximately 10 minutes after we had this conversation. You left the alliance when you posted this. My apologies but given the fact that this happened and you are clearly not happy that I didn't agree with you that I thought it was about the conversation you had before you left the alliance. Also to clarify it isn't my alliance. Butch asked me to help new and existing players. 

As far as throwing toys out of the pram and a smear campaign? I just quoted you and our limited conversations.  

Anyway, enjoy the sunshine and have a nice day. 

 

[Ramirez]

once i have signed for an org i have agreed to fight everyone in that org that can make the agreed weight, the only time i would turn down a fight is if i'm being offered 2 of my fighters to fight each other. if i don't like who the org is offering i fight out my contract and move to an org that will give me the biggest fights.

[imcool]

So I started reading this topic thinking it's pretty valid, and by the end, it just looks like an attempt by a newbie who wants to pick and choose who he fights trying to shit on a veteran manager who told him otherwise.

In short, YES, you can turn down fights if you have a valid reason such as needing a couple of extra weeks to train/recover/reset cuts or injury.  If you know you won't be around on a specific date to set sliders, you can always ask for the fight to be rescheduled for a different day.  An obnoxious rank gap is also a valid reason to decline a fight IMO(not everyone is of this opinion).

NO, you should not decline a fight because you feel like you will lose(you signed the contract, the org is the matchmaker, not you).  You shouldn't decline a fight because you want to be this roleplay warrior and your fighter "fights whoever he wants, not whoever the org wants".

TLDR: Don't decline fights without a valid reason, the org owners don't want to deal with difficult managers who think this game is real life.

[Scottfutile]

That’s an interesting perspective. Out of curious what do you mean by biggest fights? Financially or hype wise?

[Scottfutile]

11 minutes ago, Ramirez said:

once i have signed for an org i have agreed to fight everyone in that org that can make the agreed weight, the only time i would turn down a fight is if i'm being offered 2 of my fighters to fight each other. if i don't like who the org is offering i fight out my contract and move to an org that will give me the biggest fights.

That’s an interesting perspective. Out of curious what do you mean by biggest fights? Financially or hype wise?

[soyster89]

I generally accept every fight offer as I feel the org owners are doing what they think is best for the org. Yes, there can be awful org owners who use fighters as fodder to build up a select few, but it's rare. And in those cases, I'll happily return their signing bonus and ask for a release. 

[Scottfutile]

3 minutes ago, imcool said:

So I started reading this topic thinking it's pretty valid, and by the end, it just looks like an attempt by a newbie who wants to pick and choose who he fights trying to shit on a veteran manager who told him otherwise.

In short, YES, you can turn down fights if you have a valid reason such as needing a couple of extra weeks to train/recover/reset cuts or injury.  If you know you won't be around on a specific date to set sliders, you can always ask for the fight to be rescheduled for a different day.  An obnoxious rank gap is also a valid reason to decline a fight IMO(not everyone is of this opinion).

NO, you should not decline a fight because you feel like you will lose(you signed the contract, the org is the matchmaker, not you).  You shouldn't decline a fight because you want to be this roleplay warrior and your fighter "fights whoever he wants, not whoever the org wants".

TLDR: Don't decline fights without a valid reason, the org owners don't want to deal with difficult managers who think this game is real life.

I said nothing about the veteran manager in the post.  That's an absurd sentiment.  Secondly I am not a newbie to the game.  So you have missed the mark completely.

I think the poll is a valid question to ask for two reasons: 1. Is there a gap between owners expectations and managers expectations?  If so the question is why is it like that, and can anything be done to bridge that gap.  2.  For my own sake to see how far my opinions to differ from others and to try to discover whether it was only me.  If I wanted to pick a fight I would have stayed in the alliance with him and continued the discussion on discord, not left, and blocked him on the forum.

I always thought turning down fights was a question of game planning.  There are some builds that fighters have no chance of winning on account of the stylistic matchup, let alone experience and other factors.  I don't see why managers should be pressured to say only YES.  If that's the case there is no point having managers.

NO I shouldn't decline a fight and leave the career trajectory of the fighter up to the owners who may or may not have the fighters best interests at heart..  Again if that's the case, I ask what role is there for managers.

In the real world matchmaking is a cooperative effort.  It is precisely why some fighters are carefully managed to build up their reputations. I genuinely don't understand the view that fighters are possessions of the organisations. 

[Scottfutile]

8 minutes ago, soyster89 said:

I generally accept every fight offer as I feel the org owners are doing what they think is best for the org. Yes, there can be awful org owners who use fighters as fodder to build up a select few, but it's rare. And in those cases, I'll happily return their signing bonus and ask for a release. 

Amen to that.  There are very few who are a happy medium between the two ends of the spectrum.

[soyster89]

5 minutes ago, Scottfutile said:

Amen to that.  There are very few who are a happy medium between the two ends of the spectrum.

I'm confused. What are the two ends of the spectrum? I meant there are 99% of orgs who I'll accept every fight, and if/when I discover an org throwing my outclassed fighters to the wolves, then I'll seek a release. I don't think there's an issue in the Tycoon world at all. I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I declined a fight offer, unless I was sacking a fighter. Every org owner I've worked with have been pretty good people. 

[Scottfutile]

1 minute ago, soyster89 said:

I'm confused. What are the two ends of the spectrum? I meant there are 99% of orgs who I'll accept every fight, and if/when I discover an org throwing my outclassed fighters to the wolves, then I'll seek a release. I don't think there's an issue in the Tycoon world at all. I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I declined a fight offer, unless I was sacking a fighter. Every org owner I've worked with have been pretty good people. 

I mean I’ve had some great experiences with org owners and some terrible experiences and very few in the middle.

[soyster89]

1 minute ago, Scottfutile said:

I mean I’ve had some great experiences with org owners and some terrible experiences and very few in the middle.

Got it. I guess I'm not overly critical. If I'm being treated fairly, getting generally equal fights (I don't mind taking fights where my fighter seems under-skilled a little), I call it a good experience. 

[Scottfutile]

6 minutes ago, soyster89 said:

Got it. I guess I'm not overly critical. If I'm being treated fairly, getting generally equal fights (I don't mind taking fights where my fighter seems under-skilled a little), I call it a good experience. 

And that’s exactly how the experience should be for everyone

[imcool]

17 minutes ago, Scottfutile said:

I said nothing about the veteran manager in the post.  That's an absurd sentiment.  Secondly I am not a newbie to the game.  So you have missed the mark completely.

I think the poll is a valid question to ask for two reasons: 1. Is there a gap between owners expectations and managers expectations?  If so the question is why is it like that, and can anything be done to bridge that gap.  2.  For my own sake to see how far my opinions to differ from others and to try to discover whether it was only me.  If I wanted to pick a fight I would have stayed in the alliance with him and continued the discussion on discord, not left, and blocked him on the forum.

I always thought turning down fights was a question of game planning.  There are some builds that fighters have no chance of winning on account of the stylistic matchup, let alone experience and other factors.  I don't see why managers should be pressured to say only YES.  If that's the case there is no point having managers.

NO I shouldn't decline a fight and leave the career trajectory of the fighter up to the owners who may or may not have the fighters best interests at heart..  Again if that's the case, I ask what role is there for managers.

In the real world matchmaking is a cooperative effort.  It is precisely why some fighters are carefully managed to build up their reputations. I genuinely don't understand the view that fighters are possessions of the organisations. 

Your account is new(4 months old is new...), hence my "assumption" that you are a new player.  

No, you should not decline a fight due to a stylistic mismatch.  If you're in an MMA org, the sport is MMA.  You can't tell the managers "my guy is a standup fighter so I won't be accepting fights vs grapplers".  If you want to fight strikers, do MT.  If you only want to fight grapplers, do grappling orgs.  Don't sign an MMA contract then try to harass the org owner that he's giving you stylistic mismatches.

Once you sign a contract, the fighters matchups ARE up to the org.  If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.  I greatly encourage org owners to gulag the fighters if their managers make it their mission to grief the org owner because they're whiny twats and accept only the fights they want(which is usually the fights w/ odds greatly in their favor).

[Scottfutile]

4 minutes ago, imcool said:

Your account is new(4 months old is new...), hence my "assumption" that you are a new player.  

No, you should not decline a fight due to a stylistic mismatch.  If you're in an MMA org, the sport is MMA.  You can't tell the managers "my guy is a standup fighter so I won't be accepting fights vs grapplers".  If you want to fight strikers, do MT.  If you only want to fight grapplers, do grappling orgs.  Don't sign an MMA contract then try to harass the org owner that he's giving you stylistic mismatches.

Once you sign a contract, the fighters matchups ARE up to the org.  If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.  I greatly encourage org owners to gulag the fighters if their managers make it their mission to grief the org owner because they're whiny twats and accept only the fights they want(which is usually the fights w/ odds greatly in their favor).

I have to say you are wrong again. I don’t have any fighters with the complainant nor does he have an org.

As if protecting fighters whilst they develop isn’t a done thing. Don’t be absurd. I can think of a dozen fighters off the top of my head that were built up to a title shot without facing anybody that could expose their weaknesses. 

if I was targeting someone I would have named them. I urge you to read the question I posed again. It doesn’t name anybody so your accusations are becoming more and more silly.

Glad you mentioned Gulagging fighters because that really helps things doesn’t it? Is that not an example of an abuse of power? Why wouldn’t you try to understand the manager’s thinking rather than work against them?

[Scottfutile]

One thing I will say is that I am infinitely more likely to take an unfavourable match up if an org reliably uses their own rankings as it offers a clear direction to a title fight.

[Icon73]

If you want to be your own promoter start your own org and sign all your fighters to it. Then you can book your own matchups.

 

If not then do your due diligence on the roster, see if you are willing to fight everyone in that division and if not then don't sign.

 

Only reasons to ever decline fights are

- In need of more training time

- fighter will be cut/injured by time of fight

- fighter won't have full energy by time of fight

- fighter has just fought that fighter and beat him and wants a fresh matchup

- you won't be around for the fight and want it on a different date where you will be around (on vacation)

- last on the list is Rankings gap. This one I do not think should apply in ID restricted orgs as the org owners are already handcuffed enough. Only at the open ID level should you be declining fights due to a rankings gap.

EDIT: adding one more

- Other Manager/Fighter is cheating and under the org stated ID limit or under the org stated minimum weight limit.

[imcool]

1 minute ago, Scottfutile said:

I have to say you are wrong again. I don’t have any fighters with the complainant nor does he have an org.

As if protecting fighters whilst they develop isn’t a done thing. Don’t be absurd. I can think of a dozen fighters off the top of my head that were built up to a title shot without facing anybody that could expose their weaknesses. 

if I was targeting someone I would have named them. I urge you to read the question I posed again. It doesn’t name anybody so your accusations are becoming more and more silly.

Glad you mentioned Gulagging fighters because that really helps things doesn’t it? Is that not an example of an abuse of power? Why wouldn’t you try to understand the manager’s thinking rather than work against them?

Where did I say anything about you targeting someone? What makes you so special that your fighters should be built up to a title shot in anyones org by being given cans as matchups?

You want your fighters to compete in MMA and not have "stylistic mismatches"? Train your fighters before signing them to orgs.  Which is what I do, and I've never declined a fight because my fighter was at a disadvantage somewhere.  If you want to fight your fighters right after creation, then get ready to take losses because most org owners won't cater to your demands of who you want to fight.  And if they do, they're awful org owners and shouldn't be running an org.

[Scottfutile]

3 minutes ago, Icon73 said:

If you want to be your own promoter start your own org and sign all your fighters to it. Then you can book your own matchups.

 

If not then do your due diligence on the roster, see if you are willing to fight everyone in that division and if not then don't sign.

 

Only reasons to ever decline fights are

- In need of more training time

- fighter will be cut/injured by time of fight

- fighter won't have full energy by time of fight

- fighter has just fought that fighter and beat him and wants a fresh matchup

- you won't be around for the fight and want it on a different date where you will be around (on vacation)

- last on the list is Rankings gap. This one I do not think should apply in ID restricted orgs as the org owners are already handcuffed enough. Only at the open ID level should you be declining fights due to a rankings gap.

 

It only dawned on me recently about due diligence on rosters and I have started doing that.  

[Scottfutile]

4 minutes ago, imcool said:

Where did I say anything about you targeting someone? What makes you so special that your fighters should be built up to a title shot in anyones org by being given cans as matchups?

You want your fighters to compete in MMA and not have "stylistic mismatches"? Train your fighters before signing them to orgs.  Which is what I do, and I've never declined a fight because my fighter was at a disadvantage somewhere.  If you want to fight your fighters right after creation, then get ready to take losses because most org owners won't cater to your demands of who you want to fight.  And if they do, they're awful org owners and shouldn't be running an org.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Still, it has been a pleasure debating with you sir.

[clydebankblitz]

I am absolutely 100% fine with managers rejecting fights. Would I like them to accept every fight? Sure, why not. That being said, I'm also fine with whatever the response. Some managers try to cherry pick stylistic matchups. Some managers have their eyes set on a specific opponent due to hype. Some managers want a rematch of an old fight from a while ago. For me, I find that my job is to figure out how to keep every manager happy whilst also doing whatever is the fairest option. EDIT: I want to add in here that you obviously wouldn't go 5-0 cherry picking opponents and then have the ability to ask for a title shot. You have fought who you wanted to, but it's still the org owners choice of when to pull that trigger.

That being said, if someone felt specifically "difficult" I might not pick up a fighter of theirs again. There's managers who repeatedly pick up and immediately drop fighters that I won't sign guys from either. I've not come across anything like that much but it could happen.

• As a manager, you have the absolute right to do whatever you feel is best by your fighter such as declining fights.
• As an org owner, you have the absolute right to release a fighter for whatever reason you see fit.

Like in real life, being the former two much results in the latter, and you have no leverage to roll with the latter.