Why is it we turn a blind eye to this?

[skull]

http://intheloose.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/disgusted-baby-macro-angry-upset-1322241454c.jpg

[lotos]

So, this thread accounts for nothing? Sort your tech out before you start accusing people.

[GBK16]

So, this thread accounts for nothing? Sort your tech out before you start accusing people.

Actually it does account for some things. TJ would have expected it to turn into what he did, but his intention was legitimate.

[Warwynd]

Yeah. TJ is an Un-tiring champion of this cause. I, for one, would love to see something done about it, but grow weary of the fight.

[TJMitchell]

I just don't like Blake

[GBK16]

I just don't like Blake

Like I said, your intention was legitimate lol

[kenlow73]

I'm still considering making another account. Not to cheat at the game but to use the other bank account for pick'em money.

[GBK16]

I'm still considering making another account. Not to cheat at the game but to use the other bank account for pick'em money.

Could just open a Bookmakers and put the Pick Em cash into that. The balance of it is available to the public, and you can withdraw / deposit money into it with no fees so a solid way of keeping a separate balance.

[UniConor]

Ngl surprised Ken is still alive, great job buddy

[TJMitchell]

Interesting to go back through this thread and have a cheeky peek at which accounts are still active...

[KalleDerLude]

That awkward moment, when you set the sliders. Only to realize that you are fighting yourself!

Reminds me of the old Arnold skit on MAD TV: I am not me, I am you!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlxoyw_8I7I

[KalleDerLude]

Pardon the double post, but why are so many of these guys, who are in clear violation of the "not interacting with each other"-bit still around? This rule seems pretty cut and dry.

[TJMitchell]

Pardon the double post, but why are so many of these guys, who are in clear violation of the "not interacting with each other"-bit still around? This rule seems pretty cut and dry.

 

Unfortunately the man at the top doesn't really care. And those that don't mind being outed will continue as they please.

[KalleDerLude]

I think it is a conflict of interest. Because many multis are doubling down on the VIP. Which of course means more revenue.

[TJMitchell]

I think it is a conflict of interest. Because many multis are doubling down on the VIP. Which of course means more revenue.

 

Bingo

[HareRumpler]

As a new manager to the game, I have to say that seeing a thread like this is a bit disturbing. Not from the point of it's existence so to speak as this stuff happens in online games. So it's not an issue of something like this "shouldn't be made public due to appearances, image and potentially scaring off new users", but more from what appears to be a lack of consequences for it.

 

From what I'm gathering, it seems unclear if:

- All of the multi accounts were addressed and potentially removed.

- There were consequences beyond just the removal of secondary accounts.

 

I mean, were these folks basically given enough time and notice that they were able to move any and all game funds from other accounts onto the ones they were going to keep? Was anything done about that? Were they allowed to retain VIP? Basically, beyond being caught and losing the advantages of having the multi's, did they lose benefits or face punishment for the advantages they gained during the time they had them? I haven't been around long enough to make judgement based on historical actions of whether those in charge face a conflict of interest situation with VIP's and whether that affects decisions and consequences.

 

But all of that certainly would make a new manager like me take pause.

[KalleDerLude]

I haven't been around long enough to make judgement based on historical actions of whether those in charge face a conflict of interest situation with VIP's and whether that affects decisions and consequences.

 

Just go through the names that PBR and Duphus listed here. Click on the links and see for yourself. Most of these accounts are still displayed - meaning they have not been taken down. And the majority of them, certainly the VIP ones, have all been active recently.

So to conclude that little to nothing of any consequence happened, is the only assessement that remains.

 

It is just messed up. Especially if you consider how many folks get to run a private gym because of it. A maxed out private gym in one hand and a business in the other (as well as two active fighter stables) to easily finance it. That’s some sleazy shit.

[aylib]

Some things are the way they are; not saying its acceptable, rather looking at potential causes here, and being limited to one business is one of the problems.

 

I know there are numerous other reasons for multis, but if we were allowed to purchase (using VIP) more than one business, then I think the additional VIP revenue that multis generate might be addressed.

 

I think allowing for additional business slot purchase is a win/win for Mike and the managers.

[KalleDerLude]

I know there are numerous other reasons for multis, but if we were allowed to purchase (using VIP) more than one business, then I think the additional VIP revenue that multis generate might be addressed.

 

There was a thread about this. I continue to have mixed feelings about this idea. Because then one person could easily end up running a whole conglomerate, taking the entire networking aspect out of it. I think the limitation to one business is important for this game’s balancing (given how it is all set up). Just look how multis tend to take advantage of the in-game mechanics. Steering business money to themselves by cutting big sponsorship deals for themselves, using private gyms, even though they already run a business. Therefore easily financing it. Providing laundry for themselves (which is an issue in and off itself, imo).

 

The fact that multis are allowed to do their thing and that laundry puts the game on easy mode (as far as the money side is concerned), once you have enough hype to fish out the big wallets from the free agent market, is why this game's economy is really not working at all. Needless to say that laundry effectively eliminates the 20% manager cut. The only cut is whatever the fucking laundry service charges. The rest is all yours! It's laughable that this shit isn't countered in any way.

 

Provided two businesses would be “legalized”, these tactics wouldn't change. The only thing that would change, would be that people wouldn't violate against a rule anymore that isn't enforced anyway. But the in-game dynamics and advantages taken thereof would still be the same.

 

The problem is not that the rule of "don't interact with each other economically" doesn't work. Hell, even we as players can check to quite an extend if somebody abides to it or not. You see who is in the gyms, who gets sponsored, who gets booked against who etc. It is simply not enforced! It is like the anti-doping programs and campaigns. Much tough sounding rhetoric, but only little meaningful enforcement of same.

 

Legalization wouldn't change a damn thing. Because, in effect, that is the state that we already have! With the known results.

[Warwynd]

Not going to quote that as it's very large, but I will comment on it. I agree with you almost entirely on your conclusions. The easy solution to your concerns though is making it that you cannot network with your own companies. And that can be hard coded so as to make it simply not work. This may or may not curb the number of multis (one hopes it would) but it will make a lot more businesses appear in game and that would make the possibility of finding merch partners, nutrition partners, and sponsors much easier.

[KalleDerLude]

The easy solution to your concerns though is making it that you cannot network with your own companies.

 

 

Unfortunately, me and you both know very well, what the easy solution to such a step would be in return. Those, who are seeking for an advantage, would do the same shit as before: multi accounting! Or they get themselves a few straw-men to validate interactions. Done! It wouldn't be any harder than that. And if multi accounting wouldn’t be punished, which is the problem right now, then what? Nothing changes. Multi accounting just got easier, because now you have it all covered with one additional account.

That’s why I have no faith in the “more businesses” solution. It is seeking to fix something that isn’t broken. This rule of banning any interactions, that have economical or competitive implications, is perfectly sound. And the reason why multis run wild is not a technical issue anyway. We list them here, see what they are doing …. for nothing but shits and giggles. The shits and giggles part is the problem! Nothing is done about it!

[aylib]

Business slots can be limited at 2. Not sure how someone running a clothing org now being able to run own gym will make things more abuse-able.

 

Lets address the subject of Mike allowing multis thrive due to the fact that they supplement income. Thats not likely to be changed; lets orientate from this premise.

We can complain about it for hours on end, however the multi issue isnt likely to change.

 

Its what we can do to go along with the ongoing issue, not instead of.

[Warwynd]

All valid points, Kalle. And Aylib.

[KalleDerLude]

If you would allow several business slots and tie these to VIP investment (“buying” the second slot), that also would ring true for the multi accounts. So if nothing is done against them on the basis of them being investors, then what should lead me or anyone to believe that this changes with two businesses? Because honest chaps would be worth more? So would be the multis! VIP is VIP. At least that is the overwhelming impression, that the persistent multi situation has brought forth so far.

 

Listen, I really don't mean to bitch for the sake of it if that is how it’s perceived. It is just a very pragmatic issue imo: A willingness to betray and to bend the rules, in order to get an advantage, is nothing that can be managed away by tinkering with the game design (since that is not where the problem lies in the first place). There either is something done about it or there isn't.

[Warwynd]

I get you... That's why it's difficult, if not impossible to argue with you. Technically speaking I am not arguing, because you aren't wrong. I'm just trying to work out the logistics of it to make the problem less prevalent. I am perfectly fine with say charging 50% more per extra business beyond the first (Making a year of VIP be $45 for two businesses and $60 for three if that would even be allowed and I am not advocating for it) and making it so that they cannot interact with each other. Even that still does not necessarily mean that it will dissuade anyone from getting multi accounts so that they can still "network" with themselves. But the point is to put ideas out there and let the community hash out the pros and cons and see if a position can be reached that is better then the current one. Ultimately, the cheaters gonna cheat no matter what and it doesn't really affect me that much. I have still managed to claw my way into the top 40 and am still likely to climb further up still. So what if I didn't do it in my first year like Blake Phoenix did. I have the satisfaction of knowing that I did it without cheating or shady tactics. Again, I don't think you are wrong. My thought is that maybe, just maybe it will mitigate it somewhat. Especially if coupled with a harsher stance on punishing those that flagrantly violate the rules.