Consider RSI's perspective

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:39 am

Seraphim53 wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

While we are like everyone else in that we want the great rollups more often, we, too, like Seraphim, are satisfied with the current methods employed. We are not displeased with the fact that the "average pool" is not "tainted high" and that everyone has the same "average options". We are not at all sure that moving that average up, down, or holding it the same, will create new business for RSI. We just aren't sure .............

The Consortium agrees with me too much, as an Andorian they should disagree with me for no other reason than that I am Delarq. They should despise me and vote against me at every opportunity just to make me cry.

We must revitalize the regional animosity that has run cold lately.

MAKE ME CRY YOU CONSORTIUM SCUM!! MAKE ME CRY

You wholeheartedly disagree with my opinion and think I'm an idiot for even making it public. You want to prove my villiany upon my warriors in the arena!!

WOOT! IT'S ON, Come and GET SOME!!

We are unwilling to publish to the world what a despicable, unpleasant, filthy, unscrupulous dirtball you are. We just can't do it!

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:40 am

Seraphim53 wrote:

The Consortium wrote:

While we are like everyone else in that we want the great rollups more often, we, too, like Seraphim, are satisfied with the current methods employed. We are not displeased with the fact that the "average pool" is not "tainted high" and that everyone has the same "average options". We are not at all sure that moving that average up, down, or holding it the same, will create new business for RSI. We just aren't sure .............

The Consortium agrees with me too much, as an Andorian they should disagree with me for no other reason than that I am Delarq. They should despise me and vote against me at every opportunity just to make me cry.

We must revitalize the regional animosity that has run cold lately.

MAKE ME CRY YOU CONSORTIUM SCUM!! MAKE ME CRY

You wholeheartedly disagree with my opinion and think I'm an idiot for even making it public. You want to prove my villiany upon my warriors in the arena!!

WOOT! IT'S ON, Come and GET SOME!!

We are unwilling to publish to the world what a despicable, unpleasant, filthy, unscrupulous dirtball you are. We just can't do it!

Sorry for the 3rd post. Don't know what happened. But it WAS important for us not to get the word out about The Big S.

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:14 pm

Quote:

MAKE ME CRY YOU CONSORTIUM SCUM!! MAKE ME CRY

You do realize that calling the Consortium a scum is a compliment and not an insult, right?

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:45 pm

Managerr wrote:

Quote:

MAKE ME CRY YOU CONSORTIUM SCUM!! MAKE ME CRY

You do realize that calling the Consortium a scum is a compliment and not an insult, right?

Score one for Dwayne! Wink

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:16 pm

GreekGuy wrote:

"Only Initially Corey, Once the new standard was reached the same scenario would play out, simply with a higher percentage of smarter warriors. DA's would go DOWN as the quality of their replacements went up and once everyone had a full stable of tourney quality teams roll-up purchases would slow as well. "

I dont think DA percentage dropping is bad at all. It is far too prevalent now. Its a waste of good money. And for those not DA'd it doesnt mean they arent running still. Like I said I cant speak for all but for me my tourney numbers vary based on how many good warriors I have. If I aquired more good warriors by means of rollups and DA then I would run more in the arena and in tournies. My spending would go up. Granted maybe I would at some point buy less rollups but I dont see that happening. Look at it this way, your forgetting that warriors move up in classes. Its not like I get a bunch of good warriors real quick and they all stay classified where they are. They fight and start up the tourney ranks. Managers will always have to buy more to replenish their rookies and apps. Now maybe in the long run it might be a factor because you cant run everything you graduate so if you graduate more good you obviously cant run them all...but I bet people would run more than they do now. Again my opinion and maybe I'm in the minority in my thinking. But for me I still will always think that better rollups will equal more participation in tournies and the arena..even if just for timing purposes. Oh and remember better rollups doesnt mean great. Of my 8 or so TC's I dont think I had but one warrior whose stats were great. Most of mine with great stats TV, my oddball guys with good stats get me TC's .... maybe thats why I want more good rollups Smile

Corey

This is serious concern. I know where you are coming from with wanting some better warriors (don't we all), but the reality is that the standard of what is OK, good, better, great would change. And the unfortunate effect would be now that everyone had more "better" and "great" warriors, your ability (and mine) to succeed and TC with just "good" guys and to really make a difference with management would be diluted or removed. Case in point, look at the ADM tourneys as they have filled up with open-handed AB's, DYO's, clones, bloodgamers, etc. I used to LIVE in those classes and I haven't run but an occasional warrior in the last 2-3 years. What's the point? There's a decent chance that the basic tourneys would become the same.

I wouldn't turn my nose up at better warriors, but I'm not at all convinced it would drive more revenue from tourney managers, particularly in tourneys. It MAY, however, give people more of a reason to run fuller teams and stay a bit more active in arenas because they have 3-4 solid guys instead of 1. That'd be a bit of a victory in itself.

I'll be honest that my spending would NOT go up with a better rollup pool and replacements. I spend what I can afford and justify each tourney. I might run more in the arenas and I would definitely ENJOY the arenas more with a full team and fighting against full teams in a more active basic arena, however.

Making people enjoy more and spend more in tourneys isn't what the game needs, in my humble opinion. It needs a more lively, entertaining, and interesting basic game. Better rollups may help a tiny bit, but honestly there is a blaise and laziness about arena play that I don't believe you can breed out of the long-timer, hardcore tourney manager. Get what you can from those guys, find a way to draw out the interest in the tourney/arena fence-straddling managers like myself and others, cultivate the interest and enthusiasm the rare new or returning player brings, and recruit new and energetic players into a more healthy, entertaining game.

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:19 pm

Sentinel wrote:

GreekGuy wrote:

"Only Initially Corey, Once the new standard was reached the same scenario would play out, simply with a higher percentage of smarter warriors. DA's would go DOWN as the quality of their replacements went up and once everyone had a full stable of tourney quality teams roll-up purchases would slow as well. "

I dont think DA percentage dropping is bad at all. It is far too prevalent now. Its a waste of good money. And for those not DA'd it doesnt mean they arent running still. Like I said I cant speak for all but for me my tourney numbers vary based on how many good warriors I have. If I aquired more good warriors by means of rollups and DA then I would run more in the arena and in tournies. My spending would go up. Granted maybe I would at some point buy less rollups but I dont see that happening. Look at it this way, your forgetting that warriors move up in classes. Its not like I get a bunch of good warriors real quick and they all stay classified where they are. They fight and start up the tourney ranks. Managers will always have to buy more to replenish their rookies and apps. Now maybe in the long run it might be a factor because you cant run everything you graduate so if you graduate more good you obviously cant run them all...but I bet people would run more than they do now. Again my opinion and maybe I'm in the minority in my thinking. But for me I still will always think that better rollups will equal more participation in tournies and the arena..even if just for timing purposes. Oh and remember better rollups doesnt mean great. Of my 8 or so TC's I dont think I had but one warrior whose stats were great. Most of mine with great stats TV, my oddball guys with good stats get me TC's .... maybe thats why I want more good rollups Smile

Corey

This is serious concern. I know where you are coming from with wanting some better warriors (don't we all), but the reality is that the standard of what is OK, good, better, great would change. And the unfortunate effect would be now that everyone had more "better" and "great" warriors, your ability (and mine) to succeed and TC with just "good" guys and to really make a difference with management would be diluted or removed. Case in point, look at the ADM tourneys as they have filled up with open-handed AB's, DYO's, clones, bloodgamers, etc. I used to LIVE in those classes and I haven't run but an occasional warrior in the last 2-3 years. What's the point? There's a decent chance that the basic tourneys would become the same.

I wouldn't turn my nose up at better warriors, but I'm not at all convinced it would drive more revenue from tourney managers, particularly in tourneys. It MAY, however, give people more of a reason to run fuller teams and stay a bit more active in arenas because they have 3-4 solid guys instead of 1. That'd be a bit of a victory in itself.

I'll be honest that my spending would NOT go up with a better rollup pool and replacements. I spend what I can afford and justify each tourney. I might run more in the arenas and I would definitely ENJOY the arenas more with a full team and fighting against full teams in a more active basic arena, however.

Making people enjoy more and spend more in tourneys isn't what the game needs, in my humble opinion. It needs a more lively, entertaining, and interesting basic game. Better rollups may help a tiny bit, but honestly there is a blaise and laziness about arena play that I don't believe you can breed out of the long-timer, hardcore tourney manager. Get what you can from those guys, find a way to draw out the interest in the tourney/arena fence-straddling managers like myself and others, cultivate the interest and enthusiasm the rare new or returning player brings, and recruit new and energetic players into a more healthy, entertaining game.

I cannot agree more, Travis. I would not change my play style with a better pool, either. If I were to win the Lotto, then I could guarantee I'd be a more active manager, but that is the only means I see of changing the volume I run.

We shouldn't be looking for ways to make things easier/better for the few remaining big spenders, but ways to increase the volume of small managers (1-2 arenas, plus small tourney presence). Once THAT is done, then there will be breathing room to work on the larger problems facing long-term play.

These days, how many managers remain? When I played in the 90s, there were TONS. Alliances were measured in dozens of managers (my first had almost 50 members at one point). Now, we are lucky that dozens attend FtFs. What would the face of DM look like if we were to get 100 new managers each year? And they stayed? If they ran 2 teams each, that would be what, a three-four team average increase per arena, annually? Take into account attritional losses, and you'd have a serious player pool, once again.

And yes, to get there, all the small bugs on the forums/website need repair. The outdated items need updating. And there needs to be a way to access one's account online, including making payments via credit card/paypal, online warrior tracking, strategy input/changes, replacement warrior design/submission, purchasing new rollups, etc, etc. Maybe not all at once, mind you, but at least fix the current site. If Marcus isn't available to do all the minor fixes, I'm sure we have many webmasters that play that would be happy to do the fixes for fight credit. After all, there isn't any game code to be found on the website. Very Happy

I apologize for rambling on, but I had to get my 2.5 cents in. For tonight, that is.

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:55 am

Sentinel wrote:

GreekGuy wrote:

"Only Initially Corey, Once the new standard was reached the same scenario would play out, simply with a higher percentage of smarter warriors. DA's would go DOWN as the quality of their replacements went up and once everyone had a full stable of tourney quality teams roll-up purchases would slow as well. "

I dont think DA percentage dropping is bad at all. It is far too prevalent now. Its a waste of good money. And for those not DA'd it doesnt mean they arent running still. Like I said I cant speak for all but for me my tourney numbers vary based on how many good warriors I have. If I aquired more good warriors by means of rollups and DA then I would run more in the arena and in tournies. My spending would go up. Granted maybe I would at some point buy less rollups but I dont see that happening. Look at it this way, your forgetting that warriors move up in classes. Its not like I get a bunch of good warriors real quick and they all stay classified where they are. They fight and start up the tourney ranks. Managers will always have to buy more to replenish their rookies and apps. Now maybe in the long run it might be a factor because you cant run everything you graduate so if you graduate more good you obviously cant run them all...but I bet people would run more than they do now. Again my opinion and maybe I'm in the minority in my thinking. But for me I still will always think that better rollups will equal more participation in tournies and the arena..even if just for timing purposes. Oh and remember better rollups doesnt mean great. Of my 8 or so TC's I dont think I had but one warrior whose stats were great. Most of mine with great stats TV, my oddball guys with good stats get me TC's .... maybe thats why I want more good rollups Smile

Corey

This is serious concern. I know where you are coming from with wanting some better warriors (don't we all), but the reality is that the standard of what is OK, good, better, great would change. And the unfortunate effect would be now that everyone had more "better" and "great" warriors, your ability (and mine) to succeed and TC with just "good" guys and to really make a difference with management would be diluted or removed. Case in point, look at the ADM tourneys as they have filled up with open-handed AB's, DYO's, clones, bloodgamers, etc. I used to LIVE in those classes and I haven't run but an occasional warrior in the last 2-3 years. What's the point? There's a decent chance that the basic tourneys would become the same.

I wouldn't turn my nose up at better warriors, but I'm not at all convinced it would drive more revenue from tourney managers, particularly in tourneys. It MAY, however, give people more of a reason to run fuller teams and stay a bit more active in arenas because they have 3-4 solid guys instead of 1. That'd be a bit of a victory in itself.

I'll be honest that my spending would NOT go up with a better rollup pool and replacements. I spend what I can afford and justify each tourney. I might run more in the arenas and I would definitely ENJOY the arenas more with a full team and fighting against full teams in a more active basic arena, however.

Making people enjoy more and spend more in tourneys isn't what the game needs, in my humble opinion. It needs a more lively, entertaining, and interesting basic game. Better rollups may help a tiny bit, but honestly there is a blaise and laziness about arena play that I don't believe you can breed out of the long-timer, hardcore tourney manager. Get what you can from those guys, find a way to draw out the interest in the tourney/arena fence-straddling managers like myself and others, cultivate the interest and enthusiasm the rare new or returning player brings, and recruit new and energetic players into a more healthy, entertaining game.

Damn, that sounds like a lot of work, Trav... Laughing

There are always a couple managers trying to do this at any given time, but I think it would take a much more organized, concerted effort on the part of the current player base AND RSI to repopularize the game at this point without any actual game "fixes."
Given our lack of any consensus or organization, and RSI's continued unwillingness, for whatever reasons, to do much of anything with Duel2 (love that name, by the way), I'm doubting it'll happen.

I'd be happy if they just tweaked the DA rollup generator to give even slightly better rollups, not 100% godlings or anything, just runnable guys. It'd help build basic thru ADM ranks from the ground up if managers had, as you said, teams with more than one decent warrior on them. Combine that with a reduced DA charge, per warrior or entire team, and you'd have a lot more play in basic I think.

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:19 am

I think the RU pool is fine. The charge for a full team DA should just be dropped to match that of buying a new team sheet, to me that is just fair, it also sucks losing your history and buying 2 new teams instead of one team for same price.
The last time I DAed a full team I got the first three below and next turn I got the last 2. Amazing DA results eh, rubbing it in abit yeah, but I seem to get get pretty good DA RU's on a consistent basis, I have no complaints. Just the price.

LU 10-10-11-17-17-7-10 ambi, Ex Ini
PL 7-13-9-17-17-4-17 ambi, Ex Att
BA 15-3-15-21-9-14-5 Ex Ini
AB 7-9-10-15-17-5-21 Ex Att
AB 9-3-9-17-15-10-21 ambi, Ex Att

Sorry got LUer confused with another, was really:
8-11-15-16-17-7-10 Ambi, Ex Ini

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:13 am

Stik wrote:

I'd be happy if they just tweaked the DA rollup generator to give even slightly better rollups, not 100% godlings or anything, just runnable guys.

It is possible to tweak the rollup generator so fewer "crummy" rollups appear.
But, in order to avoid the creation of other problems, the number of "great" rollups would have to be reduced as well.

Depending on the actual coding, it would be a pretty simple fix.

The converse of this idea: making more "great" rollups and more "crummy" rollups, would create problems.
This is because there are finite boundaries on warrior design (the 3, 21 limit).

Shifting the mean for certain desired stats (WT, WL, DF) or automatically discarding "crummy" rollups creates certain problems when there are finite limits on warrior design.
From a mathematical point of view, these ideas are isomorphic (the same) as getting better rollups for less money.