ANNUAL CALL FOR CHANGE

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:59 am

Now that we have read many site postings, and have talked to friends - mega, tourney, and semi-newbies - and have looked seriously at the circumstances .......

We like the new "ruling" and criteria which places some limits on sandbagging. We LIKE it exactly as Lee posted, including runner-ups and TV's. We commend Lee for taking the initiative and RSI for the decisiveness and will to move the game forward.

As recommended earlier (By Kellumbo, we think?) we will be sending "more than normal" to The Mailer to show our support.

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:11 am

I will be sending in more Freshman through Contender class warriors also. I was originally planning on sending 30 including dead, but that should incease to close too 40.

Just waiting on the mini-overviews to make sure what class they are in.

Advanced Master Poster Joined: Nov 05, 2002 Posts: 334

i do find it interesting that everyone keeps calling this a change , it is no t a change it is exactly how it was 4 or 5 years ago, the cosde to do it has alwasy been there the tv's moving on always used to happen and at some point it simply stopped happening .

warriors moving on without ever tcing or improving was the norm .

guardian

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:55 am

guardian wrote:

i do find it interesting that everyone keeps calling this a change , it is no t a change it is exactly how it was 4 or 5 years ago, the cosde to do it has alwasy been there the tv's moving on always used to happen and at some point it simply stopped happening .

warriors moving on without ever tcing or improving was the norm .

guardian

Guardian, it is definitely a change. It may be a change to a change back to "what it was". But it is a big change, nevertheless.

Master Poster Joined: Aug 11, 2002 Posts: 242

Guardian - You're the one who stirred up the bees nest, asked for a change, and got one. Now you're bitching. I can't help but keep thinking of one of your posts when you stated "I have 2 DYO's in contenders and they can't win" and so something needed to be done. So all this was because YOU couldn't win? B-freakin'-S. You don't want a change that's good for the majority, you want a change that's good for you. A LARGE majority of the players are chiming in that they are happy with it, and you still are complaining.

If you can't be happy, start your own game.

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:30 am

Hombre wrote:

Guardian - You're the one who stirred up the bees nest, asked for a change, and got one. Now you're bitching. I can't help but keep thinking of one of your posts when you stated "I have 2 DYO's in contenders and they can't win" and so something needed to be done. So all this was because YOU couldn't win? B-freakin'-S. You don't want a change that's good for the majority, you want a change that's good for you. A LARGE majority of the players are chiming in that they are happy with it, and you still are complaining.

If you can't be happy, start your own game.

I had thoughts along this line also. I know few care what I think, but at the risk of getting slammed (which I don't want to do) this sounds about right. Let's see how the change works out.

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:44 pm

Just a few thoughts about the change:

In general, I've already stated "moving warriors up for TC'ing" is a poor decision in general because it punishes warriors for winning. My opinion on that hasn't changed.

That said, I actually think that also moving up runner-ups and TVs is a good thing as well. That takes the sting out of just hurting the winner and forces some actual movement throughout the class. Hopefully there will be some dramatic showdowns during tournaments with big prizes and some awesome competition. This probably will cut the number of warriors I'm sending to the ADM tourneys (who wants to accidentally TV or TC?), but I think it will increase what I run in the arena since I will have to fully prep warriors there.

I think the 3-year rule is abuse-able and it's only matter of time before we have to deal with that as well. (Although it may take 6 or 7 years for everyone to position their warriors properly) For those of you who don't think that 20 warriors is a big deal--consider that there are only about 25 TV spots between Contenders and Freshmen, so that's a big chunk of warriors....

Consistent Implementation is also a concern--they don't always get Challengers right, I am dreading the day that the Contender I spent 5 years prepping just happens to be busting out the same time as Bob, Eternal is accidentally moved back down to Contenders...

And for the managers who are considering quitting--do you really think the change is that much of a big deal? Whatever happened to: "The same managers are just going to win anyway." Well? Shall we not prove it?

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Mar 07, 2004 Posts: 523

First of all, I feel we are all lucky to be able to play this game the way it is, so if certain changes aren't made I'm not going to take my marbles and go home. RSI owns the marbles anyway so if they go so do the marbles that we hold so precious.

Some or all changes that we suggest probably pose problems that only Lee and Sandy would understand because they know the limits of the computer programs they are dealing with. If some proposed changes don't happen, that's ok with me we are happy RSI can still function they way they do at all.

I'd like to thank Lee for making the small change that they did make and know it doubled my immortal warrior total for the upcoming tournament. I will not miss seeing the same warrior winning the same tourney over and over and over and hording potion after potion after potion for some grotesque mutant primus god liver-sick on steriods and a decade of potion consuming!!

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Nov 24, 2003 Posts: 181

Aragorn wrote:

I will not miss seeing the same warrior(s) winning the same tourney over and over and over and hording potion after potion after potion for some grotesque primus god liver-sick on steriods and a decade of potion consuming!!

And that is what it really all boils down to and why this change needed to be implemented. I know Manager says he doesn't agree with punishing the winners for winning .... well it is what it is and the chart Manger posted in a different thread ties in well with what Aragon says above... It is NOT punishing the winning for winning. The old way is not only DOUBLY rewarding the winner for winning but it is punishing the losers for not winning as the winners can increase their TC ready pipeline by continuing to add potion/potions to diff warriors. The rich kept on getting richer(and I know that they earned their wealth and I respect that but at the same time a monopoly is not what is needed).

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:33 pm

JEKYLL1 wrote:

Aragorn wrote:

I will not miss seeing the same warrior(s) winning the same tourney over and over and over and hording potion after potion after potion for some grotesque primus god liver-sick on steriods and a decade of potion consuming!!

And that is what it really all boils down to and why this change needed to be implemented. I know Manager says he doesn't agree with punishing the winners for winning .... well it is what it is and the chart Manger posted in a different thread ties in well with what Aragon says above... It is NOT punishing the winning for winning. The old way is not only DOUBLY rewarding the winner for winning but it is punishing the losers for not winning as the winners can increase their TC ready pipeline by continuing to add potion/potions to diff warriors. The rich kept on getting richer(and I know that they earned their wealth and I respect that but at the same time a monopoly is not what is needed).

Not sure we agree with all the wording in either comment, but we do agree, in principle, with both. Well stated.

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:40 am

Wouldn't it be easier to have a general class tourney for any warrior and an unmodified class for warriors that have not been prize modified. That way you can satisfy everyone who plays the game. I personally wouldn't send any of my warriors into a tourney because I really don't stand a chance with them. But some people play for different reasons and it would be foolish to discourage those players that heavily modify their warriors. Any action that would hurt the player base would not be good for the game in general. So a compromise has to be made by everyone so that all can enjoy.

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:43 am

Read the first few pages before sending that last message. Guess I should read the whole post not jsut the first couple pages before responding....lol.

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:13 pm

Ok, I am calling you all out DM community:

A year+ later and 22/30'ish TVs from Contenders through ADM basically belong to TMM and TUM. (Might have missed a TV here or there, but you get the idea)

Which is fine, but I am incredibly disappointed that it appears that those of you have had said they would run more warriors in the ADM classes have pretty much given up already.

Looking at the round 1 entrants, it only looks like 12-14 different managers or so bothered to send any ADM warriors. RSI made the change to help everyone become more competitive, but it doesn't seem like people are trying to take advantage of it. It takes a couple of years to build a good ADM pipeline, don't give up so soon. Just run your best 1-2 warriors in each class for every tournament and before you know it you're there.

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:36 pm

Managerr wrote:

Ok, I am calling you all out DM community:

A year+ later and 22/30'ish TVs from Contenders through ADM basically belong to TMM and TUM. (Might have missed a TV here or there, but you get the idea)

Which is fine, but I am incredibly disappointed that it appears that those of you have had said they would run more warriors in the ADM classes have pretty much given up already.

Looking at the round 1 entrants, it only looks like 12-14 different managers or so bothered to send any ADM warriors. RSI made the change to help everyone become more competitive, but it doesn't seem like people are trying to take advantage of it. It takes a couple of years to build a good ADM pipeline, don't give up so soon. Just run your best 1-2 warriors in each class for every tournament and before you know it you're there.

Did that for 4 years and all I got was bumped up to the next class just as the warriors started becoming competitive. I never agreed with the change they made, becuase I knew it wasn't really affecting anything. Besides they have to do it manually and sometimes they forget or don't have the time to do it. Hell they could do away with the one and done for all I care.

The real issue has always been the bare handed AB dominance and now we see it creeping down into the upper levels of the basic tourneys. Until something noticable is done to bring back some competitve balance to the upper levels of the game it will continue to decline. I have been saying this for 3 years now. Tweaks have done little if anything to the current issue.

Why haven't they added a style modifier to the ADM classification system that was talked about. It would be easily adjustable by using a percentage of the current formula. ie AB=100% LU=98% etc.. Atleast then we would see something is being done and people might start playing again. Hell you might even see some retired warriors show up again.

Advanced Master Poster Joined: Mar 08, 2004 Posts: 481

I keep on sending ADM warriors, but its because I love the game and dont mind the defeats...
The criteria for the tournament classes should be public. When you have only a handful of competitive warriors, and two are bumped, its discouraging. Last summer, the Freshmen tweak took my two only TV/TC hopes...
And yes, the AB issue should be taken care of.

That being said, I will keep sending whatever, but I cant blame those who dont.