Increasing arena play

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:39 am

Here's an idea to increase arena play:

If a warrior has at least 10 arena fights and gets killed, DA'd, or graduates:

-the player receives a team rollup sheet marked "replacement warrior"
-only one of the rollups on the sheet can be used as a replacement, the others are discarded

This would:
-Largely eliminate getting hosed on replacement rollups
-Provide a serious incentive for participating in arena play
-Reward "legacy" teams

IMO, just about anything can be made into a 10 fight dixie.

I hard to be sure, but this should, at worst, be revenue-neutral for RSI.

This would go a long way towards reducing player attrition/apathy.

Comments?

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:01 am

Woody wrote:

Here's an idea to increase arena play:

If a warrior has at least 10 arena fights and gets killed, DA'd, or graduates:

-the player receives a team rollup sheet marked "replacement warrior"
-only one of the rollups on the sheet can be used as a replacement, the others are discarded

This would:
-Largely eliminate getting hosed on replacement rollups
-Provide a serious incentive for participating in arena play
-Reward "legacy" teams

IMO, just about anything can be made into a 10 fight dixie.

I hard to be sure, but this should, at worst, be revenue-neutral for RSI.

This would go a long way towards reducing player attrition/apathy.

Comments?

I like this idea!

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:06 am

It might work. I have to admit, though, that one of the things I like about arena play is running marginal role-ups. (Note: for this to be fun I can't be the only one running something marginal or that loses is appeal very quickly!) This almost seems like too big of a benefit. Maybe.

Somewhere around here there was a thread that discussed offering small prizes for participation in basic arena on a consistent basis. What happened to that discussion? I liked that one.

Sorry about getting a bit off track on the very first repsonse Woody, but the two ideas do sort of go together.

Keep the ideas flowing....

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:48 am

Nomad wrote:

It might work. I have to admit, though, that one of the things I like about arena play is running marginal role-ups. (Note: for this to be fun I can't be the only one running something marginal or that loses is appeal very quickly!) This almost seems like too big of a benefit. Maybe.

Somewhere around here there was a thread that discussed offering small prizes for participation in basic arena on a consistent basis. What happened to that discussion? I liked that one.

Sorry about getting a bit off track on the very first repsonse Woody, but the two ideas do sort of go together.

Keep the ideas flowing....

We, too, enjoy the challenge of the ungodlings. We also know that Slugbait enjoys the same.

Actually, the above idea is an interesting one. We'd bite! However, we see this one being quite difficult to administer. what if someone were to choose to use the whole sheet to start a team? Is that OK? If I were RSI, I would not like the idea that freebie $5 Team rollups were available!

However, someone else suggested a "dual roll sheet, where one gets the choice of two rollups. If this were new and different and usable only if the two were both sent back together, it just might work.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 05, 2005 Posts: 1316

At the risk of sounding jaded...

Those who want to complain about the way the price structure of regular arenas work and the lousy RUs are mostly the problem. <I'm generalizing for sake of argument, so don't crucify me. Doing so might point to you feeling like this comment is too close to home for you.> They are out for the tournament play and could care less if they get good replacements or not since it is cheaper to buy a new team sheet. If they want to play it in an arena they can transfer the tourney team out of the arena they want to play in. Simple as that.

We all signed up for this knowing the pricing schedule and all the other such. RSI is making money on how the system is working presently. Changing it may or may not work for them. The easiest thing for a company to do is to ride the wave of financial security and go with it. Do you honestly think the company is in dire financial straits? IF they were I would believe they would go along with some of these changes some want. But lets not forget what happened with the last time a major change was done in DM2. Players left because their arena was closed down. That was a cost to the financial security of the company.

The best way to increase arena play is to have those who concentrate only on tourneys to lower their standards, suck it up and pay an extra 20 dollars a month, and join the arena and take what is given to them like the arena managers do. <This comment, again, is only for pure tourney managers and those who will do anything to win the TC prize>

If the base conforms for the betterment of the game then we might be able to show the outsider the game is doing better than what it seems.

In my distorted mind I would make a rule where you had to run a single team at at least four of five warriors for the whole time between tournaments to be able to run in the tourney. I'd bet those who are so fixated on the tourney will run that team to make sure they continue with tourney success.

Oh, well, just a pipe dream.

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:52 am

Yeah I like the idea of getting back 2 to choose from.

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:54 pm

The Consortium wrote:

Nomad wrote:

It might work. I have to admit, though, that one of the things I like about arena play is running marginal role-ups. (Note: for this to be fun I can't be the only one running something marginal or that loses is appeal very quickly!) This almost seems like too big of a benefit. Maybe.

Somewhere around here there was a thread that discussed offering small prizes for participation in basic arena on a consistent basis. What happened to that discussion? I liked that one.

Sorry about getting a bit off track on the very first repsonse Woody, but the two ideas do sort of go together.

Keep the ideas flowing....

We, too, enjoy the challenge of the ungodlings. We also know that Slugbait enjoys the same.

Actually, the above idea is an interesting one. We'd bite! However, we see this one being quite difficult to administer. what if someone were to choose to use the whole sheet to start a team? Is that OK? If I were RSI, I would not like the idea that freebie $5 Team rollups were available!

However, someone else suggested a "dual roll sheet, where one gets the choice of two rollups. If this were new and different and usable only if the two were both sent back together, it just might work.

This (in bold) is addressed by having the sheet marked (by RSI) as "replacement warrior". RSI simply doesn't have to accept such a sheet for a team rollup. Only one warrior can be used.

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:03 pm

JGW wrote:

Those who want to complain about the way the price structure of regular arenas work and the lousy RUs are mostly the problem. <I'm generalizing for sake of argument, so don't crucify me. Doing so might point to you feeling like this comment is too close to home for you.> They are out for the tournament play and could care less if they get good replacements or not since it is cheaper to buy a new team sheet. If they want to play it in an arena they can transfer the tourney team out of the arena they want to play in. Simple as that.

No one is complaining about the pricing structure. Or seriously complaining about the quality of the rollups(they might suck a little more than before, but oh well--I can get better wariors from team sheets anyways). Its the fact that there is a financial incentive to play in 82 and ignore basic arenas. It is just plain cheaper to mass run guys in 82 and the tourneys.

If you try to force the masses out of 82 by taking away that advantage(flood team sheet pool with a few k bad sheets, implement 10.75 flat fee no matter how many you run, reinstate 3 turns before tourney, etc ) you are going to have pissed off people. So you can't force them out, you need to lure them out. The easiest way is to ever so slightly boost the quality of the DA rollups(they already cost more anyways)--not make more godlings and good guys come out, not make more decent guys, but make the total crap ones into barely runnable ones.

JGW wrote:

If the base conforms for the betterment of the game then we might be able to show the outsider the game is doing better than what it seems.

In my distorted mind I would make a rule where you had to run a single team at at least four of five warriors for the whole time between tournaments to be able to run in the tourney. I'd bet those who are so fixated on the tourney will run that team to make sure they continue with tourney success.

The base will never conform. You need to force or lure them.

If your rule was instated I think alot of people would skip a tourney or two.

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:38 pm

Multiple choice replacement rollups is a great idea that unfortunately requires new code.

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:46 pm

Deke wrote:

Multiple choice replacement rollups is a great idea that unfortunately requires new code.

Why?

Just stamp "REPLACEMENT ROLLUP" on a team sheet.

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:57 pm

That would actualy be so cool.....

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:56 am

The Consortium wrote:

[However, someone else suggested a "dual roll sheet, where one gets the choice of two rollups. If this were new and different and usable only if the two were both sent back together, it just might work.

That would give Dual meaning and purpose to Duel 2 in the wake of discarding DM from the game name! <Grin>