Freeze Date?

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:47 am

After reading the current poll, I am at a loss in understanding why one would want the freeze date removed. Isn't it a bit essential to determine what category a warrior fights in?

Can someone explain thier reasoning behind wanting it removed?

Ghoti

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Jul 14, 2003 Posts: 757

I think that if the Freeze date was removed all the tourneys would have a permanant status of something like.

"This Number of FE by the date of the tourney" places you in "This catagory"

Much like they do for rookies.

Basically it would remove the 2 or 3 'phantom' FE from tourney fights.

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Jul 14, 2003 Posts: 757

Or another cool method would be for RSI to randomize it.

Have them say

"Alright, every warrior with an ID# that ends in 4 or 7 fights rookies this turn"

Haha, that would really confuse the betters and baggers wouldn't it

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:19 pm

That is funny, Seraphim, but RSI could ill afford the trauma to their highest spending clients...

I'd be very content if they just continued the practice they've shown throughout this year of giving all arenas three turns after the freeze. But it's the same thing in the end, if they're simply consistant in any direction they choose you needn't guess when to fight to have the maximum FE for your class. (I think this is a bigger advantage to managers without very many warriors. A true mega can easily divide his pipeline so that half will be maxed wherever the freeze falls, but if you have one or merely a few at any level then guessing wrong can wipe your whole tourney chances or force you to fight unmaxed every time. Taking the mystery out of the dates is one more tiny gap closed between average managers and the really big spenders. IMO. Now, if I could just afford to choose from a hundred sheets... Wink

)

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Jul 14, 2003 Posts: 757

gameogre wrote:

That is funny, Seraphim, but RSI could ill afford the trauma to their highest spending clients...

I'd be very content if they just continued the practice they've shown throughout this year of giving all arenas three turns after the freeze. But it's the same thing in the end, if they're simply consistant in any direction they choose you needn't guess when to fight to have the maximum FE for your class. (I think this is a bigger advantage to managers without very many warriors. A true mega can easily divide his pipeline so that half will be maxed wherever the freeze falls, but if you have one or merely a few at any level then guessing wrong can wipe your whole tourney chances or force you to fight unmaxed every time. Taking the mystery out of the dates is one more tiny gap closed between average managers and the really big spenders. IMO. Now, if I could just afford to choose from a hundred sheets... Wink

)

With all due respect to the big spenders, I believe they, (we I guess, since I don't do anything half-way) are one of the stumbling blocks to the growth of duelmasters.

For those that are having a hard time on a hard economy but are still willing to drop $20 or $30 on something as frivolous as a game, they'll want to do it on something they enjoy. Adding all these special situations, notations, and errata just complicates the game for the beginners. If someone new comes to the game, goes 3 turns straigh without a win then finds out tourney time that all his warrior are at the bottom of the class because he didn't wait one turn before some freeze date? There aren't too many people who would continue to enjoy the game at this point.

It would be just as easy to time a warrior for all of us with no freeze date at all, and it would mean someone just stepping into the game won't have totally unnecassary math to contend with.

But you are right gameogre; the older players who have sent a small fortune to DM will control the future, changes that might upset those with high-end pipelines won't come about (races, etc). Ideas that might be a good idea and come from the bottom will never happen because those at the top will quit (retirement, etc), and right now that is guarenteed money. Guarenteed money is always better than possible money.

So the wallet controls the future, but then many in the game would argue (with every right) that is how it should be. They have spent very large sums of money, and should definately have a vote. A vote that counts.

I do think that eliminating the freeze date, if current players are given enough warning wouldn't inconvenience ANYONE too badly.

I mean removing the freeze date could be looked at like setting the freeze date as of the day of the tourney.

fighter with 0 FE as of tourney is rookies
fighter with 1-4 FE as of tourney is novice

and so on. It would still require timing, but not some date that the new players find out about AFTER it's passed.

Because it is apparently custom to find out about the freeze date AFTER the freeze date (which I just found out about...Thanks Ichabod...).

Master Poster Joined: Jul 12, 2002 Posts: 237 Location: FL

Actually the only thing that is keeping this gasme from collapsing entirely is old players... New players would never dream of spending so much money on a gtame especially considering that for the cost of 2 teams for a month they could buy a PC/PS2 Game that they could play for ages... All the "new players" are merely old players coming back...

RSI can't afford to alienate it's longest standing players for some pipedream of bringing in new ones...
-Mordraith

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:09 am

Seraphim53 wrote:

It would be just as easy to time a warrior for all of us with no freeze date at all, and it would mean someone just stepping into the game won't have totally unnecassary math to contend with.

But you are right gameogre; the older players who have sent a small fortune to DM will control the future, changes that might upset those with high-end pipelines won't come about (races, etc). Ideas that might be a good idea and come from the bottom will never happen because those at the top will quit (retirement, etc), and right now that is guarenteed money. Guarenteed money is always better than possible money.

So the wallet controls the future, but then many in the game would argue (with every right) that is how it should be. They have spent very large sums of money, and should definately have a vote. A vote that counts.

I do think that eliminating the freeze date, if current players are given enough warning wouldn't inconvenience ANYONE too badly.

I mean removing the freeze date could be looked at like setting the freeze date as of the day of the tourney.

fighter with 0 FE as of tourney is rookies
fighter with 1-4 FE as of tourney is novice

and so on. It would still require timing, but not some date that the new players find out about AFTER it's passed.

Because it is apparently custom to find out about the freeze date AFTER the freeze date (which I just found out about...Thanks Ichabod...).

But what you are talking about here is CONSISTENCY of the freeze date. If all players KNEW that it was going to be three turns, then everyone could plan for it. Even new players can add to 3! Removing the split has nothing to do with helping newer players, but everything to do about money. It is very expensive to run those extra three turns and removing them wouldn't make anything easier than just being consistent, but it sure would make it more affordable. And far less profitable for RSI.

You're barking up the wrong tree about big spenders not supporting some kind of change like this because of fear of new players. It's paranoid and silly. Most of the big spenders would LOVE a change like this as it would save them several hundred dollars in pre-tourney prep every tourney.

If you're talking about a level playing field, you want CONSISTENCY, whatever number of turns or not that entails. If you're talking about saving money, then removing the split is the way to go.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:27 am

Ghoti wrote:

After reading the current poll, I am at a loss in understanding why one would want the freeze date removed. Isn't it a bit essential to determine what category a warrior fights in?

Can someone explain thier reasoning behind wanting it removed?

Ghoti

Money.

It is a substantial expense to run those 3 turns before the tourney, especially for big-time tourney managers. It would be just as easy for RSI to say that you will fight in whatever tourney based on FE at the time of the tourney. It used to be valid when the tourney classifications were more vague, but there's really no mystery to it now. But, for a serious tourney manager, he expends a couple hundred dollars in pre-tourney prep every tourney and that is why removing the split would be particulary economical for those managers (and a serious loss of revenue for RSI).

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Jul 14, 2003 Posts: 757

Sentinel

I'm not so sure. I mean I agree with your statement right up until the loss of revenue for RSI.

10 fights is 10 fights. If a warrior requires 23 FE to max out before the tourney you will spend the same amount to do it as you would if he required 20FE before the freeze date, then ran another 3 turns.

I'm not saying reduce the fights necassary to compete, I'm saying remove the freeze date and re-situate the tourney classes accordingly.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:56 pm

Seraphim53 wrote:

Sentinel

I'm not so sure. I mean I agree with your statement right up until the loss of revenue for RSI.

10 fights is 10 fights. If a warrior requires 23 FE to max out before the tourney you will spend the same amount to do it as you would if he required 20FE before the freeze date, then ran another 3 turns.

I'm not saying reduce the fights necassary to compete, I'm saying remove the freeze date and re-situate the tourney classes accordingly.

It's still not the same, though, because you could get to the FE breaks in the standard course of fighting in the tourney. Consider these examples. Your tourney breaks might become 23 Adept, 13 Init, 7 Apprentice, 3 Novice, 0 Rookie as of the tourney date.

Scenario 1, your plan: A rookie goes 10-3 at the FTF and under your new plan is perfectly timed at 7 FE for Apprentices. He now runs in Apprentices and goes 7-3 and has 12 FE and can run Inits with no prep. For a perfectly timed warrior, that is 3 tourneys for the warrior and $21 for RSI total through Inits.
Scenario 2, current plan: A rookie goes 5-3 at the FTF and has 4 FE and is perfectly times for Apprentices. He then runs 3 turns in the arena after the split to get to 7 FE. He goes 2-3 in the tourney and is perfectly timed for Inits. After the split, he runs 3 turns before the tourney and runs Inits. For a perfectly timed warrior, that is the same 3 tourneys for the warrior and $85.50 ($21 + $10.75*6) for RSI through Inits if he runs all 5 warriors in the arena for those 6 turns or $49.50 ($21 + $5.25*6) if he just runs that one warrior for 6 turns. It's more dramatic if I extend it through Adepts.
Scenario 3, current plan: With the same tourney performance as scenario 1, a rookies goes 10-3 at the FTF and has 7 FE. He then runs 3 turns to time up for Inits, then runs 3 turns after the split and runs Inits. That is only 2 tourneys instead of 3 for the warrior through Inits and $78.50 max or $45.50 minimum for RSI. It's more dramatic if I extend it through Adepts.

Multiply this by 2000-3000 warriors that run in the basic tourneys and it is a very significant difference. You can't ignore that part of it.

What are you really trying to achieve? If you are trying to allow big spending and small spending managers to have the same number of turns and saying that it's some sort of competitive advantage/disadvantage, then just standardizing the number of turns so everyone knows will do that nicely without the serious financial ramifications of removing the split. We could definitely have a discussion about removing the split based on financial grounds, but it's really not justifiable just to level some perceived one-turn disadvantage to some players. I am a big tourney guy and I always wait until I see the announcement from RSI, so you're at no disadvantage compared to me.

Master Poster Joined: Jul 12, 2002 Posts: 237 Location: FL

uhm yeah what he said... Basically the freeze is a non-issue from a player standpoiunt... no one is going to start TCing if they change.... it will not increase parity... it works fine as is and is as Travis pointed out a financial windfall going into the tournies for RSI (i know that they extra dollars must be a godsend come the summer faces when RSI has to fly cross country...
-Mordraith

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Jul 14, 2003 Posts: 757

Sentinel wrote:

Seraphim53 wrote:

Sentinel

I'm not so sure. I mean I agree with your statement right up until the loss of revenue for RSI.

10 fights is 10 fights. If a warrior requires 23 FE to max out before the tourney you will spend the same amount to do it as you would if he required 20FE before the freeze date, then ran another 3 turns.

I'm not saying reduce the fights necassary to compete, I'm saying remove the freeze date and re-situate the tourney classes accordingly.

It's still not the same, though, because you could get to the FE breaks in the standard course of fighting in the tourney. Consider these examples. Your tourney breaks might become 23 Adept, 13 Init, 7 Apprentice, 3 Novice, 0 Rookie as of the tourney date.

Scenario 1, your plan: A rookie goes 10-3 at the FTF and under your new plan is perfectly timed at 7 FE for Apprentices. He now runs in Apprentices and goes 7-3 and has 12 FE and can run Inits with no prep. For a perfectly timed warrior, that is 3 tourneys for the warrior and $21 for RSI total through Inits.
Scenario 2, current plan: A rookie goes 5-3 at the FTF and has 4 FE and is perfectly times for Apprentices. He then runs 3 turns in the arena after the split to get to 7 FE. He goes 2-3 in the tourney and is perfectly timed for Inits. After the split, he runs 3 turns before the tourney and runs Inits. For a perfectly timed warrior, that is the same 3 tourneys for the warrior and $85.50 ($21 + $10.75*6) for RSI through Inits if he runs all 5 warriors in the arena for those 6 turns or $49.50 ($21 + $5.25*6) if he just runs that one warrior for 6 turns. It's more dramatic if I extend it through Adepts.
Scenario 3, current plan: With the same tourney performance as scenario 1, a rookies goes 10-3 at the FTF and has 7 FE. He then runs 3 turns to time up for Inits, then runs 3 turns after the split and runs Inits. That is only 2 tourneys instead of 3 for the warrior through Inits and $78.50 max or $45.50 minimum for RSI. It's more dramatic if I extend it through Adepts.

Multiply this by 2000-3000 warriors that run in the basic tourneys and it is a very significant difference. You can't ignore that part of it.

What are you really trying to achieve? If you are trying to allow big spending and small spending managers to have the same number of turns and saying that it's some sort of competitive advantage/disadvantage, then just standardizing the number of turns so everyone knows will do that nicely without the serious financial ramifications of removing the split. We could definitely have a discussion about removing the split based on financial grounds, but it's really not justifiable just to level some perceived one-turn disadvantage to some players. I am a big tourney guy and I always wait until I see the announcement from RSI, so you're at no disadvantage compared to me.

Why is it in my scenario the guy goes 10-3 and the regular scenario he goes 5-3?

You can't count tourney FE until you can start predicting at 100% what any warrior will do. The point is if you add the 3 'phantom' fights that would occur after the freeze dat to the class requirements then lose the freeze date there would be no financial difference to RSI.

0+3=3 /4+3=7/ 10+3=13

These numbers are the same not matter what. Add tourney FE or regular arena FE and you get the same number of fights. Same number of fights is the same amount of money.

I agree that fighters who do better in a tourney pay less in prep for the next tourney. but if you use the same 5-3 warrior in your FtF that you used in my FtF he would still need 3 more fights to max at seven.

And AS I SAID, there is no real advantage or disadvantage for knowing about and timing for the split. Big tourney guy or not I have full plans on running a very large host in the tourneys and I could care less either way. I also wasn't talking of any turn advantages you would have over anyone else.

MY WHOLE point was to make things easier to grasp for the new person coming in. It had nothing to do with any turn advantages. ( Evil or Very Mad

except where the beginner didn't know about the freeze date, then we are talking about up to 20 turns of advantage now aren't we Evil or Very Mad

)

I should also point out that this didn't apply to me either since I've played before. So I'm not really trying to achieve anything. I was simply pointing out that the tourney system doesn't have to be overly complicated.

I submit however that you are wrong on one point. Those with larger budgets are at a severe advantage when it comes to tourney time.

I would very much like to meet the guy who can TC in basic while having only one active team of five warriors. I'm sure it's been done, but how many compared to the times you've done it while entering 100 warriors every tourney?

I may be a lousy manager, but I know odds. I have a better chance of taking home top spot if I flood the market. Plain and simple.

Master Poster Joined: Jul 12, 2002 Posts: 237 Location: FL

hmmmm you should talk to bookie if we can pry him away from his crack-pipe...

anyway several years ago he ran 100 warriors in a rookies tourny and one a paltry single digit TV total (7?) just having a budget doesn't mean that much unless you have the knowledge of what to run when and how....

A new person has a snowballs chance in hell of TCing his first tourny so simplifying the criteria means nothing...
-Mordraith

Grandmaster Poster Joined: Jul 14, 2003 Posts: 757

mordraith wrote:

hmmmm you should talk to bookie if we can pry him away from his crack-pipe...

anyway several years ago he ran 100 warriors in a rookies tourny and one a paltry single digit TV total (7?) just having a budget doesn't mean that much unless you have the knowledge of what to run when and how....

A new person has a snowballs chance in hell of TCing his first tourny so simplifying the criteria means nothing...
-Mordraith

Good point.. I recall my opinion Very Happy

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:30 am

I like the freeze date, throws a little gray area into the game. Keeps you on your toes, start making things to simple and they become BORING. It's called experience, just like in any sport, racing whatever, rare for the new kid on the block to kick ass, he needs the experience, learning on your own, getting advise from the older ones, whatever. You have got to pay your dues for success. I jumped into 7 arenas' in the first few months I was playing, spent a ton of money the first year, now I picked a couple to run in regular, the rest I just set up for tourneys. Expense has gone way down, now I can play the game keep my foot into a few doors and not be broke all the time. Just have to pay your dues. If someone is not willing to pay and wants to fight in one arena, then perhaps tournaments aren't his biggest thing, just competing in the arena and personal ads perhaps are his thing, bottom line, if you want tons of success you have to pay. Hey by now, my bike would be finished, instead it runs great, looks pretty good now, but has a ways to go(decided to sink some of the money into the game) no regrets, I love the game. Sacrifice, we all do it for our own reasons, if you want to be successfull in this game you will probably have to do some sacrificing, I do however believe the friendships you make in this game way out weigh the sacrifices. It's all about having fun and kickin ass on the way. Cool