Why play anything else?

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:21 pm

I don't know if an FE cap is going to be the answer to Challengers. Skill cap I could see working if there was a regularly scheduled suck-off that took place before each tourney; however, it has its own set of problems too.

If you go with the FE cap, you'll just cripple the off-styles that take time to develop and in turn make it a 21 Witter class. Who is going to take the time to develop a 9 Wit TP when you are sure to be gone at 50 or 60 FE?

On the other hand, if you make it purely skill based, you get the 21 Witters pulled early and give it over to the slow developers. Warriors are going to be pulled just because they learend a lot of skills regardless of FE and tourney achievement.

I personally think skill based is the most fair, but once again it is just my opinion. ~155 skills coupled with an automatic suck off before every tournament AND automatic suck off for a TC

As a few have said already, no solution is going to be perfect and please everyone, but that does not preclude a good solution to the problems at hand.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:22 pm

other thoughts .....
Rooks - same
Novices - reinstate to 4.5
Apprens 5-9.5
Inits same
Adept - same
Cham - same
Chal A - 30.5 - 45
Chal B - 50-64.5
auto grad at 65
Fres - Primus same - place penalty on all AB's. (equalize)

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:34 pm

One Armed Bandit wrote:

I feel like the Dead tournament should be viewed as a privilege, not a right.

By and large, death in Basic DM is supposed to be permanent. You warrior has to be both good and lucky to get back from one of the annual dead tournaments. Does it suck to lose a high FE warrior? Yes. Does the wealth of good tourney calibre dead warriors hurt a regular arena warrior's changes of returning from the dead? Yes. Should this be a major consideration for future changes? I don't believe that it should.

HUH!
You admit their is a problem, but say the best course of action is too ignore it?

Comments like this and being talked down too is why I am going to stop posting on the topic.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:45 pm

Darque wrote:

I personally think skill based is the most fair, but once again it is just my opinion. ~155 skills coupled with an automatic suck off before every tournament AND automatic suck off for a TC

After reading your statement, this makes sense. RSI just needs to do the automatic suck off every time, including FTF's.

The Consortium wrote:

other thoughts .....
Rooks - same
Novices - reinstate to 4.5
Apprens 5-9.5
Inits same
Adept - same
Cham - same
Chal A - 30.5 - 45
Chal B - 50-64.5
auto grad at 65
Fres - Primus same

I agree with this as well. It would force more arena participation for the non-challenger classes. Unless, you aren't referring to the cutoff date and the 3 fights prior. Didn't RSI drop this all together after we (the customers) said we wanted an easier way to tourney time warriors? Again, I am probably wrong here...

Oh, almost forgot. I like the addition of the Challenger A and B, but wouldn't we need to cut the fat somewhere so there isn't too many tourney prizes being handed out? Eligibles perhaps?

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2004 Posts: 2990

Quote:

HUH!
You admit their is a problem, but say the best course of action is too ignore it?

Comments like this and being talked down too is why I am going to stop posting on the topic.

At no point did I state that it was a problem. I agreed that it sucked to lose a warrior to death, especially one that you had invested significant time and effort into, and I agreed that the legions of dead tourney caliber warriors made it increasingly unlikely for regular arena guys to return from the dead. However, death is simply part of the game and I do not view it as a problem. Focusing tournament structure around "regular arena guys", whether dead or alive, is a mistake in my opinion.

I have no idea why you are taking disagreement so personally, but I plan to not respond any further to your posts on this topic.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Quote:

You are totally missing the point of the Challengers class hurting the Challengers dead class.

Arena only warriors die before getting the 20 FE to graduate. If they dont come back by Dead Adepts class, they can't come back because they CANNOT compete against all the dead sandbaggers from the regular Champions and Challengers tourneys.

I'm not sure it's as impossible as you think and here's why. Dead Challengers that die in the tourney are subject to the same skill line cutoff as regular arena warriors. (And this is assuming they were cut off when they were at the top of the line) Only 5 of the 12 Dead Challenger TVs were sucked off instantly after the tourney. This means that only less than half of them ended the tourney with over 155'ish skills. And even if it were at 155, that's hardly unattainable in a few years of dead tourneys.
(And Challengers isn't usually a class with a high mortality rate)

Quote:

You've been singing this song for years. Dead tourneys are fun. I like the fact that there is a dead tourney every October. You are certainly in the minority I would wager as far as warriors killed to how many warrior you've gotten back.

I realize I'm in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. And I will continue to lobby for making death meaningful in this game. (But I understand that it might be bad business for RSI to think this way)

Quote:

I've been playing this game for almost 20 years and I've NEVER gotten a warrior back from the Dead Tourney. I'd wager I've had a least 100 warriors killed on me in my career as well.

Oh come on. How many long breaks have you had while playing this game? How many do you actually send to each dead tourney? I don't think that says anything about the difficulty of getting anyone back nor does it say anything about your managerial skill--it's just a function of your not sending a lot of people.

Quote:

I don't have a problem with the Novice Class idea. I actually like it. However, I don't like the 15FE Adepts class and I hate the 21+FE Challengers class and nothing above it. I like the Champions class at 21-30FE and I like the Challenges class at 31+ FE. I don't see Champions being a sandbagger class at all. I have a number of Champion class warriors none of which could be considered sandbaggers. They have fought in tourneys and the arena all along. In my Champions crew the lowest arena FE is 10 and the highest is 18. I ran each warrior up to the top of the class in the arena after their tourney performances. I believe my average arena FE per warrior in this class is 14. Hardly a sandbagger. Most warriors that I have seen in this class look to be similar to me

Let me explain my thinking about Champions class being a sandbagger class. On the normal arena you have 20 FE and then ADM. For a normal arena manager or an arena team--they are only running in tourneys when timed naturally or not at all. Most of these warriors (that aren't scum) are going to get their invite before 30 FE by natural means. If they want to compete in Champs, they are going to have to throw fights, i.e. sandbag.
Are your warriors who are "just running" in the arena stopping to time for tourneys at all? That's a form of sandbagging, at least to arena manageres.

Just taking a look at some sampling of Champions. If you look at the TV list, the TVs have records of 6-0, 9-3, 8-3, 9-2, 5-3, 8-5, 11-1, 10-7. I only have one warrior I ran in Champs this time out, but she fought opponents that have arena records of 4-3, 6-5, 6-2 and 5-3. Only one of these warrior look like a regular arena warriors. It seems that most of the warriors being entered in this class are all tourney warriors. Which isn't a horrible thing--you get a higher % of tourney warriors the higher you go up, but I just think that given the size of this tourney I don't think it's a horrible idea to go and add a more accessible class for non-tourney managers. (Especially since we lost Novices for this tourney)

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:55 pm

That's why I think 50+ is a great break point:

A) You get rid of the super brick 90+ TPs, and you get rid of those 4-3 60+ FE baggers.

B) The arena only guys (not truly arena only but you know the regular players) are not likely to have to worry about those baggers because their warriors will graduate out by 50 FE with that single expert. Their not bagging so if they have a 51+ FE guy their not going to be tourney worthy guys anyways with 12-50 records.

So you have the 50+ where the tourney managers can battle against basically themselves for that bragging right. The arena-mostly managers have the 31-50 cloass. Sure they'll bump into baggers on the way up but you've thinned the herd by taking away 51-100 baggers which can be what (50/7 or 8 FE per tourney max) 7 tournies or rougly 2-5 years of bumping into that super bagger whose not getting PPs in the arena.

That coupled with at least one yearly suck off would at least ease the log jam. You also take away those super dead baggers in October and give regular arena managers a better chance to get their beloved fave back.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:44 am

Am I reading this right that some of you are suggesting TWO challengers classes - sort of upper and lower FE groupings?

I don't know that I have an opinion on that yet, but I do have thoughts/questions.

1. Are there enough warriors entered in that area to warrant to divisions?
2. The better arena warriors will be gone by 30 FE. So won't any challengers grouping beyond that rank be largely tourney-only warriors? How does this help? Doesn't it just add one more TC prize into the hands of the same managers? (The usual cast of tourney managers) I don't know if that is bad or not, but it seems that part of the arguments being advanced surround allowing arena warriors to succeed and the role of sandbaggers. Even if the two classes are up to 50 FE and 50+, does it do anything other than change the duration of sandbagging?

Oh - and I like the dead tournies, even though I have yet to get anyone back from one since my return to the game. I still have hope that I will get some back and I am willing to pay RSI for the chance.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:59 am

Managerr wrote:

I realize I'm in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. And I will continue to lobby for making death meaningful in this game. (But I understand that it might be bad business for RSI to think this way)

True, but it doesn't make you right either. I believe even with a Dead Tourney every October death is pretty meaningful. I guess we will just agree to disagree on this.

Managerr wrote:

Oh come on. How many long breaks have you had while playing this game? How many do you actually send to each dead tourney? I don't think that says anything about the difficulty of getting anyone back nor does it say anything about your managerial skill--it's just a function of your not sending a lot of people.

I've had several breaks from the arena but in my breaks I've still run a handful of warriors in tourneys especially Dead tourneys. I've retired a handful of Challengers and other warriors with decent numbers because I realized that they are probably better off dead (designed for skills only and not for physicals). I actually keep a running track of warriors that I've run with no returns from the dead. All total, I've run 71 times in the dead tourney with no returns. I've had the same dead Challenger go 7-3 in Dead Challengers 3 times but that is the closest I've come to getting anyone out. I fully expect for her to return this October though. In fact I feel out of the 6 or 7 warriors that I'll run this October that I'll get at least 3 of them back. Of course, I've felt that before to no avail.

Managerr wrote:

Let me explain my thinking about Champions class being a sandbagger class. On the normal arena you have 20 FE and then ADM. For a normal arena manager or an arena team--they are only running in tourneys when timed naturally or not at all. Most of these warriors (that aren't scum) are going to get their invite before 30 FE by natural means. If they want to compete in Champs, they are going to have to throw fights, i.e. sandbag.
Are your warriors who are "just running" in the arena stopping to time for tourneys at all? That's a form of sandbagging, at least to arena manageres.

I think it's foolish to not maximize a warrior's tourney potential especially since generally, I only run tourney warriors. Even in the arena that I am an arena manager I still will hold a prospect out if they look like they could have a decent tourney run. To me that's just smart management.

If warriors that are tourney warriors (ie have been designed for tournament play and are run in the arena only to maximize their FE in a given tourney class) are now considered sandbaggers then I guess I primarly run sandbaggers.

I see your point on the Champs tourney and the elimination of the Novices tourney. I'm in favor of a Novices tourney but I am also in favor of a Champs tourney. In my opinion, adding classes could only be a good thing. Personally, though, I would like to see the remaining classes stick around as I feel that they offer the most opportunity to those of us that don't spend a ton of money on this game the most enjoyment.

I love the Challengers tourney as it is. I like the fact that there is a tourney that allows for managers to develop a warrior instead of just looking for a 21 Wit warrior. While I don't only run 21 Wit warriors currently that is also because I see a value of a 13 Wit warrior down the road in Challengers and I am willing to take my time and develop the warrior as well. Thus far, granted I haven't been too successful but I still have the plan....

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:45 pm

Managerr wrote:

Quote:

Freshman class could easily be turned into the sandbaggers class and no one would care and it wouldn't hurt players that like to play in the arenas.

Why do we need another Sandbaggers class? The players that like to play in arenas are supposed to graduate their warriors past 20 FE. If you're not close to ADM already, you're scum, sandbagging, or really bad.
This class doesn't hurt people who like to play in arenas now--because YOU SHOULD ALREADY BE IN ADM if you're an arena-only player.

No, this is not right. You are not supposed to graduate in 20 FE, you are supposed to graduate somewhere near 20 arena fights. If you run in both arenas AND tourneys, you ought to have at least 30-35 FE before graduating.

If I managed to get two 6-3 tourneys (or the equivalent for 10 FE) along the way before my invite while running fairly consistently in the arena, I should definitely get to fight Champions before going to ADM. Have you gotten so tourney myopic that you honestly think anyone over 20 FE in basic has to be a sandbagger?

I don't understand the backlash again Champions. I actually think this is the last "real" tourney class before Challengers.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:30 pm

Quote:

No, this is not right. You are not supposed to graduate in 20 FE, you are supposed to graduate somewhere near 20 arena fights. If you run in both arenas AND tourneys, you ought to have at least 30-35 FE before graduating.

Actually it is. 20 FE is the lowest amount of FE you can get your invite
in. Not 20 arena fights. 20FE. If you are a full time arena warrior and fight in an arena AND tourneys (and are not a scum or in an unusually competitive arena) I would say you would have between 20 and 30 FE.

Quote:

If I managed to get two 6-3 tourneys (or the equivalent for 10 FE) along the way before my invite while running fairly consistently in the arena, I should definitely get to fight Champions before going to ADM.

Absolutely. And you should have a record like 17-4 or maybe an exceptional 14-3 or the like. As I posted above--where are those warriors? I don't think that's what's happening. We're seeing an influx of 6-0 and 9-3 type warriors with a lot of hidden tourney FE. Where are the regular arena warriors in this clas?

Quote:

Have you gotten so tourney myopic that you honestly think anyone over 20 FE in basic has to be a sandbagger?

Don't try and strawman me, that's not what I said at all.

Quote:

I don't understand the backlash again Champions. I actually think this is the last "real" tourney class before Challengers.

To summarize my feelings:
- The class is small and generally uncompetitive.
- Not easily accessible for arena managers and filled with tourney only warriors that basically serve as a prep class to Challengers.
- 30 FE is an "unnatural" breakpoint that goes against the invitation system we have today.
- We lost the Novices class for this class, which has caused a backlash in the Rookies/Apprentices tourney who are now sharing 2 TCs where there used to be 3 classes.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:49 pm

Quote:

I see your point on the Champs tourney and the elimination of the Novices tourney. I'm in favor of a Novices tourney but I am also in favor of a Champs tourney. In my opinion, adding classes could only be a good thing. Personally, though, I would like to see the remaining classes stick around as I feel that they offer the most opportunity to those of us that don't spend a ton of money on this game the most enjoyment.

Even though I'm a little concerned with the watering down of TC prize values by adding more prizes, that's really more of a selfish opinion and your idea would be a fine compromise I think.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:38 pm

Quote:

Absolutely. And you should have a record like 17-4 or maybe an exceptional 14-3 or the like. As I posted above--where are those warriors? I don't think that's what's happening. We're seeing an influx of 6-0 and 9-3 type warriors with a lot of hidden tourney FE. Where are the regular arena warriors in this clas?

You are right the arena warrriors that could compete in this class have gotten their invite due to the Political points system from arena.

What stops the arena warriors that haven't gotten there invite is that they aren't skilled enough to beat the top warriors in there arena, much less tourney warriors. Most of the arena only Champions probably only have 100-110 total skills, which isn't even as much as the top Adept tourney warriors.
It looks like the Champions class tourney warriors are probably the mid Wit warriors trying to catchup to the high Wit tourney warriors in prep for the Challengers class. They are just using the 10 or so arena fights to try and catchup a little more and fill in the FE between classes.

Only way to make the class accessable to arena champions is to add a skill cap to the champions class, but why change it, arena warriors aren't an important part of the tourney game.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 1020

Quick question about Freshmen, what are the credentials to move to ADM tourny. Most of my old and retired ADM guys are only ADM qualified, thus they never see the light of day. My new groups hitting the tourny are doing well in Freshmen, but is it 1 tourny and you move up, a given amount of arena fights or FE after invite?

Grimm

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 1020

I dont know if I have missed something, but since the beginning of time it has appeared it is simply a Total skills/FE ratio until Challengers. This means that arena fighting is fine you just have to ensure you do not go over your cut off. This is what I have always done.

I do have some guys who only fight tourny, but if the need a last second fight to maximize their skill set going in I always consider fighting them.

Grimm