Turn Fees/Multi-teams (Used to be: 2 teams 1 arena)

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:04 pm

illkidk wrote:

TalonVolksie wrote:

How about waiving the turn fee and just have a warrior fee?

It will never fly, but if you want to draw in new managers who are playing online games that charge $9.99-$24 / month.....

I agree with you totally, Talon. I actually think that basic should be treated just like advanced. We should consolidate all the way down to a handful and run as many warriors as we want with no turn fees. RSI will lose and save money with this idea. The only way DM will ever see any sort of surge in participation is if they become competitive in pricing with the 9.95 a month, unlimited access, on demand, envelope pushing graphics, multiplayer online games. I would never be able to get any more friends to play this game because it's like cigarettes, a complete waste of money unless you are already addicted.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:05 pm

TalonVolksie wrote:

this discussion should probably move to a new thread but i'll continue it. RSI will of course talk about what costs are present for why they can not lower the fees, plus they need to make money. I understand that completely.

However lets move into the information age. Move this whole game online in terms of the distribution of information and let managers access turns and download them via the internet to their computers. Obviously for those that dont have i-net access can still get the mailers.

One huge cost savings to RSI and us would be paper. Look at the F2F's, how much paper is wasted and thrown out? I keep 20% of all my fights after I document skill/stat trains. If I could download a turn from an arena, view it online and have the option to print out the fight/turn/newsletter if I want, that would be a great step forward.

Savings....paper, cost of stamps, and time wasted from turn post date on the internet and the week it takes to get the mailing.

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:26 pm

In terms of saving/losing money for eliminating turn fees in general, wouldn't RSI do just as well? Wouldn't you spend the extra money saved from turn fees running another warrior or two? Perhaps we should set up a poll asking such.

----------------------------------
Assuming turn fees were removed...

I don't think it'd be a good idea to make all arenas hold unlimited teams, or even 3 teams, I think its good to have some arenas stick to one team of five. Minus turn fees of course.

But in other arenas, perhaps the warrior limit of 5 can be removed and bumped up to something like 20-30, and teams you transfer in are all dumped onto one team. It'd force you to still DA instead of transfering only the best warriors, but at least it'd be easier to keep track of them and you can take pride in your record. Heck, in transfer arenas, you can make the warrior limit unlimited and just have one team per manager.

-----------------------------------

As for internet DM, I would still only run enough to fill my budget, but it would provide cost savings as Talon noted, both in stamps, paper, and in time (It's so much faster to fill out strat sheets hitting the tab/enter button and a 10key than with pen/pencil). Arenas can still have a two week turn around, and you could enter/amend your strat as often as you liked until the turn actually ran! Plus, it'd make things easier for those who have slow mail service and would love to try faster arenas.

Should a poll for this be set up too?

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:46 pm

I agree with most of this. We all know that if RSI were to ever lower prices it wouldn't cut into their overhead very much, if at all. Most of us budget our DM spending and our budgets wouldn't tighten up simply because things are cheaper. I think the electronic v/s physical argument has been going on for 10+ years and RSI will never waiver on that one. I also think I heard that they wanted to go to web based input someday but security would obviously be the main obstacle on that issue.

Actually, I do agree that not all arenas should go unlimited because that would allow vets to bury noobs in the blink of an eye. I agree that maybe the limits should grow in ranges. Arenas 1-9 = 5 warriors, 10-19 = 10, 20-29 = 15, etc. Off the top of my head I don't think something like that would be too bad.

p.s. Thanks for moving the thread. Maybe you should be given mod privileges. *snicker*

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:58 am

illkidk wrote:

I agree with most of this. We all know that if RSI were to ever lower prices it wouldn't cut into their overhead very much, if at all. Most of us budget our DM spending and our budgets wouldn't tighten up simply because things are cheaper. I think the electronic v/s physical argument has been going on for 10+ years and RSI will never waiver on that one. I also think I heard that they wanted to go to web based input someday but security would obviously be the main obstacle on that issue.

That's easily solvable. When you log on using your account number to enter data (or retrieve fights if they ever went to that stage of D2 on the internet) you just have to put in a password. I suppose there may be truly evil players who might try to hack in and change strats, but how likely is that?

illkidk wrote:

Actually, I do agree that not all arenas should go unlimited because that would allow vets to bury noobs in the blink of an eye. I agree that maybe the limits should grow in ranges. Arenas 1-9 = 5 warriors, 10-19 = 10, 20-29 = 15, etc. Off the top of my head I don't think something like that would be too bad.

p.s. Thanks for moving the thread. Maybe you should be given mod privileges. *snicker*

No prob. I don't think I'd make a good mod. I'd probably just look at flaming and stuff and just give a jaded shrug thinking 'typical'. I suppose you might like that!

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:48 am

Adie wrote:

That's easily solvable. When you log on using your account number to enter data (or retrieve fights if they ever went to that stage of D2 on the internet) you just have to put in a password. I suppose there may be truly evil players who might try to hack in and change strats, but how likely is that?

I understand what you're saying but likelihood is not so much the issue as possibility is.

Adie wrote:

No prob. I don't think I'd make a good mod. I'd probably just look at flaming and stuff and just give a jaded shrug thinking 'typical'. I suppose you might like that!

Eh, what do I care. If you've ever been on AOL or XBox live or any other diverse online community then you know that this place is like Heaven compared to the teenybopper.com hangouts. BTW, I just made that URL up but it's probably not a good idea to validate its existence at work or in front of small children and animals.

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:26 am

With regards to keep the game completely the same:

.......but altering turn fees. If RSI were to simply drop the turn fee and charge a per warrior fee only, I would probably increase my play. The amount of money they have coming in may not change, but our "bang for the buck" will improve.

That could lead to fuller arena's by itself, as I have several one or two good warriors on teams that I don't run because of having to pay a minimum of $5 to run. If I could run a team with 2 warriors for say $3.50 or $4 (RSI could bump the per warrior fee slightly to offset the drop of a turn fee), I would run more.

As for adjusting and moving to a more internet based deployment of turns....this would obviously cost R&D money, would require passwords etc, but I really thing would save them costs on their end. Again, just in the cost of running printers (electric), printer toner, printer paper, envelopes, postage.

Just as long as on our end if we choose to print out a fight that we like or a whole turn, the cover sheet is green triangle shaded!!! lol

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:04 pm

illkidk wrote:

I understand what you're saying but likelihood is not so much the issue as possibility is.

Well, the fact its possible is just like the fact its possible to send in strats with other peoples warrior IDs and get them to run as you want! Who was it on the other thread that it happened too... I've had that happened to me not only to mail in strats, but at this last FTF! It sucks having your SL suddenly run with a LS and dodge tactic.

So, point is, might as well go for it! Very Happy

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:24 pm

You know, now that I think about it, why were base turn fees introduced to begin with, and why are they kept now. I must not be seeing it, but surely there's a reason to keep them since they have. Anybody care to enlighten me with their (personal or RSIs) rationale?

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:53 pm

Quote:

In terms of saving/losing money for eliminating turn fees in general, wouldn't RSI do just as well? Wouldn't you spend the extra money saved from turn fees running another warrior or two? Perhaps we should set up a poll asking such.

I'd spend the same amount probably. But isn't that more work for RSI? This would cause people to run more different teams, which would (in turn) cause RSI to have more maintenance requests, and cause more newsletters to have to be printed out. (Assuming they weren't all in DM 82) I think the point of the base fee is to encourage people to run all 5 warriors from one team.

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:25 pm

Managerr wrote:

Quote:

In terms of saving/losing money for eliminating turn fees in general, wouldn't RSI do just as well? Wouldn't you spend the extra money saved from turn fees running another warrior or two? Perhaps we should set up a poll asking such.

I'd spend the same amount probably. But isn't that more work for RSI? This would cause people to run more different teams, which would (in turn) cause RSI to have more maintenance requests, and cause more newsletters to have to be printed out. (Assuming they weren't all in DM 82) I think the point of the base fee is to encourage people to run all 5 warriors from one team.

If so, then perhaps an auto-consolidation feature for areas would be an option. If teams in certain arenas, especially the transfer areas and/or a certain few other designated ones, were allowed a larger number of warriors per team (unlimited for tranfer, set amounts for some others, in increments of five) and any team that was transfered in was automatically consolidated into it and assigned a new warrior ID, it would avoid more different teams. RSI can't get much more work now in terms of how many teams are run, with all the tourney teams laying in so many different arenas already, can they? Tourney heavy managers could have all their guys dumped on one team in one transfer arena, hence one newsletter, and fewer teams.

I see your point. Dumping base fee could increase work load which might require overhauling other aspects of logistics in the system to stream line it (more costs).

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:25 pm

Web input would be great. I'm constantly running to the post office and paying $4 for priority and $12 for overnight due to never sending my strats in early. Sending input by the web wouldn't detract from the experience at all, just make it a lot more convenient for everyone involved.

I think making the results web based would be a bad idea though. I tend to agree with some others that part of the fun is rushing home from work to find the tell-tale envelope in your mailbox. Then D2 would stop being unique and more like 1000's of other Multi-User Dungeons on the internet.

I think web input could also allow for a weekly arena or two, which I find to be a very exciting idea. You could get some new gladiators into ADM in 1/2 year conceivable, as opposed to a year minimum otherwise.

I also like Adie's idea of allowing some degree of consolidation. There are too many teams out there with only runnable warrior (I mean, I tend to run the whole stable because I'm more of a basic player, but many managers only run their godlings). You could allow some arenas where these guys could be consolidated into one team. That would be some real mayhem! Imagine 20 teams with 5 godlings each! That'd be a lot more fun to see than some arenas with like 6 teams and 4 fights a turn.

Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:43 pm

HuckleCat wrote:

I think making the results web based would be a bad idea though. I tend to agree with some others that part of the fun is rushing home from work to find the tell-tale envelope in your mailbox. Then D2 would stop being unique and more like 1000's of other Multi-User Dungeons on the internet.

I feel that it's not the fact that it comes in an envelope as much as it is the patience you have to exercise between turns. The thing that destroys PBEMs is the fact that the turn around is so quick and sometimes it's unlimited. I'm sure that everyone agrees that the DM turnaround should remain the same as it is now.

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:47 am

Supposedly the multi-team-any-arena will not happen. (It has been asked multiple times.) There are probably lots of reasons why, one of which is the commitments made to the greatly affected managers who were running in the forced close arenas. There were more than most people would think.

We are amongst those who do not believe that multi-teams-in-any-arena will realy help the game or the RSI cash flow.

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:40 am

BLASPHEMY:

Why don't all you techie programmers out there simply write a new game similar to Duelma....err DUEL II and take over!

Sandy don't kill me for that statement!