consolidation

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

looking thru the arenas it seems lots are low on teams agian and while i know some of you are attached to arenas , i know im not playing in an arena with 3 or 4 teams in it , the learning rate is horrible in these arenas there is little to no competition and its a big waste of money .

so should there be more arena closures ?

i think there should !

but i think this time lee should fix everything the data base is jammed and a constant problem in arena 82 and 69 .

here is what id like to see here do

allow a one time team consolidation (simply suspend all blood fued for 4 turns so no one can take advantage

allow us to merge any 2 teams and delet the trash warriors ( dark arena fees are rediculius and the reason al this happened in the first place 10.75 to dark arena 5 bucks brands new team ( nothing changes if nothing changes )

on the flip side it presents another big problem at least in my eyes i have literealy hundreds of 1 man teams i never run , why becasue in sick of wasting money on the dark arena now , let me consolodate 2 or even 3 teams into one and id have 15 or 20 warriors id run virtually every turn in 82 and a few other arena insted of the current 4 or 5 guys im running on 5 teams full of trash so instead of rs i getting my 5.25 times 5 a month they would et my 10.25 times 5 a month and id be playing in 3-4 arena every turn .

consolidate all the 5 team arena and allow us to merge our tema rather than transfer them

allow a 1 time merge in 69 and 82 so we can costeffectivley run more warriors

the number of warriors per tourney is declining each and every tourney not alot but its happening and if changes are not made to make things fair and more cost effective to the playrs the game will die .

so any thoughts ?

guardian

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:18 am

This would make basic alot more fun. People would spend more money in basic, and with better learning rates, they would run more warriors in tournies. This needs to happen.

Polarius

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:22 pm

*bump*

this needs to happen, let's keep it on the front page

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:07 am

We see no real advantage to consolidation. we prefer and support - "Leave it as it is. Play where you want as is."

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

there are 2 consolidation issues here , having an opinion and not a reson isnt really a valid opinion ( your still welcome to have it ) but a discussion requires a "why"

arena consolidation

here is the advantage i am not talking about healtyh arenas area 2 and 3 have 4 teams i want to run my teams there but when i do there is none of an approprite skil level to fight and i get lousy or commision opponents so the warriors do not learn , this makes it a waste of my 10 bucks so i am simply not going to do it .

arenas with 3-4 teams are no longer viable i dont even care if we close them or leave them all open its a team conbsolidation issue to get people to play more basic becasue it will be more cost effective to do so , i would be willing to bet 90 percent of the managers just dont bother to da becasue it is so much cheaper to just abandon the team and get a new rollup and these 4 team arenas pretty much prove me right .

secondly i have hundreds of one man teams (just my example everyone has some number ) it costs me 5 bucks to run that one warrior and anther 5 bucks to da every turn , when instead i can just get f new warriors for 5 bucks and just continue running in tournies becasue arena play isnt cost effective , make it cost effective by allowing the team consolidation in the tourney arenas 69(becasuew its where we all house our tourney only warriors and 82 becasue its where we house the tourney warriors to run them a few times before every tourney to get them to the fe line

and lastly allowing the team consolidation will free up lots of data base room . allow all the puds that fall by the wayside to simply be deleted ,
rsi will say its too much work but if they charge a fee for it , and make it a one time deal then they get paid and we get to run more warriors and spend more money doing it and they get paid again

charge a dollar or 2 for every 2 teams consolidated , this will limit the ammont of teams that a big spender will combine and lighten the load on rsi as far as the work goes .

here is the crux of the point i have 2 one man teams to run 2 warriors it costs me 10.50 i dont feel that is cost effective or of sufficient value , but i want to run some my budget allows me to run some so i pick one and i spend the 5.25 not the 10 50 but if i had even 2 warriors on the team then i would spend the 1050 to run the full team every turn becasue the cost of daing into a full team is reduced .

last year i tried to da arena 18 into a usable team again it had one warrior on it i liked after about 50 or 60 bucks in crappy replacements i simply gave up team retired , so if i go back to 18 now ill simply add the team in 18 to the 82 logjam and put a decent rollup there and start over and when the 1 warrior on the team is gone ill do it again , this costs me the teams history and record in that arena .

guardian

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

mannequin posted this awhile back it too has some merit

remeber the idea is to create an enviroment where all the basic arenas are healthy and viable i cant say how many arenas that is but looking at the number of temas running in other than 82 i dguess it would be around 12 fast arenas and 3 slow ones

i a not shoving anything down anyones throat

so i am asking for you fast arena people

would you play in more than 12 arena on a rtegular basis ( i thin not )

and you slow arena people is 3 slow arena's enough for you ?

again i am not advocating actually closing any arenas i am suggedsting rsi give us a means to consolodate and we as the players will choose where to do so !

so those of you that want to keep your teams in dead arenas runningf certainly can feel free to do so . and those of us that would like to have healthy active arenas to regularly play in can also do so

again i am asking for actual opinions not yes or no answers , give yur reasons , speak your mind .

lastly to rsi - your operational costs will go down which means your profit margin will go up !

guardian

mannequinn wrote :

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:37 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been thinking about the problem with basic arena play since I saw the newest poll on whether or not there should be a new round of arena closures. I am not in favor of closing arenas; in fact, as a long-time player I thought it might help to explain the dilemma we find ourselves in and offer up an idea to improve the situation.

As everyone knows, Duelmasters isn't the game it used to be. In it's early stages it was almost entirely based on the arena level. The number one goal of every manager was to have the DM, period. Goals such as top team, popularity leader, etc were secondary. Most managers were judged by their peers by their team records -- there was no other way to differentiate managerial ability. A great team record in a notoriously tough arena enhanced those perceptions. Though information was severely limited in those days by today's standards, managers in opposing arenas knew one another by the reputation of their trademark teams. What prompted the evolution of the game was the tournaments. The sole purpose of the tournaments was to give managers a chance to see how warriors of equal experience would fare against one another in an inter-arena format. It was all about bragging rights. Period. (Oh, ok, and to make some money for RSI). The success of the tourneys prompted serious managers to make an effort to compete and do well in them, if for no other reason than to keep a warrior's developement up-to-date with their peers in their home arena.

The single most significant change affecting the health of the arenas since then has been the tourney prizes themselves. Think about this; since the first prizes were offered, we have seen:

a) the number of arenas significantly increased in response to managers needing a place to run new teams

b) the advent of the sandbagging strategy

c) increased emphasis on tourney success and individual accomplishment

d) advent of transfer arenas/ DM-82 for tourney teams

e) the number of teams in arenas dropping to the point that necessitated the first round of arena closures

I am NOT placing the demise of basic arenas solely on the increased significance of the tourneys and realize there are other factors involved in the state of today's game (such as overall participation and the game's longevity). What I am saying is that the nature of the game has changed, and it is based on the tourneys, rather than on the arenas. RSI did not do this (intentionally), we, the players, did this ourselves. I am not sure we can ever bring arena play back to what it used to be, even on a limited basis. I do have a simple idea, as follows:

Recognizing that the game has changed, I think RSI needs to implement a change in their rate structure for basic arenas. The only thing that currently promotes spikes in basic arena play anymore are the varied contests offered in select arenas. Players have basically said they will particpate in basic arena play if properly motivated. Keeping this in mind, I would like to see RSI make these changes:

a) Drop the $3.25 base charge in basic arenas whenever a team runs a full stable (all 5 warriors). This will give manager's a financial incentive to run a full aquad. If you choose to run less than a full squad, then the base charge remains in effect.

b) In return, drop the free fights for arena awards. In my opinion, you have to give something to get something. I would propose retaining the three free turns of fight credit for teams garnering 6 or more awards -- you would really have to do well to earn them and should be rewarded for your efforts. Dropping the free fights would make it more costly for for managers to run single warrior teams. This isn't meant to punish managers who choose to do so, it's meant to increase the overall size and health of the arenas.

c) If you are going to promote full basic arenas in this fashion, you need to make the transfer arenas more attractive as well for those who choose to use them. Eliminate the $3.25 base charge per team; I didn't get 7 different envelopes with my DM-82 results last turn, why should I get charged a base charge for each team? Quit gouging us, charge a singe base charge of $3.25 (or $5, it's up for debate) + $1.50 per warrior. I would be surprised if it hurt RSI's bottom line -- most manager's would use the savings on new team roll-ups.

These are just one man's ideas. I have others, based on RSI's willingness to support arena contests -- if they are willing to pass on favorites info, +1 skill prizes, etc. to contest organizers based on arena participation, there is no reason why such awards couldn't be given in lieu of free fights.

There it is, a little something to think about and comment on. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Darrell / Mannequin

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:35 am

I think that they should close ALL the basic arena and open up 12-20 new basic areans in the 301-320 range.

3-5 arenas per regional affiliation.

Force 20+ teams per basic arena.

I am with steve, let us consolidate some warriors off various teams. The cost to us to to REALY PURGE the database of all unwanted teams.

If anyone wants real change contact me at DekeYoung@Comcast.net to start discussing a 2007 proposal.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:35 am

1. I do not support closing and forcing arenas to consolidate, UNLESS the 4-5-6-7 managers in that "dead" arena who are playing there EVERY turn decide that is what THEY want to do. Then I would say it is their decision. Should some arenas be pruned? Probably, but I say it is up to the managers who are still trying to keep the arena up to decide, not those who have flown the coop years ago.
2. The idea of allowing a manager to merge two teams into one might have some merit but my questions is where are these "cherry-picker" teams going to be placed? Don't drop them into my arena. If you want to put them into a transfer arena then that is fine with me. If that would free up data base in those monster transfer arenas and the managers in those transfer arenas want to do that, go for it. I don't run in any transfer arena so don't know much about them. Again, I don't want a "cherry-picker" team dropped in my arena. The manager will most likely run them for tournies and then until graduation and then go inactive if the replacements are lame anyone so what does it bring to that basic arena?
3. Someone asked could we go down to 3 slow arena...my answer is no. We do not need to close and consolidate the slow arenas into 3 arenas. Most slow arenas are doing pretty good, leave us alone thank you.
4. I believe their could be some tweeking to the system. The ideas of lower the ST requirements by 2 for bashing weapons and making the BS a bashing weapon sounds OK. In general I support the Consortium's opinion posted above with my comments here noted.
5. How about an all out marketing blitz by RSI? It would be nice to target newer players and still reach out to the old managers who left. Many of them left because they say the game is "broken." I have pursued other goals in my 21 years of playing so I don't feel their frustrations. It would be nice to get some of them to come back but newer players might be where RSI should go. The "jaded" guys who simply won't run 19 out of 20 warriors because they don't have "long term potential" should work with RSI to fix the upper level.

Overall, I like the basic game.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:37 am

Deke wrote:

I think that they should close ALL the basic arena and open up 12-20 new basic areans in the 301-320 range.

3-5 arenas per regional affiliation.

Force 20+ teams per basic arena.

I am with steve, let us consolidate some warriors off various teams. The cost to us to to REALY PURGE the database of all unwanted teams.

If anyone wants real change contact me at DekeYoung@Comcast.net to start discussing a 2007 proposal.

If they close ALL the basic arenas and throw me into a "new" basic arena I will be done.

Purge away in those transfer arenas but don't destroy what I have helped build for two decades.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:43 am

I want to play devils's advocate on this one.

First let me note that I don't know the Guardian at all and could not even identify one of his warriors or teams. These are just a few questions that seem to be issues to me. I am veryinterested in the response to these ideas.

First, on the issue of team consolidation...

Does this really solve anything? Why do you have hundreds of one-man teams? Simple, because the focus isn't on the team, it is on getting those warriors that can win a tournament. I have no doubt that the other 400 warriors on those supposedly one-man teams include many role-ups that could enjoy succesful arena careers if given the chance. They aren't fought because they can't win tourneys.

Simply put, if you're shooting only for the great role-up you are going to end up with many extras - that is the nature of the game; not every recruit is a star. The flaw, if indeed it is a flaw, is not in those role-ups, but rather in the demand that they be perfect. The style of play results in this problem, not a flaw in the game itself.

In addition, this "solution" is only temporary at best. Sure, you now have 5 warriors on one team to fight, but what happens after they graduate? The cycle begins again. Will we have to allow you to consolidate again? Plus, I suspect these teams will just be tourney timing anyway, so it isn't as if they will actually be full time players in the arenas anyway.

What it does do is save the tournament managers a lot of money. Sorry if I don't feel bad for you on this - your choosing to particiapte in the game in this fashion.

Some things I have heard recently that I do like:
1) $5 to DA an entire team would seem to allow those who wish to play a team to do so, without wasting money.
2) No base charge for teams that fight a full team of 5. (Ok, this one would actually help me, but I probably would fight one more full team than I am currently doing) Even if they eliminate free fights to balance this, I'd be ok with that.
3.) Fix the scimitar

Just the thoughts of one of the games smaller managers - and an active full-team participant where I do fight.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:48 am

KnightHospitaller wrote:

If they close ALL the basic arenas and throw me into a "new" basic arena I will be done.

Purge away in those transfer arenas but don't destroy what I have helped build for two decades.

You keep your team, your record, your warriors. You get to choose which of the "300 series" arenas to join.

What are you losing?

The reason I suggest something this drastic that effects everyone is that unless it effects everyone, it will not happen.

You could create arenas for teams with over say, 250 team fights.
Or you could just publish descriptions and let every manager decide where his new home will be.

There is nothing preventing everyone in a popular current arena from transfering to the same "300 series" arena.

So I ask again, what is it you are going to lose that you "have helped build for two decades?"

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:29 am

KnightHospitaller wrote:

1. I do not support closing and forcing arenas to consolidate, UNLESS the 4-5-6-7 managers in that "dead" arena who are playing there EVERY turn decide that is what THEY want to do. Then I would say it is their decision. Should some arenas be pruned? Probably, but I say it is up to the managers who are still trying to keep the arena up to decide, not those who have flown the coop years ago.
2. The idea of allowing a manager to merge two teams into one might have some merit but my questions is where are these "cherry-picker" teams going to be placed? Don't drop them into my arena. If you want to put them into a transfer arena then that is fine with me. If that would free up data base in those monster transfer arenas and the managers in those transfer arenas want to do that, go for it. I don't run in any transfer arena so don't know much about them. Again, I don't want a "cherry-picker" team dropped in my arena. The manager will most likely run them for tournies and then until graduation and then go inactive if the replacements are lame anyone so what does it bring to that basic arena?
3. Someone asked could we go down to 3 slow arena...my answer is no. We do not need to close and consolidate the slow arenas into 3 arenas. Most slow arenas are doing pretty good, leave us alone thank you.
4. I believe their could be some tweeking to the system. The ideas of lower the ST requirements by 2 for bashing weapons and making the BS a bashing weapon sounds OK. In general I support the Consortium's opinion posted above with my comments here noted.
5. How about an all out marketing blitz by RSI? It would be nice to target newer players and still reach out to the old managers who left. Many of them left because they say the game is "broken." I have pursued other goals in my 21 years of playing so I don't feel their frustrations. It would be nice to get some of them to come back but newer players might be where RSI should go. The "jaded" guys who simply won't run 19 out of 20 warriors because they don't have "long term potential" should work with RSI to fix the upper level.

Overall, I like the basic game.

We stand the same.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:39 am

Deke wrote:

KnightHospitaller wrote:

If they close ALL the basic arenas and throw me into a "new" basic arena I will be done.

Purge away in those transfer arenas but don't destroy what I have helped build for two decades.

You keep your team, your record, your warriors. You get to choose which of the "300 series" arenas to join.

What are you losing?

The reason I suggest something this drastic that effects everyone is that unless it effects everyone, it will not happen.

You could create arenas for teams with over say, 250 team fights.
Or you could just publish descriptions and let every manager decide where his new home will be.

There is nothing preventing everyone in a popular current arena from transfering to the same "300 series" arena.

So I ask again, what is it you are going to lose that you "have helped build for two decades?"

There is a tremendous tradition that means a lot to many. We want that.
You may heve been gone a while. Guardian may not care. But some of us do.

There is no real advantage to closing arenas. Any operating efficiency advantages are minimal.

It is clear some people have needs not met. Closing arenas is not an answer some of us feel necessary or appropriate. The needs that others need to be met should happen without arena closings.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:54 pm

The Consortium wrote:

Deke wrote:

KnightHospitaller wrote:

If they close ALL the basic arenas and throw me into a "new" basic arena I will be done.

Purge away in those transfer arenas but don't destroy what I have helped build for two decades.

You keep your team, your record, your warriors. You get to choose which of the "300 series" arenas to join.

What are you losing?

The reason I suggest something this drastic that effects everyone is that unless it effects everyone, it will not happen.

You could create arenas for teams with over say, 250 team fights.
Or you could just publish descriptions and let every manager decide where his new home will be.

There is nothing preventing everyone in a popular current arena from transfering to the same "300 series" arena.

So I ask again, what is it you are going to lose that you "have helped build for two decades?"

There is a tremendous tradition that means a lot to many. We want that.
You may heve been gone a while. Guardian may not care. But some of us do.

There is no real advantage to closing arenas. Any operating efficiency advantages are minimal.

It is clear some people have needs not met. Closing arenas is not an answer some of us feel necessary or appropriate. The needs that others need to be met should happen without arena closings.

Deke, if you asking "what it is you are going to lose.." then you don't get it.

Read Wayne's response. It is right on. Tradition. History. Flavor of the arena. It might not be important to you but it is to me.

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:55 pm

Nomad wrote:

I want to play devils's advocate on this one.

First let me note that I don't know the Guardian at all and could not even identify one of his warriors or teams. These are just a few questions that seem to be issues to me. I am veryinterested in the response to these ideas.

First, on the issue of team consolidation...

Does this really solve anything? Why do you have hundreds of one-man teams? Simple, because the focus isn't on the team, it is on getting those warriors that can win a tournament. I have no doubt that the other 400 warriors on those supposedly one-man teams include many role-ups that could enjoy succesful arena careers if given the chance. They aren't fought because they can't win tourneys.

Simply put, if you're shooting only for the great role-up you are going to end up with many extras - that is the nature of the game; not every recruit is a star. The flaw, if indeed it is a flaw, is not in those role-ups, but rather in the demand that they be perfect. The style of play results in this problem, not a flaw in the game itself.

In addition, this "solution" is only temporary at best. Sure, you now have 5 warriors on one team to fight, but what happens after they graduate? The cycle begins again. Will we have to allow you to consolidate again? Plus, I suspect these teams will just be tourney timing anyway, so it isn't as if they will actually be full time players in the arenas anyway.

What it does do is save the tournament managers a lot of money. Sorry if I don't feel bad for you on this - your choosing to particiapte in the game in this fashion.

Some things I have heard recently that I do like:
1) $5 to DA an entire team would seem to allow those who wish to play a team to do so, without wasting money.
2) No base charge for teams that fight a full team of 5. (Ok, this one would actually help me, but I probably would fight one more full team than I am currently doing) Even if they eliminate free fights to balance this, I'd be ok with that.
3.) Fix the scimitar

Just the thoughts of one of the games smaller managers - and an active full-team participant where I do fight.

Very, very, very much agree with this! Well said.