Freeze Date?

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:33 pm

Seraphim53 wrote:

Sentinel wrote:

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.

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

I put Scenario 3 in there in case that was going to bother you. My first pass was for both warriors getting 3 tourneys to make it even. Compare scenario 1 and scenario 3 if you want to see the same tourney performances. It illustrates how much the monetary situation can change with what you proposed. You pick the tourney performances for the warriors either way and work out the math. For most warriors who fight in tourneys, your change will be a net loss in revenue for RSI and a substantial one.

Seraphim53 wrote:

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.

Not if those FE come in the tourney and the warrior doesn't have to run in the arena to get them (see the 10-3 Rookie example and compare scenario 1 and scenario 3).

Seraphim53 wrote:

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.

I see what you are getting at, but all you're saying is that there will be some isntances where RSI doesn't lose money. There are just as many where they will lose a lot. Even with your example, under your plan, I'd run that warrior in a tourney and have him go 3-3, getting my 3 FE for $7 instead of having to pay anywhere from $15.75 to $32.25 to run his team for three turns after a split. Net loss to RSI. For any warriors who come out of a tourney optimally timed for the next tourney (like the 10-3 Rookie), RSI will lose a lot of money. For warriors who come out poorly timed, it's at best a wash, but likely still a net loss for RSI (as above). Tourney managers spend lots of money running warriors after the splits that could be avoided or minimized in a great many cases under your plan. That's all I am trying to say.

Seraphim53 wrote:

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.

Did I say anything to the contrary? I said that I always wait for the split and get the same number of fights as any new manager would.

Seraphim53 wrote:

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'm glad that you're not talking about me. Volume helps, but I've never run anywhere near 100 warriors. I ran 12 warriors in the last tourney and got 2 TC's and ran 33 at the mail-in and got 2 TC's. I just mention that because it sounded like you were insinuating that I personally ran 100 warriors every tourney. Since January, I have been averaging $30-$35/month in basic DM, less than most managers. How much are you spending?

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:59 am

I voted no. I like how the freeze forces you to commit the warriors you are sending to the tourney. It rewards forward planning and allows other people to scout the competition and plan potential strategies accordingly.

Site Admin Joined: Jun 20, 2002 Posts: 1344

I despise the split. I am 100% in support of wiping it off the face of the game.

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Jul 30, 2003 Posts: 178

Now for something completly different! What happened to that massive base of nieve unsuspecting subpar managers. You people know to much! SHUSH already! Your educating to much! Hehe I have fond memories of watching annoying man ( an affectionate nickname given to a goober) pace around at FTF's trying to glean information from anyone who would talk to him. He showed me his pride and joy one time. A warrior of obsurd construct and the minute one strategy was enough to send me running to my hotel room for a stiff drink and a good laugh. My point is there won't be any annoying man's left if you keep talking about everything! So SHUSH!

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:43 am

First, please don't lump me in the category with annoying man just yet, but I am somewhat of a newbie, (at least all of my experience comes from 12 years ago and really doesn't matter these days) and it is true I read all of the discussions and use terrablood's site. There are a few points I would like to make about the importance of these discussions, terrablod's site, and the availability of the huge amount of information about the game. (I do realize that I am but one case study, and others may have had different results)

1. Reading this stuff is fun. It keeps me interested in the game while I am waiting for my turns. As long as I stay interested in DM I play more, and the more I play the more money RSI makes, and the more DM we all have. Yay! Its good for everyone.
2. My record from 12 years ago boasted about 200 fights (not a lot, I know) with a percentage of 48%. My record since June, and 150 fights is 59-91, a percentage of 39%. Ack! My point is, the level of play in the game has risen dramatically, and even with all the talk and tools available my record is still worse. (I will say I do experiment quite often, as I think it is fun) Some of you may not be happy unless my W-L is at 10%, to you I refer to comment 1. My point is, the extra information has made a significant difference in my W-L, its worse.
3. With all this information and communication you all have been able to create a community. As Doc Steele said in the Arena 11 news letter last turn, “there is a hierarchy in Duelmasters,” and this is certainly true. This game still has its elites, of which many of you are a part of, which is exactly how it should be. I think you all deserve the respect you have earned as managers, but if you sit in an Ivory Tower so to speak, it only creates a rift in the community, and ultimately hurts the game, again refer to comment 1.
4. Lastly, most of what is talked about only gives me a hint at a strategy or an idea for something. I still need to try it for myself and take my lumps, thus getting the experience in the arena. (like college compared to the business environment) How many of you have add warriors with nearly similar stats who fight completely different?

I guess don’t sweat the discussions; you all will still kick our newbie butts.

Buddha

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:06 am

Well, man, if there's anything you want to know, fire away. Any number of people around here are willing to help, even if we don't always agree what the best approach is. Just try to give an idea what your goals are when you ask, though - what's 'best' for a tourney-oriented player isn't necessarily best for one who just wants to win in the arenas, and visa-versa.

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 11:14 am

Thanks Ichabod. Everyone has been very cool about helping and answering questions both here and on the RT.

Just to clarify, in no way does my record bother me (but it is fun to win), I just wanted you all to know that even with all of the info out there, it is still a rough road for a newbie.

Thanks again.

Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 8:59 pm

Let me give you an idea of how luck still plays a part in this game, no matter how much experience you have on the sands.

This happened to me: A LU (go figure) of mine killed an up and coming warrior. So I know the bloodfeud is coming and I expect it to come from the other team's striker who has about a 12 FE advantage over my LU's 7 FE, but are real close in the rankings. So's I thinks to myself: he's gonna get the jump and Strikers have a lousy attack so I'll set my LU up for a riposting attack and a little armor just in case he gets in an attack or two.

Man, I spent alot of time setting up for this bloodfeud. What numbers do I best run a LU at so he will riposte, do I use the riposte tactic or not, when do I send my LU nuts and all out attack, etc. etc. Sent it all in and sat back and waited for the results.

Here's what I got back: His 2 FE TP scum did the bloodfeuding instead and scummed my LU into submission.

Sometimes you just have to get lucky. Smile

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 12:17 am

Wait. How is that lucky? If you had won the fight even though you guessed wrong, that would have been lucky. But couldn't he have anticipated that you would expect the Striker and then sent the Scum? Did you spend any time finding out who the manager was and seeing if you can figure out his bloodfeuding patterns?

Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 6:56 am

Managerr wrote:

Wait. How is that lucky? If you had won the fight even though you guessed wrong, that would have been lucky. But couldn't he have anticipated that you would expect the Striker and then sent the Scum? Did you spend any time finding out who the manager was and seeing if you can figure out his bloodfeuding patterns?

Oh... wait... Manager making me think... dizzy... dizzy. Hmmmm... I guess I didn't do enough homework! Embarassed

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Jul 17, 2002 Posts: 1054

I know when I am bloodfueding a lunger and I have a Striker and a TP on my team I will almost always bloodfued with the TP first for a couple turns, then when the lunger starts slowing down on an if challenged to try to take out the TP, you send in the striker on turn 3 or 4 of the bloodfued going for the kill. Ideally you want to get 3 wins, then kill on the 4th bloodfued.

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:22 am

See that? Now write that down so you know what to do the next time you kill one of Rillion's warriors.