Re: [duel] Tourney rumors
- Travis wrote:
I got the idea that RSI had essentially manually inducted Spearman to
Gateway. As much as it's clear that Spearman in Primus was a pretty broken
thing, it's probably for the best, but...
I have a problem with an arbitrary hand-picking like this from RSI. If
they're going to recognize turnover at the top as a problem, I want to see
a system instituted that applies to everyone equally. It's inherently
unfair to single out a specific warrior or manager and if they're going to
make changes, I think that some sort of evenly applied change to the Primus
(and Gateway?) tourney system is in order.
Did I miss something? What evidence do we have that Spearman has been moved
to Gateway, forced to Gateway, or inducted to Gateway? Besides he went
inactive while on the throne of Primus and playing for free?
As for the fair comment I agree completely. I hope if Spearman has been
moved it was by Joel or by a whole new induction system. However, if
Spearman were moved by hand so to speak it would not be the first time or
even the second time that has happened. IMHO, manual changes to tourney
classification happens more often then most people would want to believe.
Scott / Doc Steele
- uh, yeah, i would think so. I think it is possible that recent Champions
suckoffs may not have been equal as well. It is not reasonable to remove
particular warriors just because certain managers have won/win a lot of
tournament prizes. Who is the judge for such decisions, and how is
it assured that whoever it is is being fair.
This is exactly what happened in Champions last time. It is what has
happened to multiple TC warriors in basic that go Inducted rather quickly
and miss there chance at Freshman despite 0 stat trains, and a 40 FE. It is
a fairly common practice in the halls of RSI. Each of you has to ask when
it will be your turn?
Scott / Doc Steele
- Manager wrote:
And while I like Joel immensely, I don't feel that sympathetic toward him
if indeed Spearman got thrown through the the Gate. (We need a new term
for that). Donatello and Vengeance were quelched much sooner in their
dominant phase. Remember the one TC per year rule?
***One of the more blatant and heinous things RSI has done in the name of
game balance. And very little is ever said about it. Which brings up
another point. What RSI and the public thinks of you determines to some
degree what happens to your warriors. Do you think that Neon or I could
have won Primus 9 times in a row with no action being taken? People just
don't seem to mind Joel winning all those TCs.
I think any system that is implemented now should definitely have the
approval of Moriarty. He's the one that stands the most to gain/lose from
all of this. If he doesn't mind his warriors going to the Gate after a
couple of TCs then I'm for it. If not, then we do things the arbitrary
way because we've already gone past the fairness point a long time ago.
And if RSI does implement a system, hopefully they will tell us what it
***No system will please everyone. But I agree that any induction system
based on TCs should go up as Spearman continues top collect them. I used to
accept 3 TCs and you are gone but now it should probably be 5. While to be
fair it should be 9, but that doesn't solve anything.
When you think about it, many of the RSI rule changes obviously targetted
to specific managers and warriors. For example, they changed the graduation
rules to get rid of Deputy Dan. They lower the W/L % in the split formula
to deter the managers who were fight throwing. This one is just more
blatant, that's all.
***More great examples. The bottom line is Duelmasters is only fair in the
eyes of those that moderate it. The main concern of RSI is to protect the
little manager from being squashed by the big manager in the tourney. The
problem is there really is not a huge group of poor helpless players out
there. We are a small community that make up 90% of their business. So to
begin with they are protecting a group that does not exist. Then when they
do something to help that mystery group it is usually done in the manner of
a temporary solution that lasts forever because they never bother with a
real solution later. Not to mention the assembly line game plan here. RSI
believes the assembly line arena flow is the key to their success. When
basic was too full they made AD. When AD was too full they made regional
arenas and then Primus and then Gateway. My biggest fear is Ultra-Gateway
with stats to 30. But I think we have perhaps voiced our opinions on that
one enough that RSI knows better. Anyway, the point of my ramblings here is
that we just have to live with it or quit as so many of our friends have
done before us. RSI is not going to just wake up one day and make sweeping
changes to fix all the problems. Duelmasters will always be the patch work
shambling mass of a game we all love to hate but can stop playing.
Scott / Doc Steele
- If a person wants to win then they must make a better warrior. If that is
impossible then buy one. If that still ends up being impossible, or a person
is unwilling to do this, then don't play Primus.
This however is a personal view on a manager's lack of control over his
warrior. And has little to do about fixing something, of which I will remain
silent on my opinions top that regard.
From: Shawn Mallen [mailto:smallen@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [duel] Tourney rumors
Well, he might be pissed, but I wouldn't say he has a lot to complain
about. Having him win time after time has been a broken system for a while
now. If they manually inducted him, you could argue that he's being picked
on, but not unfairly. He's won way too many times for it to be unfair. I
do agree with you that there needs to be a system implemented for
turnaround in Primus. This gives everyone a chance to win eventually.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Dr. Christopher R. Staples wrote:
> At 09:30 PM 10/31/00 -0800, The Sentinel wrote:
> >I got the idea that RSI had essentially manually inducted Spearman to
> >Gateway. As much as it's clear that Spearman in Primus was a pretty
> >thing, it's probably for the best, but...
> i would be pissed if i owned him.
> >I have a problem with an arbitrary hand-picking like this from RSI. If
> it would be different if they did it because they were specifically asked
> to. I would assume they were not.
> >they're going to recognize turnover at the top as a problem, I want to
> >a system instituted that applies to everyone equally. It's inherently
> >unfair to single out a specific warrior or manager and if they're going
> >make changes, I think that some sort of evenly applied change to the
> >(and Gateway?) tourney system is in order.
> uh, yeah, i would think so. I think it is possible that recent Champions
> suckoffs may not have been equal as well. It is not reasonable to remove
> particular warriors just because certain managers have won/win a lot of
> tournament prizes. Who is the judge for such decisions, and how is
> it assured that whoever it is is being fair.
> It is if RSI is kindof following the Deke proposal, but doing so in a
> half-assed, unannounced, arbitrary, and not entirely fair way.
> dr. surfer
> Dr. Christopher R. Staples
> Department of Biochemistry
> 433 Babcock Drive
> University of Wisconsin
> Madison, WI 53706
> DM Online Census:
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
DM Online Census:
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: