The Consortium runs many full arena teams. Perhaps the discussion of these three random long-running teams will provide knowledge or clues for the New D2 manager. The fifteen warriors have been intermingled so that the three arena teams remain unknown. The warriors are divided by style.
BASHER 16-4-15-6-20-13-10 (4-3-0) 13-8-10-15-9-18-11 (4-2-0) 13-13-14-16-16-9-3 (19-14-2) 15-15-7-17-9-10-11 (10-1-0); 3-3 in tourney Bashers are: 37-20, .649, two kills, also 3-3 in tourney TOTAL PARRY 11-16-13-9-18-7-10 (28-11-0) 14-16-12-7-15-10-10 (14-3-1) 17-16-14-4-15-6-12 (2-4-0) 10-19-6-6-20-15-8 (8-1-0) 14-18-11-3-16-12-10 (30-9-0) Total Parries are: 82-28, .745, one kill SLASHER 14-4-13-15-15-9-14 (6-4-1) 11-10-6-15-17-14-11 (15-6-1) 4-3 tourney Slashers are: 21-10, .677, two kills, also 4-3 in tourney STRIKER 16-5-5-10-17-11-20 (2-2-0) 11-6-16-15-15-10-11 (2-1-1) Strikers are: 4-3, .571, one kill WALL OF STEEL 11-13-13-15-17-4-11 (2-1-0) Wastes are: 2-1, .667, no kills LUNGER 5-10-15-17-21-13-3 (12-7-1) Lungers are 12-7, .632, one killThe fifteen warriors are: 158-69-7, 0.696. Let's look at this scenario a little closer to comment and question.
Q1- Are these such great rollups/warriors? A1- No. They are pretty typical and average, with it looking like the more ugly rollups were made into TPs. In long-standing arenas, The Consortium does not DA in search of "better" rollups.
A1A- It looks like it does not, at all, take wonderfully quality designed warriors to win well. (Well = 60%+ in Consortium terms.) Indeed, mediocre warriors often do better than godlings in arenas -- especially early on.
Q2- Why only six styles? Where are the AB, PL, PR, PS? A2- Remember from Newby 101 that The Consortium recommends running the easier designs, such as offensives and total parries? The above summary points out that such advice might even be good for running normal arenas. There are some AB, PL, PR, PS in other Consortium arenas, and all ten designs are definitely on Consortium tournament teams. However, to make those four missing designs run well and win often, it often takes godling or near-godling designs. Godling rollups can be very, very hard to find.
C1- TP's, if scums (as all five of these are) can take a long time to graduate to ADM. (See TPs #1 and #5.) Why? They are typically "stupidish" and have a very low skill learn rate. Also, time/fights are also used to train stats rather than skills. The physicals are far more important than the skills for a scum. Typical graduation qualifications require 14 wins and 20 fights, which is often very easy for scum, but skill ratings are also required, and they are hard to achieve if one is learning few skills.
C2- Taking off on C2 above, some warriors are designed to burn. (Train stats and acquire skills through some of the stat trains.) All the TPs above were as such. And, take a look at slasher #1, bashers #1 and 3, and striker #1 above. They, too were designed to burn. In non-scum, how does one determine a warrior is designed to burn? The Consortium definition -- many stats are set just below prime skill-learning stats (like 10 DF to 11, and 14 WT to 15, and 16 WL to 17, or 14ST to 15) AND the warrior has sufficient WL to allow probable stat raises. (E.g. 14+WL; 14 WL = 70% chance to earn the 1st stat of a type.)
C3- While only six styles were used on these three teams, the mix of offensives and defensives is solid, allowing for better optimization of challenges and avoids. This probably adds to the nice overall w/l record.
Hopefully this team synopsis has helped your understanding of many concepts of the game. You can find more detail on the concepts inferred in this article by reading the spotlights in the Noblish Island (DM93). Feel free to ask me questions about this spotlight or the Consortium concepts. You will be answered.
-- Hobo, Consortium affiliated