Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Out of Character message board for the Duel of Swords

Moderator: Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
Deluthan
Proven Adventurer
Proven Adventurer
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Nearby town of vagabonds.

Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Deluthan »

Duel of Swords Ranking

Rank NameLevelRequirements((Fancy Maneuvers))
Commoner1None0
Swordsman25 Merits1
Master at Arms3Swordsman rank + 10 Merits (= 15 total)2
Grandmaster4Master At Arms rank + 15 Merits (= 30 total)3
Warlord5Grandmaster rank + 20 Merits (= 50 total)4
Baron6By Challenge5
Overlord7By Challenge6


For Beginners: Merits of Rank

Hear ye, first-time duelists!

As a beginner, you will be ranked Commoner. To advance in rank, you must prove yourself in the ring during sanctioned dueling hours. With each victory, you will be awarded a number of Merits equal to the rank level of your opponent (i.e. 1 Merit for Commoner, 2 Merits for Swordsman, etc.). As you meet each set of requirements, your new rank will be issued to you, with the required Merits being deducted from your total Merit count.

For Warlords: Executive Merits

Hear ye, newly ranked Warlords!

Congratulations! You have reached the pinnacle rank earnable by Merits alone. From this point forward, you will earn Merits as proof of worthiness in challenging for title and other rights afforded holders of Baronies and the Overlordship, as listed below:

Rights of WarlordMerits Required
Challenge for Barony25
Challenge for Overlordship50


Rights of Baron*Merits Required
Challenge for Overlordship25
Use of Test of Worthiness by Squire** vs challenger25


*If you should hold the title of Baron prior to having earned the Warlord rank by way of a challenge right grant or prize, then the Merits you earn as a Baron will apply first to achieving any outstanding prerequisite ranks (i.e. Swordsman through Warlord). Should you lose the title of Baron prior to earning a Warlord rank, you will assume the highest prerequisite rank that you have achieved up to that point.

Rights of OverlordMerits Required
Grant of Baronial Challenge Right (The “Overlord Grant”)25
Interceding on behalf of Loyal Baron vs challenger25
Use of Test of Worthiness vs challenging Renegade Baron25
Use of Test of Worthiness vs challenging Warlord0


Upon executing any of the above rights, the required Merits will be deducted from your total Merit count.

Merits Awarded During Challenges

0 Merits will be awarded to a successful challenger to a Barony.

25 Merits will be awarded to a successful challenger to the Overlordship.

A Baron or Overlord that successfully defends their title in the ring, which is to say not by a successful champion in a Test of Worthiness, will be awarded double the Merits afforded by their opponent's rank, regardless of whether the challenge is fought in a single-duel or Best-of-Three-style format.

Merits will be awarded as normal to the winner of any duels occurring during a “Test of Worthiness”.

Loss of Merits

Should you, as Baron or Overlord, lose your title by challenge or forfeiture, your Merit count will be reset to 0.

Removal from the standings due to retirement or inactivity will result in your Merit count being reset to 0 upon reinstatement.

---
PROPOSAL EXAMPLE - Beginner to Warlord

New CharacterTotal Merits EarnedActive Merits
1st week (as Commoner):
Win vs. Swordsman = 2 Merits22
Loss22
Win vs. Grandmaster = 4 Merits6 -> Swordsman (-5)1
2nd week (as Swordsman):
Loss61
Win vs. Master at Arms = 3 Merits94
Win vs. Commoner = 1 Merit earned105
Win vs. Warlord = 5 Merits earned15 -> Master at Arms (-10)0
Loss150
Win vs. Commoner = 1 Merit earned161
3rd week (as Master at Arms):
Win vs. Master at Arms = 3 Merits194
Loss194
Win vs. Commoner = 1 Merit205
Loss205
Win vs. Swordsman = 2 Merits227
Loss227
Loss227
4th week (as Master at Arms):
Loss227
Win vs. Warlord = 5 Merits2712
Win vs. Master at Arms = 3 Merits30 -> Grandmaster (-15)0
Win vs. Baron = 6 Merits36 6
5th week (as Grandmaster):
Win vs. Commoner = 1 Merit377
Loss377
Loss377
Win vs. Master at Arms = 3 Merits4010
Win vs. Master at Arms = 3 Merits4313
Loss4313
Win vs. Overlord = 7 Merits50 -> Warlord (-20)0


Warlord rank achieved after 5 weeks
WoL record: 16-11 (5 WoL)
Total duels: 27

Breakdown of ranks defeated to earn each rank:
Swordsman:
  • 1 Swordsman
  • 1 Grandmaster (1 Merit carries over to achieve next rank)
Master at Arms:
  • 1 Commoner
  • 1 Master at Arms
  • 1 Warlord (1 Merit carries over to achieve next rank)
Grandmaster:
  • 2 Commoners
  • 1 Swordsman
  • 2 Master at Arms
  • 1 Warlord
Warlord:
  • 1 Commoner
  • 2 Master at Arms
  • 1 Baron
  • 1 Overlord
OR
Combined (going from Commoner to Warlord):
  • 4 Commoners
  • 2 Swordsmen
  • 5 Master At Arms
  • 1 Grandmaster
  • 2 Warlords
  • 1 Baron
  • 1 Overlord
---
PROPOSAL NOTES

Brief summary: This is a points-based system, similar to gaining experience points in an RPG. As you win duels, you earn points, called “Merits”. The amount of points you earn per duel is determined by your opponent’s rank: higher rank means more points. These points effectively act as a currency that players may exchange for higher ranks, rights to challenge, rights to use a Test of Worthiness, Overlord’s Intercession, or Overlord’s Grant. Characters will view “Merits” as proof of worthiness, similar to a martial artist earning stripes on their belt to represent the progress they make within a rank prior to advancing to the next rank.

Goals of proposal:
  1. To give incentives for duelists of all ranks to duel during regular hours. The incentives should:
    1. Be goals that are intrinsic to the core game.
    2. Give a sense of being achievable while still providing a challenge.
    3. Be scalable to a player’s activity level, meaning the player should feel that the only limit on their advancing in the game is the time they put in.
  2. To put increased weight on wins against opponents of increasingly higher rank than one’s own rank.
  3. To encourage duelists to never limit their Fancies against a lower rank, even in an Overlord vs. Commoner duel, while encouraging lower ranks to take up such a challenge.
  4. To reinforce gamesmanship in the Duels while not detracting from roleplay. The ranking system should make sense from the character’s points of view.
  5. Rate of forward progress should be determined by skill.
  6. No risk or fear of reverse progress for duels lost.
  7. Simple to understand.
I did my best to set the numbers in accordance with the above goals. Merit requirements for ranks Swordsman through Baron are based on having to defeat the equivalent in Merits to 5 duelists of equal rank (e.g. to move from Swordsman to Master at Arms requires 10 Merits, which equals 5 Swordsman at 2 Merits each).

Regarding Rights of Barons and Overlord: The idea is that Merits should only be charged to one party in any given event (for the purpose of initiating it). To explore this further:
  • An event is defined as either a challenge or a Test of Worthiness (a Test of Worthiness could be considered a “counter-challenge”, in which case you could say every event is in fact a challenge).
  • In the example of a Warlord challenging for Baron, or Baron challenging for Overlord, the challenger puts up Merits to initiate the challenge—here the Merits provide evidence that the challenger is worthy of holding such title—and the defender puts up Merits to initiate a Test of Worthiness**, their Merits providing evidence that they are worthy of keeping such title. The Test of Worthiness should be seen as a separate event that attempts to trump the initial event (the challenge).
  • In the example of a Warlord challenging for Overlord directly, the worthiness of the Warlord, having circumvented the act of first successfully challenging a Baron, may be in question (the total number of Merits required to challenge for Overlord being the same in either case), so no Merits would be charged to the Overlord in a Test of Worthiness, unless worthiness was proven in the Warlord Tournament.
  • The Overlord’s Grant is essentially a challenge, in which the Overlord fronts their own Merits to initiate a challenge on behalf of the challenger.
  • The Overlord’s Intercession is essentially a version of the Test of Worthiness, in which the Overlord fronts their own Merits to initiate the Test.
A new Overlord is awarded 25 Merits to help kickoff their reign, insuring that they have access to at least one Right immediately.

Regarding Loss of Merits: A fallen Overlord or Baron loses all of their Merits because they lost to a lower rank on the sport’s biggest stage and thus must re-prove themselves. It brings more weight to challenge matches and encourages more activity overall as titleholders will be encouraged to use their Merits while in title, and duelists in general will always be collecting Merits because they will not be able to build a large stockpile and ride it out over a long period. It also establishes Merits as a measuring stick for who is “hot” right now.

Recommendations for rule changes in conjunction with this proposal:
  • Remove the modifier limit on Barons and Overlord. Lower ranks will have so much more to gain by defeating a Baron or Overlord that it would be a dishonor to “go easy on them” in a sanctioned duel.
  • Reduce the limit on the Overlord’s Grant from “once per cycle” to “only one Grant may be outstanding at any given time”, i.e. the Overlord, assuming they hold sufficient Merits, would not be able to issue another Grant until the last Grant recipient has fought their challenge or forfeited the Grant.
  • Remove any “per cycle” limits on challenges and Tests of Worthiness. As with reducing the limit on the Overlord Grant, this will allow the rate of Merit accumulation to determine frequency of use (see goal 1c above).
Merit counts would be reflected on the standings. WoLs could continue to appear on the standings in order to satisfy the statisticians but would serve no other purpose — or, perhaps a better option would be having the standings report each duelist’s overall record, so that it can be known how many duels each duelist has dueled over their entire history and what their lifetime winning percentage is, rather than the traditional zeroing out of losses and keeping track of only the WoL difference.

Other considerations:
  • New ranks could be issued immediately and announced in the room by the Nexus Guide as soon as the duel earning a new rank is completed, and updated in the duelist’s profile; or, they could be issued with the issuing of each new standings. The choice here may depend largely on coding preferences. I do think Merits should be updated in real time in a character’s profile so that Warlords and titleholders can use them immediately, so immediately issued ranks might be more consistent with that approach.
  • This proposal states that a Baron who acquired title prior to becoming Warlord will still need to earn any outstanding prerequisite ranks prior to using Merits toward Baron rights, so there would probably need to be some record kept of ranks earned for each duelist, in case they lose Barony prior to earning a Warlord rank, so that they fall back to the appropriate rank.
This proposal is written specific to DoS but can be adapted to DoF or DoM. I would be happy to draw up something separate for DoF or DoM upon request if there is support for this proposal.

**I may have made up that rule about a Baron being able to use their Squire in a Test of Worthiness; if so, then consider it a second proposal! I was seeking a second option for Barons to use their Merits toward.
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Kalamere »

I'm going to save most of my comments for a later time when I can give it some more thought and propose alternatives for some things.

I did want to ask though, because you are recently returned and may not be aware - Does knowing that losses are no longer really a thing in DoS change your perspective on this at all?

Except in very rare opt-in situations; rank is gained by the number of wins you achieve these days. Commoner to Swordsman is 2 wins, with no regard at all to how many losses you might have between them. The other ranks progressing the same way.

You may very well already be aware and I don't mean to insult by pointing it out, but since you reference the WoL system here, I thought perhaps not.
User avatar
Deluthan
Proven Adventurer
Proven Adventurer
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Nearby town of vagabonds.

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Deluthan »

Kalamere wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:57 amI did want to ask though, because you are recently returned and may not be aware - Does knowing that losses are no longer really a thing in DoS change your perspective on this at all?
It's certainly a fair question. I was aware of the change, although to be honest I may not have become aware until I had already begun drafting this proposal. It did not change my perspective, and I will do my best to explain:

It's a step in the right direction and almost transitional to what I've proposed because you are earning points with each win; it's just that it's always 1 point regardless of whom you are dueling. I consider every one of the goals I listed to be critical for long-term success; the WoL system only met goals 5 and 7; the No-Loss system adds goal 6, but still leaves out goals 1-4.

I see coordinators who want more activity during regular dueling hours, but then I see a game that stops, when it comes to regular dueling, once you reach Warlord. I see a ranking system that gives equal weight to a Master at Arms defeating a Commoner and to a Master at Arms defeating the Overlord. I see title holders being asked to "hold back" against lower ranks, which is only something they would do in practice or training and not in actual competition (which is what regular dueling hours is, because it is used to determine ranking). There's a lot about this game right now that does not make sense to me, thus ... proposal.
User avatar
PC
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 4:00 pm
Location: Offices above the Pachinko Palace in Kabuki

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by PC »

1-15 is the Journey, while Warlord+ is the end game. That's what I'd like to say about the current setup. The fact of the matter is that challenges just aren't happening. I've read over this system a few times and there are parts of it that I see merit (ha) in, but others that would be both difficult to implement as well as making the game harder in some aspects, as well as stripping powers away from title holders (which have already been stripped of abilities over the past few rule changes) by applying a point system to things that in the past have been free to use.

If this system were put into place years ago, perhaps during the Peer Win times (before I even joined this community) it could have possibly done well. As it is now, dueling numbers are at a low compared to the past, though were on a rise and steadied out since the switch to Discord and me taking on the position as coordinator (By simply running more events) -- and even more-so when the new no loss rules were implemented. There are now two play styles, one for older players who would like their WoL's earned and for those who want to be more causal about the situation; and there are achievements that benefit these things (such as not using mods while using a high rank vs a low rank, WoL achievements, etc).

This community, and game, has changed quite a bit. There's backlash at the aspect of any sort of "powerdueling", which could be considered grinding. I see that as a possible complaint for this Merit system, where you're required to grind merits at end game (warlord+) for the ability to do things which, as of now, are simply choices. You become Warlord, you have 2 challenge rights per cycle, you can choose to use 1 to challenge a Baron or 2 to Challenge for OL. Once you've used these, you're done for the cycle. But as we currently see it, not many (or none at all) of the Warlords are currently using these; which is why I'm apprehensive to the idea of making the challenge process more of a grind/harder. It's why Peer Wins were Reduced to SoA, and why SoA was finally reduced to Challenge Rights. The community is simply not interested in challenging. Be it due to real life, lack of interest, or simply being fine with the current title holders. The majority of challenge as of now come from grant recipients.

This isn't a hardline no to what I'm reading with the merit system, because I actually see the benefit in part of it. The line of thought being, when a WL has no more challenge rights for the cycle then they could possibly grind something akin to Merits for another title shot. But that's putting the cart before the horse, since currently we just aren't seeing challenges.. DoS duels themselves are, at this point compared to before, at a steady pace -- but there simply isn't challenges. I have multiple Warlords, I used to be very into the challenge game, but after becoming Coordinator I've stepped back, while many of the title holders currently are the active DoS higher ranks, but since they are sitting with titles right now, they aren't able to challenge or don't believe they should continue trying for more titles until they lose what they have.

Deluthan wrote: I see title holders being asked to "hold back" against lower ranks, which is only something they would do in practice or training and not in actual competition (which is what regular dueling hours is, because it is used to determine ranking).
I know players who will not hold back, I know players who will. I am of the category that will hold back fancies if I'm fighting someone at a lower rank and I am on a Warlord+ character (regulation, of course. Challenges are different). I held back when fighting during Regulation tournaments such as the Hydra Tournament, where in Season 2 many High Ranking players were ignored if they were unwilling to fight down to their opponents -- I was instead swimming in fights since I told players I'd fight at rank. If a system were in play where I was told I'd be worth more points to lower ranks if they fought and beat me, and I'd lose nothing from it, I'd still opt to fight at rank with them. They benefit the most, I lose nothing, so it would be seen as a win-win from my point of view.. Though I would sadly be more willing to ignore lower ranks if I were to be grinding for Merit points to challenge, or to counter-challenges / use a grant if I were Overlord. With limited time I put into dueling per night, it'd be more beneficial for me to fight Warlords/Barons/Overlords (probably would ignore WL's too if I could get Barons more often).

I'd like to see more community input on this proposal if there are those interested in speaking their mind. It would be interesting to see this tested, though not at an official capacity (I'd rather not make a broad change to simply test different proposals if/when they come in the future). There would be some tweaks needed to make it work as an addon to the current game (like Dueling Houses), but it could be possible like a personal code. "I won't use my challenge right until I have 25 merit points", "I won't step in on this challenger as OL ( or use my OL grant ) unless I have the required merits".
User avatar
Bailey Raptis
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
The Stolen Child

Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:25 pm
Location: Can be found many places, but resides in Old Temple

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Bailey Raptis »

I feel like there are some interesting things to unpack re: the lack of challenges recently, but I'm not sure this is the right place for that. Should I/we create another thread for that, or can we go over it here?
User avatar
PC
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 4:00 pm
Location: Offices above the Pachinko Palace in Kabuki

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by PC »

Bailey Raptis wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:35 pm I feel like there are some interesting things to unpack re: the lack of challenges recently, but I'm not sure this is the right place for that. Should I/we create another thread for that, or can we go over it here?
I think adding on here would side-track away from the purpose of this thread, so feel free to create a new one if you like!

Edited: Though you might want to put it in Thoughts at Large or Community Townhall. Lack of challenges isn't really a DoS only issue; as I believe we've seen more challenges compared to DoF and DoM (Even if it is through prize grants, etc, over challenge rights.)
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Kalamere »

PC wrote:Though I would sadly be more willing to ignore lower ranks if I were to be grinding for Merit points to challenge, or to counter-challenges / use a grant if I were Overlord.
This is something about the system that jumped out at me.

I absolutely understand that fighting up is the sort of thing one wants to reward. Beating a warlord is more difficult than beating a Master-at-Arms, just like beating the MMO Wyvern is way harder than beating the MMO goblin, and therefore awards more experience. The problem we combat here is human nature. If the Wyvern wasn't an AI and instead was also trying to earn experience and level up, it probably wouldn't bother with the level 5 rogues running around and would head off to yet harder zones.

We saw this with the peer win system back in the day. When a warlord wanting to challenge could only earn peer wins from fighting other warlords, then that is who they would look for fights with and would generally ignore lower ranks. I grant you that in this set up it's better than peer wins because there is still some benefit to fighting lower ranks, but with lopsided benefits and the tendency to want to optimize one's time, I still think you would see a return to people avoiding down-rank fights in preference for those that got them closer to their goal.

I think what I would rather see (and I have no idea how the whole merit point aspect would really be changed to accomodate it) would be a very small benefit for fighting up and no detriment for fighting down. Something like: A duel win is 5 points. A duel win vs someone higher ranked than you is 6.
User avatar
Deluthan
Proven Adventurer
Proven Adventurer
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Nearby town of vagabonds.

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Deluthan »

I am opposed to anything like
Kalamere wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:50 pm... no detriment for fighting down. Something like: A duel win is 5 points. A duel win vs someone higher ranked than you is 6.
because it fails goal #4 of the proposal,
To reinforce gamesmanship in the Duels while not detracting from roleplay. The ranking system should make sense from the character’s points of view
because, for example, a Warlord winning over a Commoner would have the same affect on their ranking as winning against a fellow Warlord, which would be nonsense.



With that said, I would like to address the concern of:
Kalamere wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:50 pmI still think you would see a return to people avoiding down-rank fights in preference for those that got them closer to their goal.
(I’m quoting Kal here, but this post is addressed also to PC and anyone else with this concern.)

Yes, under this proposal, like ranks will gravitate to like ranks. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is how it would work in any single-player sporting event: similar ranks group together, and the cream of the crop rises and moves up to the next rank group. When I first started dueling I sought out lower ranks such as myself because I knew they gave me the best chance of winning. (I would even argue that the current system pushes people to avoid fighting higher ranks, since all duels count the same and you would want to give yourself the best chance to win—but then the current system doesn’t even give a reason for Warlords+ to come out and duel, so….)

I ask you to imagine this proposal in action and ask yourself, What is the worst-case scenario? Your concern isn’t about people avoiding down-rank fights; rather it’s about lower ranks having trouble finding an opponent. That is the real concern here, yes? Then ask yourself, is the lone Commoner of Swordsman in the room really going to be completely ignored in a room full of higher ranks? If you are a Warlord+ and the only available opponent is a Commoner, is the best way to optimize your time, while waiting for another opponent to become available, to ignore the Commoner outright and guarantee yourself no Merits, or to duel the Commoner and potentially earn 1 Merit? Why not duel the Commoner while you wait for another opponent? This is a fundamentally different situation than under the peer win system where dueling the Commoner was technically pointless. Under this proposal, every duel has value.

The best way to optimize your time is to always be dueling, and only when given the choice would you lean toward higher rank—unless you are a lower rank yourself, in which case you may lean toward lower ranks if you want to give yourself a better chance at winning the duel.

Some upper ranks might find themselves in a position where they only need 1 or 2 Merits for that next rank or right, and so might be willing to go for that “easy win” to get it. An upper rank might even on occasion find fun in “picking on” lower ranks, just to see if any of them can overcome their Fancy strength for an instant rank-up, and if not at least that upper rank is earning a handful of Merits. I also get the sense that the current playerbase understands the importance of encouraging new blood and so wouldn’t ignore newbies’ duel requests.

There will always be situations where someone will have trouble finding a duel, regardless of whatever system is in place. This is where I would argue the benefits of having hosts available during all dueling hours, to ensure everyone is being engaged and finding opponents, and since the hosts no longer need to call they could also step in as an opponent—but this is perhaps left for another thread.

I hope I’ve successfully dispelled this concern, but if not I’ll be happy to discuss it further.



I think for the Duels to thrive it needs to appeal to gamers, specifically teenagers who aren’t necessarily into role-playing (beyond creating their character) yet, but will get more into it as they get familiar with the game and see the storylines that go on around it (I was one of these newbs). The Duels are a great place for beginner role-players, who first come here because they like playing fantasy sword-and-sorcery-style games, which is why we need to be offering something that strongly resembles a game. The Duels aren’t going to attract many seasoned role-players, as the natural progression is competitive gamer -> serious role-player and not the the other way around. If this were not so, wouldn’t our relationship with the RDI have been more effective? It’s those RP-newb gamers that pump the most energy into the game and tend to stick around as they get more into the role-play. Maybe the move to Discord will open us up to attracting more young gamers?
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Kalamere »

Deluthan wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:04 pm I am opposed to anything like
Kalamere wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:50 pm... no detriment for fighting down. Something like: A duel win is 5 points. A duel win vs someone higher ranked than you is 6.
because it fails goal #4 of the proposal,
#4 being that it needs to make sense IC as well as OOC? You should probably elaborate. I have no problem seeing a character accept that any fight gets them merit if they win it and a 20% bump if the win was against someone higher ranked. I'm guessing you mean more than this, but will need you to explain.
Deluuthan wrote:Under this proposal, every duel has value.
Yes and no. 1 point really isn't much more than 0 and I think you're discounting opportunity cost. If I'm trying to rack up merit and the only person in the room to fight is a commoner, I still have incentive to ignore them. If I get in the ring with them, I risk another warlord walking in and not being able to get a fight with them because I'm already in one. Or, honestly, I can absolutely see it being considered a waste of time. At only 20% the potential value, I might prefer to lounge and RP or just watch netflix until someone GM or higher walks in.
User avatar
Deluthan
Proven Adventurer
Proven Adventurer
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Nearby town of vagabonds.

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Deluthan »

Kalamere wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:11 pmYou should probably elaborate. I have no problem seeing a character accept that any fight gets them merit if they win it and a 20% bump if the win was against someone higher ranked. I'm guessing you mean more than this, but will need you to explain.
In my last post I gave the example that, under what you propose, "a Warlord winning over a Commoner would have the same affect on their ranking as winning against a fellow Warlord". You're creating a situation where you can gain just as much ground in ranking by beating a Commoner as you can beating a Warlord. That does not make sense from a competitive-sport standpoint nor a gaming standpoint.
Kalamere wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:11 pm
Deluthan wrote:Under this proposal, every duel has value.
Yes and no. 1 point really isn't much more than 0 and I think you're discounting opportunity cost. If I'm trying to rack up merit and the only person in the room to fight is a commoner, I still have incentive to ignore them. If I get in the ring with them, I risk another warlord walking in and not being able to get a fight with them because I'm already in one. Or, honestly, I can absolutely see it being considered a waste of time. At only 20% the potential value, I might prefer to lounge and RP or just watch netflix until someone GM or higher walks in.
I feel like I addressed this well in my last post, so I'll keep this brief: As long as everyone is finding opponents, what is the problem with you taking this approach? You have time to kill and are willing to gamble 1 Merit for a better chance at 5; I need to be in bed by 10:00pm Eastern time so I will take whatever opponent I can get. Not everyone is going to approach the game the same way.
User avatar
PrlUnicorn
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Navarra

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by PrlUnicorn »

Deluthan wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:04 pm
Kalamere wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:50 pmI still think you would see a return to people avoiding down-rank fights in preference for those that got them closer to their goal.
(I’m quoting Kal here, but this post is addressed also to PC and anyone else with this concern.)

Yes, under this proposal, like ranks will gravitate to like ranks. There is nothing wrong with that, and that is how it would work in any single-player sporting event: similar ranks group together, and the cream of the crop rises and moves up to the next rank group. When I first started dueling I sought out lower ranks such as myself because I knew they gave me the best chance of winning. (I would even argue that the current system pushes people to avoid fighting higher ranks, since all duels count the same and you would want to give yourself the best chance to win—but then the current system doesn’t even give a reason for Warlords+ to come out and duel, so….)
I do see something wrong with ranks gravitating toward ranks. As Kal already said, we'd see a return to people avoiding down rank fights. I'd like to see the player base grow not go over to a system that could potentially discourage new players. Refusing lower rank duels to only gain merits comes off as cliquish and elitist to me. I have a character that was refused duels due to her age. That fact never bothered her or me. However, I know what it's like to be waiting for months in Sundays because of that.

The point of a game for many people is to unwind and enjoy their hobby time. If you have to sit around all night (sometimes night after night) to wait for a single duel, like I often did when peer wins were a thing, it can become a situation of why bother, I can do something else besides be ignored. Roleplay going on around the duels is generally engaging. If you came to duel and are being refused in favor of bigger and better targets, eventually it can become a discouraging and a waste of time trying to duel. I'd rather new players not feel like they are being shoved in a corner right out the gate.

That's my two bits. As a friend says, "Your mileage may vary."
User avatar
Deluthan
Proven Adventurer
Proven Adventurer
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Nearby town of vagabonds.

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Deluthan »

PrlUnicorn wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:05 pm If you have to sit around all night (sometimes night after night) to wait for a single duel, like I often did when peer wins were a thing, it can become a situation of why bother, I can do something else besides be ignored.
Could you elaborate on this (e.g. what rank were you, were you the Warlord looking for peers or on the other end, around when did this happen)? I don't ever remember having this problem. I do remember when I myself was looking for peer wins and had to wait until a peer became available that wasn't already on my list, and that would get discouraging (I would have much preferred a system like I'm proposing because I would have had a lot more control over my progress), but I never had a problem finding a general duel because the only other duelers around were Warlords looking for peer wins and ignoring me.
PrlUnicorn wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:05 pmThe point of a game for many people is to unwind and enjoy their hobby time.
I get that, and it makes me wonder what the average age of the playerbase now is and how that compares to the AOL days c. 2000. My guess is it's much older now. If we want to maintain status quo, then I can understand why this proposal would make people uncomfortable. Yes, there were cliques and elitist attitudes back at the peak of the AOL days, but guess what else there were: A lot more young players, and a lot more action.
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by Kalamere »

Deluthian wrote: You're creating a situation where you can gain just as much ground in ranking by beating a Commoner as you can beating a Warlord. That does not make sense from a competitive-sport standpoint nor a gaming standpoint.
Sure it does. (a) Quite simply, it's the rules of the game. Every game/sport/event has rules and guidelines and some of them may not be things a particpant agrees with. That doesn't mean we, as players or spectators, can't acknowledge and accept them. (b) In many sports a win is a win, regardless of who you were up against or what the final score was. In my regular season fantasy football play, I don't expect any extra benefit for taking down the top team or any less benefit for beating the worst team in the league. I get a win and I move up the standings regardless of who I played.
Deluthian wrote:As long as everyone is finding opponents...
But I don't know that they are, which is sorta my whole point.

Over the last 5 weeks, we have an average of 9 characters, played by 8 people, duel in a given week. This is actually an improvement, for the record, as number of participants has been on an increase since earlier in the year. It's a good sign and a positive trend. Still though - it is not a large enough population to assume everyone is finding opponents if there are people skipping out on fights because they aren't advantageous to their merit gain goals.

The system you propose may work great in a high volume setting, but I'm not really sure we should be taking a Field of Dreams approach to things. I tend to think we need to be of a mind to design for both good times and bad. Sure, there will always be some tweaks over time and things we didn't see coming or whatever - but by and large I feel we should attempt to build something that works in both good times and bad.
User avatar
PrlUnicorn
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Navarra

Re: Beyond Our WoLs: A Proposal of Merits

Post by PrlUnicorn »

Deluthan wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:24 pm
PrlUnicorn wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:05 pm If you have to sit around all night (sometimes night after night) to wait for a single duel, like I often did when peer wins were a thing, it can become a situation of why bother, I can do something else besides be ignored.
Could you elaborate on this (e.g. what rank were you, were you the Warlord looking for peers or on the other end, around when did this happen)? I don't ever remember having this problem. I do remember when I myself was looking for peer wins and had to wait until a peer became available that wasn't already on my list, and that would get discouraging (I would have much preferred a system like I'm proposing because I would have had a lot more control over my progress), but I never had a problem finding a general duel because the only other duelers around were Warlords looking for peer wins and ignoring me.
PrlUnicorn wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:05 pmThe point of a game for many people is to unwind and enjoy their hobby time.
I get that, and it makes me wonder what the average age of the playerbase now is and how that compares to the AOL days c. 2000. My guess is it's much older now. If we want to maintain status quo, then I can understand why this proposal would make people uncomfortable. Yes, there were cliques and elitist attitudes back at the peak of the AOL days, but guess what else there were: A lot more young players, and a lot more action.
I guess I should have clarified, but I thought it would have been clear enough based on context. When the peer win system was in use, regardless of the when, my characters were all lower ranks. If others playing were all looking for peer wins, it was pretty much a wash for me to get any dueling in to build WoL and rank. If I recall correctly, the PW system was repealed partly due to the thinning out of the player base.

We're pretty much still getting used to the new system that was put in place just a couple of months ago which zeroes out all losses. Dueling Houses is something else that's been in play over the last two cycles. As for younger players and more action back in the day, video games with all the bells and whistles like WoW hadn't debuted, yet. Now, they can have their gaming with full musical score and graphics with millions of pixels.
Post Reply

Return to “Duel of Swords (OOC)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rachael Blackthorne and 2 guests