What would you like to see in DoM or on Twilight Isle?

[PrlUnicorn]

I have not read through this thread as yet because I don't want to get caught up in any conflict that might be brewing.

My suggestion is to have a survey open to all players (one vote/survey/suggestion form per player not SN) that is initially readable only by the DoM staff and Dueling Admins. This will save on arguments right out the gate and might encourage players that normally do not post to put their two cents into the discussion. Once those are submitted then the staff can openly discuss what is presented.

I'm sure that Jake and/or Kal would be able to set up a form to help facilitate this idea.

[JewellRavenlock]

If we're looking at it strictly from a "fairness" standpoint, 2/2/1 is not fair. 1/1/1/4-fight-nights is fair.

The "caller issue" is best addressed by the callers that are in the trenches every week making these duels happen for us

Additionally;

Roleplaying is important and will be considered.
Participation is important and very much so will be considered.
The numbers are important too and will be considered while we look into all available options.


But as the community changes and the needs of the players and volunteers change, so too do scheduling needs and that's why we need to look at every aspect that contributes to this and do our best to address as many as possible all at once instead of putting a band aid over one item while something else is bleeding out. Things like test runs are a great way to see what is working and what isn't, so long as there is open communication around it which is why I am working toward making sure I'm as transparent as possible in this discussion.

I'm so attracted to Claire and her logic right now.

[Jake]

Jewell has a nice idea about each sport having one night. But. It leads back to Harris's point about staffing.

Off the top of my head, staffing is an issue. Can every caller call every sport? No. Does every caller *want* to call every sport? No. Unless it becomes mandatory that every caller learn every sport and be willing to call them, you're probably going to have issues with every night being a Fight Night. Perhaps it's a minor quibble, but staffing tends to get overlooked in these types of scenarios.

Magic has always had up and down numbers since AOL days.
Number of duels is not the all being deciding factor. So is community participation. "Spectators" as it were.
So. "Numbers" is NOT the important deciding factor.

Just set the schedule. Once and for all. No more test runs. No more back and forth and confusing people. It makes it solid, fair and solves the caller issue.

DoF - 2 nights Mon & Wed
DoS - 2 nights - Thus & Sat
DoM - 1 night - Tues

Solves caller issue. Makes it fair. No one has to "choose".

If we're looking at it strictly from a "fairness" standpoint, 2/2/1 is not fair. 1/1/1/4-fight-nights is fair.

Except that it's never been that simple.

It would be nice to give each duel their own night and call it fair, except that every night is not equal. There are "prime" nights and there are "less prime" nights. Having a less prime night (a night in which fewer people can/will duel) is not the same as having a prime night.

Try convincing G to give up Thursday. "Hey, let's swap DoS Thursday to Monday, and put DoM on Thursday!"

And what's true now, may not have been true a few years ago, or will be true a few months from now. If you go way, way back, Saturday nights used to be one of the best nights for dueling. Saturdays and Fridays were prime time. Maybe it was the age of the players. Weekends were good, weeknights were bad.

When DoF moved to Wednesdays (and I still lived on the West Coast), DoF became very hard for me to attend. It was usually wrapping up just around the time I was able to get on-line.

Mondays do not equal Fridays.

Making *every* night Fight Night is the "fairest" solution, in that it gives all the duels equal opportunity on the prime nights, and on the less prime nights. But that may not be the most desirable solution. Some people do prefer a more focused environment.

It's always been a balancing act. What serves the interests of the forum? What best serves the interest and availability of the players? Time slots good for East Coast not always so great for West Coast, and vice versa.

There's no "once and for all" answer because our demographic keeps changing. Tweaking will always be necessary. Three years ago, Saturdays were great for DoS/dueling. Now, Saturdays are pretty dead. Two years from now Sunday afternoons might be the optimum time for players to play.

Recognize that this is something that will be/needs to be revisited from time to time. It's based on who can call what. And *when* they can call. It's based on *when* people can and will want to play. What if a 4th or 5th duel type gets invented? Duel of Psionics? Duel of Guns? Duel of Mutated Monsters?

Keep some flexibility in mind when thinking about what best serves the community.

A good starting question/poll might be to figure out what the best nights (and times) presently are for the current community of players. Is Friday still the best night? Are Mondays still terrible? When DO you, and when CAN you, play?

[Kalamere]

I have not read through this thread as yet because I don't want to get caught up in any conflict that might be brewing.

My suggestion is to have a survey open to all players (one vote/survey/suggestion form per player not SN) that is initially readable only by the DoM staff and Dueling Admins. This will save on arguments right out the gate and might encourage players that normally do not post to put their two cents into the discussion. Once those are submitted then the staff can openly discuss what is presented.

I'm sure that Jake and/or Kal would be able to set up a form to help facilitate this idea.

I guess it depends on what you mean here.

If you're talking about the discussion of dueling nights, then yes I think that's a decent and idea and wouldn't be that hart to implement... even using something like google forms. That said (and someone else already mentioned this) any discussion about changing what sports get what nights needs to be taken out of the DoM specific context and brought to the attention of all duelists.

If, on the other hand, you mean this general discussion of what types of changes would people like to see to the game, then that I don't really agree with. If someone wants to make a suggestion without tagging their name to it, then maybe they can find a friend to post for them. Ideally though, this begins with a completely open and uncensored solicitation of ideas. I don't see any reason that would need to be kept private and then filtered to just a few from the get-go.

[Jake]

If, on the other hand, you mean this general discussion of what types of changes would people like to see to the game, then that I don't really agree with. If someone wants to make a suggestion without tagging their name to it, then maybe they can find a friend to post for them. Ideally though, this begins with a completely open and uncensored solicitation of ideas. I don't see any reason that would need to be kept private and then filtered to just a few from the get-go.

Agreed.

[Spell]

Lower ranked Elemental Fury use against higher ranked, non-Keepers during regulation.

i.e. A Sorcerer Keeper would have the ability to use their Elemental Fury against an opponent ranked Wizard or above.

What about the same idea, plus the ability to use it vs someone of even rank when a Keeper is of Mage Rank / Mage E rank?

The only downside I can see is that having a Keeper title become the best option for mages in AMT's. But that would also give reason for Mages to challenge for the titles as well if they want the extra boost.

[Shadowlord]

Lower ranked Elemental Fury use against higher ranked, non-Keepers during regulation.

i.e. A Sorcerer Keeper would have the ability to use their Elemental Fury against an opponent ranked Wizard or above.

What about the same idea, plus the ability to use it vs someone of even rank when a Keeper is of Mage Rank / Mage E rank?

The only downside I can see is that having a Keeper title become the best option for mages in AMT's. But that would also give reason for Mages to challenge for the titles as well if they want the extra boost.

My concern here is that while it may increase challenges, it does not actually promote the idea of making top rank in DoM, as I see it. Why rank up when you get to use the best spell against a higher rank? Not saying that people will necessarily do this or think this way, but it opens a door to a sort of reverse ambition. Now, if everyone wants to be a Sorcerer/Keeper, and it promotes activity, that's a positive. But, consider that such a change actually weakens the higher ranks, to an extent. Is that what we want? I think this idea would need some extended playtesting and review.

Furthermore: perma-pets!

[Claire Gallows]

On the subject of permapets, I just want to point out that in the interest of keeping story possibilities open to each player, each keeper already does have control over elementals of their tower's element. These can range from pure flame fire elementals and ice golems for the tower of water to dryads for earth and tornadoes for air. The possibilities are there and really, they're as endless as our imaginations go, without putting a permanent being in place that could possibly limit what someone does.

[Spell]

Lower ranked Elemental Fury use against higher ranked, non-Keepers during regulation.

i.e. A Sorcerer Keeper would have the ability to use their Elemental Fury against an opponent ranked Wizard or above.

What about the same idea, plus the ability to use it vs someone of even rank when a Keeper is of Mage Rank / Mage E rank?

The only downside I can see is that having a Keeper title become the best option for mages in AMT's. But that would also give reason for Mages to challenge for the titles as well if they want the extra boost.

My concern here is that while it may increase challenges, it does not actually promote the idea of making top rank in DoM, as I see it. Why rank up when you get to use the best spell against a higher rank? Not saying that people will necessarily do this or think this way, but it opens a door to a sort of reverse ambition. Now, if everyone wants to be a Sorcerer/Keeper, and it promotes activity, that's a positive. But, consider that such a change actually weakens the higher ranks, to an extent. Is that what we want? I think this idea would need some extended playtesting and review.

Furthermore: perma-pets!

True, it would need playtesting. Another thought is that EF could be like a mage-only spell. If you are a Keeper and a Mage / Mage E, you can use it against others who are Mages, Mages E's, other Keepers, Archmage. While Sorcerers -> Wizard can only use it against Keepers. That way players would have to rank up if they would like to unlock the full power of EF.

[Spell]

On the subject of permapets, I just want to point out that in the interest of keeping story possibilities open to each player, each keeper already does have control over elementals of their tower's element. These can range from pure flame fire elementals and ice golems for the tower of water to dryads for earth and tornadoes for air. The possibilities are there and really, they're as endless as our imaginations go, without putting a permanent being in place that could possibly limit what someone does.

This. Being a Keeper has tons of opportunities. Hell, not being a keeper but doing something on Twilight Isle itself, since the place is magic, could bring an opportunity to find a pet or companion. Walk into a forest and find a unicorn. Fish at a river and find a Kappa.

[Ahni]

... without putting a permanent being in place that could possibly limit what someone does.

Which is why it could simply be an essence that the new Keeper decides what form the perma-pet would take. Regardless, there are the elementals anyway that players can choose to utilize or not -- but uhhhh dryads? Whoops. xD

Walk into a forest and find a unicorn.

ALFRED IS BEST UNICORN AND THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS OKAY

[Alfred]

ALFRED IS BEST UNICORN AND THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS OKAY

I just wanted to show that again for those of you reading.

You may carry on.

This moment of playful mischief brought to you by Alfred the Disgruntled Unicorn

[Ahni]

What about the same idea, plus the ability to use it vs someone of even rank when a Keeper is of Mage Rank / Mage E rank?

The only downside I can see is that having a Keeper title become the best option for mages in AMT's. But that would also give reason for Mages to challenge for the titles as well if they want the extra boost.

My concern here is that while it may increase challenges, it does not actually promote the idea of making top rank in DoM, as I see it. Why rank up when you get to use the best spell against a higher rank? Not saying that people will necessarily do this or think this way, but it opens a door to a sort of reverse ambition. Now, if everyone wants to be a Sorcerer/Keeper, and it promotes activity, that's a positive. But, consider that such a change actually weakens the higher ranks, to an extent. Is that what we want? I think this idea would need some extended playtesting and review.

Furthermore: perma-pets!

True, it would need playtesting. Another thought is that EF could be like a mage-only spell. If you are a Keeper and a Mage / Mage E, you can use it against others who are Mages, Mages E's, other Keepers, Archmage. While Sorcerers -> Wizard can only use it against Keepers. That way players would have to rank up if they would like to unlock the full power of EF.

But wouldn't the use of EF as a Sorcerer / Wizard against higher-ranked duelists sort of even the field a bit, when you take Foci into account? Does that make sense?

As far as reverse ambition, I'm not exactly sure that would happen. Wouldn't the ability to use EF as a Sorcerer-Keeper just give a better opportunity to win, thus rank up?

[PrlUnicorn]

If, on the other hand, you mean this general discussion of what types of changes would people like to see to the game, then that I don't really agree with. If someone wants to make a suggestion without tagging their name to it, then maybe they can find a friend to post for them. Ideally though, this begins with a completely open and uncensored solicitation of ideas. I don't see any reason that would need to be kept private and then filtered to just a few from the get-go.

I was thinking of something a bit more extensive, but the schedule seems to be the only thing people aren't getting together on. So, that'd work.

I suppose that people could also submit their ideas privately to the staff and ask them to publish it.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

I like the idea of elementals being a creature. I don't really like them being called pets per se. As Claire already pointed out, what form the elementals take was already at the discretion of the player of the Keeper, so that is a rather moot point.

Until the Combo Nights were introduced I participated in DoM regularly. When I play in the Fight Night scenario, I am well aware that all three sports will be going on at once and it's my choice to be there. When the combo nights were introduced, that took away the choice of being able to have characters that don't participate in DoF to have a DoM only set up. Harris pointed out setting integrity and that pretty much explains it for me.

The word fair and numbers keep getting tossed around. When I looked at the numbers, I saw a decrease in DoM duels over time. I think the word fair is being misused. While 2/2/1/ with 2 Fight Nights isn't fair in numbers of days, it is what some players are asking for. Even .5 days (with DoF elsewhere) was fine with some that wanted a DoM only setting.

[JewellRavenlock]

The word fair and numbers keep getting tossed around. When I looked at the numbers, I saw a decrease in DoM duels over time. I think the word fair is being misused. While 2/2/1/ with 2 Fight Nights isn't fair in numbers of days, it is what some players are asking for. Even .5 days (with DoF elsewhere) was fine with some that wanted a DoM only setting.

(Bold mine!)

I'd love to see it as close to fair as possible with as many people as happy as possible, but someone (or multiple people) is always going to be unhappy with change.

I also think most people can agree that just because something is what a person or multiple people want, doesn't mean that thing is what is best for the sport or the community as a whole.