A call for ideas.

[Face Loran]

Interesting graph. Is that the first year that kind of data had been plotted? I would be curious to see multiple years..

As for changing the rules, I still love the peer wins, makes people actively participate in teh duels, thus increasing the number of duels each month. Makes things less boring for the callers who sit there for multiple hours during their shift with nothing to do. I personally dont like to see somebody who doesnt really participate in regular dueling but they are able to hold rings... I like to see the sport promote activity, thus the Peer Wins has always been a great system. Maybe based off the activity we have seen lately we do need to reduce the amount of peers, but I dont see any reason for why we should eliminate them.

[Jake]

Interesting graph. Is that the first year that kind of data had been plotted? I would be curious to see multiple years..

I've only got the data available from the shift reports that are posted on the RoH forums. So, since 4/2004 was the first month of available data, that's as far back as I can go.

I've got data from roughly four years (up until last month) on the challenges, and when they happened, recorded in the defunct DZ Calendar, which I could use to plot the number of challenges that took place. I might work on a graph for that this week if I have spare time.

[Jake]

Turned out to be easier than I expected, however the data is not broken out by type of DoS Event, so the graph includes all DoS events (challenges, WLTs, etc.), however challenges comprise the vast majority and the graph shows that the overall number of challenges over the past 4 years has not dramatically decreased.

http://duelingzone.com/rh/DoSevents.cfm

The reduction in Baronies occured in early-middle 2004 and the number of challenges has not significantly been impacted. -- Rather, as suggested on previous occasions, the number of challenges has stayed the same (which is consistent with a community that has stayed relatively the same size), and the number of challenges per Baron is likely to have shown an increase.

[Amaltea]

As for changing the rules, I still love the peer wins, makes people actively participate in teh duels, thus increasing the number of duels each month. Makes things less boring for the callers who sit there for multiple hours during their shift with nothing to do.

Not necessarily. Callers still sit during their shifts not doing much and calling only a handful of duels. How many of those are PWs? Not many. The players that are doing most of the dueling are not Warlords, but the new players that wish to become Warlords.

One of the previous ideas that was suggested at one point was that the OL would only be challengeable if the majority of Barons were Renegade. So for example if 4 of the 7 Barons were Loyal, the Overlord could not be challenged. If someone didn't like the way the OL was doing things, and there were a Loyal majority, one or more Barons would need to be taken down before the OL.

Yes, I remember this idea and I like it very much. It brings a really interesting element, with lots of RP potential, to the relationship between Overlord and Barons. This idea would work well with the once a cycle allowance. If players want to make an Overlord open to challenge there will be more challenges to the Barons to remove the loyals. The Overlord will have more interest in defending his loyal Barons. It will definitely make things more interesting.

[Xenograg]

Interesting graph. Is that the first year that kind of data had been plotted? I would be curious to see multiple years..

I've only got the data available from the shift reports that are posted on the RoH forums. So, since 4/2004 was the first month of available data, that's as far back as I can go.

I've got data from roughly four years (up until last month) on the challenges and when they happened recorded in the defunct DZ Calendar, which I could use to plot the number of challenges that took place. I might work on a graph for that this week if I have spare time.

Remember that RoH's best month of activity is only a fraction of the activity on AOL DoS in the late 90s. The Peer Win System was needed then because there were too many challenges. Now the pendulum has swung back the other way.

[Jake]

For those interested...

http://redgoblin.com/rh/DoFevents.cfm

http://redgoblin.com/rh/DoMevents.cfm

Charts like the DoS one, that show the total # of events over the last four years in DoF and DoM, the majority of which will be challenges.

I think the graphs are pretty indicative of the trends in both of those sports. DoF has been slipping in participation in recent years, due to any number of factors (a lack of callers being one of them). And, based upon what I've been told, DoM has been seeing an overall increase in activity over the last couple of years.

[Billy]

The intent of the Ring reduction was never to generate more challenges but generate more challenges PER ring.

Did reducing the rings aliente players? Off hand I'll say no because I only know of one person who left as a direct result of the reduction. And that player had become quite jaded anyway.

I still think the ring reduction was a positive thing and I would be against bringing them back at this time.


If we were going to make a change in the peer win system at this point, I think I would favor a slightly lower requirement but also a blind peer win system. Blind peer wins were something discussed during the debate to add PWs to the Warlord Tournament and I think would be good to revist.

I'm against scrapping the PW system completely because I like having to have Warlords come in a duel for a few weeks during regular hours before they can challenge. We not only want to make it easier to challenge, but we also want to give players incentive to duel during regular hours. I've always thought that one of the biggest things that pulled WL into regular hour dueling was that hunt for PWs.

The idea that an OL can't be challenged with a majority of loyals is certainly something worth looking further into. But, I'm hesitant to do something like that for one reason. It's very clear that the rules are hard to follow as it is, do we want to throw more stipulations and rules on top of that? It's more to referee.

Sorry if all this came out jumbled, been trying to catch up on everything this morning.

[Jake]

...I still think the ring reduction was a positive thing and I would be against bringing them back at this time...

I concur with this point.

[Face Loran]

I dont see any reason in bringing more rings back if we are having a lack in challenges as it is. I remember for a while there were rings that went unchallenged for a year.

I also see the merit in bringing more RP through making the OL unchallengable if the Barons are majority loyal, is there a way we could do something like that while keeping the PW system.

I fully agree with Billy on this as I feel that we should all have more incentive to be there during regular dueling hours and put in our time, rather than just be able to challenge because you are listed on the standings. Somebody could be listed on the standings while not dueling for 4 or 5 months, then they could step in and challenge immediately without having to get any peers.

[NickOvTyme]

Don't bring back more rings.

I was dueling around here before there were even Barons and we seemed to be doing ok....but on the flip side, participation was not what it was about to become. Whereas, before the Baron Rank, there were a handful of regular duelers who held the rank of Warlord that could challeng the Overlord...there soon became tens of duelers (I won't be so naive as to say there were hundreds, though there might have been a time) wanting to challenge for the Title. From my limited understanding, this was why the Baron Rank was born.

Now that participation is down again...there isn't need to bring back all 13 rings. Besides, if I could hold the rank of Baron for more than a year, then there has to be something wrong with the system.

Now, from an anymore infrequent duelist that means little and I'll move along.

Oh and here's an idea for more participation...Have every hour /time you duel equal out payment in your till. Like a duel equals 10 silver nobles or something.

[Amaltea]

From the DoF rules:

Emeralds challenging for Opal must maintain active status in the Duel of Fists for at least one cycle (three months). Duelists who are reinstated from retirement or who have been removed from the standings due to inactivity must duel actively for one cycle before they may challenge.

From the DoM rules:

Any challenger challenging for the title of Keeper must be an active dueler in the Duel of Magic for at least one cycle (Two months). Duelers who are reinstated from retirement or who have been removed from the standings due to inactivity must duel actively for two months before they may challenge.

What do they consider active? One duel? Two? I do not know. But what's so wrong with having DoS follow the same format? How about instead the player had to have a minimum of 10 duels a cycle before they can challenge?

Their highest titles, Diamond and Celestial Keeper are challenged only via tournament winner. That wouldn't be the case with DoS if it's combined with the Loyal/Renegade Baron majority exception suggested earlier by Jake.

[Billy]

They consider one duel per cycle active. DoS also considers one duel per cycle active when considering who is removed for inactivity from the standings.

[Face Loran]

Well, if we are looking to simply increase the amount of challenges, why not do the simplest thing first and see if that solves the problem? Just reduce the PW for now and see if that significantly helps? Otherwise possibly look at completely changing the rules.

[Jake]

Their highest titles, Diamond and Celestial Keeper are challenged only via tournament winner.

That's how the Celestial Keeper works. That's not how the Diamond works. There are no challenge rules for the Diamond. The winner of the Diamond Quest tourney keeps the title for the cycle, and then another tourney is held.

[G]

I personally wouldn't want to see Warlords just allowed to challenge once a cycle without PWs of some sort. There's increasing challenges, and creating too many.