Another Proposal

[G]

I'd like to add that I like these suggestions, so far, and am listening to all of them. I'm not yet adding to the discussion in regards to those suggested changes so that more people can have a look and weigh in.

[Artemus Kurgen]

I am not sure how well this will go over, but here's a shot at it.

It was brought up about adding things to entice RP via all of the Barons being Loyal or Renegade and this then forces the defending Overlord, or challenging Warlord to meet with these individuals if they wish to challenge, or keep from being challenged.

How interesting would it be if say All of the Barons were renegade, and this gave them the option of electing a champion through a sort of contract that did not need Peer Wins to challenge the Overlord, but a signature from each as well as a Favor of Honor?

Basically a petition to challenge where the Barons can go "You want my signature, you have to do a few things for me first." This works for the Barons that want the Overlord gone, but say, lost a challenge shot and are inelligible or they want the Overlord out of the mantle but do not want him taking their Barony. This can be a choice no matter the Baron's stance too. Now you get to still try and sway Loyal and Renegade.

This idea could also be a way for Warlords to challenge for the Mantle outside of tournaments. It's not easy, and going this route isn't something everyone will do to get a chance at the Overlord.

Like I said, its a rough idea that seems like it COULD be fun and COULD generate some cool RP.

Coming back to edit this since I fear it may sound too complicated or overthought. This idea is more Roleplay geared than insta-challenge. Baron's get a bit more pull and depending on who they are it shows how willing a Warlord is to challenge this way. So I'll do a quick break down, and Don, Neo's zealousness towards Vanion inspired this.

So for whatever reason Vanion is Overlord and Neo didn't win the WLT.

We have G, Anubis, Maria, Jaycy, Deathlord, Xanth, and Teagan as Barons.

Neo can petition to challenge but will need the John Hancock of each Baron plust the Favor of Honor that is their test. The tests will be unique to each Baron, their choice. Now, think of when Neo goes to Anubis, what kind of task would the Egyptian have him do? The same with Xanth, and Deathlord.

How resolved is Neo to want that petition signed?

Again, I am thinking from "Woah that could create some cool role play"

[Vanion Shadowcast]

I like Jake's idea quite a lot, with one exception:

I think that giving Warlords free shots at an unpopular Overlord will dilute the rank's worth. I think that there still needs to be some sort of test or accomplishment needed, so that not every Warlord takes pot-shots at an unpopular Overlord with hopes of an easy road to the rank. I also think that this would potentially lower the number of Warlord-to-Baron challenges.

My proposal? I can come up with a few ideas.

A) A Warlord may only choose to challenge the Overlord once per cycle, IF they have defeated a majority(4) of the current Barons at the time of the challene during the cycle.

B) A Warlord may only choose to challenge the Overlord if a Baron sponsors them. A Baron may only sponsor one Warlord per cycle, and should the Warlord fail, the Overlord then retains the right to duel the Baron and remove them from their seat entirely. The Overlord then may host a tournament on their terms to replace the vacant Barony.

C) A Warlord may only choose to challenge the Overlord once per cycle. Should the Warlord lose the challenge, they forfeit ten wins-over-losses from their official record.

D) A Warlord may only choose to challenge the Overlord if a majority of the Renegade Barons confer and decide to make the Warlord their Champion for the month/two months/cycle. There may only be one Warlord Champion per month/two months/cycle.

E) A Warlord may only choose to challenge the Overlord if there are two other Warlords willing to challenge the Warlord. The three fight a round-robin tournament hosted by a Renegade Baron, and the winner may challenge the Overlord. All three participants are unable to attempt to challenge the Overlord again for the rest of the cycle.


These are just a few ideas about qualifiers that you could add to not water down the Overlordship with infinite challenges, encourage people to still challenge Barons and add even one extra layer of roleplay to any changes made in the system. There are probably other, maybe better ideas; but I definitely think that you want to avoid a no-qualified Warlord challenge system to the Overlordship.

[Kalamere]

I appreciate G and Marc's support, but in a way I think Max has a legitimate point. As one who, in years long past, ran these types of rules discussions I have to admit that it occasionally troubled me when an old timer no one had seen in the rings for a very long time would step in with a know it all attitude and preach what was right for the sport. There are some areas where one really should have familiarity with the current state of the arena before they can pretend to know the best solution. I don't believe that's a reason to stay out of the mix altogether though and I promise not to preach. If what I have to say doesn't match with today's DoS issues I can be easily ignored, or hell, just post "Kal, sorry but I think you're out of touch on that point." Tell me what the point is though rather than just making a display of my inactivity, otherwise you just come off as having an axe to grind.

That said.. back to the topic at hand.

Vanion, I don't believe that Jake's proposal takes the Test of Worthiness off the table, so there is still that bit of accomplishment to hurdle.

I do like suggestion B that you list, though perhaps in a modified form for a little more leniency and without the tournament option. Something to the effect of:

* A warlord may challenge for the Overlord title once per cycle provided:
** A majority of Barons are aligned Renegade at the time the challenge is issued, and
** A least one Baron publicly supports the challenge (eg: requires the baron to post his/her support as a response to the initial forum posted challenge) [maybe require 2 supporters, but I wouldn't go beyond that I don't think]

** If more than one warlord challenges, the first to receive the required Baronial support will be the first in queue (rather than the first posted).

** If the Overlord is victorious then s/he may immediately issue challenge to any and all Barons to have supported the warlord challenger (eg: any that posted their support in the challenge thread). If the Overlord is victorious, the Barony is forfeit and will be filled at the next scheduled tournament of Warlords. [While I like this a lot, I think it's a pretty serious drawback to supporting the warlord, which is why (a) I wouldn't limit how many times a cycle they can do it and (b) would only require 1 Baron to support the challenge.]

The problem with some of the other ideas (requiring a majority of barons be defeated by the warlord, a Baron only sponsoring one warlord per cycle, especially charging the defeated warlord 10 WoL) is that there would be book keeping concerns in having to track some of that stuff.. plus I think changing someone's career record is messy. If you need a negative for the challenging warlord, how about saying that any warlord defeated in an Overlord challenge match will be ineligible to enter the next scheduled Warlord Tournament?

~Kal

[Sinjin Fai]

I liked Vanion's suggestions a lot, except when I got to this bit:

C) A Warlord may only choose to challenge the Overlord once per cycle. Should the Warlord lose the challenge, they forfeit ten wins-over-losses from their official record.

I'm all in favor of keeping the Overlord title as something worthy of having, but losing 10 WoL on top of the other hurdles to pass is paaaaainful. I know I'd never try it, if that were the case. I'd rather deal with the WLT where nothing goes on the record. I'm also not really sure about the round-robin tournament suggestion you made later on -- it makes it hard for a single person's roleplay and goal to make a difference. "Yeah! I want to overthrow the OVERLORD! I want to make this a better place! I want to change things!" "Welp, you're the only one who wants to try, so too bad."

However, in a circumstance were multiple Warlords have the necessary requirements to challenge the Overlord through this method, I can see the tournament coming into play.

Also agree with Kal: pull the WLT for anyone who wants to try this method.

[G]

It should be noted that there's no desire to rewrite the entire challenge rules. Any changes made would be fairly minor changes in the way challenges are issued. Also, I'm not looking to over complicate the rules or make challenge risks too high. If the penalty for losing a challenge is too much, people won't challenge. And challenges should happen fairly often.

[Kheldar]

Few random ideas regarding random stuff mentioned so far.

If it turns out we need to limit the number of Warlord Challenges, rather than a strict limit per cycle what if a Warlord who loses his first (or second or whatever) 'free' challenge a cycle needs to earn Peer wins (5, or whatever seems fair) to challenge again that cycle. Book keeping is easier, as by default the peer wins will always have been fought within the last cycle, making verification much easier, and for the most part it wouldn't come up all that often as most people either wouldn't challenge more than that in a cycle, and those that do are obviously active enough they should be able to manage earning some peer wins.

As for the potential punishment for a WL challenging the Overlord, I think rather than it being for a set time limit, (one WLT, one cycle etc) it should be for the reign of the Overlord. I think it gives it a lot more... flavor as it were. I like that change to any of the proposed penalties to challenging the OL, but I'd also propose that a Warlord that lost a challenge vs the Overlord couldn't challenge the Overlord or any of his loyals again during that OLs reign. It gives it a much all in gambit feel to the choice to challenge then. If you fail you have to beat both a renegade Baron and then the OL, or win the WLT in order to get back into contention.

[Vanion Shadowcast]

Yeah, I think that you could do a lot of things to keep things balanced. But I do think that you have to do something other than give Warlords free shots at the Overlord like they already have at Barons. Otherwise, they have no reason to challenge for Baronies unless they've already lost their Overlord Challenge. I think that this cheapens both the Overlord and Baron rank, a bit. I'm all for having a way for Warlords to challenge without too much bookkeeping, but I don't think that it will work well as a freebie event.

[G]

I do agree. The way it is now, and I fully realize that I'm responsible for this since I did away with peer wins, it's currently too easy to challenge for a Barony, and looking at it, the Overlord has it relatively easy, also.

So, I want to allow Warlords to challenge for Overlord, and more challenging for them to go after Barons. Without adding too much to the overall confusion in the rules or bookkeeping. It should be relatively easy to understand.

[Kalamere]

I'd like to add that I like these suggestions, so far, and am listening to all of them. I'm not yet adding to the discussion in regards to those suggested changes so that more people can have a look and weigh in.

Seems the discussion has been on long hibernation. Still looking to do something here, G?

[G]

I'd like to add that I like these suggestions, so far, and am listening to all of them. I'm not yet adding to the discussion in regards to those suggested changes so that more people can have a look and weigh in.

Seems the discussion has been on long hibernation. Still looking to do something here, G?

Probably when things settle down and I don't have tons of rules and such going through my limited capability at multi-tasking brain. Luckily, the Baronial Challenge system hasn't been terribly abused of late. I'm sure I'll revisit these ideas at some point, though.

[G]

I've given these all some serious thought, and here's what I've come up with that is a reasonable solution.

Jake brought up a previous proposal where:

A: If the Majority of Barons are Loyal, Warlords cannot challenge for the Title of Overlord, with exception to Warlord Tournament winners and special Circumstances. (I.E. Madness Tourney grant.)

B: If the Majority of Barons are Renegade, Warlords are able to challenge the Overlord.

My addition to B, which is a based a little on Art's idea:
1. The Warlord has to get permission to challenge from X number of Renegade Barons. (Thinking about the number)

I am considering restrictions on the number of times the OL can be challenged per cycle or month, etc. and am willing to listen to suggestions.

The main reason I this suggestion is the ability to allow WLs the chance to challenge, as well as the RP potential it does create. It gives the OL reason to try and gain loyal Barons, as well as give Barons the opportunity to require the WL to do something in order to gain their permission.

G wants to challenge the Overlord, the Overlord has 4 Renegade Barons. So, G needs to ask permission from a certain number of Ren Barons, who, in order to grant permission, decide to say "OKay G, do this for me and you got it." or "Okay you got it."

Thoughts?

[Jake]

My addition to B, which is a based a little on Art's idea:
1. The Warlord has to get permission to challenge from X number of Renegade Barons. (Thinking about the number)

The number ought not to be excessive. Nor more than 1 or 2 I would think. The warlord ought to be able to "shop around" to the other barons for sponsorship if he/she doesn't like the price the first baron in question is asking.

I am considering restrictions on the number of times the OL can be challenged per cycle or month, etc. and am willing to listen to suggestions.

See PM, re: possible idea that might tie into that.

[G]

My addition to B, which is a based a little on Art's idea:
1. The Warlord has to get permission to challenge from X number of Renegade Barons. (Thinking about the number)

The number ought not to be excessive. Nor more than 1 or 2 I would think. The warlord ought to be able to "shop around" to the other barons for sponsorship if he/she doesn't like the price the first baron in question is asking.

I was actually thinking about two. Reason being because the majority of Renegades would be at minimum 4. 2 is a good, round number. I was juggling the idea around because I wasn't sure if I wanted to do it with a "majority" of Renegade Barons, which would then require 3. I definitely want to do it more than 1.

I'll answer your PM soon enough.

[Marc Franco]

I guess my concern with it is the same as my concern with challenges overall right now. The warlord isn't losing anything by challenging. They can have an almost unlimited number of challenges in a cycle and all they need is to have a warlord ranking. With the peer win system, both the warlord and the baron had something on the line.

Personally, I cared a lot more about winning and losing challenges when I knew that I would have work to do in order to challenge again.

I do like the idea of warlords having a way to challenge the Overlord but I don't like that the warlord and the sponsoring renegade baron have nothing on the line in the matter.