Another Proposal

[Teagan]

I like the latest version of the idea.

However, I would like to suggest that the required duel amount be lowered. For some reason, 10 duels in 13 weeks seems a little too much just to consider someone active. I would rather see the required number be somewhere around the 1 duel per 2 weeks ratio.

There have been weeks where dueling just did not appeal to me enough to break away from roleplaying. Also, people sometimes just get burned out and take a few weeks off. Our callers also spend a lot of time behind official names, which means they have less time than the rest of us to keep their participation status.

Personally, if the wish was to keep the 13 week range, then I would suggest 7 duels being the required number.

[Jake]

So...

1. Warlords can challenge the Overlord provided the majority of the Barons are Renegade and they have permission from 2 Renegade Barons to do so.

2. In order to challenge for a Barony, the Warlord must maintain an activity of at minimum 10 Duels(Win or loss) over the previous 13 Weeks.

Also..

1. If an Overlord has a Barons Council complete with Loyal Barons (7), then the Overlord can only be challenged by WLT prize winner, and by Loyal Baron provided the conditions that allow a Loyal Baron to challenge are met. (I.E. OL falling under 15 WoL. All that's listed under the Challenge rules already.)

Sound good and simple?

No, I think the current proposal included an option to allow for challenges even if there is a majority of Loyals.

From my earlier post:

1. Win the WLT. <-- One of things that's been nice about the current/past rules about not being able to directly challenge the Overlord, is that the only way to do it was to win the WLT prize. Prior to this, the "Intercession-free shot at the Overlord" was almost always the leftover prize if there was a Barony available. Narrowing the means by which a Warlord could challenge the Overlord made this prize more attractive.

2. If a Majority of the Barons are Renegade, and the Warlord has met the activity requirement, they can challenge the Overlord. <-- Thus creating a reason for the Overlord to want Loyal Barons.

3. If the Majority of Barons are Loyal, and the Warlord has met the activity requirement, they must obtain the sponsorship of a Renegade Baron in order to challenge.

So...

A Warlord may challenge the Overlord under three circumstances:

1. By winning the intercession-free challenge in the WLT.

2. If there are a majority of Renegade Barons, and they have accrued 10* duels (win or loss) within the last 13 weeks of regular dueling. No Baron's proxy required.

3. If there are a majority of Loyal Barons, and they have accrued 10* duels (win or loss) within the last 13 weeks of regular dueling, AND they obtain 1 Baron's proxy (the Renegade Baron giving up their own chance to challenge for the cycle).

* or some number to be determined.

If more than 1 Baron's proxy were required, and with only 3 Renegades at most, there could only be one challenge from a Warlord per cycle. So, only 1 Baron's proxy required, but they give up their own right to challenge. If they've already used their challenge for the cycle, they would not have a proxy to offer to a Warlord.

[Jaycy Ashleana]

I like the latest version of the idea.

However, I would like to suggest that the required duel amount be lowered. For some reason, 10 duels in 13 weeks seems a little too much just to consider someone active. I would rather see the required number be somewhere around the 1 duel per 2 weeks ratio.

There have been weeks where dueling just did not appeal to me enough to break away from roleplaying. Also, people sometimes just get burned out and take a few weeks off. Our callers also spend a lot of time behind official names, which means they have less time than the rest of us to keep their participation status.

Personally, if the wish was to keep the 13 week range, then I would suggest 7 duels being the required number.

I can't say I disagree with Teagan's position on how often duelers need to duel to be considered active and that sometimes people just need a few weeks away. I've always said the number of duels fought isn't shouldn't be the only sign of activity (particularly for callers).

At least for callers, though, something G and I talked about ....

Instead of necessarily lowering the number of duels in their case (callers), instead give a 1 shift called = 1 duel credit.

1) It is character-specific. So the WL who wants the credit must be the host character.

2) Regular DoS shifts and Fight Night shifts only apply. No challenges, no tournies.

[Artemus Kurgen]

10 duels in 13 weeks...that's like one duel a week or weekend. Not a hard thing to accomplish, callers have nights off to do other things and many of them do in fact duel on their nights off.

[Kalamere]

I would leave the number of duels at 5 and 10, but change 13 weeks to 20 or 25.

13 weeks is roughly one cycle. We used the number of 1 or 2 cycles interchangeably earlier in the thread, so if the 1 duel a week ratio sounds high, lets add more weeks and revert to something closer to 2 cycles.

[Marc Franco]

I can't say I disagree with Teagan's position on how often duelers need to duel to be considered active and that sometimes people just need a few weeks away. I've always said the number of duels fought isn't shouldn't be the only sign of activity (particularly for callers).

At least for callers, though, something G and I talked about ....

Instead of necessarily lowering the number of duels in their case (callers), instead give a 1 shift called = 1 duel credit.

1) It is character-specific. So the WL who wants the credit must be the host character.

2) Regular DoS shifts and Fight Night shifts only apply. No challenges, no tournies.

I really don't agree that there should be a "caller credit".

Warlords, Barons, and the Overlord need to be out dueling. I'll be the first to admit that while I bring my baron character around, I don't duel enough. Dueling upper ranks is how the lower ranks get good and challenge themselves. I'm pretty sure we all remember the days when it was exciting to get a baron or a legendary warlord in a ring. And if by chance you beat them? What a confidence boost!

Plus, there's a lot of us who don't believe that our main dueling character should be a calling character. We believe our calling character is in the room to support other people's SLs rather than being the star themselves. I don't want to encourage people to use their trash talkers and jerky characters as callers just so they can get a credit. It also makes no IC sense. If a caller is getting paid to call, why would they get a free pass on the rule?

If the community is so strapped for callers that calling must be rewarded then I think we need to sit down and take a look at the schedule to see what can be done to allow people more of an opportunity to duel. I'm sure I'm not the only back-up caller who is willing to take a shift for someone every other week or so in order for them to get 5-10 duels in a cycle.

[Harris]

I disagree that there should be a caller credit. I fully realize that there are multiple levels of activity outside of dueling, but for this game activity is defined by how frequently you duel. I think for the sake of rule simplicity we should leave the definition at that. Otherwise we'll have people arguing that they should be given dueling credit for the storylines they're posting as well, which is easily a valid argument if we start giving callers credit. Leave the definition of activity as dueling frequency.

The ten duel activity rule is reasonable. Certainly, there are times when you don't feel like dueling or want a break. In my mind this evens out with the times where you duel multiple times a night. The rule would average out to about one duel a week. If you can't put in the time to get in ten duels out of the 52 days of dueling there are in a 13 week timespan then you shouldn't be challenging for the mantle. Those that wish to challenge for Overlord should be held to a higher standard.

[Sartan]

If we're putting in an activity clause for the right to challenge, shouldn't an activity clause be applied to the titlists themselves too?


I believe that topic has been discussed elsewhere in regards to players/characters winning a title and disappearing for a few months without requiring to be active duelists.

Can anyone point me to that? The logic in requiring activity to challenge but not requiring activity once a title is won escapes me. If 10 is the required number of duels to issue challenge, why doesn't requiring half of that for an actual titleholder make sense?

[Joex Rodlain]

I don't know, maybe it's just me - but I feel that wins should be standard here, not duels. It's great to be active, but I feel that a title shot (be it baronial or overlord...ial) should be earned through success. I understand 10 is a bit high for a 13 week cycle and some folks cant be that active... that being said, requiring 5 wins isn't really that much. Someone can either be very good (or lucky) and earn it in 5 or 6 or 7 matches, or they can be particularly active earn it in 10 or 15 matches. Either way, we're requiring folks to earn it through success or diligence which I think is important.

As far as once a barony is earned, I think success then has already been established. In light of that, I think duels (rather than wins) should be the standard for barons/the overlord to prove that they are active in the community. Requiring 5 duels over 13 weeks is really pretty minimal and would require only 1 or 2 nights of active dueling, while at the same time making sure that these folks are at least around and active.

[Harris]

I don't know, maybe it's just me - but I feel that wins should be standard here, not duels. It's great to be active, but I feel that a title shot (be it baronial or overlord...ial) should be earned through success. I understand 10 is a bit high for a 13 week cycle and some folks cant be that active... that being said, requiring 5 wins isn't really that much. Someone can either be very good (or lucky) and earn it in 5 or 6 or 7 matches, or they can be particularly active earn it in 10 or 15 matches. Either way, we're requiring folks to earn it through success or diligence which I think is important.

As far as once a barony is earned, I think success then has already been established. In light of that, I think duels (rather than wins) should be the standard for barons/the overlord to prove that they are active in the community. Requiring 5 duels over 13 weeks is really pretty minimal and would require only 1 or 2 nights of active dueling, while at the same time making sure that these folks are at least around and active.

Opting for wins over duels is a slippery slope. It's a success versus activity debate. I don't think people are looking for success right now, or else the peer win system would simply be reinstated to gauge that. Otherwise the only thing you're going to get is Warlords browbeating Commoners and other lower ranks in an effort to get those ten wins they need to challenge the Overlord. Beating ten Commoners to challenge for the mantle doesn't really equal a high level of success in my book. Activity is much simpler to track in my mind, especially in tandem with the other rules necessary for a Warlord to follow to challenge for the mantle.

[Jake]

Opting for wins over duels is a slippery slope. It's a success versus activity debate. I don't think people are looking for success right now, or else the peer win system would simply be reinstated to gauge that. Otherwise the only thing you're going to get is Warlords browbeating Commoners and other lower ranks in an effort to get those ten wins they need to challenge the Overlord. Beating ten Commoners to challenge for the mantle doesn't really equal a high level of success in my book. Activity is much simpler to track in my mind, especially in tandem with the other rules necessary for a Warlord to follow to challenge for the mantle.

One minor correction. Some of the desire to avoid peer wins is that peer wins are/were a pain in the butt to track. We don't record rank when submitting duel results, so verifying peer wins is a tedious process of comparing duels to rank at the time of the standings, and so on.

Verifying simple wins would be much easier.

[Marc Franco]

If we're putting in an activity clause for the right to challenge, shouldn't an activity clause be applied to the titlists themselves too?


I believe that topic has been discussed elsewhere in regards to players/characters winning a title and disappearing for a few months without requiring to be active duelists.

Can anyone point me to that? The logic in requiring activity to challenge but not requiring activity once a title is won escapes me. If 10 is the required number of duels to issue challenge, why doesn't requiring half of that for an actual titleholder make sense?

I've been a little torn on this. On the surface, it seems like requiring baronial activity would be a good idea but would we be limiting SLs? Let's say someone wants to play out a SL about a kidnapped or injured baron/overlord, we could make it difficult if we're requiring a certain number of duels per cycle.

Again, I'm for keeping the rules as simple as possible for those new to the game as well as for those with the task of having to keep track/enforcing this. I'm not really sure if it's necessary to create a rule over this. Currently, there's no issue with inactive barons and there hasn't been since peer wins have been eliminated. I don't think there will be either since I'd expect that any baron/overlord that was showing signs of inactivity would get a prompt challenge.

[Harris]

Opting for wins over duels is a slippery slope. It's a success versus activity debate. I don't think people are looking for success right now, or else the peer win system would simply be reinstated to gauge that. Otherwise the only thing you're going to get is Warlords browbeating Commoners and other lower ranks in an effort to get those ten wins they need to challenge the Overlord. Beating ten Commoners to challenge for the mantle doesn't really equal a high level of success in my book. Activity is much simpler to track in my mind, especially in tandem with the other rules necessary for a Warlord to follow to challenge for the mantle.

One minor correction. Some of the desire to avoid peer wins is that peer wins are/were a pain in the butt to track. We don't record rank when submitting duel results, so verifying peer wins is a tedious process of comparing duels to rank at the time of the standings, and so on.

Verifying simple wins would be much easier.

Fair enough. My point was that peer wins were a better gauge of success than merely tracking regular wins when talking about challenging for Overlord, to clarify.

[Jake]

If we're putting in an activity clause for the right to challenge, shouldn't an activity clause be applied to the titlists themselves too?


I believe that topic has been discussed elsewhere in regards to players/characters winning a title and disappearing for a few months without requiring to be active duelists.

Can anyone point me to that? The logic in requiring activity to challenge but not requiring activity once a title is won escapes me. If 10 is the required number of duels to issue challenge, why doesn't requiring half of that for an actual titleholder make sense?

I've been a little torn on this. On the surface, it seems like requiring baronial activity would be a good idea but would we be limiting SLs? Let's say someone wants to play out a SL about a kidnapped or injured baron/overlord, we could make it difficult if we're requiring a certain number of duels per cycle.

Again, I'm for keeping the rules as simple as possible for those new to the game as well as for those with the task of having to keep track/enforcing this. I'm not really sure if it's necessary to create a rule over this. Currently, there's no issue with inactive barons and there hasn't been since peer wins have been eliminated. I don't think there will be either since I'd expect that any baron/overlord that was showing signs of inactivity would get a prompt challenge.

I tend to agree.

What's more...many of our Barons also play/write/duel under other SNs.

As Marc pointed out, if a Baron (or their player) is really missing, there's already a built-in mechanism to remove them. If they get challenged, and don't respond, they lose their title. If they get challenged, and DO respond, either they have been around (perhaps calling, or perhaps more actively with a different character), or maybe they'll take the hint that they need to be more active.

As Marc also said, there doesn't seem to be a problem with missing title-holders at the moment.

[Amaltea]

There used to be an activity clause for the title holders where they had to at least duel once per cycle. I know because I was reminded once not so long ago that I had to duel before the cycle ended.

As per the warlord's activity, I also agree that the number should be lower. I also remember at the beginning of the thread they were talking about 5 duels -- not wins -- over a 2 cycle period. Besides, if the title holders need to duel only once why should the little guy be forced to live in the duels when the person they want to challenge does not have to? Somehow it is not balanced. Does NOT mean I want the title holders to have to duel more either.

Also, having less duels over the 2 cycles it's a lot easier on players that are also callers. While I do not agree that there should be a caller credit, having to get less duels at least will help them. Sometimes players are in the room, but only playing, not dueling. I have seen this myself a lot lately. They spend 2 or 3 hours in the room just passing time without dueling once. Not saying this counts for something, but like Teagan and Marc said not everyone is up to dueling every single time they go in the room, they are there to play.

Not too crazy about needing a Baron's approval, but as long as it is only one I guess it's ok and relatively easy to get.