Another Proposal

[Harris]

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.

Giving Warlords the right to challenge directly for the mantle again shouldn't be something that's made easy. If there's an activity clause it shouldn't be a bare minimum or based on average dueling numbers. It should be a step up from what's expected of the average duelist, if they desire to become the supreme duelist. Do we really expect the average Warlord to duel 5 times in the span of six months? Really? Dueling less than once a month is an average expectation that we want a potential Overlord to have? In my mind, if you want to be Overlord you should be *forced* to step up your game, otherwise it cheapens the title if the requirements to challenge are made so painfully easy to meet.

[Amaltea]

Players shouldn't be "forced" to do anything. But that's my opinion.

[Harris]

Okay. We'll chalk that up to a poor choice of words then. Let's use "encouraged" instead of forced.

[Shadowlord]

Well, I've tried to keep track of this thread, and have seen some excellent ideas for modifying challenge rules. My only question: could someone explain a little better why a Warlord should need a Baron's approval to issue a challenge to the OL, under this proposed ruleset? My initial impression is that such might be a barrier to newer, lesser known duelists, who while skilled enough to make Warlord and challenge for title, might not have the 'network' of connections an older Warlord does. Is that what we're shooting for, favoring the 'old guard'? Just a random thought.

[Kalamere]

If we call the time period 20 weeks (still up for debate, but I need something to base numbers on, so I'll use this) then we're talking about 1 duel every other week in order for a Warlord to qualify to challenge the Overlord. I don't think that's too much to ask for, even from callers and/or folks who enjoy hanging out in the arena just to be social and not duel.

The problem is this: If someone is going to be the Overlord, they should be an active player. I think at least most of us can agree on that. The problem is in how we define "active". Callers are active just by the nature of being there and calling duels, even if they aren't dueling. Some players are active because of what they do on the boards. Take DeathLord as an example. I love his writings, but aside from facing challengers I don't much see him in the arena. Generally speaking, this doesn't bother me because he's active on the boards and his posts make me laugh.

Both of those things are very subjective though. I think for black letter rules around what it takes to be qualified to issue a challenge, we need something that's totally objective. A duel count fits that bill and the numbers being proposed feel reasonable to me.

[Jake]

Well, I've tried to keep track of this thread, and have seen some excellent ideas for modifying challenge rules. My only question: could someone explain a little better why a Warlord should need a Baron's approval to issue a challenge to the OL, under this proposed ruleset? My initial impression is that such might be a barrier to newer, lesser known duelists, who while skilled enough to make Warlord and challenge for title, might not have the 'network' of connections an older Warlord does. Is that what we're shooting for, favoring the 'old guard'? Just a random thought.

It's just one of the optional paths under discussion.

Under the latest proposal a Warlord has essentially 3 major paths to Overlord. And one of those paths has two variants.

1. Win the Warlord tourney. Earn the intercession/test-free right to challenge the Overlord. -- No requirement for a Baron's sponsorship. No "show of activity" requirement.

2. Challenge and defeat a Baron. (There may be a "show of activity" requirement added in order to challenge Barons as well as the Overlord, which may or may not be less than the requirement to challenge the Overlord.) Then you are free to challenge the Overlord.

3a. If the majority of Barons are Renegade, a Warlord may directly challenge the Overlord if they've met the single requirement of "show of activity".

3b. If the majority of Barons are Loyal, a Warlord may directly challenge the Overlord if they've met the "show of activity" requirement, AND gained the sponsorship of one Baron (who gives up their own right to challenge the Overlord).

That help?

Multiple paths to challenge the Overlord. Only one of them requires the sponsorship of a Baron.

[Amaltea]

And Shadowlord brings up a good point, that we have to think of the newer, lesser known duelists who are the most likely eager to challenge for any title.

[Jake]

And Shadowlord brings up a good point, that we have to think of the newer, lesser known duelists who are the most likely eager to challenge for any title.

I think that's what most of this thread has been about.

Under the current rules, a Warlord can't directly challenge for Overlord at all, except via the intercession/test-free challenge earned from the WLT.

The next question is whether it should be just as easy to challenge for Overlord as it is for Baron.

Right now, any Warlord can challenge for a Barony. So, newcomers already have a means to gain a title.

What the current proposal offers is a chance for those Warlords to challenge for Overlord (outside of the WLT prize), but not as easily as they might for Baron. Which seems appropriate. I think it's fair that Overlord be harder to obtain than Baron. (Which I think is also what Harris is suggesting.)

RECAP

Starting point (now): Warlords can't directly challenge for OL except as prize from WLT.

Proposed (future): Warlords will be able to challenge for OL, under a couple of different scenarios, in addition to the prize from the WLT.

[Kalamere]

My initial impression is that such might be a barrier to newer, lesser known duelists, who while skilled enough to make Warlord and challenge for title, might not have the 'network' of connections an older Warlord does.

The proposal for gaining Renegade permission is suggested as a way to allow challenges to the OL when a majority of the Barons are loyal. It's about opening it up, not locking it down.

That said.. I think there are some positive gains even from your phrasing.

(a) It gives the "newer, lesser known duelists" a reason to expand their "network" and get involved with the Barons. If I'm playing someone other than Kal I may never have a reason to interact with a Baron. This type of rule gives me a reason to though, which I think could be a good thing.

(b) In the case of a new duelist with no connections and so forth.. it may not be an incredibly bad thing to have them go the other route and make them earn a Barony first, before allowing them a shot at the Overlord.

Again.. I tend to come down on the open path rather than protectionist and want to re-stress that the renegade grant proposal is put forth to create a new opening rather than to close anything down or rule people out. I put forth (a) and (b) above only for arguments sake.

[Harris]

My initial impression is that such might be a barrier to newer, lesser known duelists, who while skilled enough to make Warlord and challenge for title, might not have the 'network' of connections an older Warlord does.

The proposal for gaining Renegade permission is suggested as a way to allow challenges to the OL when a majority of the Barons are loyal. It's about opening it up, not locking it down.

That said.. I think there are some positive gains even from your phrasing.

(a) It gives the "newer, lesser known duelists" a reason to expand their "network" and get involved with the Barons. If I'm playing someone other than Kal I may never have a reason to interact with a Baron. This type of rule gives me a reason to though, which I think could be a good thing.

(b) In the case of a new duelist with no connections and so forth.. it may not be an incredibly bad thing to have them go the other route and make them earn a Barony first, before allowing them a shot at the Overlord.

Again.. I tend to come down on the open path rather than protectionist and want to re-stress that the renegade grant proposal is put forth to create a new opening rather than to close anything down or rule people out. I put forth (a) and (b) above only for arguments sake.

I'm in full agreement with these points. Previous to this no new Warlord had the right to challenge for title immediately. They had to first accrue peer wins to do so. This proposal encourages a similar type of path, giving the newer Warlords something to attain before they're able to challenge. This is more roleplay related, making connections and interacting with the upper ranks before being allowed to become an upper rank. It's not a bad thing to have to take a breath after making Warlord before jumping into the challenge pool.

[Marc Franco]

And Shadowlord brings up a good point, that we have to think of the newer, lesser known duelists who are the most likely eager to challenge for any title.

I'm not really sure I buy into this theory that a newer, lesser known duelist would have a harder time getting a baron to sponsor them than would an older warlord. People play their characters true to their characters for the most part, not OOC loyalties. I know that if Maria was a renegade, she'd sponsor pretty much anybody if the price was right. I think I can see situations in which all of the current flock of barons (save maybe Anubis who will always want the Overlordship for himself) would do so.

To me it's a little insulting to those of us who play upper rank characters that we would stick to some "old guard" mentality and not sponsor newer players/characters.

Yes, in the past there was this sort of old school vs new school clash. However, in my opinion, with the integration of DM that has died and has been buried. For the first time in the 15 years I've been playing, this place is more of a community than I have ever seen. Everybody plays with everybody else. There is no "us vs them" undercurrent.

That being said, even if some people don't buy into this or doesn't want to roleplay with anyone who is a baron at that time, there are still three other paths for them to take towards the Overlord (which is one more than there currently is) and this rule wouldn't impact getting a barony at all.

[Amaltea]

Actually, there was more to that post. After posting I changed my mind and removed most of it. Then thought I should just delete the whole thing but when I came back Jake and Kalamere had already replied.

Too fast, too fast! Must think faster!

I should have just deleted the whole thing when I first thought of it, cause reading it now it sounds disconnected.

[Kalamere]

We'll let you get away with it this time... but only 'cause you're cute. And you're the boss, but mostly the former =)

[Amaltea]

[G]

It should probably be noted that if we're going to do an activity clause in order to challenge, that it would only be fair to begin adhering to all activity related rules currently in existence. An example of this would be duelists being removed from the standings if they are inactive for an entire cycle, or reinstated Warlords requiring a duel or two before being permitted to enter in the Warlord Tournament.