Another Proposal

[Teagan]

Why not let the first challenge be issued without any requirements, and for any after that per cycle, require something?

[Wyheree]

I should bring something up, by the way.

I want to include the casual gamer in this sort of thing. I don't want someone to feel forced to duel in order to get a challenge in, even if a cycle is long enough to get 10 duels in reasonably. Some people tend to duel maybe once or twice about every two-three weeks. I don't want to give the impression that we're excluding them, because they could possibly prefer to RP or Write as opposed to duel. Jake is a good example of this.

Thoughts?

My dueling habits place me in the "casual gamer" side of things. I enjoy dueling, but I enjoy the rp side more - what the titles can do for a story. I always love seeing what others do to use the titles in all the sports to foster their SL's and develop their characters - that's long been the appeal for me here. While I've been making more of an effort to come in to duel, there are nights when the rp takes over the desire to duel. There's other nights when real life takes away the desire to duel. Not to mention the two shifts a week I call that also tap into the time I have to devote to the duels. This is why I much prefer the idea of a limited number of challenges a warlord can make per cycle, as opposed to a SoA. I understand that a challenge should be meaningful and special, but it also should not be so difficult as to be rendered undesirable to challenge for the sake of a storyline, which is what I would like to do when I make Warlord.

[Kalamere]

My dueling habits place me in the "casual gamer" side of things.

A quick run through the duel reports shows you with 11 duels during the Winter cycle and another 4 through the first 5 weeks of the Spring cycle.

Doesn't that somewhat speak for itself to show that a 10 duel SoA requirement would be pretty easily met by the casual duelist?

[Wyheree]

My dueling habits place me in the "casual gamer" side of things.

A quick run through the duel reports shows you with 11 duels during the Winter cycle and another 4 through the first 5 weeks of the Spring cycle.

Doesn't that somewhat speak for itself to show that a 10 duel SoA requirement would be pretty easily met by the casual duelist?

True, but then I've been trying to duel more lately. My usual dueling habits can be spotty, especially during recital/competition season, so I still think of myself as more a casual dueler, as opposed to a power one that duels 15 times in a week, not a cycle and a half.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

I still feel that a 'title shot' is something that should be earned and not just handed out.

Asking for 5/10 "wins" in 24-26 weeks (2 cycles) isn't asking for much. (I'd prefer to see 10/15 myself...)

As a 'sport', tell me what other sports there are that you are handed a shot at a title, rather than working you way to get that title shot?




But then again, I'm also of the belief that you shouldn't challenge/hold a title unless you are around to play with it/defend it/RP using it. This could be on the boards, or dueling, or just being seen in the rooms.

We all know RL comes up and things happen, but typically, you also know when you will be to busy to really play for a long while.



ETA: more thoughts

[Artemus Kurgen]

As a 'sport', tell me what other sports there are that you are handed a shot at a title, rather than working you way to get that title shot?

I believe this is what myself, Kalamere, and Harris have been pointing at. Like going to the superbowl the teams have to compete for the honor to go there. An Overlord Challenge is our game's Superbowl. Warlord tourneys are the college match-ups. Baronies are the "bowls" in between.

[Sartan]

As a 'sport', tell me what other sports there are that you are handed a shot at a title, rather than working you way to get that title shot?

Boxing and MMA are two examples I can think of. Often, people who are considered undeserving are given title shots based off winning a single match or their names or other factors besides having truly "earned" their shot in the eyes of most fans and pundits.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

As a 'sport', tell me what other sports there are that you are handed a shot at a title, rather than working you way to get that title shot?

Boxing and MMA are two examples I can think of. Often, people who are considered undeserving are given title shots based off winning a single match or their names or other factors besides having truly "earned" their shot in the eyes of most fans and pundits.

Can't say now days, cause I haven't been in the ring for competition in a long while.. but in MMA, you use to have to fight the contenders in order to get a chance for the title. I'm sure it's still something like that.. for martial arts and boxing.

Just because you are now "pro" (WL) doesn't automatically give you the chance to fight the title holder. You have to win against other pro's.. other contenders who want the title in order to get your shot at it. How many MMA/Boxing people got a title shot with a professional record of 0-0-0?

[Sartan]

Just because you are now "pro" (WL) doesn't automatically give you the chance to fight the title holder. You have to win against other pro's.. other contenders who want the title in order to get your shot at it. How many MMA/Boxing people got a title shot with a professional record of 0-0-0?

I think that's where we disagree, I don't feel as if making Warlord should be dismissed as being enough to get you a ticket into the show and nothing else. Dueling as a Commoner, Master at Arms, or Grand Master is harder than dueling as a Warlord by definition based on the fact that you have less fancies.

Getting to that 15 WoL marker is pretty significant and should be treated as such, making Warlord should count for more than just the chance to start over again.

[Amaltea]

Getting to that 15 WoL marker is pretty significant and should be treated as such, making Warlord should count for more than just the chance to start over again.

That's how I feel too. It's not like you can make it to warlord overnight.

[DUEL Tass]

Just because you are now "pro" (WL) doesn't automatically give you the chance to fight the title holder. You have to win against other pro's.. other contenders who want the title in order to get your shot at it. How many MMA/Boxing people got a title shot with a professional record of 0-0-0?

I think that's where we disagree, I don't feel as if making Warlord should be dismissed as being enough to get you a ticket into the show and nothing else. Dueling as a Commoner, Master at Arms, or Grand Master is harder than dueling as a Warlord by definition based on the fact that you have less fancies.

Getting to that 15 WoL marker is pretty significant and should be treated as such, making Warlord should count for more than just the chance to start over again.

I, perhaps, more than anyone else should know how it feels to have to work to get to Warlord. Granted, most of those years I was a commoner, I didn't care to get to warlord... but that's me. I still spent a good.. 6? 7? years at commoner.

And asking for 5/10 wins isn't asking to start over. It, to me, is a small break to allow you to settle and get into the roll of being a warlord. Get a little cushion.. (yes, I'd prefer against your peers, but that's irrelevant).. then challenge.

And I understand what you are saying.. it does take a lot of work to get to Warlord.. and no, it shouldn't be just tossed aside... but to pull back on your references of MMA and boxing, (as the Duel of X's are close enough to those), think of the Commoner-GM as the minor league stuff... your backyard fights and unknown circuits so that you could get become a professional fighter.

Hell.... just when you reach blackbelt in martial arts, you really *are* just beginning. All the other belts you went through to get to black was your learning phase. When you get to black, you are now the teacher. Isn't that what Warlord is suppose to be now? Especially with Barons now potentially having a squire? And then the Overlord being the grandmaster...teacher of all (in a twisted sense)?


ETA: Sorry for the official name.. didn't realize that was what I was on until after the post and I'm lazy this morning and don't want to delete it all and repost.

[Kalamere]

It calls for a view adjustment. Rather than considering Warlord as the Pro level and every other rank as amateur, you need to consider instead that the whole of the DoS ranks are the pro's and the Warlords are the one's who have now achieved top billing.

It's a reasonable view and I don't really fall into the camp that feels a warlord needs to be strenuously tested before they earn their title shot. I'm somewhere in between.

For one there's a sense of history. Kinda like how they will never allow aluminum bats in major league baseball. The day they do that, every single hitting record ever recorded will get thrown out the window. You end up having to put asterisks next to everything to state that they were done under differing levels of difficult. That's an extreme example, but the point is that there was always *some* kind of requirement in the way of challenging. I'm cool with it being a less difficult requirement and in fact am thrilled to see peer wins go away, but just the same I think there ought to be something of a replacement rather than leaving it an open field.

Secondly is my feeling that there should be something in the way of immediate repeat challenges. Something that needs to be re-earned. Hence why I'm in favor of the SoA system. It achieves both goals and also helps to keep people around and dueling if they're interested in a a title fight.

[Artemus Kurgen]

Getting to that 15 WoL marker is pretty significant and should be treated as such, making Warlord should count for more than just the chance to start over again.

That's how I feel too. It's not like you can make it to warlord overnight.

Covering on both Sartan's statement and Amaltea's. While no one will debate that getting to Warlord isn't a cake-walk, it is also something that there isnt' a rush on. 15 wins while daunting is not so difficult a task if the player is careful about it. Most truly new players to this game have rocky starts with ever changing win over loss ratios. That's a given, however after a few months and they understand the system they can gauge for themselves who they can be and how often, and so are able to pick and choose their matches in a systematic way of getting to warlord.

The easiest fashion is one Xenograg recommends both in character and out. Duel once a night/week, and win. Being able to challenge all the time, anytime, is a system that was asking to be broken and has been. In discussing the SoA and these pre-requisites we're seeking to limit it happening again WITHOUT bringing back the peer win system. I can see a newly minted Warlord being allowed X amount of challenges since they are new and a wild card, but those of us who have been around for a few years and have been at Warlord a while, it really is a different game.

What I've seen argued so far is that challenging should be made easy as it's winning the title and then holding onto it that are the real tests.

[Harris]

I agree with Kalamere's point about needing a middle ground between peers and the current free challenge system. That's what we should strive for. I also agree that whatever we decide on should be durable and equally reasonable and accessible for "serious" duelers as well as the more "casual" duelers. That being said we also need to plug any loopholes to ensure the new system isn't abused or doesn't have the same potential for abuse.

Personally I'm stuck on the SoA. I think having to earn challenges in some fashion will make people value them more and put forth more effort into their challenges and hopefully their title reigns. The SoA, with some tweaking, has the ability to remain flexible and please every level of duelist. Presently I feel the only aspect in consideration is desired activity or how frequently we all feel someone should be actively in the rings in order to challenge. Before we decide what's reasonable or unreasonable we should take into account actual activity, which is how frequently Warlords duel in a cycle. I would suggest at least crunching the numbers for this cycle to see how active the average Warlord is before we decide on any numbers.

Teagan's "First Challenge Free" idea is a good one, if it goes along with the SoA. It's the payoff as it were for making Warlord. It's the reward for struggling through the ranks and finally getting that 15 WoL. And after taking a look at the Parade of Warlords I don't think allowing new Warlords a free challenge would be going overboard. That, in my mind, takes care of the people who have angles or storylines they want to work after making the rank. Also it should inspire people to make their first challenge a good one if the mentality is, "Okay, this is my only freebie. I've gotta make it count for something".

[Red urThorne]

As I've just recently returned I'm not going to weigh in on one side or the other but... I haven't really seen more challenges than some of the cycles saw when I was active.

There were more titles at one point and so some people retained the title longer but other than that the rate of challenge doesn't seem to be too far out of what was usual.

The SoA is something that many people were looking at even way back when. It is a sport but it's also a RP environment and activity on the part of those holding "titles" was always something that was something many people desired. But then you run into as a RP environment does time roleplaying in the rooms satisfy the requirement? For some I think it would, not sure that would be my take but I think it holds validity.