Rules change proposal: Negative WoL

[Tasslehofl Momus]

If recording losses are so important, then maybe they shouldn't be erased at all to truly reflect a duelist's career.

I'm working on that for my own sick twisted sense of humor. (mainly I want to see how bad things got for me )


And if anyone wants to see their lifetime career WoL info.. let me know.

[Britania Grey]

Waiting three months for a bad first weekend to fall off is intimidating for some people. I've read a fair amount and it seems to me that you want to encourage new people to try the game, but also to stay.

There will be some people that will go and do other things, and perhaps forget to come back rather than dealing with a 1-zillion LoW record. Note: I am not talking about myself, I'm OK with my dueling record thus far but I can definitely see how it would frustrate me.

[Marc Franco]

I'm curious. Several of the people advocating for this change have been playing this game for 10-15 years. Why is it that after all this time you feel the way that WoL is calculated is broken? Did you not think that lower ranks deserved something to keep them engaged in the game prior to 2004?

[Jake]

I get how frustrating it is to advance for new characters.

I think some of the advice already presented is pretty good. Creating a throwaway character to "power duel" with is a good way to get practice and get a feel for how the matrix works. It's one thing to know the interactions, it's another to understand the feel of a duel.

I like the way someone earlier put it, with the black belt analogy. There are the belts getting to black, which in many ways is about learning the sport, learning the forms, etc. And then there are the degrees of black belt where to some extent the practitioner is really starting over and competing at a different level.

I look forward to seeing new faces in the Diamond Quest. I really do. Looking at the history of the Diamond, I commend those that have won it, but I am disappointed that most of the last 10 years have been the same people over and over again with so few new faces. I'd like to see these new faces in the Diamond Quest...and to some extent I have! But fighting at Emerald level is a whole different thing than just knowing the matrix.

When I get into the ring with Jake against Matt or Kheldar, I know I'm getting into a duel where just about anything is possible. Feints. Fancies. SpinKicks. Even Hooks. Matt and Kheldar (among others) are fighting at a level where just knowing the matrix, and what the strong/percentage moves are isn't enough.

I *want* to see more Warlords, Emeralds, etc... but I don't know if we're doing a service to people by advancing them to Warlord/Emerald/Black Belt quickly. If a duelist gets to Warlord, but can't hold it, are they really ready to fight at a Warlord level?

I'm not sold on the idea that the current system is broken.

Yes, it can be a real drag to have to wait 3 months for cycle turnover, but the advice presented earlier is pretty good.

1. Create throwaways and duel like mad. Get a feel for the flow of the duel.

2. Stop dueling if you are losing. If I go into the Arena and win 2, and then lose 3, it's time to stop dueling (for the evening). Come back fresh.

3. Get a few wins, and stop dueling for the weekend. Still feel like dueling? Bring in one of the alts and gets some practice that way. Let the wins get you the benefit of rank.

4. Practice fighting without Fancies.

This last one has done me pretty well over the years. When I come in, I *like* to try fighting without Fancies, Feints, etc. just to keep in practice and make sure I'm not retaining my rank just because I can use mods. (All bets are off during challenges and tourneys of course, but in regular dueling I like challenging myself.)

5. Fight people you don't know. When you go into a duel not knowing what their skill level is, not knowing if they will be Slash-crazy, or if they favor a particular move, you exercise your ability to adapt.

[Scotty]

I dunno, I'm not really any kind of expert, but I do know that from an IC perspective, my character found being outright removed from the standings to be a serious sort of ouch. (Admittedly, right now, he's kind of not in the best place emotionally, so that doubtless comes into play.) I think even having a 0-0-0 beside his name woulda probably not bothered him nearly as much as just being deleted outright, even though he was still active, like he didn't exist or come out and try. At the end of the last cycle, he had double digit wins and losses, and was only down by two, and at the beginning of this one, he didn't even merit a name on the list.

Which seems silly, when all you have to do is come out for a night and get back on the list, but it's still a psychological kind of blow.

You can argue for the privilege of rank, for the higher classes: If an emerald has higher losses than wins, but not enough to drop their rank, they get to keep all of their wins that cycle regardless and the losses get tossed away. But if a glass happens to do the same, they lose credit for both. At least from my character's perspective, I know Scotty would rather be down by two (or four now) and have credit for his wins and losses both, then outright be deleted as though he hadn't spent the whole cycle trying, learning and growing.

Mind, I'm not actually advocating anyone change anything. The rules of the game are the rules, and that's not my place -- I definitely haven't been here long enough. I'm just saying that I can see why getting knocked right off the list, regardless of how much you participated, would drive some characters to look at the standings and walk away heavy-hearted.

...and this post is not particularly relevant, is it? Blah. I need more coffee. XD

People with a better understanding of how this works should probably do the talking. LOL!

[Jake]

I dunno, I'm not really any kind of expert, but I do know that from an IC perspective, my character found being outright removed from the standings to be a serious sort of ouch. (Admittedly, right now, he's kind of not in the best place emotionally, so that doubtless comes inro play.) I think even having a 0-0-0 beside his name woulda probably not bothered him nearly as much as just being deleted outright, even though he was still active, like he didn't exist or come out and try. At the end of the last cycle, he had double digit wins and losses, and was only down by two, and at the beginning of this one, he didn't even merit a name on the list.

Which seems silly, when all you have to do is come out for a night and get back on the list, but it's still a psychological kind of blow.

Well, that part could be easy to fix.

At the end of cycle, the standings keeper could zero out the duels (as per normal), but not remove those at 0-0-0. Instead, apply the same rules for inactivity as apply to everyone else.

So...at the end of the cycle, reduce Dueler Bob's WoL to 0-0-0, but don't remove them from the standings. Then if they don't duel for the entirety of the next cycle (or two cycles, or whatever period the standings keeper and coordinator deem fit) remove them the same as they would for a Warlord, or Grandmaster, or anyone else that didn't duel for the same period.

You can argue for the privilege of rank, for the higher classes: If an emerald has higher losses than wins, but not enough to drop their rank, they get to keep all of their wins that cycle regardless and the losses get tossed away. But if a glass happens to do the same, they lose credit for both.

This was a little unclear.

So for clarification, if a Warlord went 10-5 for the cycle and ended with a record of 35-5 at the end of the cycle, the losses would be subtracted from the wins, and then the losses would be zeroed out. So that at the start of the next cycle he'd be at 30-0.

So, no, they do not keep all their wins. They keep their wins minus their losses.

[Marc Franco]

You can argue for the privilege of rank, for the higher classes: If an emerald has higher losses than wins, but not enough to drop their rank, they get to keep all of their wins that cycle regardless and the losses get tossed away.

Just as a correction, the losses aren't tossed away. They're zeroed out. It happens in all the sports.

For example, if Maria ends the cycle at 33-4-0, she will start next cycle at 29-0-0.

[Wyheree]

I'm not sure I like the idea of not counting the losses, even though when I started out back in late 2006/2007, I was, in a word, hideous. Bad. Awful. My TDL record rather speaks for just how awful I was. But, I did win the Talon of Redwin tournament back then, and that was a nice boost for me. I started talking to the stronger, established duelers - and slowly, thanks to great advice and help from Xeno and G and so many others, I started piecing together wins. This past week, I finally made it to Warlord - it took three years of off-and-on dueling, quitting, coming back, and finally sticking with it long enough to make progress to get there, but I finally did.

I will say this, to any new dueler - the Madness helped me a LOT. A new dueler can really rattle an established one, because there's no pattern to the moves - look how well Porthos did, and Jay (who's not new, but he's also not been around forever either). Also, don't be afraid to ask the Baron/Overlord/Warlord for help - most are very willing to help out a new player. I'd much rather see more of an official teaching/mentoring program (something a bit more in-depth than the Squires) rather than simply ignoring the losses.

[Scotty]

You can argue for the privilege of rank, for the higher classes: If an emerald has higher losses than wins, but not enough to drop their rank, they get to keep all of their wins that cycle regardless and the losses get tossed away.

Just as a correction, the losses aren't tossed away. They're zeroed out. It happens in all the sports.

For example, if Maria ends the cycle at 33-4-0, she will start next cycle at 29-0-0.

Okay, got it. I stand corrected. XD

[Kalamere]

I'm curious. Several of the people advocating for this change have been playing this game for 10-15 years. Why is it that after all this time you feel the way that WoL is calculated is broken? Did you not think that lower ranks deserved something to keep them engaged in the game prior to 2004?

I can't speak for anyone else. In truth I just never thought of it before. I got to thinking about things like this after reading a thread from last Summer where you were the major contributor.

Until fairly recently the duels have been on a decline. 2009 saw all of TWO new warlords, 2008 only saw four. DoM and DoF don't make that information as easy to gather, but I would guess advancement rate there is roughly the same. I've always looked at the major challenge for the duels in terms of how to get people to come over. I never really thought about the other side of that coin though. That being: Once we get them here, how do we get them to stay? Something has triggered interest again in the last 6+ months and there are a lot of new faces. Renewed interest is awesome. Can we count on that interest level staying though? I don't know.

I'm not saying things are broken. The idea obviously has very little support and, well, so be it. I'll post a few more things after I've finished catching up on the thread and harvesting some stats I've been sifting through, but I'm not going to fight this one too hard. With the overall low rate of newcomers though, I thought it might be in our best interest to lower the barrier to entry.

One last thought which I'll try to back up better later. Eliminating negative WoL doesn't give anyone a cakewalk to 15. That's still a long way to go. Of the 6 folks to make warlord this year:
* Thorne did it in just over 5 months and never had a negative WoL
* Matt has been at least 0 - 0 since October of 2005, so 4+ years
* Marcus was never negative and started dueling January of 2008, again 2+ years
* Kalinda came back after a 3 year absence in August and made Warlord 8 months later without going negative.
* Jay has been at least 0 - 0 since April of 2008, so 2 years to make Warlord.
* Wyheree has been in positive numbers since May of 2007, almost 3 years.

Making Warlord just wouldn't be *that* much easier. And making it so isn't the goal. The goal is to make the game less intimidating to new folks.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

I'd much rather see more of an official teaching/mentoring program (something a bit more in-depth than the Squires) rather than simply ignoring the losses.

This is where RP can take over.

If you (general) want to see more of the teaching/mentoring/whatnot come into play.. well, there use to be dueling houses. Quite a few of the names you know now either had or were part of a dueling house back in the AOL days.

I don't see why they couldn't come back. It just takes a little work from all parties who want to be part of it. Great way to get some serious SLs going, as well as rivalries.

Hell, I may be wrong, and she'll correct me if I am... but I think this is somewhat of what Maria is doing.. though of any chars that are part of her school (other than Teagan), I'm not sure.

[G]

I'd much rather see more of an official teaching/mentoring program (something a bit more in-depth than the Squires) rather than simply ignoring the losses.

Houses, Anyone?

[Jake]

I'd much rather see more of an official teaching/mentoring program (something a bit more in-depth than the Squires) rather than simply ignoring the losses.

Houses, Anyone?

I've always liked the concept of the dueling houses.

I'll also bring back my suggestion that duelers be allowed to be affiliated with a* dueling house in the standings.

*just one!

[G]

Of the 6 folks to make warlord this year:
* Thorne did it in just over 5 months and never had a negative WoL
* Matt has been at leat 0 - 0 since October of 2005, so 4+ years
* Marcus was never negative and started dueling January of 2008, again 2+ years
* Kalinda came back after a 3 year absence in August and made Warlord 8 months later without going negative.
* Jay has been at least 0 - 0 since April of 2008, so 2 years to make Warlord.
* Wyheree has been in positive numbers since May of 2007, almost 3 years.

To use these as examples, the only one to duel regularly was Thorne, who slowed down after making WL and appears to be concentrating on calling and Magic, I think.
Matt only started dueling regularly in the last couple months, Marcus was MIA for about 8 months to a year, and I think is MIA again, Kalinda, when she came back has been pretty regular a duelist, and Jay only started to duel more regularly these past two weeks. Wyheree was sporadic for a while before the last couple months where she started dueling 1 a weekend.

Those are mainly rough estimates, but since I've been doing the standings for the last three years I think it's somewhat accurate.

What I'm basically saying, is that when they decided to put their time and mind to it, that was when they finally became Warlords. Before that, it was casual dueling.

[Kalamere]

I won't dispute any of that G. The point I was making is that when you say:

May as well just start everyone at Warlord.

I think you're making it sound like the negative potential is the only thing keeping commoners from swarming the rank of Warlord.

Even breaking 0 - 0 doesn't make the journey easy and/or fast.