Rule Proposal

[Jake]

Recently it's being suggested that we don't need changes "so soon" since the last ones. That's a pretty subjective measure of time, but sure I can go along with that.

Yes, it's subjective...

Let me suggest that one measure we might apply is to ask "have we had the current ruleset in place long enough to get a feel for its impact?"

With respect to the Squires, given the relative sparsity of Squire tournies that have been held, I'd suggest we are only now getting to the point where we could try to ask "are the squire rules working?"

When the Squire rules were first presented, I was pretty vocal in my disagreement about some of it. One my arguments was that they overshadowed the Talon. So, that prompted some discussion of how to balance the Talon against the Squires. And to my recollection, the balance didn't come right away, but a little later when it was suggested that the Talon be allowed to enter the WLT.

I'd say we're only just recently getting enough data about the use of the Squires to really assess whether they are working or if they need tweaking.

Maybe the expectation that a Baron hold a Squire tourney every cycle is too much. But, that's probably a discussion for a new/different thread.

As to formal rules, there I disagree. I know you have issues with the inability to refuse a challenge in general, but that's one of the things we don't really see eye to eye on. As with normal challenges, I think this too would have to be mandatory in order to be worth having at all.

Eh...it's a minor issue. It seems silly to ask "do you accept this challenge?" when the only option is to accept or resign the title.

In the classic sense of the renaissance duel, just because a challenge was made, didn't mean the other person accepted. One might choose to then call that person without honor, but it would be just as asinine for me to accept a duel with say Mike Tyson. I might not be honorable for refusing to duel/fight Mike Tyson, but I'm also not dead.

Honor is a tricky word.

The military academies make a big deal of "honor codes". Honor being you might not have been caught, but if you were honorable you'd turn *yourself* in. There's not much honor about accepting a challenge if you don't really have a choice.

Let's leave honor out of it. It's too vague a term.

Do I have an issue with not being able to refuse challenges? A little. From an IC standpoint, it's silly to go through the formality of "accepting" a challenge when there's no option. From an OOC standpoint, I don't like the idea of forcing players that don't like each other to fight/play.

Is it honorable to resign a title rather than fight someone? Maybe. Maybe not. But honor loses out to dealing with/dueling someone that we as players prefer not to interact with. From that perspective, yes, I'd prefer that some challenges be refusable.

Which, as I think about it, gives me reason to suggest that in those circumstances where the player might not wish/or be able to answer a challenge (e.g., family emergency/vacation/etc.) perhaps the Baron could solicit the Baron's Council to name a defender/champion for the title, but without giving up the title. Such that if the proxy wins, the Baron retains their title. And if the proxy loses, the Barony is won by the challenger. -- It's an idea.

[Jake]

I'm familiar with rules changing. Some good, some bad. I don't mean to ignore that things do get tweaked, though it does bother me that it can be such a fight just to get a civil discussion on things.

Another tangent.

One thing I miss from the old days are the formal "rules discussions".

Maybe part of the problem is that we've forgotten how to have them.

A rules discussion is not an attack upon the coords that run the sport. It's not a statement of "hey, the rules suck, and you suck for keeping them that way".

Rather, the duels (and really any community) are a living thing, and it's perfectly ok, and even good and necessary to *audit* how things are going from time to time.

When we used to do rules discussions every year or so, there was still a lot of "enthusiastic" argument, but it was perhaps better understood that it wasn't an attack against the forum or the forum coords to propose new ideas, and it wasn't a condemnation of the player for suggesting the idea to have people say "no, I don't agree with your idea."

So, maybe part of the solution is to resurrect the idea of formally having rules discussions, maybe not every year, but every other year. And maybe the result of any given discussion is "every thing's fine, keeping soldiering on" and that's ok too.

Just a thought.

[Sylus Kurgen]

As to formal rules, there I disagree. I know you have issues with the inability to refuse a challenge in general, but that's one of the things we don't really see eye to eye on. As with normal challenges, I think this too would have to be mandatory in order to be worth having at all.

Eh...it's a minor issue. It seems silly to ask "do you accept this challenge?" when the only option is to accept or resign the title.

In the classic sense of the renaissance duel, just because a challenge was made, didn't mean the other person accepted. One might choose to then call that person without honor, but it would be just as asinine for me to accept a duel with say Mike Tyson. I might not be honorable for refusing to duel/fight Mike Tyson, but I'm also not dead.

Honor is a tricky word.

I think this topic came up in another thread. Only in that discussion it came up how irritating it is ICly from a Warlord perspective when Barons use their challenges to push personal agendas. Ultimately I think the overlying response came down to "think from the Baron's perspective". That just led to more "Yeah, the Overlord is calling down a test, have this guy applying it, and now this third guy I barely know is stepping in to fight the other guy. Third guy loses I still have to fight the other two irregardless." I'll need to hunt down that other thread for more active details. But they are similar. Baron doesn't have the right to refuse challenges and Warlords don't have a say in Barons interceding on their behalf in challenges.

[Soarell]

I agree with a lot of what Jake has said so far...

I would mention there are many games (Chess for example) that don't go through much modification. It is the WoW/EQ type games that are trying to keep you because you're a source of income, but eventually we go check out the new game out there; level 150 is just not the same as level 20 was, the joy is sucked out of you and it becomes work to play.

I think the game has been out of balance for years, but I don't think it's a reflection of rules, but more so a lack of gender balance and time/commitment to RP. That is MY opinion. When you wander in and it is 19 female to 2 males there is a balance issue from the RP perspective. Unless of course you're Marianya and her UT cast of characters or the Minxes who usually only need each other....

I commend Teagan for presenting a new idea, even if I am not in favor of it. Personally, if Jake held four baron titles, it would be that much more reason not to play, FOR ME. But for others that might spur them to show up and challenge. It feels like a one man show at that point to me.

I think to hold a title (Baron/OL), you should be required to duel "x" amount of times per cycle or your ring is something.....(meaning pick the penalty). That alone helps the health of the game. There should be commitments to go with the title. And if that is already a rule, then consider me not remaking the wheel but changing the headers and footers and updating the date (sorry cracking myself up now, it is 4am).

The more attendance the more re-sparking. The first week or two of Duel Assassin brought more people out of the wood-works than anything I've seen in ages and it is that type of spurring that helps bring folks back. I'm not sure RP improved, but attendance did and that is a start.

I just don't have the time to commit to the RP level I want to see, so I myself haven't made a solid effort in too long. I suspect for others it is the same.

Anyway... I'm rambling...and have thoroughly hijacked and apologize for that!

[Elijah]

The most interest I've seen in dueling once people achieved Warlord was when the Warlords were ranked. Basically, it was Warlords challenging each other no more than three positions ahead of them to make it to the top of the list. I don't remember the benefits of reaching the top but I think it had something to do with challenge benefits.

I think we need something like this again. First off all, I was against the elimination of peer wins and my opinion of making it so easy to challenge these days has devalued the integrity of the game. We need challenge in a game to keep us interested in wanting to overcome an obstacle.

While Barons in the begining were cool, they have lost their luster and this new rule where only Barons can challenge the Overlord is the worst rule change ever.

The excitement in this game has always been about the Warlords and what they can do and giving WARLORDS more to do within the game rather than less is what I feel could reenergize interest.

I like the Baron districts for the roleplay options outside of the ring. But those of us who are more into playing the game than writing about our charcters around the game need something for us too.

I have a variety of thoughts of what new/old rules for Warlords would make it more fun for the average dueler.

Too be honest, I have no desire to challenge for a title, even though I never got Overlord as any character though I got a boatload of baronies over the years, however I do like dueling when their is a prize on the line or my result could have a negative or positive change in my standing in the dueling community.

In short, not everyone cares about the outside of the ring RP as much as we care about what happens from being in the ring.

[G]

Elijah, Hi.

First, please note recent rule changes that allow Warlords to challenge for Overlord again. When I made previous changes, they were due to the fact that there was a significant decrease in attendance, with maybe 5 active warlords being available *over about a months time regularly. Regardless of any feelings about peer wins, they were not viable for the activity levels we had at that time.

Currently, there's a show of activity for Warlords. They only need 10 duels to challenge for a Barony and 15 to challenge for Overlord. Since that change, I believe we've had a total of TWO Baronial challenges. Given that you only need those SoA duels(Wins and losses count) you'd think that there'd be more challenges, wouldn't you? Were there to be peer wins, I doubt we'd even have the two Baronial challenges we have now.

To be honest(And this is not directed at you, I'm just sort of getting it out there) I'm frustrated at the lack of challenges. When it was a free for all for Barons, there were too many challenges to keep track of, and no one could even really come close to enjoying the perks of the Barony title because as soon as the standings were up, they pretty much could challenge again. I put a mild limit that really is within reason and all challenges stop.

Barons may want activity, but it's up to Warlords to want to challenge them. How do you get them to challenge? What more can I offer? What else can they take from me?

In regards to a Warlord ranking, we'd need warlords in order to have ranking. There's few dueling as it is right now. 3-5 actively with two or three occassionally.(Not including those who recently made warlord cause those duels weren't WL duels and wouldn't count to rankings.) Also, there's just as few peer vs peer duels.

To reinstate peer wins would be counter-productive because even though the few WLs we have are dueling lower ranks, at least there's some dueling. If you have PWs involved, that becomes even less because now you'll have the few WLs around only looking to duel others of rank, leaving the lower ranks with fewer to duel or feeling excluded.

That's not something I want to see.

In regards to "Not everyone cares about the outside the ring RP" type stuff, well, that's why there's duels. This is first and foremost an RP forum. I'm sorry if you disagree. But there's the game to keep the gamers interested. I'm not going to sacrifice the needs of the many for the needs of the few or the one, to paraphrase Spock. There's an Incredible amount of Options available for everyone of every desire to keep them occupied and interested. I'm not going to permit or significantly change rules or add more rules because a slight few people can't think of something to keep their interest. I think I've been more than accommodating to everyone thus far with what options I've given out so far. It's very difficult to find a satisfactory medium, but I do what I can.

Thanks, and again this isn't particularly directed to anyone specific other than a gamer vs RPer mentality.

* - Guestimate.

[Kalamere]

In regards to a Warlord ranking, we'd need warlords in order to have ranking. There's few dueling as it is right now. 3-5 actively with two or three occasionally.(Not including those who recently made warlord cause those duels weren't WL duels and wouldn't count to rankings.) Also, there's just as few peer vs peer duels.

Actually G, I think you and Elijah are talking about different ranking systems.

The Warlord ranking system that Elijah refers to involves challenges, so I believe he's talking about the 1994 - 95 system whereby Warlords were ordered from 1-22 (at the onset). Initial ordering was done by WoL with the exception of #1 (The Doctor) who was the most recent dethroned Overlord. New duelists to make warlord would be placed at the bottom of the list.

A warlord could move up the ranks thereafter by challenging someone higher ranked. I don't really remember how this worked exactly. Like Elijah says, I think you could challenge up to 3 spots above you and you'd swap ranks with them if you won.

The system pre-dates the Baron rank and lasted all of about 9 months before it was abolished (a little under 2 months overlap with Barons).

Honestly, I have to say I don't understand Elijah's fond recollections of it.. I thought it was painful and had to be a bitch as far as keeping records went. Though I don't think he had the pleasure of issuing or fielding challenges under the system either, so maybe that's a contributing factor.

Currently, there's a show of activity for Warlords. They only need 10 duels to challenge for a Barony and 15 to challenge for Overlord. Since that change, I believe we've had a total of TWO Baronial challenges. Given that you only need those SoA duels(Wins and losses count) you'd think that there'd be more challenges, wouldn't you? Were there to be peer wins, I doubt we'd even have the two Baronial challenges we have now.

Question G... Do you think that the SoA rules are to blame for the dearth of challenges, either fully or partially? Overlord challenges seem to be rolling in without a problem, so I'm not sure... maybe it's just coincidental. Would it be worth polling folks, just to see?

[G]

Currently, there's a show of activity for Warlords. They only need 10 duels to challenge for a Barony and 15 to challenge for Overlord. Since that change, I believe we've had a total of TWO Baronial challenges. Given that you only need those SoA duels(Wins and losses count) you'd think that there'd be more challenges, wouldn't you? Were there to be peer wins, I doubt we'd even have the two Baronial challenges we have now.

Question G... Do you think that the SoA rules are to blame for the dearth of challenges, either fully or partially? Overlord challenges seem to be rolling in without a problem, so I'm not sure... maybe it's just coincidental. Would it be worth polling folks, just to see?

I think the SoA is at the very least a partial contributing factor. For all appearances, when we switched to the SoA, there's been so few challenges, and this was over the Summer Months when people were free from school and the like. If anything, there was the chances to have more dueling for activity, which would have contributed to challenges. At least that's what my thought was.

But, it seems as though the moment it switched to SoA, that noone wanted to challenge. It could be coincidence, it could be contributory. I can't help but feel it's partially because of the SoA as if people are all "Grr" at being "forced" to duel.

[Maranya Valkonan]

Currently, there's a show of activity for Warlords. They only need 10 duels to challenge for a Barony and 15 to challenge for Overlord. Since that change, I believe we've had a total of TWO Baronial challenges. Given that you only need those SoA duels(Wins and losses count) you'd think that there'd be more challenges, wouldn't you? Were there to be peer wins, I doubt we'd even have the two Baronial challenges we have now.

Question G... Do you think that the SoA rules are to blame for the dearth of challenges, either fully or partially? Overlord challenges seem to be rolling in without a problem, so I'm not sure... maybe it's just coincidental. Would it be worth polling folks, just to see?

I think the SoA is at the very least a partial contributing factor. For all appearances, when we switched to the SoA, there's been so few challenges, and this was over the Summer Months when people were free from school and the like. If anything, there was the chances to have more dueling for activity, which would have contributed to challenges. At least that's what my thought was.

But, it seems as though the moment it switched to SoA, that noone wanted to challenge. It could be coincidence, it could be contributory. I can't help but feel it's partially because of the SoA as if people are all "Grr" at being "forced" to duel.

Frankly, I like the idea of SoA being required to challenge for the higher titles. It's going to hurt me once I come off of my dueling LoA, but I can deal with it.

I'd also like to see a general SoA requirement for Barons and the Overlord as well. I'm not sure on what amount that would be, but I feel that the higher titles should be out there dueling like the rest of us, and not just in challenge matches.

As for the SoA contributing to the dearth of challenges for Barons, it is entirely possible that some people don't want to challenge the standing Barons, for whatever reason.

[Harris]

The aforementioned ranking idea Elijah brought up for Warlords had me thinking. Granted, this is a loose idea and probably filled with ridiculous gaps, but it may be a happy medium to solve Baronial dueling related stagnation/boredom without taking away from or sacrificing RP elements or shifting the gamer/RP balance.

What about a Baronial Ranking System? Easier to keep track of potentially with only 7 Barons. As opposed to a win/loss/percentage system, what about a point system? Barons accrue 1 point for every Warlord they defeat, 2 points for every Baron, and 3 points for the Overlord. Rankings could be updated on a monthly basis and listed in the standings. The Baron ranked #1 at the end of the month would have a perk they could utilize based upon their alignment. For example, a Renegade Baron ranked #1 could be afforded an intercession free challenge to the Overlord if they desired or a Loyal Baron ranked #1 could intercede for the Overlord with absolutely no risk of losing their Barony.

Granted, no perks have to be added and by doing so the potential can be high for overcomplicating the rules, even with the addition of something that may seem small. The ranking system could be standalone for nothing other than bragging rights. All in all, it'd be something duel related to do that could be added outside the rules. It'd simply fall on someone to tabulate the rankings monthly.

Random thought.

[Maria Graziano]

I'd also like to see a general SoA requirement for Barons and the Overlord as well. I'm not sure on what amount that would be, but I feel that the higher titles should be out there dueling like the rest of us, and not just in challenge matches.

I'm so against this and it's not just due to the changes in my life over the last three years. I was so against this even when I was a college student who could duel a couple times a week.

First of all, if you're going to require the higher ranks to duel, you're going to need to get a solid schedule in place. There are countless times over the last couple of months where I've checked the room at 9:00 or 9:30 and been frustrated because it's empty. Some of us can't stay up until 11:00 or 12:00. RoH has always catered to young people and/or west coasters and that's fine but if you start putting requirements like this on things then you are going to drive away the people who duel casually completely out of the game.

Secondly, there are a great number of times I have brought Maria into the room and been completely unable to get a duel while I watched grandmasters and new warlords wait for commoners to enter. If they're going to require barons to duel a certain times a cycle then a version of the peer win system needs to be brought back. With the loss of the peer win system there is no longer any incentive for dueling barons/overlords so a lot of people don't.

Finally, there's already a method for handling absentee barons/overlord. It's called the challenge. If you think somebody hasn't been dueling lately then challenge them or have your character call them out on it on the boards.

There's no need to create additional rules that would only serve to drive great roleplayers who have significant offline responsibilities out of the game.

[Wyheree]

For whatever reason, duels are happening later and later in the evenings from an EST perspective. On Sundays, I usually don't see much action until near the end of my shift, so by the time the duels are jumping, I have to go. When my Tuesday DoF shift sees action, it's always towards the end of the shift. Whether this is due to mostly West Coast people dueling, or offline obligations bringing people online later, I don't know.

Challenging is the best way to oust an inactive Baron. I don't want to see additional requirements piled onto the titleholders either, nor do I want to see a special ranking system for them. What I'd love to see, and I'm working on this myself, is more stories from the titleholders. I've been neglecting the story-telling side myself, and I plan to fix that over the next couple of days. Perhaps more stories would also light the fire under warlords who might need a push to get in the challenge ring - creating IC reasons for an OOC desire for a title.

[Jake]

Finally, there's already a method for handling absentee barons/overlord. It's called the challenge. If you think somebody hasn't been dueling lately then challenge them or have your character call them out on it on the boards.

Echoing that sentiment.

[Kalamere]

Finally, there's already a method for handling absentee barons/overlord. It's called the challenge. If you think somebody hasn't been dueling lately then challenge them or have your character call them out on it on the boards.

Yes and no. Some people want to have room for story inspired events to justify challenging. If the only contact possible with a title holder is via the message boards, that kinda takes away from that.

Overall I do agree though, with one exception.

I wouldn't apply the full SoA to title holders, but there is a rule that existed once upon a time that I would bring back. If a title holder goes an entire cycle without a single duel, then that title ought to be forfeit and placed into the Warlord Tournament. Total inactivity for 3 months isn't doing anyone any good. Put the title out there to potentially be claimed by someone who is still participating.

For whatever reason, duels are happening later and later in the evenings from an EST perspective. On Sundays, I usually don't see much action until near the end of my shift, so by the time the duels are jumping, I have to go. When my Tuesday DoF shift sees action, it's always towards the end of the shift. Whether this is due to mostly West Coast people dueling, or offline obligations bringing people online later, I don't know.

I think the Tuesday DoF shift suffers more from the overlap with the Tuesday DoM hours more than anything else. Hours of dueling are overall later hours though, which does make it more difficult for us East coasters. It's difficult to get in a duel or maybe two and still be able to get to bed by Midnight.

[Jake]

Finally, there's already a method for handling absentee barons/overlord. It's called the challenge. If you think somebody hasn't been dueling lately then challenge them or have your character call them out on it on the boards.

Yes and no. Some people want to have room for story inspired events to justify challenging. If the only contact possible with a title holder is via the message boards, that kinda takes away from that.

I wouldn't apply the full SoA to title holders, but there is a rule that existed once upon a time that I would bring back. If a title holder goes an entire cycle without a single duel, then that title ought to be forfeit and placed into the Warlord Tournament. Total inactivity for 3 months isn't doing anyone any good. Put the title out there to potentially be claimed by someone who is still participating.

I think Maria was saying have them make a challenge OR call them out on the boards. So, there's nothing stopping someone (of any rank) from posting on the boards to call out an absent title-holder.

Yes and no. Some people want to have room for story inspired events to justify challenging. If the only contact possible with a title holder is via the message boards, that kinda takes away from that.

Not quite sure I understood that correctly. How is anyone prevented from using story inspired events to justify challenging? Can you clarify what you meant by that?

I wouldn't apply the full SoA to title holders, but there is a rule that existed once upon a time that I would bring back. If a title holder goes an entire cycle without a single duel, then that title ought to be forfeit and placed into the Warlord Tournament. Total inactivity for 3 months isn't doing anyone any good. Put the title out there to potentially be claimed by someone who is still participating.

A single cycle can go by pretty fast. Especially for real world events, like sudden life changes (pregnancies, illness, job changes). I'd be reluctant to see such a harsh rule applied without an effort being made to reach out to the title-holder to remind them, and perhaps give them a chance to duel, or explain why they can't at this time. Which places an additional burden upon the standings keeper or sport coordinator.

On the other hand, again, this is already really accounted for in the rules. If a title-holder doesn't respond to a challenge within 7 days, it automatically goes to the Baron's Council for decision.

If during some periods of the year, e.g., summer, people are away and challenging less often overall, I don't see that there's any value in automatically stripping titles if there isn't someone interested in gaining that title. That just creates turnover. And while turnover can be good, I'd hope to see that turnover because of enthusiasm from the duelers (e.g., new duelers rising in rank and challenging, or older duelers inspired to come in and tell a story/begin dueling actively again) vice turnover that's artificially created. I don't think artificially generated turnover benefits us.