I want to argue the carryover ADV one more time as an improvement to the game (but not as a solution to Velhelmi’s problem), because I think the way ADVs work currently is so ingrained in everyone’s head that it’s making it difficult to see the bigger picture. So, here it goes:
First, some perspective: Stop thinking of the carryover ADV as a rule exception and realize that it is actually the
norm in how a score would naturally be kept, and that these (what I will now call) single-round ADVs that are currently implemented
are the exception. The single-round ADV is a vestige from a time in DoF when not a lot about the game made sense, when Fancies would give you an ADV in a miss-miss (yes, two Fancy defenses would give ADVs to both!), when Feints would actually split an opponent’s point into two ADVs, so that both players had an ADV. Remember that? Just so the newer folks know where I’m coming from (and not to toot my own horn), I was the driving force behind the last Feints change, and the current system is largely based on a proposal of mine, so I am very confident in my understanding of how DoF works as a game.
Now, let’s talk about basic theory in matrix-based game design. It reads like this: If you select a move that scores on your opponent, the score should be altered in your favor. That’s it. So, that you would lose your ADV when your opponent’s move misses makes
no sense; it violates basic theory.
Imagine that DoF has never existed and that we are creating the game from scratch at this very moment. We’ve built the matrix, and we’ve decided that a player must score two consecutive ADVs in order to garner a point, otherwise the first ADV is lost. Keeping the ADV in the event that both you and your opponent miss would be the natural setup; you would actually have to argue the need to implement a single-round ADV. What reason for it would you, or could you, have to argue it?
Next, I want to discuss an example in order to look at how the carryover ADV works into strategy and how it can actually empower and
expand strategies for the ADV-earner.
Example: Glass vs. Glass. Round 1, Dodge/Jab (0+-0).
With a single-round ADV, the pressure is on the ADV-earner to convert the ADV in the next round or lose it. The safe bet for the opponent is to go defense, because the opponent knows that (1) it will wipe out the ADV
guaranteed and (2) he (or she) has a good chance at getting an ADV himself. Really, the only practical strategy for the ADV-earner is to give-up on the ADV and go offense to go after the opponent’s defense, or hedge bets and go defense in case the opponent is overthinking (or underthinking) the situation.
With a carryover ADV, the pressure falls on the opponent (as it should), because going defense isn’t going to do him any good if he is anticipating his opponent going defense. Instead, he is going to want to go Spinkick or some such defense buster. Going defense comes into play only if he is anticipating the ADV-earner reneging the ADV for the open offensive point, or as a stall tactic in order to reclaim the Jab. The ADV-earner must determine which way they want to defend, or if they instead want to sneak in an offensive shot. A great option for the ADV-earner here is a Jumpkick or Legsweep: Because the opponent does not have his Jab, the ADV earner has a great chance of landing a shot if the opponent tries a defense buster, and if the opponent goes Jumpkick or Legsweep (very likely moves), then the ADV-earner will still have the ADV for the next round.
It’s important to note here that the ADV-earner is empowered by the possible strategic options, while the opponent is the one on the fence. Under the single-round ADV system, ADVs are throwaways, and the ADV conversion becomes a novelty.
Now, to rebuke some concerns with the carryover ADV. I’m quoting Seirichi here, but my comments are directed at everyone with reservations.…
Fights will become more sluggish.
I call bogus here, because it’s actually the single-round ADV that encourages dead rounds, as explored in the above example. It encourages the opponent to go safe and drop back in defense. The carryover ADV encourages either side to go offense. In the playtest duels that have been posted here, the duels got drawn out because the opponent at the disadvantage was going defense after the ADV was earned. What was the thought process there? Did the opponent actually think the ADV-earner was going to renege on the ADV and go offense, was he/she still stuck in the single-round ADV mindset of wiping out the ADV with a null round, was it a stall tactic?
I suggest more playtesting, in a scenario where there is more up for grabs. I checked the list of duels in IFL duels with carryover ADVs, and in only three instances did the same ADV last more than 2 rounds (i.e. carried over more than once), and never more than 3. Two of those instances involved a Jumpkick/Legsweep exchange in the first carryover, and the other instance involved a failed Feint against an offensive move in the second carryover. What that tells me is the carryover ADV encourages a better mix of offense and defense, and less the defense/defense dead rounds.
Glass vs Glass, Glasses will possibly toss ADV Carry out the window and go straight offensive to get the job done.
If this is correct, then it is really no different than it is now. However, because the ADV will give a Glass more so-called strategic empowerment, Glasses will use defense just as much as they do now, and quite possibly more so*.
Emeralds will use more mods to combat the ADV Carry.
By this I think you mean more Feints, because Glasses will be working in more defense. Sure, but if an Emerald is using Feints, they are probably also using Fancies, i.e. mod-smacking their opponent into submission, which gets us back to the core of Velhelmi's initial post.
Our flaw is that we so quickly look to changing game rules when there is a problem. Making significant changes to game rules should be a
last resort. It
should be difficult for a Glass to beat an Emerald.
What is the problem? The problem is that DoF, as well as the other sports, do not have a healthy pool of new duelers. The true Glasses do not have other true Glasses to battle among and rise above. So, when a true Glass shows up to duel, all they have are Emeralds and sandbaggers from which to choose.
Solution? Get more newbies in here. That’s tough, so maybe the DoF staff needs to be more creative with finding ways to throw Glasses a lifeboat without rule changes or additional ranks (e.g. special events, special shifts). In the meantime, I am of the opinion that mod distribution should be reduced by 1, and that Emeralds should have only 5 mods, because, really, only titleholders should get excess mods**, and start Glasses with 1 mod. That might not help Velhemi's situation enough, so perhaps consider forced parity, only allowing duelers to use one or two more mods than their opponent, as it's well established that players aren't going to limit themselves (and, in all fairness, shouldn't have to). These are rule changes that can easily be reset down the road.
*OK, this could draw Glass-Glass duels out longer than Emerald-Emerald, but only for a lack of mods. You see the same thing happen in DoS with Commoner-Commoner duels, i.e. less options for scoring full points.
**By excess mods, I mean any mods over the maximum amount you would need to win a duel if you were successful in scoring on all of your modified moves. So, really, anything over 5, because a modified move scores 1, and you only need 5 to win.
It's the reason I challenged for IceDancer. I wanted King to do stuff like 
