Thoughts on expanding Test options for Warlords.

[PC]

I was watching the Ria v Hope challenge last night and saw Myria offer to counter the Overlord Test. By rules this, of course, isn't possible -- but what if it could be? Challenge Rights as they are can be regained through activity, though most see no usage throughout cycles. Why not allow a new usage for them? Burning a challenge grant or two to allow a Warlord to counter a Test of Worthiness (In the case of an Overlord issuing a test during a challenge for their mantle, or during a Barony challenge where the Overlord steps in).

It gives usage to the challenge right and allows it more of a purpose outside of, "Well I don't feel like ever challenging so they just sit here". If a person wastes their challenge rights to counter they then have incentive (if they want to challenge for a title or counter more challenges) to gain activity duels. This creates a new carrot on the stick for players to possibly follow with the hopes of numbers being boosted, even if slightly; as if we look back to past attempts with allowing squires to counter tests, it's mostly a luke warm usage. There's many players in this community who simply do not challenge due to lacking player-created agency and do better when options are presented to them, so giving them more choices could see more interaction.

I can see such pros being: Allowing more roleplay opportunities, more drama, etc, within a sport that is all about politics and the underhandedness that comes with it.

Con is that there is already a grant that allows such a thing. An easy fix to keep the grant its own thing is that there is no requirement to burn any challenge rights. It's a free to use grant with better options. That could hopefully be enough to distinguish it from a challenge-right(s) granted counter; with one costing nothing while the other has a payment of 1 or 2 rights.

Basic rules could be,

Rank Requirement: Warlord
Cost of Countering: 1 Challenge Right (or 2)
Challenger to the Overlord or Baron may decline.
May not be used to act as stand in for the Overlord themselves -- this allows the grant-version to have prestige with its benefit of allowing its user to act in place of the Overlord. This also allows the Squire Test to have a purpose.

As said above: It fits within the current ruleset of being able to regain challenge rights, expands on their usage, and there's an example of a stronger grant having a better function that has seen testing/usage, so there would not be much changes when it comes to implementation. The test itself is a big component of Duel of Swords and what makes it different from the other two and having more sport-specific options gives each more individuality.

[Rhiannon Brock]

Rank Requirement: Warlord
Cost of Countering: 1 Challenge Right (or 2)
Challenger to the Overlord or Baron may decline.
May not be used to act as stand in for the Overlord themselves -- this allows the grant-version to have prestige with its benefit of allowing its user to act in place of the Overlord. This also allows the Squire Test to have a purpose.

As said above: It fits within the current ruleset of being able to regain challenge rights, expands on their usage, and there's an example of a stronger grant having a better function that has seen testing/usage, so there would not be much changes when it comes to implementation. The test itself is a big component of Duel of Swords and what makes it different from the other two and having more sport-specific options gives each more individuality.

Speaking as the player whose character first made use of the Squire Test, I believe the Squire Test already has purpose and it's underused. It might be due to unfamiliarity with how that rule set works or in the case of Renegades, they might prefer to not involve others (i.e. Overlord and Loyal Barons) in their challenges. Loyals don't have an option if the Overlord steps in.

What I would like to see is not Warlords being allowed to step in, but an old rule reinstated that allows a Renegade to relinquish a challenge right (I believe it was for a calendar month) to a Warlord to Challenge for Overlord when a Loyal Wall is in place.

Several years back, the question of why a Renegade could only choose a Warlord champion (if a Renegade wasn't stepping in) when challenging the Overlord was brought up. I believe it it was Jake, he's welcome to correct me, said that was in place because allowing the Renegade to choose someone of any rank would make that particular perk equal to the Overlord's of being able to elect any champion. I feel the same about a Warlord being allowed Warlord champion. Unless more dueling related perks will be given to the OL and Barons, it diminishes the Overlord and Baron benefits in place.

[PC]

What I would like to see is not Warlords being allowed to step in, but an old rule reinstated that allows a Renegade to relinquish a challenge right (I believe it was for a calendar month) to a Warlord to Challenge for Overlord when a Loyal Wall is in place.

Warlords can already challenge when there is a loyal majority. The loyal wall was removed a long time ago and only within the past two or so years was there an introduction of the Overlord Grace, which allows the Overlord a 30 day grace period from Warlord Challengers should the Overlord have a loyal majority. Is that what you are bringing up? The ability for a Renegade Baron to break the 30 day grace period?

One issue brought up to me privately about the Squire Test back when I first implemented it was that it raised the benefit of being a Renegade Baron more compared to a Loyal Baron. I saw the Squire Test as an attempt to revitalize the usage of the Squire role, compared to the first idea which was: Removal of the Squire Role and allow Warlords the ability to take on a squire(mentee) for themselves, while Barons gained the benefit of two. This would put it more inline with the other sports, but in doing so would cost Duel of Swords its individuality.

Why do I bring this up? Because Renegades gained benefit from it, Loyals gained a secondary benefit of being able to use their squire to counter should the Overlord be unavailable, and the Overlord themselves have the final say when it comes to test - securing their spot at the top of the pecking order by being able to deny a Squire or a Special Grant Holder within certain circumstances.

Warlords in this case were shafted. They instead suffered a new penalty of a 30 day waiting period. This is not bad, as it puts more focus on the Barony Challenges, with the intent to shuffle Warlords who are unable to challenge for the Overlord within that time period but would like to - to then challenge for a Barony. The Overlord is the current title among the three sports that can be challenged at any time should criteria be met, making it the easiest top title to gain; so giving it a 30 day grace period is a net gain to the Overlord.

So with these three examples we see that the Overlord, Loyal, and Renegade Baron have been all given better perks compared to what they had originally. How does allowing Warlords the ability to burn challenge rights to counter a test diminish that? If anything it puts the power structure back to a middle ground.

[Rhiannon Brock]

What I would like to see is not Warlords being allowed to step in, but an old rule reinstated that allows a Renegade to relinquish a challenge right (I believe it was for a calendar month) to a Warlord to Challenge for Overlord when a Loyal Wall is in place.

Warlords can already challenge when there is a loyal majority. The loyal wall was removed a long time ago and only within the last year was there an introduction of the Overlord Grace, which allows the Overlord a 30 day grace period should they have a loyal majority. Is that what you are bringing up? The ability for a Renegade Baron to break the 30 day grace period?

Sorry, I didn't make that clear, but yes, bypassing/breaking the Loyal wall by the Renegade granting them the Renegade's challenge right is what I meant. Sometimes, a Renegade is actually neutral to an Overlord, but that is no longer an option in how things are set up.

[PC]

It could work in the new format easily enough since the new rules don't exclude the Renegades challenge right to the Overlord so long as they hold the Barony. But then the Loyal Barons would need something in return for compensation, because it's one more reason Renegade is desirable. In current format the Test of Worthiness is no longer as big of a boon due to the Squire Test, which both Renegade and Loyal Barons share, and the only real benefit as of now for a Loyal Baron is a grace period.

You'll have to explain the argument of neutrality though in this case and the importance of it? Not so much the rank but the ideal of it and why the current Renegade base have something lacking due to no longer having it. I assume if a Baron wanted to be neutral they'd just offer nothing to anyone and keep their rank on the merits of the favored pastime of fence sitting lol.

[PC]

I also want to add. Compared to other title-holder benefits: A title holder needs to only duel within a 90 day period to continue to have their tools at their disposal; this excludes the Squire Test where the duty of meeting criteria is on the Squire themselves (by gaining 10 duels within a cycle or being a Warlord Ranked Squire).

At the end of the day events and rules should hopefully benefit the player-base in multiple ways, which is why I always enjoyed the idea of regulation-requirements when it comes to events or other boons. It's a carrot on a stick. A way for players who seek to use these tools to come out and give others in the community an opportunity to have an opponent or two more during a given dueling night. The end result of the Warlord Counter Test in my original post would be the (hopeful) increase to normal regulation during challenge spikes. This is not to say regulation needs a boost or there are issues, it's simply another method for players to have agency.

Burn two challenge rights to counter a test? Fail? Want to challenge for the Barony as revenge? The player then must go out an fight regulation matches to regain the ability to challenge. Having things revolve around regulation means that the community itself gains the benefit of duelists while the Warlord gets a special perk.

[Lilith Anderson]

I kinda dig the idea. I think my "price" for it would be 2 challenge rights though. Just to kinda make it a little steeper and make people weigh the cost of it versus helping their friend. Then if they spend them, they definitely have to go out and duel more to make them up.

[Rhiannon Brock]

Clarifying since I tend to slip into older terminology. Loyal Majority currently produces pretty much the same result what was called a Loyal Wall, lengthy periods between the allowed times for Warlords to be able to challenge for the Overlord title. Allowing the Renegades to have the option of granting their challenge right to a Warlord can also fit into the pros list in the first post:

I can see such pros being: Allowing more roleplay opportunities, more drama, etc, within a sport that is all about politics and the underhandedness that comes with it.

I'm not opposed to a grant being offered as a tournament prize to allow a Warlord to have that ability without using their challenge rights. I'd like to suggest the possibility of using that grant for the full cycle to aid any Warlord, but with the proviso that it can be refused by the challenging Warlord. The Talon has a cycle long benefit that can be used in all duels in a given cycle (or until the winner reaches Warlord). Why not consider something with a longer lasting benefit than a one use Overlord Challenge/ Baronial Challenge grant for Warlords?

[Lilith Anderson]

I'm not opposed to a grant being offered as a tournament prize to allow a Warlord to have that ability without using their challenge rights. I'd like to suggest the possibility of using that grant for the full cycle to aid any Warlord, but with the proviso that it can be refused by the challenging Warlord. The Talon has a cycle long benefit that can be used in all duels in a given cycle (or until the winner reaches Warlord). Why not consider something with a longer lasting benefit than a one use Overlord Challenge/ Baronial Challenge grant for Warlords?

That would pretty much be 1/2 of the King's Decree prize given out by winning Warden of Overlook. So that's already in place + a little extra. Unless you mean a cycle long ability to do so?

[PC]

It's one of those apples to oranges thing. The Loyal Wall, the true one, could see and saw an Overlord sitting for cycles with no challenge beyond one from a Warlord Tournament due to the barrier created by a majority loyal guard surrounding them. 30 days where no Warlord can challenge them in comparison is more a drop in a bucket.

As for a grant. Lilith pointed it out. That's the grant already in place and has been for cycles at this point -- and is the grant I mentioned in the original post of this thread.

It takes 5 wins to regain a challenge right, 10 for two. This requirement makes it already more of a hoop to jump through if we were to line it up next to winning a tournament or the Show of Activity of old. 2 challenge rights to counter a test is a big price to burn compared to hopping into a tournament, getting 5 or so wins, and getting a prize. And with how trends are, players who don't even win tournaments find themselves gaining title-shot prizes.

Edit: My worry of it being a lesser King's Decree with the perk of being cycle long only continues the path of low activity of titles. I posted above that the minimum requirement is 1 duel within 90 days to be a title holder, simply giving a grant out (with chances of it being not even the winner of a tournament) means it's another ability that promotes lacking activity.

What would the overall benefit be? Win the prize, sit on it, get 1 duel to stay active within 90 days to use it, go back into hibernation until there's a challenge that interests you to counter.

Activity duels needed to regain dueling rights brings a player out to duel during regulation hours. A grant has less agency compared to an ability that allows heat of the moment choices for a Warlord. Promoting activity should be a major focus. There is no game when there are no players.

[Bailey Raptis]

I have no real preference one way or the other right now on this idea, but I'd be interested in what percentage of tests for OL challenges are successful? (though, I'm incredibly lazy and don't really want to look that up myself, lol). How often is a test countered by a Renegade Baron, and how often are they able to clear a path for the challenger to challenge the OL? How often does an OL intercede on behalf of a Loyal Baron, how often does a Renegade try to counter, and what are the percentages there for success by the OL, the Renegade, or the person trying to challenge the Loyal Baron?

I'm only aware of a handful of Squire tests so far, and as far as I can recall (please, correct me if I'm wrong!) none of the testing squires actually succeeded in blocking a challenge to their Baron. My more general question would be, ultimately, how often are challenges successful, how often *should* they be successful, and does putting an expanded testing option make a material change in the difficulty of challenging?

[Delahada]

But then the Loyal Barons would need something in return for compensation, because it's one more reason Renegade is desirable. In current format the Test of Worthiness is no longer as big of a boon due to the Squire Test, which both Renegade and Loyal Barons share, and the only real benefit as of now for a Loyal Baron is a grace period.

If you ask me, that's a huge benefit. Being able to breathe easy knowing you're only at risk of challenge once a month versus all the damn time makes being a Loyal baron much more desirable to being Renegade. I haven't had to endure it yet, but there is that annoying possibility of a challenge queue, which could wind up overwhelming a person with challenge after challenge after challenge... I cannot tell you how happy I was that Ebon's immediately challenging me after my challenge against Anya was deemed as not part of a challenge queue. Thank you, DoS Staff, for that.

Why not go Loyal? I like to have IC reasons for my characters to do things. Sal doesn't much like Hope and owes her nothing, so he's not going to go Loyal to her just so that I (real person wholly separate from my character) can relax and not have to worry about when that next challenge is going to come at me just for my character being Renegade. Before Squires and the Squire Test were a thing, Renegades absolutely had to fight their challenger, either as a best of three or one shot. There was no other choice. I personally like that I have an option now, like the Loyals do. The only difference here is that the OL can test for a Loyal but not for a Renegade, so actually Loyals have double the options for Champions. Triple, I suppose, if what I'm reading about Barons being allowed two squires total is true.

Good RP would be a Warlord challenger making friends with some Renegades before challenging an Overlord so that they've got somebody who will Advocate on their behalf should the Overlord decide to issue a Test of Worthiness. There were four renegades at the time of Ria's challenge. Only one of them showed up, and he did in fact Advocate on her behalf. I really don't see any point to giving Warlords the ability to do that. If they're going to squander their challenge rights by not challenging for titles anyway, what makes you think they're going to use them to Advocate for someone instead? Some people just don't want titles, nor to involve themselves in the politics of them. I don't see giving Warlords extra uses for their challenge rights changing that much at all.

[PC]

If they're going to squander their challenge rights by not challenging for titles anyway, what makes you think they're going to use them to Advocate for someone instead? Some people just don't want titles, nor to involve themselves in the politics of them. I don't see giving Warlords extra uses for their challenge rights changing that much at all.

What makes you think they wouldn't? We've seen players using the King's Decree and the lesser-version set as a prize for the DoS ART to counter tests.

It's about creating options. A player who does not have any interest in the Title itself then has options to use their challenge right(s) elsewhere. Much like the Squire Test, which is underutilized, it could mean nothing; but then you would also have rare moments where players who dive into the rules may use such a thing to their advantage.

[Anubis Karos]

I really, really like this idea.

[Ria Graziano]

Good RP would be a Warlord challenger making friends with some Renegades before challenging an Overlord so that they've got somebody who will Advocate on their behalf should the Overlord decide to issue a Test of Worthiness. There were four renegades at the time of Ria's challenge. Only one of them showed up, and he did in fact Advocate on her behalf. I really don't see any point to giving Warlords the ability to do that. If they're going to squander their challenge rights by not challenging for titles anyway, what makes you think they're going to use them to Advocate for someone instead? Some people just don't want titles, nor to involve themselves in the politics of them. I don't see giving Warlords extra uses for their challenge rights changing that much at all.

Writing on a non-staff name a) because it was this char referenced and b) not a staff opinion.

Good RP can come from Warlords dealing with Warlords, too. Ria didn't go to any Renegades because she didn't want or feel she needed their help. She'd accept help from her WL friends (a Graziano, Jay, Kheldar, etc), friends she has a connection with IC and not some random Baron. In fact, IC when Caleb stepped forward Ria was like "no thanks, I'm new kid, I'll take my lumps." She couldn't tell him no, though, no matter what she wanted according to the rules. If she'd have won, she would have made it known everyone not named "a Graziano, Cappy, K-Ball, or Simon" would be banished to renegade and they could come after her. Good play doesn't have to involve Barons.

Myria, a WL, obviously would have used her right if she'd been allowed to - she offered to step in. Why limit the play just because you don't see it happening enough to be worth it, for you?