Reduction of Baronies - Discussion

[Alasdair Galloway]

Good evening!

I wanted to come to the community to open up a discussion on thoughts about reducing the numbers of titles from DoS. Specifically, reducing the number from 8 to 4 or 5.

First off, I want to make it clear that this has been something that I've had thoughts on doing before I became coordinator and is not a discussion that springs directly from recent vacancies.

DoS is unique in that the top title can be challenged for at nearly any time - you don't need to win a tournament to either become OL or to challenge for it. This gives the sport 9 titles that can be challenged for, compared to 5 in DoF, and 4 in DoM. In the past, DoS used to have many more active duelers than either sport, and having more titles made sense, but this is no longer the case. Reducing the number of Baronies would put us better in line with our sister sports, and I believe this would better match the current number of active participants we currently have.

DoS is also very politically motivated, and with the number of titles, a good strategy is to lay low to avoid being challenged. Getting actively involved in the politics makes you more of a target. And if nobody is getting actively involved or stirring the pot, the title game tends to stagnate. Reducing the titles would make it more difficult for laying low to be a viable strategy to have a long reign, and may force people to get more involved in either test or challenges.

I am opening this discussion to the community because while I feel it is better for the sport to reduce the titles, I do not want to make a major change such as this without hearing what everyone has to say.

While we have had discussions among the staff about this idea, I want to stress that no decision has been made; but if we did proceed with reducing the number of baronies, this would not result in demolishing the settings. I know everyone likely has their own favorite barony and have characters who are associate with them, and I don't want those histories to vanish or make them so they can no longer be added to. This first step is just to have a discussion and hear you out on the pros and cons of reducing the number of titles, and if it is something that we should move forward with or not.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

[Delahada]

My immediate feeling is an emphatic no. I absolutely do not want to see the number of baronies reduced from 8 to 4/5.

Personally, I do not think this will help activity at all. In fact, I feel that, quite the opposite, it will deter activity and discourage the already active duelists from not only continuing to duel and challenge for baronies where eligible, but also from promoting the sport and encouraging genuinely new duelists from participating as well. Maybe that's just me, though.

Reducing the number of baronies reduces the number of choices given to the community, too. If you take away half the number of baronies, you take away half the interest in their unique settings and acquisition of them as a temporary property for duelists, too. How do we decide which baronies to retire, and for how long? Who gets to make that final ruling? All of the present baronies have an abundance of story opportunities. Yes, there are favorites, but every single city district is represented. What would be the story reasoning for them to no longer be active as baronies?

This, to me, feels like we are moving away from cooperative storytelling of FFRP and delving strictly into straight up gaming. This is putting a rush and demand on activity, when this is instead supposed to be a leisurely pasttime for us. I think reducing the number of baronies will add a level of stress to this shared hobby that is completely unnecessary.

It ain't broke, so, in brief, I see no need to "fix" it.

[Death Knell]

Eight baronies - nine defensible titles - is a lot for a sport with a community our size. Even at seven, in 2018 and 2019 (when I became active in the sport), it struck me as a lot. It’s been difficult for me to remember who’s a baron in the last few years due to the number and also how easy it can be to go unchallenged while only coming out for the odd activity duel.

I’m not judging that. I’ve been there. But it’s not really engaging use of the title of baron, which has a lot of great ways to generate play if they’re taken advantage of - alignment, challenges, tests, counters.

A smaller number of titles makes each one more hotly contested, and the goal of keeping enough loyal barons to protect an Overlord - or enough renegades to counter an Overlord’s tests - that much more challenging, in my mind.

It’ll also give us a better balance between Warlords and Barons. As it stands, most of the time, a pretty significant amount of the game’s playerbase are already titleholders. If your goal is to be a Baron and not Overlord, and you’re not engaging with the politics of the Overlord title, there’s not much impetus to stay engaged once you become a Baron. But reducing the number of titles shifts that balance to more people chasing those titles instead of sitting on one—

—and maybe, maybe, encourage more direct challenges to the Overlord by Warlords.

Smaller note here: I like five over four because an odd number makes the balance of alignment more intuitive.

[Strawberry]

Because I like numbers, here are some I pulled. I pulled Jan 1, 2020 to now to see year over year change.

-From Jan 1, 2020-Present, Duel of Swords has had 100 challenges across 9 titles. This equates to about 5.5 challenges per title per year.
-From Jan 1, 2020-Present, Duel of Fists has had 47 challenges across 5 titles. This equates to 4.7 challenges per title per year.
-From Jan 1, 2020-Present, Duel of Magic has had 52 challenges across 4 titles. This equates to 6.5 challenges per title per year.

This means, despite having 2.25x the titles, DoS has only 1 fewer challenge per title per year on average than Duel of Magic. The goal of reduction seems to be to increase number of challenges, so you would think that we should see about 2x the challenges per title in DoF and DoM in order for there to be a net gain should DoS decrease number of titles or half the challenges per title in DoS that we saw in DoF or DoM. Keep in mind, DoS's numbers include challenges for Overlord. If we remove challenges for Overlord, DoS had 82 challenges across 8 titles, or 5.125 challenges per title per year. Removing Overlord from the equation does not drastically impact average title challenges for barons.

From Jan 1, 2021-Present, DoS had 63 challenges across 9 titles. 50 if you remove Overlord. This represents 63% of all challenges in the past two years and is a 170% increase from 2020. Of the baronies, 6/8 saw more challenges in 2021 over 2020. 1/8 saw the same number of challenges in 2021 over 2020. 1/8 saw fewer (albeit just slightly) challenges in 2021 over 2020.

In short, Duel of Swords saw year over year growth and that was in a year in which a large portion of the population was at home far more frequently due to pandemic restrictions in 2020. That we saw growth in DoS in 2021 with the populace getting back to their normal lives (or as normal as we can be despite ongoing stuff), tells me that we should not be looking to reduce numbers of titles available. That DoS's average challenges per title falls right in between DoF and DoM indicates the number of titles available is proportionate to demand for the sport and if anything, DoM could potentially benefit from an additional title or two to challenge for or DoF could benefit from fewer.

Tl;dr: Duel of Swords is growing statistically. Duel of Swords challenge numbers are proportionate to their titles in comparison to the other sports. Based on this, I would not recommend reducing number of available titles in Duel of Swords.

[Anubis Karos]

I'm just going to keep it short and simple because I have a headache right now: NO.

I'll add more substance later.

[PC]

We've had two recent retirements (with the possibility of a third empty barony) and with that there is an opening for an opportunity to test. These two baronies can be held back for two or three cycles and allow the Duel of Swords staff to see if the remaining Baronies will become more contested.

Duel of Swords and the Rings of Honor (now RhyDin.org) community has not only dwindled but grown older. Drama and politics can be easily set aside due to real life time restraints and other issues that may not allow a once active Renegade Baron or Overlord to create political turmoil that the sport needs to thrive. At times we see a burst of activity when a controversial figure claims one of the titles, but this is a very - very rare case and is instead replaced with complacency and a want for status quo.

Is this bad? No. If the player base at large would rather see 8 titles idly vied for every now and again, then that is what the player base desires.

For now I am sure we will see many passionate emotional reactions as there is history and memories tied to these titles. Holding back the retired Baronies is at least a middle ground and a chance to test the waters; as well as not a sudden removal of half of the titles away from the community. It can then open up future possible discussions where, after hands-on experiencing the minor change, the community may see it in a different light.

[Delahada]

Personally, I would much prefer to see use of a clause listed in the rules that this precedent of two retired baronies provides an opportunity for, rather than to see them sit vacant into the unforseeable future and/or next ART.

1. Should a Baron retire/be stripped, the vacancy shall be placed:
a.) As a prize in the next scheduled All Ranks Tournament (ART) or
b.) In a special tournament format decided by the Duel of Swords Staff, depending on the length of time until the next ART.

If we want to promote activity, let's have a special tournament! Put the vacant baronies up as prizes. The next ART isn't scheduled until the end of March, and that feels like too long. I'd be interested in possibly winning Old Temple, for example, as that is a barony I have not personally held on this or any character, and I have goals. Quite possibly there are other people, and their characters, who might likewise have an interest in pursuing the acquisition of Seaside and/or Old Temple themselves. I'd be willing to bet on it.

[PC]

To add on. I feel like this is much of a culture issue.

If it is easier for a Baron to simply tolerate their Overlord because they do not wish to get set in a Renegade Queue, or a Overlord accepts any and all Loyalty because it allows them to sit on their title for a longer period, then that is the culture of the Duel of Swords community and not the Duel of Swords game itself.

The community is what is needed to allow the sport to thrive, be it through conflict or not. It's just that conflict seems to gain the most numbers of challenge if rates are what is important.

A small hope is that from this discussion a fire can be lit in members of the community and perhaps they will be interested in showing through their passion for the game that these titles should remain.

[Alasdair Galloway]

I do want to say that the goal of reducing baronies isn't necessarily to spur more challenges. I would say the goal is to place more importance on the titles themselves. The fewer titles there are, especially in the political game, the more important each of them is when it comes to making decisions about loyalty and testing.

Thanks for the feedback so far and keep it coming!

[PrlUnicorn]

Like Anubis, I'm adding a NO for now with more to follow later.

I remember when, for various reasons, baronies were reduced from 13 to 7. While adding the extra barony of Cadentia was nice and opened up possibilities, it really didn't fit the established pattern of districts attached to the city of Rhydin.

[Eden Parker]

As much as I like the baronies, I really like the idea of title reduction for DoS. I think the number of titles is a little big for the size of our active player base. I don't think the numbers quite capture the issue. There's nothing inherently wrong with having titles that go unchallenged for many months, but there's nothing particularly right with that either. There's nothing wrong with having two titles held by alts of the same player (and it could still happen with fewer titles!) but maybe that's also not ideal, and maybe having fewer titles would mean it wouldn't be as common of an occurrence. We do also seem to be in a cycle of vacancies where the sport is always giving away a title as a tournament prize -- and I agree that can be fun and open up opportunities for play and extra tournaments -- but maybe it is also a sign that there's too much supply of titles and it's undercutting some of the IC politics and maneuvering that a lot of people really like about the sport.

I think in general I'm open to new ideas. I know our community has historically been resistant to change. But if we never try new things, we won't know if things could be more fun or even just fun in a different and new way. I think it's a good idea.

[Delahada]

There's nothing wrong with having two titles held by alts of the same player (and it could still happen with fewer titles!) but maybe that's also not ideal, and maybe having fewer titles would mean it wouldn't be as common of an occurrence.

While I will say that I agree there is nothing wrong with two titles held by alts of the same player, I respectfully disagree with you on the likelihood that fewer titles would make this less of a common occurrence. In fact, I am more inclined to believe that fewer titles would make this a more common occurrence. Within the past two years I have seen multiple instances of single players holding titles with two characters. At least three now, if not more. In most of those cases, the player chose to retire one character from that title, usually by holding a mini-challenge queue tournament. I liked that a lot more than simply seeing titles retired and sitting vacant like we see more of now. In fact, I had the opportunity to hold two titles with two separate characters once, and instead I decided to have the one character decline the opportunity so that someone else could have it instead. On the plus side, it suited that character's personality perfectly to respectfully decline being a title holder.

We do also seem to be in a cycle of vacancies where the sport is always giving away a title as a tournament prize -- and I agree that can be fun and open up opportunities for play and extra tournaments -- but maybe it is also a sign that there's too much supply of titles and it's undercutting some of the IC politics and maneuvering that a lot of people really like about the sport.

I don't think "too much supply" is the problem here. Personally, I feel that there need to be stricter rules and penalties instated regarding the forfeiture and retirement of titles instead of cutting down on the number of them. People seem to feel like they can just throw them aside whenever they don't want them anymore, which unfortunately takes away the opportunity for anyone else to go through the appropriate steps to obtain that very barony for themselves. Instead they are left to wait for the DoS Staff to decide what to do with it, and it almost always winds up as a prize the ART, which can be quite a wait.

I also do not really care so much for the politics as I do the history and story building opportunities. There is a tremendous amount of story surrounding my character's years dueling. He started as a lowly squire -- there was a lot of drama surrounding that! -- and ten years later wound up acquiring that very same barony for himself as his very first! I take great pride in being able to look at the DoS Histories to see Sal's name listed in some of the top slots for Seaside, and look forward to gaining other future historical achievements for him as well.

[Strawberry]

As much as I like the baronies, I really like the idea of title reduction for DoS. I think the number of titles is a little big for the size of our active player base. I don't think the numbers quite capture the issue. There's nothing inherently wrong with having titles that go unchallenged for many months, but there's nothing particularly right with that either. There's nothing wrong with having two titles held by alts of the same player (and it could still happen with fewer titles!) but maybe that's also not ideal, and maybe having fewer titles would mean it wouldn't be as common of an occurrence. We do also seem to be in a cycle of vacancies where the sport is always giving away a title as a tournament prize -- and I agree that can be fun and open up opportunities for play and extra tournaments -- but maybe it is also a sign that there's too much supply of titles and it's undercutting some of the IC politics and maneuvering that a lot of people really like about the sport.

I think in general I'm open to new ideas. I know our community has historically been resistant to change. But if we never try new things, we won't know if things could be more fun or even just fun in a different and new way. I think it's a good idea.

I think the numbers don't capture the full issue because the issue isn't the number of titles, it's the level of engagement of the community. But even so, if DoS baronial titles are averaging 5 challenges a year, they aren't going long periods of time without challenges. A few may, at the cost of others being more popular, but that's been the case for as long as I've been dueling.

I want to be open minded and offer more than just a "No" reaction. Not to say those that feel that instantly are invalid in their feelings, but I want to explore further what seems to be a far more complex issue than just the numbers.

I'd sooner see a conversation around what motivates people to drop titles and what we can do to make Duel of Swords more engaging. Is it a lack of story opportunities? Is it personal reasons? If there are repeated drops (50% of title drops in the past year can be attributed to a very, very small number of players), what can/should we do to address it in a way that is beneficial to the community? Add in that the current pool of characters for the most part seems to get along very well ICly with only sparing exceptions, which is not conducive to the political intrigue that DoS is known for. DoF has talking opals that offer different powers (as expanded further with the shattering of the opals a few years back), DoM has towers that come with elemental powers. DoF and DoM have tie ins via achievements with things like Pyro/Terra/etc Master. DoS has fancy houses and everyone playing nice with minimal tie ins to the other sports. If politics aren't what people are vibing, what can we do to make DoS shinier?

I think reducing titles is not the solution we're looking for and reducing the number of challenge opportunities by almost half to force scarcity without addressing community engagement and reasons why people may not be getting involved or may end their involvement (retirements etc) is like sticking a band aid to your eyeball when you see blood instead of putting it where the bleeding is coming from.

(Not to say I think DoS is bleeding, their challenge numbers say otherwise.)

[Jake]

Has anyone pulled stats for the number of retired titles (DoS or otherwise)?

Based on Strawberry's numbers, it doesn't sound like the number of challenges is out of line with the number of titles based on a comparison across the sports.

What's the retirement rate between the three sports? Do more DoS titles get retired as an average? Or is that also consistent across the sports? That might be more indicative of whether a given title (or class of title, e.g., DoS/DoF/DoM/Barony/etc.) is losing its luster.

[Strawberry]

Has anyone pulled stats for the number of retired titles (DoS or otherwise)?

Based on Strawberry's numbers, it doesn't sound like the number of challenges is out of line with the number of titles based on a comparison across the sports.

What's the retirement rate between the three sports? Do more DoS titles get retired as an average? Or is that also consistent across the sports? That might be more indicative of whether a given title (or class of title, e.g., DoS/DoF/DoM/Barony/etc.) is losing its luster.

I did pull them for DoS to come to my number/% retired in the past year/two years. 2020-present saw 12 retirements and 1 vacancy due to someone ascending to Overlord. 10/13 occurred in 2021-present. Vacancies by title 2020-present:

Overlord: 1 (Hope Retired - 2021-08-24 - 2021-09-03 ) (0.5 vacancies per year)
Cadentia: 1 (Na-rae Retired - 2020-07-14 - 2020-08-06 ) (0.5 vacancies per year)
Old Market: 1 (Salvador became Overlord - 2021-09-03 - 2021-09-24) (0.5 vacancies per year)
Dragon's Gate: 1 (Nayun Retired - 2020-03-15 - 2020-03-29 ) (0.5 vacancies per year)
New Haven: 1 (Bailey Retired - 2021-04-13 - 2021-05-07 ) (0.5 vacancies per year)
Battlefield Park: 1 (Anya Retired - 2021-11-15 - 2021-12-18 ) (0.5 vacancies per year)
Dockside: 2 (MC Retired - 2021-09-08 - 2021-09-24, Jackson Retired - 2022-01-02 - Present ) (1 vacancy per year)
Old Temple: 2 (Suturi Retired - 2021-06-18 - 2021-06-26, Jaycy Retired - 2022-01-03 - Present) (1 vacancy per year)
Seaside: 3 (Tali Retired - 2020-09-04 - 2020-09-25, Jaycy Retired - 2021-08-24 - 2021-10-04, Hope Retired - 2022-01-03 - Present) (1.5 vacancies per year)

Of note, Seaside and Dockside were also the 2 most challenged titles over the past two years with 15 and 13 challenges respectively. Old Temple had 9, which placed it in the bottom 3 for least challenged baronies.

I can pull DoF and DoM. I'm off work today and enjoy numbers/stats.