Reduction of Baronies - Discussion

[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.

These are the same numbers I pulled for DoS when making my original post. Over the same period of time for DoF & DoM:

2020-Present

Duel of Fists:
Bold indicates where it transitioned from 2020 to 2021

PathFinder
Number of Holders: 7 (Runt, Mallory, Gatito, Bailey, Mallory, Dakota, Salvador)
Vacancies: 2 (Mallory Becomes Diamond - 2020-10-03 - 2020-11-01, Bailey Retires - 2021-03-31 - 2021-04-11) (Avg 1/year)
Challenges: 11 (3 to Runt, 2 to Mallory, 1 to Gatito (2020), 1 to Bailey, 2 to Mallory, 2 to Dakota)

MoonBeryl
Number of Holders: 4 (Michelle, Salvador, Matt, Gatito)
Vacancies: 1 (Michelle Becomes Diamond - 2020-07-12 - 2020-08-16 ) (Avg 0.5/year)
Challenges: 5 (1 to Michelle, 2 to Salvador, 2 to Matt)

IceDancer
Number of Holders: 8 (Hope, Matt, Gren, Eregor, Strawberry, Koyliak, Morgan, Jaycy)
Vacancies: 1 (Eregor Retires - 2021-01-10 - 2021-01-16) (Avg 0.5/year)
Challenges: 12 (2 to Hope, 1 to Matt, 2 to Gren, 1 to Eregor, 1 to Karma, 2 to Koy, 2 to Morgan, 1 to Jaycy)

FireStar
Number of Holders: 6 (Gloria, Jigglypuff, Eden, Strawberry, Rachael, Droet)
Vacancies: 1 (Gloria Retires - 2020-09-08 - 2020-10-03) (Avg 0.5/year)
Challenges: 9 (3 to Gloria, 1 to Jigglypuff, 2 to Eden, 1 to Karma, 2 to Rachael)

ShadoWeaver
Number of Holders: 7 (Gren, Jaycy, Matt, Mart, Salvador, Karma, Scarlett)
Vacancies: 0
Challenges: 9 (1 to Gren, 3 to Jaycy, 1 to Matt, 2 to Mart, 1 to Salvador, 1 to Karma)

Duel of Magic
Bold indicates where it transitioned from 2020 to 2021

Air
Keepers: 11 (Xanth, Michelle, MC, Ellie, Karma, Jaycy, Andrea, Karma, Szuzak, Jackson, Eregor)
Vacancies: 0
Challenges: 13 (1 to Xanth, 1 to Michelle, 2 to MC, 1 to Ellie, 1 to Karma, 1 to Jaycy, 3 to Andrea, 1 to Karma, 1 to Szuzak, 1 to Jackson)

Earth
Keepers: 10 (Andrea, Rachael, Morgan, Maggie, MC, Bailey, Anya, Kira, Haru, Kira)
Vacancies: 1 (Andrea stripped for inactivity - 2020-03-01 - 2020-04-07) (Avg 0.5/year)
Challenges: 13 (2 to Rachael, 1 to Morgan, 1 to Maggie, 2 to MC, 1 to Bailey, 3 to Anya, 1 to Kira, 2 to Haru)

Fire
Keepers: 6 (Phil, Mallory, Eden, Regina, Mart, Rachael)
Vacancies: 2 (Phil Retires - 2020-02-15 - 2020-03-15, Mart stripped for inactivity - 2021-02-14 - 2021-03-14) (Avg 1/year)
Challenges: 13 (1 to Phil, 2 to Mallory, 3 to Eden, 1 to Regina, 1 to Mart, 5 to Rachael)

Water
Keepers: 3 (Eregor, Maggie, Morgan)
Vacancies: 0
Challenges: 13 (8 to Eregor, 2 to Maggie, 3 to Morgan)


------------------------------------------------

Tl;dr DoS and DoF are comparable in challenge rate and vacancy rate, albeit for slightly different reasons. DoF was more likely to see people vacate a title when becoming Diamond, while DoS was more likely to see someone retire. DoM had a lower vacancy rate with 2/3 of vacancies attributed to inactivity title stripping.

[PC]

If we're bringing up to why a title had been retired. As I'm two of them (Nayun and Na-rae), I'll explain it.

The first was retired before a tournament to allow it to be used as a prize. The second I wanted to retire to allow it to be as a prize in the KOTR.

I usually retire titles if I'm not under challenge for a period of time and there is a tournament coming up to allow chance for the event to gain more attention. There was also another retirement, back in 2019 I think, because my character did not want to fight against a child.

As for making the titles more engaging. I'm fine with how they are and what they have to offer. There's just been a lack of political elements or a general reason for me personally to challenge. I'd rather not sit on a title and do nothing with it.

[PrlUnicorn]

Many thanks to Karma for the all challenge stats for the past year. It saves time and brain power for rest of us who don't have the patience, etc. to look everything up and make the calculations.

When I commented earlier on the 13 baronies being reduced to 7, I neglected to mention that the 13 was an increased number during Helix's tenure as DoS Supervisor. Kal and/or Jake probably remember the original amount of rings, but it escapes me at present.

Some players couldn't give a lick about how many titles there are and some are still working toward getting them all. Removing titles is effectively pulling a rug out from under those working toward the Catch them all goal. It takes away any baronies, already won/earned toward achievements, that are removed. Much like when people have to restart with Coven Killer if there's a change in sports management, it can be disheartening and discourage play.

Maybe we need to think about what makes the game fun for everyone instead of trying to take away something that works for most of us. When Na-rae was running the Arena we had dueling house events and other things going on. Without the dueling houses, Real Rhydin might not be a thing. (I think that's how it started.) Maybe DoS needs to take a page from DoM's book with impromptu mini-events like the boss battles that have been run.

This isn't just about taking away titles. It could be opening a huge kettle of fish as far as the RP around the duels goes. We need to look at the bigger picture which not everyone considers. By creating the district names and tying the titles to them, lore was added to the history of Rhydin. Those things breathe life into Rhydin and give it more substance. To put it another way, we get more toys to play with.

Giving the title holders a manor to use as a base of operations in the associated districts was genius! IIRC, it was Rory Laurent that wrote up all of those descriptions and created an SL around it. How that place is used during any given Baron's time is up to them. Some toss parties, some players create their own SLs around those titles and structures. It's not about political power in the city. It's about giving players tools to create something using that title as public exposure. A leg up if you will. Sure, the argument can and has been made for a character being able to do things without a title. However, it could put an otherwise unknown character into the public eye and give them the boost they need to work on any given project.

Harris is not an unknown character. However, the player used his time as Old Market's Baron to create what became the Blackest Night SL. For some of us, it was an introduction to Karma, who is now Rhydin's Governor. Players were all welcomed into the SL. We need more of that kind of play.

Alasdair noted in previous discussions that he is a proponent of in game consequences. If the titles are reduced, which citizens of what districts will be offended and potentially impacted by that loss of income due to no title holder representing their district much as happens with sports teams losing a franchise? Will The Line's (they own the Arena last I heard. If that changed, can we get a clear notice posted on it?) profits suffer because of the lack of bets being laid down on challenges? Will DoS management's salary be reduced because of the money it's costing their employer? Just something to think about.

I usually retire titles if I'm not under challenge for a period of time and there is a tournament coming up to allow chance for the event to gain more attention. There was also another retirement, back in 2019 I think, because my character did not want to fight against a child.

As for making the titles more engaging. I'm fine with how they are and what they have to offer. There's just been a lack of political elements or a general reason for me personally to challenge. I'd rather not sit on a title and do nothing with it.

I remember when that character retired the title. That was a moment of realization for Maggie Harker (for those that don't know, I also play her), who had already held the character in high regard. The character stood on their principles and it spoke volumes about them as a person.

As someone whose character held a title over a year, I know there's a burn out point. I'm just now getting to the point again where challenging for a barony is attractive again.

[Alasdair Galloway]

I wanted to throw some numbers out there as well, because one of the reasons I thought about reducing the number of Baronies was because I feel there are too many titles in relation to active players.

So doing some math and using the most current standings, DoS has 38 duelers that are WL or higher - so we'll say this is the base eligible for challenges. We have 9 titles that can be challenged for. This means that 24% of our possible challengers are title holders. However, 8 are currently inactive. So this means 30% of our current eligible challengers are titleholders.

Back when rings were reduced from 13 to 7, based upon these standings, there were 8 titles that could be challenged for. There were 59 duelers ranked WL or higher. That means 14% of the possible challengers held titles. Even if we add in the 13 baronies back for a total of 14 titles that could be challenged for, this equals out to 24% of possible challengers holding titles.

Back when rings were changed from 9 to 13, based upon these standings, there were 14 titles that could be challenged for, and 86(!) eligible to challenge. This equals 16% of possible challengers that held titles.

DoF currently has 5 titles that can be challenged for, and 37 eligible duelers, not counting the Diamond. This equals 14% of possible challengers have titles. They have 6 inactive duelers, equaling 16% of current eligible challengers hold titles.

DoM currently has 4 titles that can be challenged for at any time, and 35 eligible duelers, not counting the Archmage. This equals 11% of possible challengers that have titles.

To me, these numbers back up my feeling that DoS has too many titles in relation to the player base. Both in relation to other sports, and based upon the history of DoS when changes to the number of rings were made in the past. If we were to reduce the number of Baronies to 5, using the same numbers above, that would equal 6 tiles with 30 eligible challengers. That's still 20%, which is still a pretty high number, but is close to the sweet spot which seems to be around 15%.

And look, I understand that the first response to this idea is no. When I first heard of it maybe being floated around, it was my first reaction as well. But then the idea stuck with me, and look, over the past three cycles, we've had at least one vacant ring for at least 14 weeks. We've essentially already had rings taken out of play for an entire cycle. 3 of the last 4 ARTs have had a vacant ring as a prize. We just don't have the playerbase to support the number of titles up for grabs.

Achievements would not go away. They may change, but they would still be there. The settings will remain. I have no interest in taking away things, but I do have interest in introducing new elements that are built upon what's been done before.

[Rachael Blackthorne]

Instead of reducing the number of Baronies due to an ongoing trend of title retirements for various reasons, why not utilize the current Rules As Written clause that covers such an event, namely this:

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.

Emphasis mine.

Why not do an event that promotes activity by having duelers work to earn those vacant baronies over say a two-week timespan? This would ensure that the Baronies do not stay vacant too long and would also demonstrate that players who actually want the titles are willing to work for them.

Referring to another point of discussion, if elements are needed to be introduced to increase general activity in Duel of Swords, I humbly request that the Dueling Houses from recent years be reinstated. The Houses inspired dueling activity and roleplay all around for those players who wished to utilize them.

[PC]

With Dueling Houses being mentioned I have to bring this up. Dueling Houses saw less and less participation as time went on. This is the major reason why I ended it.

I'm glad players enjoyed it, but it seemed only a very select few actually participated in it toward the end.

[Alasdair Galloway]

We are working on putting the Baronies back into play and will make an announcement on that shortly. At this time we don't know if we'll have two or three vacancies, but regardless on if we move forward with reducing the baronies, we will put the currently vacated titles back into play.

[Strawberry]

I'm not sure if the standings post holiday (historically a slow time) is the best one to pull from, especially to compare to standings from 18 and 24 years ago. I'd be interested to see what a more long term recent engagement rate is but that's more data than I've got the brain goo to go through. Just the same, over the same data frame time I had before, we had 33 unique title holders and 41 unique challengers across 82 baronial challenges (characters not players since I don't know all alts). Massive overlap obviously between the title holders and challengers due to, ya know, winners of challenges becoming title holders. Many of these people are either still in the game, current title holders, etc. But some are not. How do we get those that are no longer in it to come back? How do we get new faces (like the Jacksons and the Miras) in?

Long of the short, rather than it being about what number of baronies is good, I think the real question we should be asking is: What are we trying to solve by adjusting the number of titles?

We've said it is unrelated to vacancies and after showing comparable vacancy rates between DoS and DoF (which has the target 5 titles), that seems like a non-issue. We've talked about having less active duelists and recent posts are in comparison to community numbers the better part of a generation ago, but we've shown the present, recent challenge rate is above DoF's, so there's no way to know if reduction of titles will result in spreading displaced challenges across the remaining titles or if it will result in a net negative of challenges for DoS as a whole. It could result in as few as 25 baronial challenges a year or less or as many as 60+ baronial challenges a year as compared to 50 last year. Range for low end based on current challenge rate of about 5 challenges per year. High end based on challenge potential per loyalty rules (loyals can only be challenged once a month unless they waive grace, making a loyal barony able to accommodate approximately 12 challenges per year, to account for renegades or grace waiving, the numbers go up from there). Something of note though that I really hope gets some attention, even on the current standings, the 30 active eligible WLs have a potential of 240 challenge rights per year (2 per cycle, 4 cycles per year). Why are they not being used, how do we increase usage, and is the number of titles really a help or a hindrance to title desirability?

If we want to shut out x number of baronies for a test period (or semi-permanently) to see, then it's worth a try. But, I really hope that we also have discussion and work toward the community aspects because having 5, 10, or 50 challengable titles won't matter if there is a mismatch between the community and the level of engagement desired.

[PC]

Looking at it from the other side. I suppose I do have some worries for reduction. If we saw a spike in challenge interest we'd see a time lock issue, even more so if Barons are by large Loyal. Being able to defend and then sit for the remainder of the month while others are then forced to wait for their opening. This could very well kill interest in wants to participate if there is a long wait time. With current set up there are more opportunities.

Each sport usually has their own niche that makes them different from one another. Duel of Swords titles are more accessible in this case... It's something I'm going to have to think on more.

[PrlUnicorn]

Achievements would not go away. They may change, but they would still be there. The settings will remain. I have no interest in taking away things, but I do have interest in introducing new elements that are built upon what's been done before.

I think you missed the point I was making about achievements.
For instance Coven Killer reads as such:
Coven Killer Defeat the Coordinator of each sport, and one of their staff, in the sport they oversee. (see staff list)

The way that reads is different as it used to name names. The point is that unless people are allowed to backtrack and count a win against G'nort (who was DoS coordinator when achievements became a thing), Norah, Conner, etc. who were past coordinators the progress they made toward that achievement was reset when you became coordinator. That's not a dig on you, personally, that's just how the requirement has been understood. If that's not the case, something needs to change.

We are working on putting the Baronies back into play and will make an announcement on that shortly. At this time we don't know if we'll have two or three vacancies, but regardless on if we move forward with reducing the baronies, we will put the currently vacated titles back into play.

I look forward to seeing that notice.

[Delahada]

With Dueling Houses being mentioned I have to bring this up. Dueling Houses saw less and less participation as time went on. This is the major reason why I ended it.

I'm glad players enjoyed it, but it seemed only a very select few actually participated in it toward the end.

Regrettably, I missed my window of opportunity on participating in the Dueling Houses. When they were implemented, I was still getting used to Discord and didn't know how to use it with the same kind of ease that many of the rest of you did and still do. It was a hard adjustment for me. There is still a lot about it that I do not understand, but I figured out how to get back into dueling again and have been very happy with myself for (slowly) adapting to the change. I took my time observing to try to figure out how the Dueling Houses program even worked, and by the time I was ready to give it a try myself, you had ended it.

What are we trying to solve by adjusting the number of titles?

I have yet to see the answer to this question, and I would very much like to, as this is precisely why I am adamantly against the idea of reducing the number of baronies. It remains my opinion that there is no problem with the sport as it is right now. There is no deficiency. Nothing is broken that needs to be fixed. Or at least I do not feel it is the number of baronies that is the primary issue. So far all I have seen is the suggestion of taking something away from the community, without any sort of proposal of what will be given to the community to enhance our experience as an alternative in exchange. This proposal as it stands now feels like a punishment for a perceived flaw that I just do not see. When has a negative reinforcement ever worked as a positive incentive?

Removing the number of choices from the pool I think will diminish interest, and add even more unnecessary stress to our player base. I was only Overlord for four months, but I remember being stressed as hell at the two ARTs my reign ran through. I was anxious about who was going to win it and wind up with the Overlord Challenge Grant, and how soon they were going to use it to challenge me, and whether or not I was going to be able to defend against them. Being constantly challenged like I was as a Renegade baron the two times I held Seaside and one time I held Old Market was exhausting, and I really feel for Hope knowing how tired they must have been by the time they were done holding OL with ten defenses under their belt! I was actually surprised they accepted Seaside and kept playing the game! I know I'm ready to take a break, but I think after my 14 days are up I'll be ready to jump back in to try for something new, provided anything available meets my own personal criteria of interest. Especially from an IC perspective.

Something of note though that I really hope gets some attention, even on the current standings, the 30 active eligible WLs have a potential of 240 challenge rights per year (2 per cycle, 4 cycles per year). Why are they not being used, how do we increase usage, and is the number of titles really a help or a hindrance to title desirability?

I still do not understand why there is this push to get people to use their challenge rights. Just because they have them does not mean they have to use them, and nor should they be made to feel guilty for choosing not to use them. Is it really harming the game any when there are periods of peace and titles are not being challenged for? Can't we just enjoy some leisurely dueling on the side every now and then without there having to be a push to take titles away from the people who are currently holding them? And if people are actually tired of holding their titles, then I feel there should be more encouragement to present opportunities for others to earn them from them, such as when Renegade barons promote a challenge queue so that they can retire knowing someone else is going to get the chance to enjoy the barony. Retiring them and leaving them vacant I feel is the bigger issue, more so than the number of baronies.

I feel the current number of baronies allows title-holders some breathing room. Why are we putting a rush on challenges? Why the push to get people to challenge ASAP and to keep people from holding their baronies for too long? What is "too long" anyway? Why can't we allow people to enjoy the things they earn for a little while before trying to take it away from them?

We just don't have the playerbase to support the number of titles up for grabs.

I respectfully disagree. I think we do, but do not think we are providing enough opportunities nor interest for the player base to engage in the title-holding process. I would like to see less holding onto vacant baronies until the next ART (which in this case would be two and a half months away!) and more presenting an opportunity for acquisition as soon as they are retired. (Unless, as PC has done, the barony in question is retired within a week of the next ART.) Better yet, I would like to not see any baronies being retired at all, but understand that's a big ask. Still, offering immediate opportunities for retired baronies to be earned, I think, would keep them from sitting around vacant and inaccessible. I'm not even suggesting an immediate single night tournament. Perhaps they could be rewarded due to any other criteria the DoS staff seems fit. A week or two week long activity tournament like DoF did for PathFinder could be an option. I'm certain the multitude of creative minds in this community can come up with viable alternatives to the standard single or double elimination one night tournament.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

Strawberry wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 12:26 am
What are we trying to solve by adjusting the number of titles?
I have yet to see the answer to this question, and I would very much like to, as...

While I can't speak to this, because I don't know.. I do want to ask a question to those who are adamant about leaving the status quo.
Why?

From my stand point, it seems that the answer is "because it isn't broke". But that too doesn't really answer the question. I understand that there is no need to change, just for the sake of change. But also, why so adamantly against a topic to inquire and question?

What if the story and reasoning for it was for something not just for the reduction of rings, but to also bring something else back? To bring back a part of history of the DoS legacy that was lost? I have thoughts on this but won't express them now because this conversational post hasn't come to a conclusion . Also, that is a separate topic and conversation that I would need to talk with with the higher ups. Something that caught my mind when this conversation started.

Removing the number of choices from the pool I think will diminish interest, and add even more unnecessary stress to our player base.

I can't say I see this, and I'm not sure how it would stress the player base (other than perhaps the current Baron's).
There has already been a diminished interested, as attested by the vacancy's, at least from my perspective. And yes, I agree and understand the want that has been expressed about putting those vacated rings back into play as soon as possible, but let me ask this... what would happen if only one or two enter because they have real interest, and the others who might enter are there just for the fun of the tourney (or whatever is chosen to bring that/those rings back into play), and one of those who were only there for the fun ended up winning? Then we have someone who won it who really doesn't have a desire for it, and we *might* get stuck in this same loop. Now, I'm not saying it will happen, but just throwing out a hypothetical.

I would like to see less holding onto vacant baronies until the next ART (which in this case would be two and a half months away!) and more presenting an opportunity for acquisition as soon as they are retired.

I do know that this has been questioned and most times the answer has to do with how close the ART is. With the current situation, I believe the results of tonight's challenge will help dictate a few things... being if there are going to be 3 vacant rings or 2. So, stay tuned for that.



Now, on the flip side of this conversation.. in a way, we have already been playing with a reduced amount of rings because of the vacancy's. But I can't see that it has changed the number of people who have challenged for rings. This brings me to question Why again. Is it because the current player base isn't really Title driven? Is there something the player base would like to see in order to go after those Titles? How can we make those Titles more desirable so that there *may be* more challenges and we don't see vacancies like we have?

Thoughts?

[Delahada]

What if the story...

Show me the valid and interesting story that justifies this decision and I might change my mind. Simply stating "we want to reduce the number of baronies" because it is your opinion that not enough people are challenging for them with enough frequency does not convince me.

...what would happen if only one or two enter because they have real interest, and the others who might enter are there just for the fun of the tourney (or whatever is chosen to bring that/those rings back into play), and one of those who were only there for the fun ended up winning? Then we have someone who won it who really doesn't have a desire for it, and we *might* get stuck in this same loop. Now, I'm not saying it will happen, but just throwing out a hypothetical.

Then is your goal of activity not met anyway? Someone is showing interest. Who cares if it's only one or two people? If the person who really wanted it doesn't win it, then they can challenge for it at their earliest opportunity! And since the stress is on pushing people to challenge for titles, well... there you go. Goal met. Again, I do not see the number of baronies being the issue here.

Now, on the flip side of this conversation.. in a way, we have already been playing with a reduced amount of rings because of the vacancy's. But I can't see that it has changed the number of people who have challenged for rings.

Three people just very recently challenged for New Haven and started a Renegade baron challenge queue. Those three people could have chosen to challenge anyone else, except for the three vacant baronies because there's no one to challenge them for. I just very recently was challenged for Overlord and lost it, leaving me in the 14 days between limbo, so it can't be me. What's the rush?

It's my belief that most of the big players are just plain tired. I can't say that I blame them, especially with this continued reinforced push for challenges. Pressure, pressure, pressure. All I keep seeing being argued here is a need to make people challenge. Make them use their challenge rights. Make them be interested. If there's anything I know about human nature it's that the more you try to force (or make) people to do anything, the more inclined they are going to be to rebel, say no thank you, and go find something better to do.

Again, why is there such a huge push for this? What harm is there in there not being any challenges at all? Does it actually hurt anything if Matt Simon holds onto Old Market for 1200 days without challenge?


---

Edited to add: I have noticed that there is also the implication being pushed here that challenging for titles should be the ultimate end goal of every duelist, and that those who choose not to challenge for titles, for whatever reason, are somehow doing it wrong, which I think is also a concept that greatly diminishes interest in participation. Instead of asking what we can do to encourage people to use their challenge rights once they reach the rank of Warlord, why not ask why we feel it's necessary to push the same goal and agenda on everyone who duels? Why must every eligible character challenge for a title at all? If using the challenge rights is so important, then perhaps offer a Warlord the ability to give away their challenge rights to someone more power hungry and motivated to challenge for a title so they don't go unused. Though I do not see any harm in them being unused. To me it's no different than having $20 sitting around in a drawer somewhere that never gets spent. There's no harm in not spending it.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

Then is your goal of activity not met anyway? Someone is showing interest. Who cares if it's only one or two people? If the person who really wanted it doesn't win it, then they can challenge for it at their earliest opportunity! And since the stress is on pushing people to challenge for titles, well... there you go. Goal met. Again, I do not see the number of baronies being the issue here.

I think the point of my question was missed, but that's ok
If we are going for just activity, then yes, who cares how many baronies we have? 1 or 100... if we are only look at activity within the rings, then the number of Baronial rings shouldn't matter.

To go on to the second quote.. I'm not going to quote it here because well... I'm lazy
But, again, I think the point was missed. It could be me because I suck at this.
What I'm saying is, (and I'm agreeing with yall's comments. I'm flipping sides here. I can do that. Tass has issues with multiple personalities, why can't I? ) we have already been seeing a reduction of the rings because there have been vacancy's. And to prove yalls point, there have not been any additional challenges to those rings still available to challenge. So why reduce them at all? To go back to the part of the quote you didn't get...

Why again. Is it because the current player base isn't really Title driven? Is there something the player base would like to see in order to go after those Titles? How can we make those Titles more desirable so that there *may be* more challenges and we don't see vacancies like we have?

These are questions I'd like to explore more. If the current player base isn't really Title driven, that's fine! But, if they are, or some of them are, how can we make the Titles more desirable?

[Alasdair Galloway]

It's my opinion that the number of Baronies is too high for the number of players we have in the game. Nearly 1 in 3 eligible players have titles.

I feel this devalues the titles and makes them less special to hold. So many available titles makes it easier to get one, and then when you have one, you don't have much incentive to be active as a title holder.

I'm not sure where you're seeing a push for challenges or to make people challenge. Could you give me an example of this? Given the numbers Karma posted, I think that reducing the rings might also reduce challenges, and the goal of this is not to push for more challenges.

The goal is to have the number of Baronies better reflect the active player base.

We have a lot of ideas that I'm excited for if we were to go through with this process, and Tass hinted at one. I don't want to go into detail because by no means has anything been decided upon, including if we will actually go forward with reducing the number of baronies, but I promise that reducing the titles does not equal out to taking things away, and would pay homage to DoS history.

Also, what I believe Tass is saying in regards to us already playing with reduced titles, is that in the past three cycles, we've had one vacant Barony for at least 4 weeks in each cycle. I believe the number is 14 weeks total. So for about 14 of 52 weeks, we've had at least one open title.