Reduction of Baronies - Discussion

[Partly Cloudy]

This thread is a lot to take in and I’m low on spoons, so forgive me if this is rambly and jumbled.

First, let me say that I’m not in favor of reducing the number of baronies and I’m glad that, at this time, it seems like there’s no plan to hold back Seaside and Old Temple (and potentially Dockside, depending upon what happens tonight). I’ve read and understand the reasoning behind the suggestion, but frankly, I don’t think generating scarcity is the right course of action here. Generally speaking, I don’t think taking options away from the player base (and characters) is going to encourage and inspire them. I suspect the opposite will be true and that it could reduce interest in Swords, overall. I believe this for multiple reasons.

For instance, not everyone is interested in being a baron for the sake of being a baron. Or put another way, for some, not just any barony will do. Some folks might only be attracted to one or two of the baronies. I’ll use my Gatito as an example here. At this time, his main interests are in Seaside (sentimental) and in New Haven (because of his business). If those baronies were removed, he'd have less interest in the titles, overall, and I’d have to work to find other reasons for him to challenge, if he was going to.

Also:

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.

I think this is a very real possibility. Furthermore, I think this situation would require a reevaluation and a possible rewrite of the challenge rules. I think you would probably have to reevaluate some of the perks of Loyalty because an Overlord with a wall full of Loyals would mean fewer people overall have opportunities, and those who do get the opportunities would be forced to wait longer. It stands to reason that when people are forced to wait and wait, they will find something else to do, and that probably means less interest across the timeline.

I also think you might have to add language regarding players not holding more than one title in Swords at any one time. I’m generally not a fan of adding more rules and regulations, but to keep things fair, I think this could become necessary. (To be clear, I do not currently have an issue with someone holding multiple titles across their alts. But if you reduce those titles, it then becomes a concern.)

And speaking of fairness, how exactly do you propose to reduce the baronies? Which ones stay and which ones go? Right now, every district in the city is represented, plus Cadentia. How would that change? Would there be one barony central to the city and four others for the points of the compass? Do you redraw the district lines to accommodate this? How does this affect the characters living in those districts? Honestly, this seems to have the potential to affect more than just DoS titles. Maybe that’s also a goal, for story reasons, but if it isn’t, it's something that should be considered.

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?

This is an important question and I think it deserves a lot of consideration. So does its companion: Is this solution worth the potential repercussions prompted by the means of its accomplishment?




Now, I want to double back to another important question from this thread:

If politics aren’t what people are vibing, what can we do to make DoS shinier?

I’ve been mulling this over pretty intently for the past day or so. Frankly, I don’t think the political angle is a draw for many people at this point in time, and I’m basing that on the general feeling that has surrounded recent challenges. I’ve been seeing some IC support and preference for friendly challenges. Early last year, we saw a rash of politically-motivated challenges that, while thrilling, seemed to exhaust the community. It may just be that we’re still rebounding from that and will soon return to our regularly-scheduled conflicts, or it may be that more people are seeing RP as a refuge from the ugliness of real life and are therefore less tolerant of the political strife. Either way, at this time, it seems like people are hungry for other things.

Personally, I would like to see some events that promote DoS without being challenge-oriented. I realize that the titles are the top of this sport and are the main reason some of us are here, but I don’t think everyone necessarily has those ambitions. Some people just want to have fun and dueling provides story opportunities and a chance to gamify their RP.

I would really like to see DoS implement some quests and events similar to DoM’s Arcana Trial and Farewell Summer. I can’t speak for anyone else, but these events helped get my characters involved in dueling Magic. They’re low-pressure IC and OOC, allowing players to go at their own pace and participate even if their characters don’t (currently) have ambitions of holding a Tower. The prizes have been fun and creative, without requiring further commitment from players (as is the case with grants). Also, who doesn’t love achievements and icons for their profile?

Another good example of this sort of quest happened during last year’s Tri-Sport event. The entire event was incredible and it’s had lingering effects on my characters, but the part that really got me involved was DoF’s portion. The quest to collect those shards got me dueling almost every night and it led me to make myself available to help other people reach their goals, too. It fostered a sense of cooperation amongst players and characters that I really enjoyed. That the event tied into the mythology of the Opals without being focused upon challenging for them was also excellent—and ironically, it was this aspect that later gave me an IC reason for Gatito to challenge for MoonBeryl. Without it, he might not have done so. (It might give him the incentive to challenge for a Tower someday, too, but even if it doesn’t, he still uses the relic he imbued with those shards when he duels Magic, and sometimes when he duels Swords.)

I feel like I’m rambling a little, so let me try to cut to the heart of what I’m trying to say here: these events promote activity in the sports without focusing upon the titles, and I think that helps appeal to a broader range of characters and players, giving them more ways to get involved.

I would also like to see some boss battles like those that bookended the Tri-Sport event. Those were a lot of fun and engaged people in the sports without focusing upon their respective titles. I know they must be absolutely brutal to run, though, and I understand why those events, and those like what I mentioned above, are rare. I think they add a lot when they happen, though. (And if no one has said it lately, thank you, thank you, thank you to every staff member involved in making those happen.)

Rachael mentioned the Dueling Houses earlier in the thread. Those were before my time, but hearing about them is exciting. I understand why they were discontinued, but should they ever be revived, I’m in.

Also, I want to give a shout-out to Barons who use their baronies to host their own events, such as Yuzuki’s Sailing In The Desert, Karma’s current Meswen Saplings For Sale, and Salvador’s Seaside Mermaid Celebration. I know not everyone has the energy and time to set up events like these, but I think they add a lot to the overall culture of the community, provide story opportunities, and provide a good example for those of us who might be unsure what to do with titles once we have them. The folks who write up more personal stories for the titles are also amazing and I love those contributions, too.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

Right now, every district in the city is represented, plus Cadentia. How would that change? Would there be one barony central to the city and four others for the points of the compass? Do you redraw the district lines to accommodate this? How does this affect the characters living in those districts? Honestly, this seems to have the potential to affect more than just DoS titles. Maybe that’s also a goal, for story reasons, but if it isn’t, it's something that should be considered.

The only thing I want to address is this above. I've seen it mentioned a few times.

I do not believe the idea of removing the Districts themselves is even a thought in any of this process. The districts are just that.. districts. The baronies were attached to them, but that does not mean that they always have to be (speaking for unknowns in the future). So, characters living/working in those districts would not be affected, nor would the places within those districts. There would be no redrawing of the map (cause who wants to do that? That's a major pain in the ass!).

How would we (as a community) go about it? I'm not sure. That would be a different discussion at a different time, I think.

[Delahada]

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

Opinions are not facts, and I disagree with you. The numbers Karma presented disagree with you as well. The numbers you presented, have not convinced me that there is a need for change.

---

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?

I'll give you three direct quotes that imply a push for more challenges.

...if nobody is getting actively involved or stirring the pot, the title game tends to stagnate.

...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.

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?

This is a concept I have seen consistently brought up in other threads and discussions. There is an overall opinion that there is not enough interest in the title game, that we need to be trying to encourage more people to use their challenge rights, and/or to rank up high enough to become Warlords themselves so that they, too, can get engaged in the title game. That seems to be what this entire discussion is all about. You seem to think that if there are less titles then more people will be challenging for those titles. What is the point, or the goal of reducing the number of titles if not to try to increase activity and therefore the number of challenges? And furthermore, do you really think that having less baronies is going to discourage people from retiring them so that they don't sit vacant like the three we have sitting vacant now? Without stricter penalties created to discourage the retirement of titles, I highly doubt that.


---

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

Why? Why is having 8 baronies actually a bad thing? I do not see a need to reduce them to 4 or 5. So what if the percentage is 30% instead of 15%? What actual harm is happening with DoS having more titles than the other sports? Again, I do not feel the number of baronies is the actual problem.

---

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.

Great! You have ideas. I would love to hear more about them. As I said above, perhaps the details would convince me to find this idea of reducing the number of baronies more favorable and fun. Get us as excited about your ideas as you are and there probably won't be so much adamant push back against the concept.

---

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.

We have vacant baronies because people keep retiring them without consequence, and then nothing is done with them. They are allowed to sit vacant, held on reserve to be used as prizes for All Ranks Tournaments, instead of offering them to eligible duelists in some other way. A special additional tournament as suggested by the Rules As Written is one option. I also suggested a week long activity event with a reward to the highest performing duelist per the scores criteria. I'm certain there are other ideas, but letting them be discarded so frequently and sit vacant for any length of time is the sole reason why you have the numbers that you do.

---

I think the point of my question was missed, but that's ok

I don't think the point of your question was missed any more than the points of my questions were missed. I think that you and I are simply answering questions with questions instead of providing solutions. There are far too many What Ifs in this discussion.

[PC]

I would also like to see some boss battles like those that bookended the Tri-Sport event. Those were a lot of fun and engaged people in the sports without focusing upon their respective titles. I know they must be absolutely brutal to run, though, and I understand why those events, and those like what I mentioned above, are rare. I think they add a lot when they happen, though. (And if no one has said it lately, thank you, thank you, thank you to every staff member involved in making those happen.)

While off topic I would like to say thank you. I've enjoyed running the Boss Battles. Figuring out their special abilities, trying to get everyone in the fight involved and allowing for spotlight moments, and the fun I see everyone having makes it a nice experience to run.

I understand some might like to see it more often, but I believe their scarcity makes them more valuable (and running them can be exhausting). As the Boss Battles (at least in this format) are my baby, I'd rather them not become an oversaturated event.

I'll most likely be looking to do a couple during this year so please look forward to it.

[PrlUnicorn]

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.

Agreed. This plan to reduce titles seems very short sighted to me.

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.

I, too, have yet to see an actual answer to that question. I'm not overly resistant to change and compromise. I am, however, very resistant to what amounts to take or leave it and do it because Mommy said so. Rhydin.org and RoD exist because of situations like that. It's not unreasonable for players to ask what is being given in return for what's being taken away. Make no mistake about it, reducing the titles does take something away. Keep in mind that when the forum divided players were told there would be a certain level of transparency with regard to the workings of how things were going to be run. Wouldn’t giving us some kind of preview into the ideas mentioned come under that?

If the titles go and the manor settings no longer have a baron as custodian, the odds are those settings will no longer actively be used despite being a physical structure in the city.

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?

viewtopic.php?p=205389#p205389
Alasdair asked for opinions and they are being given. When someone opens a conversation like this, they should be prepared for dissenting opinions.

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.

If we're taking that route, given the history of the lost rings, things should have hit the fan when the 7th, now Cadentia, was found after being taken into the rift to bolster the Ward of Gondar. The original Cadentia setting was more of an American Wild West one, so it is possible that changing of that to more of an Arabian Nights theme is part of the havoc caused.

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.

and

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.

We have vacant baronies because people keep retiring them without consequence, and then nothing is done with them. They are allowed to sit vacant, held on reserve to be used as prizes for All Ranks Tournaments, instead of offering them to eligible duelists in some other way. A special additional tournament as suggested by the Rules As Written is one option. I also suggested a week long activity event with a reward to the highest performing duelist per the scores criteria. I'm certain there are other ideas, but letting them be discarded so frequently and sit vacant for any length of time is the sole reason why you have the numbers that you do.

Adding to Sal’s comments:

People retire rings for a lot of reasons. No matter what they are, whose fault is it that the retired rings were out of circulation for extended periods of time? Players do not control that. That's a responsibility that is incumbent on the DoS management team. There was no reason to wait to hold special tournaments other than no one wanting to run them. I get that, those events are draining on those running them and those participating in them. Blame shouldn't be laid on the players for that ball being dropped when there were other possibilities like the Warlord (including anyone gaining Warlord over the course of the event) who had the most wins in a month being used as a passive tournament. Whether or not the intention was to lay blame on someone, that's how it comes across to me. Maybe another possibility of requests being made to face a champion for those retired rings instead of letting them stay vacant.

By purposefully keeping the titles out of play as you stated, emphasis mine, it just supports what I said. If you take something away and hide it then it cannot be used, that's not the fault of those that cannot use it. It's on par with a parent hiding something from their kids, be it a toy or food item, then saying there's no need to keep the toy because it wasn't played with or no need to buy more of the food item because it didn't get eaten.

The subject of stress has been brought up. Given some of the recent things I've seen in play and on the boards regarding challenges, I can't help but wonder how many players retired titles or didn't challenge due to burn out and/or not wanting to be pulled into someone else's SL.

[PC]

As I am being quoted I wanted to add. While it is a worry — I am sure that through any future conversation into the matter, should a reduction happen, checks and balances can be made to mend possible issues.

I have faith that care would be put into the process.

[Hope]

As a bit of a place holder I just want to say that as someone who does not feel very strongly on the topic, it is a little hard to follow with the various quote posts going back and forth. I think the discourse is on target but I also think it might be easier if we kept things a bit... simple too.

[Delahada]

Keeping in line with my opinion that the real issue here isn’t the number of baronies so much as the frequency in which they are retired, and then left to hang in limbo until the DoS staff figures out what to do with them, and related to Karma's earlier question about how to get Warlords to use their challenge rights, I had an idea this morning.

What if we allowed Warlords to challenge for vacant baronies, as soon as they are retired and for as long as they remain vacant? We could treat them as both Renegade and Forfeit, ensuring there is no grace period between challenges and engaging the Baron’s Council to elect a champion(s) to defend the title. This would effectively keep them in circulation and should allow for a quicker turnaround, as opposed to waiting for the baronies to be offered in special tournaments or ARTs.

[PC]

An interesting idea though it should be noted that tournaments with title prizes usually garner more attention from the community compared to those without, as well as chances for non-tournament events allowing for regulation increases should they be multi-week events. But it could be fun during periods of rapid challenges.

As for usage of challenge rights.. perhaps expanding their purpose could work. Allowing a challenge right to break a grace period (A Warlord using 2 challenge rights to challenge for a Barony instead of 1), or increasing the maximum of challenge rights able to be held to 3 but keeping cycle reset of 2 per cycle without rollover and making a grace break require 2 challenge rights along with the single (1) right to issue the challenge.

This would create the carrot on the stick that requires regulation to gain that third challenge right as well as allowing the Warlord an option to break into the challenge game. Anyone can gain lost challenge rights by dueling in regulation currently: To regain Challenge Rights a Warlord must duel in regulation Duel of Swords matches. For every five (5) duels won a Challenge Right will be awarded to the duelist.

This could at least act as a counter should a reduction happen.

[Goldglo]

What if we allowed Warlords to challenge for vacant baronies, as soon as they are retired and for as long as they remain vacant? We could treat them as both Renegade and Forfeit, ensuring there is no grace period between challenges and engaging the Baron’s Council to elect a champion(s) to defend the title. This would effectively keep them in circulation and should allow for a quicker turnaround, as opposed to waiting for the baronies to be offered in special tournaments or ARTs.

I like this idea.

--Matt

[Partly Cloudy]

I think the idea (treating vacancies as mentioned above) and the present truth (that tournaments with a title on offer garner more participation) can coexist. Perhaps vacant baronies can be treated as Renegade and Forfeit up until 2-3 weeks before an ART. Provide that cut-off so if no one has yet been able to claim it, it can be offered as a prize in the tournament.

While I have always enjoyed seeing titles offered in tournaments and non-tournament events, I think Sal’s idea has merit. Basically, it’s an immediate contingency plan that activates without adding more work for staff members. It keeps the titles effectively in circulation and shouldn’t impact challenge numbers negatively. It also has the added benefit of engaging the Baron’s Council and allowing certain things to be decided IC. Sort of a win-win, yes?


Tass: I agree that redrawing the districts and whatnot would be a major pain in the ass. That was sort of my point! I think the IC work necessary to support a possible reduction needs to be considered upfront because it will likely be significant.

PC: I am absolutely looking forward to the next boss battle you set up for us. Can’t wait!

[PrlUnicorn]

I like it, Sal, goes along with this: Maybe another possibility of requests being made to face a champion for those retired rings instead of letting them stay vacant.

[PC]

While the district ties to the Baronies are nice I doubt there should be any worry of any changes to the map and established non-dueling lore since Duel of Swords is an addon and the map, along with the setting of RhyDin itself, is far beyond it. There are those with zero interest in dueling and I don't believe the city should be changed in any way to reflect a sport decision (outside of established dueling local).

The Barons have no real power over the districts beyond being sports figures. The concept of rooting for your home district, like any real sport rooting for their home team, is nice; but a sport district can encompass more than what the districts on the map are.

Cadentia being the oddball and not part of the city is true. But I think of it more like just another city getting a football team. Cadentia (the setting) was and is still in a way untouched by much of the community and by shining a light on it, along with other places, there was an attempt at creating expanded play experiences.

[Partly Cloudy]

While I get what you’re saying and understand that there is no expressed power or responsibility granted to barons upon winning their baronies, beyond that of being a sports figure, I’m not sure it’s quite that simple in application. Since I’ve been dueling, I’ve seen many instances of characters conferring with their local barons about the businesses they’re installing in their respective parts of the city. I’ve also seen instances of people challenging for certain baronies to gain control of those sectors. Dockside, in particular, is one that is treated thus, with barons gaining control over the city’s underbelly and imports/exports. These are all personal SLs and not regulation, by any means, but it all builds into the narrative we all share. IC, certain barons/baronies have more power than others.

I was not around during Harris’ time, but I think his Blackest Night SL would be another concrete example of this.

And while I also understand that the baronies weren’t always tied to the city districts, they are now and to change that will send ripples through the aforementioned shared narrative.

[PC]

And due to that it has created a narrative that the Barons have more influence then what is afforded to them officially from the Duel of Swords position. While I understand there are those who enjoy the concept, there are also those who dislike that dueling is - in a way - being forced upon them on an overall level. In the past there were major conflicts between the Dueling community and Non-Dueling community due to this and I am sure there are still some who dislike the idea.

The Blackest Night, from an official Duel of Swords standpoint at the time ( seen here: viewtopic.php?p=192801#p192801 ) , was seen as a private citizen pushing their influence onto others and that the Barony itself held no power or right to do so, and any and all grievances made toward the sport would be ignored. For the Dockside example they are allowed the usage of a warehouse as their Manor and that it is certain players who have deemed that it is more.

While players can do what they like I only hope that official parties show that there is indeed a difference; to tell those who may not wish to participate that they are not wrong in their understanding of the Barons influence.