Overlord Benefits poll

[G]

I'm ignoring the "one or the other" declaration with this discussion. It's already been proven that people are going to do what they want to regardless of how much logic is behind the other ideas. I'm debating this all for my own entertainment.

So we can just disregard your obvious attempts at trolling. Gotcha,

[Teagan]

You were the one that jumped into a discussion of the possibilities just to make sure everyone knew it was your way or no way.

Not trolling at all. Discussing. Discussions entertain me. Sorry. And from the looks of it my opinion isn't exactly the minority.

I didn't really form a posse or anything, I just stated my opinion and more people jumped in. Sorry for that also. Opinions are out this year, I guess.

[G]

OL is considered the Supreme duelist in DoS.

Overlord gets right now:
6 fancies.
Overlord Grant, which can be used to attempt removal of Renegade Baron.
Loyal Baron Intercession rights.
Ability to test challengers via champion.
Ability to not be challenged via Loyal Wall.
Grace Period for 2 weeks before WLT.

Probably missing one or two more. But the Overlord does not Need More. There is no logic in that.

[Teagan]

Squires aren't the Overlord's benefit. They're low ranks benefits.

[G]

Then the Overlord doesn't need squires since the 7 Barons can have them.

[Kalamere]

You forgot to mention it takes 15 SoA to challenge for OL and only 10 to challenge a Baron.

That said, is this really a question of whether or not the OL needs another perk? If we're talking need in the sense of titles, the only way I can really think to look at it is if the benefits of one title are encouraging people to seek it at the detriment to other titles. In the case of OL vs. Barons, I don't believe that to be the case. SoA challenges to the OL are actually quite rare if I'm recalling the last tally correctly. Realistically I think you should be looking more closely at how you are defining need in this case and what it is you want to accomplish / or keep from happening, by making a change one way or the other (or preventing a change from happening).

I don't believe the right to have a squire is going to be some super perk that makes someone want to go after the title. I also don't believe that lack of a squire is going to prevent someone from challenging it. There's no compelling reason that dictates the OL have a squire. The only reasons I see in favor of it are (a) DoS has the smallest mentor type program of the sports. It would be nice to widen that if only by 1. And, (b) It does seem kinda silly that the 7 subordinate titles get squires, but the supreme swords duelist does not.

Based on that I'd like to see the OL have A squire (Not 2. Just 1), but I'm not willing to give up the OL's challenge grant to see that happen, as I think the flavor add from the latter outweighs the former.

[Morgan le Fay]

6 fancies.
Loyal Baron Intercession rights.
Grace Period for 2 weeks before WLT.

• Item one, only against other barons/warlords.
• Item two, that is, unless Duel Coordinator decides to circumvent the rules and hand out intercession free challenge grants. We're up to six (?) so far this year? Six in eight months I think is excessive. Six out of how many baron challenges? How many more do you plan to hand out, G?
• Item three, that's not an OL perk, that's giving challenge priority to the WLT winner.

You accuse Teagan of trolling. I think people making up arguments to get rid of the challenge grant in exchange for two squires are disingenuous, biased, and trolling. Especially on the heels of complaining about how complex/hard intercessions/tests/the rules are.

As the Overlord, already feeling hamstrung by five/six challenges I couldn't intercede on in only a little over four months' time, so that "perk" is way nerfed, the OL grant is even more powerful and strategic.

We all know you and your crew don't like intercessions, G. Otherwise, why all this attention toward those who want to dumb down DOS every other month or so?

BTW, current rules state that when a warlord wins a baronial challenge, they have to declare alignment upon winning the barony. Only when there's a new overlord do barons have a week to declare alignment. Maybe we should take time to refresh our memories on the rules as they stand now before we start tinkering/nerfing them further.

Each Baron shall receive a ring as a symbol of their station and are considered equal in title.
Barons can either be aligned with the Overlord or not and respectively titled Loyal or Renegade.
New Barons must proclaim their alignment upon accepting the ring. If not it is at the discretion of the Overlord.
When an Overlord is dethroned all Barons must declare alignment within one week, to the Standings Keeper, or their alignment is set by the new Overlord.
When a Baron is unseated they are placed in the ranks, from commoner to Warlord, based on their current record.
Should a Baron retire, the vacancy is placed as a prize in the next scheduled Warlord's Tournament. If the Baron is under challenge, then the matter is sent to the Baronial Council, who will decide the fate of the title.
May choose to fight a challenge in a Best of Three format. The Challenger may NOT refuse the Best of Three format offered by a Baron. However, if the Overlord interceeds on behalf of a Loyal Baron, the Best of Three format may not be used.

[Kalamere]

Hold on now, let's not air every grievance from the last year. I don't think that's necessary. Even if the full list is 100% accurate, I think we can still agree that the Overlord enjoys more positional perks than do the Barons. Loyal or Renegade. It's a hard case to say that's not true and, honestly, with OL being THE top challengable title, it's going to be sought after even if it isn't.

I think the question of "need" could use some exploration though and what it is you're specifically trying to accomplish, or prevent. Do you think the title is challenged too much as it is? Not enough? What's the overall goal of giving the perks to the OL in the first place? I would think it is to make the title more valuable than those beneath it (the barons) and to make it worth being sought after. I don't know that I'm looking at it from the same stance as others though. G specifically.

[Morgan le Fay]

I think posting all the things that have occurred in the past year that affect/hampered OL "perks" is absolutely germane to this particular discussion, since G is proposing taking away a true perk to the OL and replacing it with something that isn't very strategic, and thus not really a comparable perk.

Couching this either/or trade off as if it's adding another "need" is disingenuous. An OL grant is more powerful and useful to an Overlord than the Overlord having two squires. And I'm arguing that the OL grant is *now* even MORE powerful than it needs be since the other OL perks he listed are nerfed, such as circumventing the OL right to intercede by gifting intercession free challenge grants.

I pointed out that what G was listing as "perks" weren't actually the OL perks he thought they were. An OL, like the Diamond, can only use the full fancy usage against Barons and Warlords.

Also, the challenge grace is a perk for the WLT winner, NOT the OL. It's to boost the importance of the WLT, number one, and give the winner priority in challenging in a timely manner. It has a latent effect of making sure that the people entering the WLT know who the OL is and can gauge their prize selection (if there are more than one) accordingly, or drop out if they have no wish to challenge the sitting OL, if that is the only prize offered.

Now, if we truly want to have a discussion about adding (not trading or nerfing) perks to the OL, then yes, it becomes an argument about whether the title needs the additional perk or not in making it an attractive title to challenge for.

[G]

I think the question of "need" could use some exploration though and what it is you're specifically trying to accomplish, or prevent. Do you think the title is challenged too much as it is? Not enough? What's the overall goal of giving the perks to the OL in the first place? I would think it is to make the title more valuable than those beneath it (the barons) and to make it worth being sought after. I don't know that I'm looking at it from the same stance as others though. G specifically.

This is simply gauging interest. Mainly, I'm curious to the response.

It's one of the things that has come up in rules discussions. It had come up in the past that some people were thinking the OL should get Squires. So since I caught onto that a little late, I'm curious as to think of the player base responses.

This poll stemmed from this post in the achievements suggestion thread.

http://www.ringsofhonor.org/forums/view ... 255#158255

Since I had recalled over the years since Squires were introduced in 2010, there had been other questions about the Overlord getting a squire, as seen here. There have also been general questions to me over the years that predate many here. The last, detailed post from Collie in the achievement folder prompted me to see if there was interest in one or the other. I'm not inclined to add more to what the Overlord already gets, and am, in fact, someone who has used and likes the Overlord Grant.

I'm sure if I were to have posted a poll saying "Should the Overlord get a squire? Yes or No." I am sure that it would be a resounding 100% yes response. However, I think that we're fine with squires as they are, and that the Overlord doesn't need another benefit just because DoF and DoM top ranks have them, and with what the Overlord already gets, the title doesn't need anything additional. Honestly, I expected that the Grant would be voted most anyway and wanted to see what the player base wanted more.

I do not think the Overlord Title needs anything added to it.

[Morgan le Fay]

However, I think that we're fine with squires as they are, and that the Overlord doesn't need another benefit just because DoF and DoM top ranks have them

Agree, and especially not at the expense of losing what the OL currently has.

[Kheldar]

The OL's squire should be able to duel with four fancies like a warlord.

[insert something arguing against the idea].

While 4 fancies may be a little much, the general idea behind an OL squire getting a little something extra has merit. As Teagan said, the student of the supreme duelist should have a little bit of an advantage over other squires.

This is especially true if the OL loses the grant, especially since the OL has no benefit (other than stepping in/ToW stuff) otherwise. He/she can't even generally vote in council matters, unless there's a tie.

The squire fancy is dependent on using their specific barons special weapon (which have some kind of ability). This pretty much implies the bonus is intended to have something to do with the weapon and not necessarily any training the squire is receiving. Not to say there couldn't be additional training involved, just that it's not really the way the rule reads.

If you were to introduce a squire for the Overlord, giving someone more than one free mod seems pretty extreme. I think if you were to add OL squires and wanted to give them more than the current squires it would make more sense to give them something along the political/role playing line as opposed to a purely mechanical benefit, in my opinion.

P.S.
Has there been any thought to adding/moving that information to the official rule of rank page? Seems to make sense to consolidate them at some point.

[PrlUnicorn]

Five Days and the poll is closed already?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Squires have absolutely no more ability to affect a title or challenge than any other duelist does. Letting the OL have a squire or two doesn't make the title more powerful at all, so why can't they have their challenge grant for strategic use and a squire just because they're the OL?

Personally I don't even think that would be enough. The OL is the OL for a reason and they should have the best squire. The OL's squire should be able to duel with four fancies like a warlord. The student of the supreme duelist should have a step up on everyone else, after all.

and

Squires aren't the Overlord's benefit. They're low ranks benefits.

Having both would be nice. The Grant can benefit any duelist without a title. The Overlord could choose to train potential grant recipients or others whether or not they actually have a Squire.
The Squire titles last until Warlord is gained or until a title holder is dethroned, but as Teagan said it is a benefit for lower ranks not the Overlord.

The Overlord is the supreme duelist, however, that doesn't necessarily mean all of them are supreme teachers nor does it mean that any given Squire would be a spectacular student.

The Overlord's personal padawan should be called something else, if we're going to do it. Something significantly singular and special. Like... Knight.

That was suggested. http://www.ringsofhonor.org/forums/view ... 255#158255

P.S.
Has there been any thought to adding/moving that information to the official rule of rank page? Seems to make sense to consolidate them at some point.

That or a link to the info posted on the boards?

[G]

Five Days and the poll is closed already?

Five days was enough time for the voting.

[Chris Graziano]

Nostalgia cured after one thread.