Reduction of Baronies - Discussion

[Delahada]

To flesh out this idea, I have a question...
What if the Baron's Champion wins? What then?

Then it would go back into circulation, just as if a Renegade baron defended their title, opening it back up to the next challenger. Repeat until someone successfully acquires the title.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

Then it would go back into circulation, just as if a Renegade baron defended their title, opening it back up to the next challenger. Repeat until someone successfully acquires the title.

When would the community feel it would be a point that it needs to be removed from the Warlord/Council circulation and then set aside for a tourney (ART or something other)?

Again, I'm just trying to flesh out the idea and want ya'lls thoughts on this.

I not against the idea, but just want to see the thought process for it.

[PC]

Treat it like the Overlord tournament grace. 14 days before a tournament. The title then goes to ART.

[Partly Cloudy]

Then it would go back into circulation, just as if a Renegade baron defended their title, opening it back up to the next challenger. Repeat until someone successfully acquires the title.

When would the community feel it would be a point that it needs to be removed from the Warlord/Council circulation and then set aside for a tourney (ART or something other)?

Again, I’m just trying to flesh out the idea and want ya’lls thoughts on this.

I not against the idea, but just want to see the thought process for it.

This was my suggestion from earlier in the thread:

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?

[Delahada]

Treat it like the Overlord tournament grace. 14 days before a tournament. The title then goes to ART.

[PC]

There could also be a clause to allow the Barons Council, should they vote in favor, to run a tournament so long as there are no outstanding challenges to the vacant title, it's fair by some sort of Duel of Swords criteria (example: no invite only tourny to select few fighters, etc compared to first come first serve. One isn't fair while the other allows for anyone to jump in a queue.), and given the OK by Duel of Swords staff.

This could incentivize the Duel of Swords community to run events and allow some weight to be taken off staff shoulders.

Edit to add: Of course there should be a time stipulation so that strategic tournament creation couldn't be used to lock a title. Maybe X days since challenge, beginning a Sunday after the vacant titles last challenge was officially recognized on standings.

[PrlUnicorn]

I'd be interested in running or helping to run an event.

[Hope]

Someone make sure to jot down all the details for this because it sounds like it could deserve it's own thread too.

Had some time to think about the data presented by Alasdair, Berry and Kal today while at work and ultimately I just kind of said "yes". All of the information presented in this thread including a lot of the intangibles, the qualitative arguments, fit right in together. This is a sport that has far more titles than the other two with similar playerbase. Whether that's too much does seem to not be at a consensus, but I think the case was made for it.

The information about average title challenges definitely indicated a trend but it wasn't really until Kal shared the newer charts that that really got put into perspective. I think it's kind of bonkers that in 2013-2015 we see an identical shape of the graphs from then and now. But it's not really bonkers because both in 2013 and 2019 we saw an influx of awesome, incredible duelists .

What this kind of brings me to is the idea that these elements all do exist in our DoS eco-system and are in fact not mutually exclusive. DoS did just have a record-breaking year, it may have too many titles and it is on the upswing. But last year definitely can't be considered the norm given it was such a blatant anomaly. When I mentioned qualitative arguments above I meant a lot of the voiced concerns about player agency involving reducing the titles and their stories from contention as well as a few others. Since Alasdair has concurred that this would be not great, and has hinted that they have ideas and will think up more, that kind of puts me a bit at ease regarding that. I love Old Temple and have yet to get a chance to play into it. So the idea of never being able to do that would really upset me as a player. I'm super intrigued to see what happens next in all honesty. I don't expect a repeat of 2021 activity but I don't really think that should be expected. That was kind of my biggest takeaway; it was awesome, I'm glad I was here for it but I think the ideal goal for this chart would be a consistent rising current. Obviously that's easier said than done but the dips and dives are an awesome roller coaster

Quick ps: thank you guys for doing all the data gathering. Me likey numbers and graphs but me no likey gathering them

[Ebon Ilnaren]

This is, of course, looking only at characters - not players. I think with the no loss rules there are more people today with multiple warlords than there have been in the past, but there's really no way to be sure of that or to attempt to graph it.

FWIW, I counted at least 7 players in the current active Warlord/Baron/OL standings (updated last Sunday) that have at least 2 Warlords on the list. At least 2 of them (myself included) have 3 or more.

I'm not sure what sort of impact that has on the discussion or the numbers, but Kal's comment had me thinking about it.

[Alasdair Galloway]

When Karma posted the challenge numbers, I was thinking of a chicken and the egg situation - do we have so many titles because we have so many challenges, or do we have a lot of challenges because we have to many titles? With all the data, I'm leaning toward the latter.

It also makes me think that it might actually be too easy to challenge now. In the past we had peer wins and show of activity, and I'd never advocate for a return of peer wins, but maybe a show of activity or another option? Something more RP motivated, such as a current Baron needing to back a non-grant challenge.

Food for thought, anyway, but a little off topic.

But that does make me think that a lower number of challenges isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sal mentioned burnout with challenges, and I know that one reason I myself stepped away from the title game was because I was always anxious regarding challenges and the stress was making it difficult to have fun. So if reducing titles made it a little bit harder to challenge, with some ways around that like grants or being able to use 2 grants to break grace, that may be a good thing.

[Delahada]

First of all, I'd like to thank Kalamere for those beautiful charts that show a phenomenally record-breaking year of challenges for DoS! That's amazing and I'm elated to have been a part of it! Like PC, I'm looking forward to 2022 giving us even more challenges with an increase of active duelists. I really hope to see more names come out of retirement to engage the community and join in the fun, as well as more legitimately new duelists joining in on the game.

Now. I'm a little confused here. I thought that initially the reason for the proposal to reduce the number of baronies was the misconception that there were not enough challenges happening to support the number of them. The graphs above have proven that wrong. If the goal is to ultimately reduce the number of challenges, for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend, then by all means reduce the number of baronies. I, personally, won't be happy about it. The very idea leaves me crestfallen and anxious, just waiting to see which baronies are going to get the cut and put out of circulation. Personally, I love every single one individually for the heart and soul of their setting descriptions, not to mention the abundance of story opportunities they provide. It will break my heart to see even a single one be put into storage, let alone a potential four!

However, I do agree that it is much easier now to challenge for a barony than it ever has been. It is my personal opinion that this is largely due to the fact that there was the implementation of the no-loss system. It is easier now for duelists to climb the ranks from Commoner to Warlord. A single ambitious duelist can achieve that in a single week if they truly put the work into it. A case for this can be seen in Week 8 of the Fall Cycle 2021 in which Mira Burke was listed as a Master at Arms with only 6 wins to her name. The very next week on the standings she achieved a rank increase to Warlord with a minimum number of 15 wins, having added 9 wins in no more than seven days! As soon as the standings were posted to reflect this advancement, and made valid, she then went on to post her very first challenge against Jackson Payne to try to acquire Dockisde. Though she did not win it from him then, I am happy to see that she did not give up, pressed challenge again when she as able, and as of tonight is officially the next Baron of Dockside!

I digress.

It has been my opinion for some time that it is too easy to climb to the rank of Warlord now than ever before. Mind you, I am not suggesting the return of the WoL system. There was nothing more discouraging in my time than having managed to climb up to a higher rank like Grand Master to then only have a very bad couple of weeks in which the losses cut me all the way back down to Commoner. I remember the running joke that Tass was the King of Commoners for this very reason. Holding onto rank was hard and could really crush a person's spirits. I do not want to see us return to that system any time soon. However, I have felt that perhaps we need to raise the cap on the number of wins required to achieve a rank. When we disposed of losses, we left the requirements the same, and people started to climb very fast. I think when a lot of people get to Warlord, they're done. They've accomplished their goal and don't see any reason to continue. Especially if they have no ambitions to hold baronies. Maybe if we bumped the requirement to achieve Warlord up to 25 total wins, that might make things more challenging. I would even suggest bumping Swordsman up from 2 to 5, and adjusting the other ranks accordingly.

With this suggestion I would also recommend allowing duelists to maintain their current ranks without penalty. If we were to bump the requirement for Warlord up from 15 to 25, then if someone only has 18 wins to their name, they get to stay Warlord. Though perhaps to encourage them to meet that 25 wins cap they would not be able to challenge until they do. Unless of course they have a grant.

I also feel that baronies are too easy to acquire by other means. Especially in the All Ranks Tournaments. DoS is different from the other sports in that it only offers a single tournament every cycle. DoF has the ART and the Diamond Quest, the latter of which limits the participants to the rank of Emerald and no lower. DoM has both its ART and the ArchMage Tournament, which likewise limits the participants to the rank of Mage and no lower. Personally, I feel that DoS should bring back the Talon of Redwin Tournament as a stand alone for the lower ranks only, but if we want to model DoS to be more uniform with the other sports then perhaps bring back the Warlord Tournament in addition to the ART. One or the other. In any case, I think DoS needs to stop offering vacant baronies to any person of any rank as incentive to get them to join and participate. It really takes away from the novelty of Warlords even having challenge rights, in my opinion. Why bother to challenge when we can just wait for someone to retire a barony and try to win it in the next ART, even as a Commoner?

On that note, I'm really very happy to see the update to the DoS rules on forfeitures, retirements, and vacancies! The cleaned up language looks perfect! Great job, DoS Team!

[PC]

I do not think personal feelings of burnout can be solved with reduction or any sort of change to how challenges work. Burnout will happen regardless and I do not believe players in the community at large should have their opportunities changed due to it. While I was on the fence about reduction, with a lean toward reduction, after seeing the replies in this thread and the wider data from Kalamere, I'd rather see the titles kept as they are.

As for easy accessibility to challenges. The introduction of challenge rights was due to low challenges from Warlords who could not take the time to gather SoA and instead allow an easier path with comparisons to Duel of Fists challenge-ability, though still limited with either 1 challenge to overlord for a cycle or 2 challenges to a baron (outside of possibly winning grants). At a base this is still limited compared to the other sports, which is why the addition of re-gaining challenge rights was added, though this is rarely used.

The title game seems healthy from what I have been shown and if the community at large, or at least those who can and do challenge, would rather it be kept the same then I see no reason why to change.

[PC]

It has been my opinion for some time that it is too easy to climb to the rank of Warlord now than ever before. Mind you, I am not suggesting the return of the WoL system. There was nothing more discouraging in my time than having managed to climb up to a higher rank like Grand Master to then only have a very bad couple of weeks in which the losses cut me all the way back down to Commoner. I remember the running joke that Tass was the King of Commoners for this very reason. Holding onto rank was hard and could really crush a person's spirits. I do not want to see us return to that system any time soon. However, I have felt that perhaps we need to raise the cap on the number of wins required to achieve a rank. When we disposed of losses, we left the requirements the same, and people started to climb very fast. I think when a lot of people get to Warlord, they're done. They've accomplished their goal and don't see any reason to continue. Especially if they have no ambitions to hold baronies. Maybe if we bumped the requirement to achieve Warlord up to 25 total wins, that might make things more challenging. I would even suggest bumping Swordsman up from 2 to 5, and adjusting the other ranks accordingly.

I'm wary of any sort of number increase to ranks because it does not solve the bigger problem and instead inflates the time gate to create artificial difficulty. If increased to 25 and a player has no ambition to hold a barony there is no change beyond added inflated regulation. 15, 25, 50, it is all a way to time gate and push activity through regulation (or tournaments that offer Wins).

We could very well remove ranks all together and replace it with Show of Activity instead for challenge requirements, as mods themselves are as much a carrot on a stick as the baronies are. We would still cycle back to this conversation though because there will always be a view of "This hasn't been earned correctly" or"Things are too easy". The concept of weekly resets back when Wins over Losses were still active (compared to cycle resets) had been pushed back against because some members of the community saw it as making things more easy, Wins-only saw some pushback because it was seen the same.

[Strawberry]

DoM has both its ART and the ArchMage Tournament, which likewise limits the participants to the rank of Mage and no lower.

Minor addition; DoM's ART is unrelated to cycles and is offered 4 times a year when there are approximately 6 cycles per year, since DoM's cycle is several weeks shorter than DoS and DoF.

[Strawberry]

I think after reading everything in this thread again, that I'm even more confused as to what the position of the original idea was. It was positioned as a way to make the titles more coveted/special (implying a need for more challenges for them). And that while vacancies weren't the thing that prompted the idea, they do seem to contribute to it, so there's a need to get and keep titles in circulation as much as possible because of slow turnaround on getting them back out to the community after a retirement or vacancy.

Numbers, stats, and facts have been presented to show why DoS is thriving and growing and having huge success. We've also discussed DoS's responsibility for getting titles back into circulation.

Now all of it's been walked back to say that it's not about challenges and that titles get back into circulation just fine and that we're cool with a reduction in activity/challenges/etc.

So which is it? Do we want challenges or do we want less challenges? Do we want activity or do we want less activity? Are vacant titles out of circulation too long or are they circulated quickly and efficiently?

At the end of the day, dueling and the titles associated with them are an extension of RP and are meant to accentuate our playing experience and story opportunities. As proven across 5 pages now, people are using them, people are augmenting their play experience, they are engaged and they want more, not less, opportunities to play into what Duel of Swords has to offer.