Challenge Rules.

[Farek]

Am I the only one that thinks the 'drop to your opponent's rank' rule is absurd? Especially with the new matrix coming in, which negates perfect defense, I think that it should be amended to, at the very least, dropping to one rank above your opponent.

I never really noticed this, because it had never been relevant, but I was going over them so I wouldn't be ignorant of any rules if I were to be challenged, and I was a bit shocked to read that.

F

[BrigathC]

Personally, this is one aspect of DoM that I really really like. It's the only sport where you don't have to make it to the highest rank before you can gain any special titles (though DoS recently instituted the Talon). I don't know what the original reasoning was behind the decision to make both spell casters duel at the lowest common rank was, but here's how I've always looked at it...

The Keepers are almost completely for RP purposes. Yes, you gain an extra spell, but you can only use it against other keepers, or when you are defending your key. The Keepers are mostly there to defend the Isle in RP situations outside the duels. So bearing that in mind, determining who is worthy of keeping the post should not be about who has more spells available to them, but about who can really best the other when they are on equal footing.

Again, that's just my personal take on it. But regardless of the reasoning behind it, I think the accessability to lower ranks that the rule creates is a very good thing.

[Farek]

David didn't make Goliath get on his knees and tie one hand behind his back to defeat him.

He took on a greater opponent with more strength, skill, etc, had a little fortune go his way, and won.

That's my thinking here. If you're a green enchanter and you challenge a veteran Mage or Wizard, it should be a risk because of the great difference of the level of magical aptitude between characters.

[BrigathC]

I think the difference here is that the Keepers are primarily an RP title instead of a dueling title. If it were all about the duels, I would agree with you. However, some one who is a green enchanter in the duels may well be a highly accomplished mage outside of the ring. So to say that there is a great difference in the level of magical aptitude between characters may not be entirely accurate. The way it works now removes the advantage a higher rank has in terms of number of spells, but he/she still has the benefit of more experience (in theory) and the ability to pick which advanced spells he will retain to counter whatever the lower rank has available. I think it's a good compromise when using the duels as a way to determine who is fit to hold a title for which the duels is only a small part.


Oh, and let me make sure it's understood that this is all my personal opinion as a player and has nothing to do with official DoM policy.

[MurOllavan]

As far as I can remember, that decision was made because having a mage emeritus dueling an enchanter seemed like overkill. Even now, with the matrix changing testing going on and receiving good review I would say it should remain this way. Mostly because of the role-playing arguments. Still, the choice of a mage power as the only spell one can use is a great advantage, as Brigath said. Or whatever spells the higher rank incumbent/challenger wishes. Isn't there a rule in DoS where barons and the overlord can only use 2 more fancies than a lower rank? It's kind of nice like that except it gives the lower rank challenger/incumbent a better deal on gaining a rp-oriented rank.

[DUEL Esperwind]

Brigath is the closest to the truth. The Keepers were intended to be mainly roleplaying oriented titles. One's skill inside the rings doesn't necessarily equate to one's skill outside the rings and vice versa, so we didn't feel rank should weigh heavily on one's aspirations to Keepership.

As for the equal # of spells during the challenge match, I believe that was added in by Mystik or Klytus to make the challenge and the title less ranked based. Given my stance on lower vs upper ranked dueling, I wouldn't have added that rule myself.