Another Proposal

Out of Character message board for the Duel of Swords

Moderator: Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
G. Iulius Fortis
Adventurer
Adventurer
Passable Cook

Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:11 pm
Location: Cucina Marthae, Dockside, RhyDin City

Another Proposal

Post by G. Iulius Fortis »

Maybe this one will be better received than the other one.

Currently, Warlords are permitted to challenge each Barony once per cycle. That's seven challenges over the span of the cycle, or conceivably one every other week. That just strikes me as way too many (despite the fact that I had Guill challenge immediately after being defeated! Such is his warped little mind!)

So I'd propose the following.
  1. Should a Warlord fail in a challenge for a Barony or Overlordship, he will be unable to challenge for another Barony for a period of 30 days.
  2. Should a Baron or Overlord be dethroned by a Warlord, he will be unable to challenge for another Barony for a period of 30 days.
  3. (A) Should the Overlord be dethroned by a Renegade Baron, he will be unable to challenge for the Overlordship for a period of 30 days.
    (B) Should the Overlord be dethroned by a Renegade Baron, he will be unable to challenge for the Overlordship for the remainder of the cycle.
  4. Loyal Barons would need only to defend their title once per 30 days.
As a side note, the 30 day cooling-off or grace periods would begin on the day the challenge match was fought.

1 and 2 would provide for a bit of a cooling-down period for Warlords, as well as restrict their challenges to no more than three a cycle. I still think this is too many, but it is in line with current rules for Fists and Magic. Note that the restriction is only in effect for challenging for a Barony - the traditional Warlord's Tournament prize of a direct challenge to the Overlord would be unaffected by this.

3A would provide that a dethroned Overlord (by a Baron) would have the same cooling-down period that a Warlord might. 3B extends it, in line with how a dethroned Baron cannot challenge for the title they lost for the rest of the cycle.

4 would eliminate a bit of a loophole in the current rules, which provide for one defence per calendar month. By these rules, it behooves a Loyal to schedule defences early in the month, for they may not be challenged for the rest of the month. On the contrary, a challenge late in the month means that their grace period has effectively vanished.

By no means do I expect these to be adopted. But I think honest discussion in an open forum is a constructive idea. (In any case, you'd have to assume that this would take effect no earlier than the beginning of the Spring 2010 cycle.)
DE GVSTIBVS NON EST DISPVTANDVM
User avatar
Wyheree
Adventurer
Adventurer
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: A Manor in a pocket dimension in the forest south of Rhydin

Post by Wyheree »

Are not challenges the meat and potatoes of the Arena? The more, the better - challenges keep Barons on their toes, and provide excellent opportunities for RP. I see no reason to alter the rules.
User avatar
Tasslehofl Momus
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Momus Estates

Post by Tasslehofl Momus »

G. Iulius Fortis wrote: Currently, Warlords are permitted to challenge each Barony once per cycle.
havn't read all your post.. will when I'm more coherent..


But, it's actually once a month, if I'm not mistaken, PER Barony.

Tass would have challenged again, but Dec has been rather hectic for me OOC, so I haven't bothered, and I'm not sure I care to challenge right now, despite the stupidity that has run rapid these past few months (IC wise).
User avatar
G
Legendary Adventurer
Legendary Adventurer
Ric Flair

Posts: 4124
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:09 am
Location: Generally found at the Golden Ivy Tavern. If not there, then on the SpellJammer, his ship.

Post by G »

Tasslehofl Momus wrote:
G. Iulius Fortis wrote: Currently, Warlords are permitted to challenge each Barony once per cycle.
havn't read all your post.. will when I'm more coherent..


But, it's actually once a month, if I'm not mistaken, PER Barony.

Tass would have challenged again, but Dec has been rather hectic for me OOC, so I haven't bothered, and I'm not sure I care to challenge right now, despite the stupidity that has run rapid these past few months (IC wise).
Haven't read all the post yet either. And My mind is wasted after an extremely long working day, so I don't remember everything offhand, nor am I going to go look it up right now. But.. If I am pretty sure that a Warlord can challenge at will, but each Barony once per cycle. I.E. G Challenges for New Haven, loses, can challenge after the results are posted for any remaining Barony, but not New Haven again until the next cycle.

I'll have a more in depth look at these suggestions after I get done work tomorrow. I'm way too tired at the moment to dig into it now. :)
G'nort Dragoon-Talanador
Duel of Swords Legend. Best In The World™.
First All Time DoS Title Holder.
Listed as "Daddy" in your daughters contacts list.
Image
User avatar
Tasslehofl Momus
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Momus Estates

Post by Tasslehofl Momus »

yea.. that sounds bout right, G. When I'm not buzzed I'll look at it more indepth.


And Guill.. in regards to your Loyal thing... They only *need* defend once a month, but they do have the right to wave that and be allowed (if they so choose) to defend ASAP. So, if a Loyal defends today, they can then choose to wave the grace period and immediately take another challenge tomorrow (or after the results are posted). I think G made that addendum to the rules somewhere.. either the boards or the official rules, since it wasn't clear to begin with.
User avatar
Tasslehofl Momus
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: Momus Estates

Post by Tasslehofl Momus »

Ok, now that I'm a little more coherent, let me see if I can work through this.

Guill, I guess to start, what I don't understand is why you want to prevent challenges from happening. From what I can understand to your proposal, this is what is happening. You're taking the chance to challenge from 7 a cycle (3 months) to.... 3?

Why?

There was a time when no one was challenging, and now that we are starting to get more people playing again, and more challenges to happen, you want to back it back down?

While I love the current 'no peers' rule, I would rather see us having to go back to the peer system before I would see the number of challenges allowed to fall.. and even then, I'm not sure I'd support the restriction of challenges further.

As the rules stand now, I don't see anyone (correct me if I'm mistaken) having challenged all 7 baronies in one cycle. Typically, there is only one or two that is gone after by one person. That being said, that one person (if only going after 2 baronies) would challenge twice per cycle.

Yes, it is legally feasible to challenge 7 times in 3 months, but I do not see that happening.
User avatar
Marc Franco
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
The Gossip GangSTAR

Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:12 am
Location: RhyDin
Contact:

Post by Marc Franco »

Challenges should be special, not something that happens three times a week. I enjoy the increased number of challenges but I'm not really sure that in all the years I've been around I've seen this many titles under challenge at one time (with more coming) and I'm not necessarily sure that's a good thing.

That said, I'd rather see a peer win system in place again. Maybe with 5 wins (and Warlord Tournament wins being blind peer wins) rather than 10 because I still think 10 is unreasonable in the current environment. I'd also like to see a way that warlords could challenge the overlord again (as if I understand it correctly they cannot now) with maybe 10 peer wins needed.

Is it time to move forward with either a time limit or a reduced peer win system? I don't know. It might be a good idea to give it another cycle to see if this is a fluke or will continue. I guess that'll be G'nort's call!
Artemus Kurgen
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Post by Artemus Kurgen »

Wyheree wrote:Are not challenges the meat and potatoes of the Arena?
I thought that was dueling, period? Just teasin ya.

Anyway, on to this second shot at change. I can see wanting to drop the number of challenges to give callers a break as challenges can, and do, disrupt regular dueling at times. That aside, I do not quite agree that now is the time to be restricting what characters/players can and cannot do in a cycle as, yes numbers are up, but we are not really that stable to allow many changes. As Franco said, a reduced Peer Wins system would be more advisable than restricting challenges.

It still stands that any individual duelist can only challenge for a specific Baronial Ring once a cycle if they lose. They can lose and go on to challenge another baron. Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since I challenged. Now, if it is challenge restrictions, I see nothing wrong with saying a singular duelist can challenge for no more than 4 Baronial rings a Cycle. That means any Warlord can attempt to take on 4 of the 7 Barons in a challenge match.
G. Iulius Fortis wrote:4. Loyal Barons would need only to defend their title once per 30 days.
Now this I do agree with. It eliminates the chance of someone winning a Barony and sitting on it for friggin 6 months meanwhile we never see them around the Arena. We All remember those days, they can easily happen again. I would just amend it to ALL Barons being required to defend their title once a month.
Artemus Allonan Kurgen
Headmaster of Arcanum Academy
Proprietor of Dark Wolf and Leopard Jewelers.
User avatar
Jaycy Ashleana
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Sassiest

Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Dockside

Post by Jaycy Ashleana »

Artemus A. Kurgen wrote:
G. Iulius Fortis wrote:4. Loyal Barons would need only to defend their title once per 30 days.
Now this I do agree with. It eliminates the chance of someone winning a Barony and sitting on it for friggin 6 months meanwhile we never see them around the Arena. We All remember those days, they can easily happen again. I would just amend it to ALL Barons being required to defend their title once a month.
He's not saying that loyal barons MUST defend once every 30 days. He's saying that instead of saying they only need to defend once a calendar month, they should only have to defend once every 30 days. (Like the example was given, as it currently stands if a loyal defends late in December they can be challenged again in the beginning of January, thus losing that benefit of being loyal).

We can't force Barons to defend if no one's interested in challenging them, as an aside to your comment.
Artemus Kurgen
Seasoned Adventurer
Seasoned Adventurer
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Post by Artemus Kurgen »

Jaycy Ashleana wrote:We can't force Barons to defend if no one's interested in challenging them, as an aside to your comment.
I know what he said. I just altered the wording to suit my example. We are being asked to read this to examine and discuss Guill's new propositions. Not countermand each other. I offered a point that has bothered players more than characters. Winning a title and then no one sees you (generic) for 6 months to a year, in essence the title sitting vacant. Now it has been some time since I read the rules in their entirety but I do not think any amendment was made where a minimum number of duels or appearances was set for title holders to retain their rank. I know that in Magic, and I beleive in Fists, that a title can be stripped for inactivity. Is there such an addendum to Swords? To amend, I am aware it has been some time since such an occurance took place and the current rulings mean a further decline in such an incident happening anytime soon.

Now back to Guillermus.
This has probably been asked before, but why all of this sudden need to seek change in the challenge rules?
Artemus Allonan Kurgen
Headmaster of Arcanum Academy
Proprietor of Dark Wolf and Leopard Jewelers.
User avatar
Tormay Eludes
Proven Adventurer
Proven Adventurer
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:38 pm
Location: House DeGorol

Post by Tormay Eludes »

I think 2 and 3 could be combined in some way.

It is possible for a Overlord to be dropped back down to Warlord ins tead of Baron by losing to a Renegade Baron. Also, while it isn't very likely to happen, there should be a mention as to what would happen if a Overlord was defeated by a Loyal Baron.

It can only happen if an Overlord is below 15 WoL that a Loyal can challenge, but it would be better to have a rule in place instead of someone trying to find a loop hole.
User avatar
Sinjin Fai
Adventurer
Adventurer
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Rhy'din

Post by Sinjin Fai »

Marc Franco wrote: ... and I'm not necessarily sure that's a good thing.

Why? I'm not criticizing you, but I don't think I understand. I don't get how that -can't- be a good thing.

Challenge matches still retain being "special" in my mind for a few reasons -- not everyone can make them, the drama surrounding them (especially lately) is high, and it's been creating a LOT of good roleplay. To me, the current rules look fine the way they are. I think if you force people to put a month of space between them, things are going to drag too heavy and we'll start losing the entertainment value that's been bopping around a lot lately. Some of the highest attendances are usually for challenge matches -- and 7/8ths of the people in the room aren't even actively dueling! I think that says something about the effectiveness and the activity that this stuff has been producing lately.
User avatar
Teagan
Adventurer
Adventurer
Queen of the Ring

Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:23 pm

Post by Teagan »

I don't have a lot of time right now to go into depth, but I think the overabundance of challenges is a bad thing because of the revolving door effect.

So many challenges mean there is less and less of a chance to make your reign actually last for a prolonged period of time, and there isn't much of a chance to have one of those legendary reigns that people talk about for years.

I feel like it's too easy to challenge these days.
User avatar
G. Iulius Fortis
Adventurer
Adventurer
Passable Cook

Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:11 pm
Location: Cucina Marthae, Dockside, RhyDin City

Post by G. Iulius Fortis »

  • Tass, what would not change under my proposal is that you still couldn't challenge for a specific Barony more than once per cycle, or any of the other current restrictions. This rule would not even affect many of the duelists, it just keeps challenges to a reasonable rate.
  • Tormay, I suppose the gist of the rule was that if you lose a challenge, you can't challenge for rank for 30 days after the challenge (with the exception of using the prize of the Warlord's Tournament.)
  • Teagan, I agree that it is way too easy to challenge - there should be something to slow the rate down if only a little.
  • Artemus, as far as I can tell, there's no activity requirement for Barons and Overlord, and I think there should be. Perhaps something as simple as one duel every one to two cycles? This can be in either normal dueling hours or in a challenge. Those that do not might see their titles vacated.
  • Marc, I could see a revised peer win system being used. Perhaps something like the following:

    5 peer wins - challenge versus a Baron
    10 peer wins - challenge versus the Overlord

    Peer wins would define as: Victory over the Overlord, a Baron, a Warlord, a Grandmaster Squire, or (in the Warlord Tournament) the sitting Talon. (Given that squires who are Grandmasters are currently authorized to challenge, I see no problem awarding a peer win for beating them. Also, given the Talon is in the Warlord Tournament, must award a peer win for that.)

    Peer wins may be claimed for duels both in normal dueling hours and for Warlord Tournaments. A peer win may be claimed against a specific duelist during normal dueling hours only once per challenge. A peer win may be claimed against a specific duelist during a Warlord Tournament once per tournament.

    Example: Guill beats Kheldar twice in normal dueling, twice in Warlord Tourney A, and once in Warlord Tourney B. When counting peer wins, he may count Kheldar for three - one normal duel, and once for each tournament.

    Of course, peer wins are zeroed out after any non-granted challenge. There would be two or three "granted" challenges every cycle. One would be by the Overlord grant, which would now make sense to be given to a Warlord. Another would be the Warlord tournament's direct challenge to the Overlord. Finally, if there are no vacant baronies, a prize of a direct challenge to a Baron of the duelist's choice could be awarded.
DE GVSTIBVS NON EST DISPVTANDVM
User avatar
Marc Franco
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
The Gossip GangSTAR

Posts: 647
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:12 am
Location: RhyDin
Contact:

Post by Marc Franco »

Sinjin Fai wrote:
Marc Franco wrote: ... and I'm not necessarily sure that's a good thing.

Why? I'm not criticizing you, but I don't think I understand. I don't get how that -can't- be a good thing.
Now, just to be clear, I said that I'm not necessarily sure. I have been a huge proponent for increasing challenges for half a decade. I fear that things may swing the opposite way but I'm not at all ready to say they have.

Now why could too many challenges be a bad thing? For exactly the reasons Teagan laid out. There's not enough time to do anything with the title -- not enough time to create rivalries between barons, not enough time to create the political drama that this place feeds on, not enough time to create SLs centered on the districts. Also, there's almost no point in holding a squire tournament. It seems like a lot of work to go to if you're only going to last a month or two.

But, like I said, I'm not saying we've reached that point. I'm just saying that those are my fears with a challenge happy environment.
Post Reply

Return to “Duel of Swords (OOC)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests