Another SOA Thread

[Teagan]

I've sat on this one for a while, but here it goes.

The rules for SOA don't seem to match what "Show of Activity" triggers in my mind. They just don't seem to match together. The biggest reason being this scenario:

A duelist gets their 10 duels in and issues challenge to a barony, using up their SOA duels. They end up losing their challenge and now have to start over completely. Despite having dueled the required amount and participating by actually issuing a challenge, they are no longer seen as an active duelist simply because they lost their challenge. It seems a bit unfair.

My suggestion is wipe SOA duels when someone loses their title, instead of when they issue a challenge. It still holds people to a minimum participation level without punishing people who participate simply because they lost one duel.

[G]

Show of Activity is what they're called.

If you want to call them "Challenge Right Tokens for Getting The Required Number of Duels In For The Right To Issue Challenge" Then go right ahead.

SoA just is much easier. They're not peer wins, they're not even all wins. You're NOT considered inactive just because you suddenly lost a challenge. You just no longer have the requirements of issuing an immediate challenge.

Show of Activity is JUST what they're called. Petition to name it different if you want and can come up with a better name.

[Kalamere]

I agree with G, at least in part.

You're focussing on the semantics of it. Don't get bogged down in what "activity" means. It's really nothing more than the prerequisites to challenge and "show of activity" is just the name we settled on calling it. Most times the name fits. In some cases it does not.

This isn't a new discussion, we've had the semantics back and forth in the past.

That said, if you can make a compelling argument for why the system should be changed that goes beyond the semantics of the name, I for one would be happy to read along and participate.

Part of the reason SoA is burned upon challenge is to keep people from losing and instantly issuing another challenge. I tend to think that is desirable. I get tired of seeing the same people challenge again and again. That said, maybe the "Limits on Challenges" clause, with a slight tweak, would be enough to limit insta-rechallenge and make burning SoA unnecessary. eg: state that there must be at least 30 days between challenges. Of course, for some people that is even more limiting than is the need to regain SoA counts.

My suggestion is wipe SOA duels when someone loses their title, instead of when they issue a challenge. It still holds people to a minimum participation level without punishing people who participate simply because they lost one duel.

In fairness, it's not just any duel they just lost. It's a significant title fight.

Do you really feel that the current SoA rule is hurting the game?

[Teagan]

I feel that the limit of two baron challenges or one overlord challenge per cycle is enough of a limitation, and ten duels over two cycles is enough to establish activity. Do we REALLY need more limitations beyond that? Sure, without a tweak to the wording someone could lose a title and re-challenge immediately. But they can only do it twice in a cycle, not an unlimited amount.

I have spoken to some players through IMs about issuing challenges and get the impression that recollecting the 10 duels is a burden.

[Vanion Shadowcast]

Man. It used to be 10+ Peer Wins against Warlords as the requisite until recently. This system's much kinder. It's a different system than DoF/DoM. You can challenge the top rank, and issue multiple challenges in a 30 day period of time if you're so inclined and duel enough. I don't mind that it's different.

So I don't have a problem with the SoA method, though I do think that I'd rather see something like SoA require 5-6 wins instead of 10 total duels. When folks challenge a Baron/Overlord with 10/15 SoA, and their record is 2-8/4-11, I feel like the system's rewarding activity but not performance, at all.

Addendum: As far as re-collecting goes ... I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to lowering the SoA requirements for the second challenge within a single cycle. Though, if the SoA requirements were 6 wins (or the like), then I think this negates the issue entirely.

[G]

I have spoken to some players through IMs about issuing challenges and get the impression that recollecting the 10 duels is a burden.

I am seriously trying not to be offensive in regards to this "impression."

10 DUELS total. Wins or Losses. In SIX MONTHS is a BURDEN?

That made me yell out loud "Oh my [Censored] God!"

If it's too hard for you to get ten duels in 6 months, it's too hard for you to challenge. Period. Don't bother challenging. It takes more time and effort to issue the challenge, set a time and date, get a caller, and make sure you've got the time set aside to make the challenge than it does to get ten whole duels in 6 months.

I did it with ease in 3 days. If someone can't get ten in six months, there's something wrong with them. I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but that's the truth of it.

[Kalamere]

IMO, I don't care if the duels are wins or losses. I just want to know someone is around and participating in the sport they're challenging in.

Requiring wins (rather than duels) is also problematic because either (a) you have warlords seeking out lower ranked duelists for the easier path (something a few people complained about with Hydra) or (b) you set out that those wins need to be against warlords+ and we're right back to the peer win system and the opposite complaint of low ranked duelists not being able to get duels.

Either way though, changing to wins makes the road to get a challenge more difficult. Is there really a need to make challenging harder? I don't feel the challenge scene is over done to the point it needs to be locked down further in some way.

The SoA rules came about as something of a middle ground between the old peer win system and the free for all challenge system that got put in place when peer wins went away. Personally I think it is plenty to ask of people, so I don't think it needs to be made harder in any way at this time. Teags is proposing that it be made easier (sorta). I'm not sure that's needed either, but if others do then it's worth listening to their concerns.

[Kalamere]

10 DUELS total. Wins or Losses. In SIX MONTHS is a BURDEN?

In fairness to Teags, G, you're over simplifying.

The complaint is not about the 10 duels in 6 months time. The complaint is that if you want to challenge more than once in a cycle because you lost the first time, you now need twice that number.

ETA - To flesh that comment out a little bit more.

The rules allow that you may challenge a Baron two times per cycle.

If you do that in the first month of a cycle, that means you need to have 10 duels in the previous 4 months.

Now, to effectively utilize the 2nd challenge right you're given, you need to get another 10 duels in with less than 2 months to do so.

The two rules work together somewhat awkwardly and make that 2nd challenge considerably more expensive than the first.

[G]

10 DUELS total. Wins or Losses. In SIX MONTHS is a BURDEN?

In fairness to Teags, G, you're over simplifying.

Understood.

20 duels in six months is only slightly more difficult. Still easy. Still not a burden. Forgive me for this opinion but if someone can't do that, they're just being lazy.

If you show up to duel, you'll get the duels you need to challenge once or twice in a cycle. If the entire reason for arguing about SoA is that "The limitations of 2 challenges per cycle.." is there, then just say "I think that we should do away with the limitations of two challenges per cycle only." And don't disguise it like there's something wrong with SoA. The name "Show of Activity" is misleading? Say that.

The whole concept of SoA is fine. You don't need 10 wins. You don't need 10 wins against individual duelists. You just need 10 fights. Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, can get that easily in 3 weeks.

There's 4 days of dueling in Swords available If you can be there for 2 days a week, you can get 2 duels in one night. In 5 days of dueling, you can get 10 duels. Your challenge takes the max 3 weeks? Okay, start getting those duels in again and within the cycle, you'll have your second challenge. This is not difficult. People who REALLY want it can get their 10 in one weekend.

The thing that bothers me, and honestly, that I find most annoying, is the concept that getting 10 or 20 total duels is a burden. Well, challenging for a title should NOT be easy. There's no reason it should be. Hell, I can argue that the current ability to challenge is too easy if I wanted. But this isn't DoM where we only need to have Wins over Losses to allow us to challenge. Or DoF where you get to challenge as soon as you hit rank and whatever the rules are there. This is DoS. Our challenge system should be different than the others. Our titles have more worth if there's an effort to get to them. Otherwise, it becomes "Oh yay another title, whoopee."

Take away the limit of 2 challenges per cycle if you want, but the SoA system is perfectly fine. The concept that getting these requirements is a burden floors me and stinks of laziness.

[Bane]

A couple of quick opinions.

I liked the peer win system. Although I have never been a regular swords dueler, it always frustrates me to see people with lots of losses in their SoA. I do understand, however, that sometimes the crowds are not there, and peer wins are harder to get. Also, the thing that Kal (I think) mentioned about lower ranks having trouble finding duels.

I like the fact that Swords makes challenging a little more difficult than the others. I think that challenging may be a little too easy in the other sports. I know that was being looked into not too long ago on the Magic side, but I don't recall any changes on the Fists side for a while.

Not that anything necessarily needs to be done. I have my opinions, and I have a tendency of letting people know about them. ;)

[G]

I liked the peer win system, too. However, as time passed, it quickly became obvious that it was outdated because it was extremely difficult, if not improbable, to find 10 different warlords to even save up to enough to get a challenge, let alone 15 if you wanted OL.

That was due to a large lack of participation. It's up a bit more from those days, but still not enough to justify a return to the PW system. Are 5 PWs doable? Maybe. But it's easier to track down the fact that you have 10 different duel results than to dig up a duel you might have had a year ago. Unless you, as the duelist, remembered to write down the date on your list.

PWs are mostly obsolete right now. Unless we get a regular dueling amount of about 20 different warlords, anyway. But that could end up slacking off again too, and we'd be right back where we started.

[Kalamere]

Bleh, I always hated the peer win system. It instilled an almost caste type system amongst the ranks. Warlords were constantly just looking for other warlords to duel and ignoring anyone else in the room looking for a fight. Not all, of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Enough, however, that it definitely set a classist tone to things.

I will say this in regard to the DoS "harder to challenge" stance though, and take it for what you will, I'm not advocating a change of any sort.

The biggest upswing DoS has seen since moving off Aol at the end of the hey days, was when obstacles to baron challenges were removed entirely.

Perhaps that was just coincidence, but that year in terms of new duelists, number of duels, etc - not just challenges - was a tick upward for DoS participation and that's been a pretty rare thing over the years.

[G]

I will say this in regard to the DoS "harder to challenge" stance though, and take it for what you will, I'm not advocating a change of any sort.

The biggest upswing DoS has seen since moving off Aol at the end of the hey days, was when obstacles to baron challenges were removed entirely.

Perhaps that was just coincidence, but that year in terms of new duelists, number of duels, etc - not just challenges - was a tick upward for DoS participation and that's been a pretty rare thing over the years.

That is true about Warlords seeking peers only, I'd forgotten about that.

As to the upswing, it probably was coincidence. It took a lot of time to get people from the RDI to finally buy into our system of play and when they did, we did see an upwards swing in activity, but it wasn't strictly because of the ability to challenge at will. Was there an upswing? Of course, because like any new toy, a lot of people are going to play with it at first, but then it died down. So I'm going to guess it was more coincidental than a sign of anything.