Stories from RhyDin & The Rings

If you'd like to skip the tl;dr and get to what is being changed/tested now, scroll down. I've bold and enlarged the text.

--------------

Rule Change Proposal
(Reminder: This is not the final draft)

I'm interested in trying out the new DoM ruleset with DoS, though there would be a few tweaks to fit the sport.

Currently in DoM there is no longer losses ( unless you join a special trial ). While it does make ranking easier, I've seen that, much like when changing the cycle resets from once per cycle to once per week, that does not mean it has to be seen as a bad thing. A duelists skill will make or break them; and if they continue to gain wins - they will advance faster. If not? They will have to sit at their current place. Think of it OOCly as leveling your character up through experience.

if you would like to read more about the new DoM rules, see here.

With the change to wins over losses to simply wins, there would be an introduction of a DoS version of the Arcanist Trials — the Gladiators Gauntlet. It will work the same as the Arcanist Trials, which means Warlords who would rather not partake in the free wins over losses rules may instead choose to play the Wins over Losses game as we currently have it - and there will be perks for them too.

The Gladiators Gauntlet introduction will see that the Warlord Tournament no longer awards the winner with a test free challenge to the Overlord: it will instead be given to the winner of the Gladiators Gauntlet - as well as 10 Wins over losses. Second place will be given 5. The Gauntlet winner can choose to hold onto this challenge grant to be used later in the cycle if they so wish, but will have until the end of the cycle to use it or lose it. There will also be IC perks, be it a special baron-esque manor on the Overlord Island, or an idea thought up by the community. As the Overlord challenge grant would no longer be part of the WLT, the rules of the 14 day grace period pre and post WLT will no longer be used.

The Warlord Tournament prizes will be changed to two Test-Free challenge grants, one for the winner and one for the second place. The winner will also be given the newly introduced Lost Memento (Link). Stripped / Retired baronies will still be placed as prizes for Warlord Tournaments (as long as these titles weren't stripped or retired during an in process challenge).

Back onto difficulty levels. Because of these changes it can be seen as easier for duelist to gain the rank of Warlord, which is why - if these changes were to be made - the title of Overlord will no longer be challenged by the Warlord Rank. This will instead be changed to only Renegade Barons ( Or Loyal should the Overlord fall below 15 Wins over Losses ) and the Gladiator Gauntlet winner being able to challenge for the title of Overlord. Special tournament prizes such as an Overlord title shot from Madness will not be affected by this; as those are special cases.

--------------

This is the basic idea but not at all the final product. Would there be any changes the community would like to see, or added ideas? Please feel free to respond below.

For now what changes we will be testing is as followed:

1. No Losses.
2. Basic opt out system. If you'd like to continue the challenge of suffering losses, you will be able to opt out of the no loss ability. This is not the Gladiators Gauntlet, as that will not be introduced until the next cycle if rule changes do happen. If you'd like to opt out please PM me and a note will be made.

All other proposed changes will be put to discussion and, once everything is hammered out, will be set into motion at the start of the next cycle.

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not great at evaluating changes in terms of checks/balances. I feel like you do have skill with that as clearly seen by the ideas floated here.

My concern is if Warlords can no longer challenge the OL, it really could take away some of the political play that makes DoS challenges special. The OL could still Test Renegade Barons but that's it.

I do like the idea of making it potentially easier to rank because I think it makes it more friendly to new players, but (for me) that begs the question of who is the target audience for this? Who does this really benefit? Who is it meant to benefit? Is it meant to benefit new players? Do we have any of those?

That's not to say that we shouldn't make the game more friendly to new players if we can. I guess I'm just wondering what the goal of this is and who it's supposed to benefit so I can understand it better in context.

The goal is to get players out and dueling. That's what i'm looking at first and foremost. Be it first timers , older players who would like to start anew with a fresh alt, or older players who feel like coming out to try and achieve the rank of Warlord. Bodies out there dueling, no matter their reason, is what I'm looking for.

JewellRavenlock wrote:My concern is if Warlords can no longer challenge the OL, it really could take away some of the political play that makes DoS challenges special. The OL could still Test Renegade Barons but that's it.

Warlords challenging for the title of Overlord is still relatively "new" in the span of Duel of Swords history if we cut out the Warlord Tournament. Warlords only until the last rule change either had to 1. Win the WLT or 2. Have a sponsor in the form of a Renegade Baron who would lose their own shot at challenging the OL in place of allowing the Warlord the chance instead. This also came with SoA ( show of activity ) where duelists had to duel a set amount of regulation fights, win or lose, while staying the Warlord Rank before being able to challenge.

As the Warlord Rank would become easier to achieve, balance is needed to make sure the Overlord title has a few more hurdles for challengers to jump through to achieve the top ranking title in DoS. The Overlord can test Renegade Barons and if the test is successful, allow the Warlord ( if used ) the ability to challenge for the title without wasting one of their challenge rights. The Overlord also gains the ability of a Loyal Wall, which gives them more defense against oncoming challenges. And since a Warlord must first become a Baron to become an Overlord, the Overlord can test for their Loyal Barons. It gives these Barony challenges more of a threat toward the Overlord since, should their test fail and the Barony changes hands, that duelist can then choose to go Renegade and challenge them in reaction to the test.

Renegades then become, once more, a stronger political choice if you want to shake things up. It would be a return to the ruleset that was used prior to the current rules we have now, and I can see some concern some might have with the return of the loyal wall.. or others might actually like its return.

JewellRavenlock wrote:
I do like the idea of making it potentially easier to rank because I think it makes it more friendly to new players, but (for me) that begs the question of who is the target audience for this? Who does this really benefit? Who is it meant to benefit? Is it meant to benefit new players? Do we have any of those?

That's not to say that we shouldn't make the game more friendly to new players if we can. I guess I'm just wondering what the goal of this is and who it's supposed to benefit so I can understand it better in context.

Liv already touched on the stuff about the Loyal Wall. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the ability brought back for a Ren baron to sponsor a WL to let them challenge. Kind of how it was a few years ago before the current iteration. Then it gets political with the OL politicking their barons into trying to get that loyal wall or trying not to piss of the renegade that might look to oust them.

That said, to answer the question of who does it benefit and who the target audience is; I think I can touch on our rationale for why we changed it for DoM and how that can apply to DoS (or even DoF).

In short, it benefits everyone.

It benefits new players wanting to try for the first time or those that have been struggling to rank. It benefits established players that either don't duel in the sport often or maybe haven't tried DoS while sticking to DoF or DoM. It benefits established DoS duelists by bringing additional people to fight because it gets really old seeing the same faces in the WLT every cycle. I think it offers new challenges to established duelists while offering a form of casualization to bring in new faces.

DUEL Olivia wrote: As the Warlord Rank would become easier to achieve, balance is needed to make sure the Overlord title has a few more hurdles for challengers to jump through to achieve the top ranking title in DoS. The Overlord can test Renegade Barons and if the test is successful, allow the Warlord ( if used ) the ability to challenge for the title without wasting one of their challenge rights. The Overlord also gains the ability of a Loyal Wall, which gives them more defense against oncoming challenges. And since a Warlord must first become a Baron to become an Overlord, the Overlord can test for their Loyal Barons. It gives these Barony challenges more of a threat toward the Overlord since, should their test fail and the Barony changes hands, that duelist can then choose to go Renegade and challenge them in reaction to the test.

Renegades then become, once more, a stronger political choice if you want to shake things up. It would be a return to the ruleset that was used prior to the current rules we have now, and I can see some concern some might have with the return of the loyal wall.. or others might actually like its return.

Got it. That makes sense! The more I thought about it, the more I liked about this honestly because the potential for political play became more evident.

Claire said (because I still don't know how to quote multiple people 20 years later...):

Liv already touched on the stuff about the Loyal Wall. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the ability brought back for a Ren baron to sponsor a WL to let them challenge. Kind of how it was a few years ago before the current iteration. Then it gets political with the OL politicking their barons into trying to get that loyal wall or trying not to piss of the renegade that might look to oust them.

I was thinking of something like this this morning before I saw your post. What if there was a Baron Council again of some sorts? Not like it used to be, but they could give away a shot at the OL each cycle to a WL. Or even choose to not give it away perhaps if it's a wall of loyal barons.

JewellRavenlock wrote:I was thinking of something like this this morning before I saw your post. What if there was a Baron Council again of some sorts? Not like it used to be, but they could give away a shot at the OL each cycle to a WL. Or even choose to not give it away perhaps if it's a wall of loyal barons.

Something like.. Once per cycle a majority of Renegade Barons (4 out of 7 Baron Majority) are allowed to come together and vote (or hold a tournament) to award an Overlord grant to an active duelist (Or should it be just Warlord?) who is listed on the standings.

As long as there is a majority of Loyals then there would be no reason to worry about a vote.

DUEL Olivia wrote:Warlords challenging for the title of Overlord is still relatively "new" in the span of Duel of Swords history if we cut out the Warlord Tournament.

This isn't precisely true. Warlord challenges (unrelated to WLT) date back to before we left AOL.

Regardless. Not important to your current proposal.

Jake wrote:

DUEL Olivia wrote:Warlords challenging for the title of Overlord is still relatively "new" in the span of Duel of Swords history if we cut out the Warlord Tournament.

This isn't precisely true. Warlord challenges (unrelated to WLT) date back to before we left AOL.

Regardless. Not important to your current proposal.

My bad. I'm just going off information I recalled back when discussions were had about THE OLD TIMES. I also forgot to mention how Warlords could challenge for the title of Overlord if a majority of the baronies were renegade before the current ruleset now that I looked over the post. Those are the only rules I actually had personal experience with. Whatever else had been recalled to me by older players, so I apologize if I don't have the full information.

With the current proposal I'm just trying to figure out a way to best balance things when it comes to the ability to challenge for Overlord with the addition of no losses vs the Overlord title keeping prestige with some difficulty in gaining it. Even with the current changes to the rules we do not see many Warlords jump at the chance to challenge for the Overlord title, so this is something else to look at and think about.

Claire Farron wrote:That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the ability brought back for a Ren baron to sponsor a WL to let them challenge. Kind of how it was a few years ago before the current iteration. Then it gets political with the OL politicking their barons into trying to get that loyal wall or trying not to piss of the renegade that might look to oust them.

I wouldn't be opposed to it. It then becomes would players rather see a Renegade Barons Council with the ability to give out a grant ( test-free or no? ), or the ability for Renegade Barons to sponsor Warlord challengers once more -- and even allow direct challenges fo the Overlord should they have a majority. Aka, basically returning to the old challenge set.

With this, since there would be no losses.. Should a lighter SoA be required due to this? 3 duels for baronies, 5 for overlord challenges if there is a sponsor/renegade majority? And if so, do we get rid of challenge limits and allow duelists to challenge as much as they want as long as they gain the activity requirements? Or does keeping it at 2 challenge rights ( 1 challenge right per barony, 2 used for Overlord ) per cycle still hold merit?

DUEL Olivia wrote:My bad. I'm just going off information I recalled back when discussions were had about THE OLD TIMES. I also forgot to mention how Warlords could challenge for the title of Overlord if a majority of the baronies were renegade before the current ruleset now that I looked over the post. Those are the only rules I actually had personal experience with. Whatever else had been recalled to me by older players, so I apologize if I don't have the full information.

With the current proposal I'm just trying to figure out a way to best balance things when it comes to the ability to challenge for Overlord with the addition of no losses vs the Overlord title keeping prestige with some difficulty in gaining it. Even with the current changes to the rules we do not see many Warlords jump at the chance to challenge for the Overlord title, so this is something else to look at and think about.

No worries. Discuss away! It's your baby now.

DUEL Olivia wrote:

Claire Farron wrote:That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the ability brought back for a Ren baron to sponsor a WL to let them challenge. Kind of how it was a few years ago before the current iteration. Then it gets political with the OL politicking their barons into trying to get that loyal wall or trying not to piss of the renegade that might look to oust them.

I wouldn't be opposed to it. It then becomes would players rather see a Renegade Barons Council with the ability to give out a grant ( test-free or no? ), or the ability for Renegade Barons to sponsor Warlord challengers once more -- and even allow direct challenges fo the Overlord should they have a majority. Aka, basically returning to the old challenge set.

With this, since there would be no losses.. Should a lighter SoA be required due to this? 3 duels for baronies, 5 for overlord challenges if there is a sponsor/renegade majority? And if so, do we get rid of challenge limits and allow duelists to challenge as much as they want as long as they gain the activity requirements? Or does keeping it at 2 challenge rights ( 1 challenge right per barony, 2 used for Overlord ) per cycle still hold merit?

Had you asked me a couple years ago, I would have said restrict it to 2 challenge rights to prevent spam challenging over and over. But if we retain the whole... you can't challenge for the same title twice in a row, I think that's a decent stop gap measure against repetitive challenges. With how small the community is, I feel like opening it up further to allow for more challenges wouldn't hurt. That said, most Warlords aren't using their challenge rights in a cycle anyways, let alone both of them. So I think we'd have to see what's going to get them challenging again before we worry about how many times they can challenge, ya know?

Claire Farron wrote:That said, most Warlords aren't using their challenge rights in a cycle anyways, let alone both of them. So I think we'd have to see what's going to get them challenging again before we worry about how many times they can challenge, ya know?

This is true. Looking into how many challenges someone could have, etc, can come later after what has been proposed earlier. No point in looking too far ahead when the ground work isn't even complete. There's options now that can be used, and if there is a sudden change in challenges, the amount of times a duelist can challenge can be looked into then.

I've been quiet on this issue for a couple of reasons. I wanted to see what other people had to say and my desktop is on the way to the shop; long story.

Allowing the no loss as an option is a good plan.

I think sticking to the same challenge rights format as we have now is fine. We have few enough challenges these days as it is. I see no point in restricting Warlords to baronial challenges only. Jake already noted the history on Warlord challenges to the OL.

As for politics, we lost something when the Barons' Council was disbanded. Doing that took some options from the players/characters and put it all in the hands of the staff. Nothing against the staff making decisions, however, removing that aspect of things took away a couple of possibilities for play.

Mairead Harker wrote:As for politics, we lost something when the Barons' Council was disbanded. Doing that took some options from the players/characters and put it all in the hands of the staff. Nothing against the staff making decisions, however, removing that aspect of things took away a couple of possibilities for play.

What types of council involvement would you like seen? There should be a way to bring back the council without causing something that could be deemed as unfair if one person were to get a punishment while another doesn't.. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of..

If a title holder is stripped of retires a title while they are under challenge, the barons council may come together and choose to either allow the title to be defended by their most senior baron, a baron of their own choosing ( and in doing so the title may go up to the Warlord Tournament if defended ), or a warlord of their choice that - should they defend the title from the challenger as acting proxy - they would become the newest Baron instead.

Or cut out the others all together and just say that should a title be under challenge and the baron retires / is stripped, the barons council may come together to elect a warlord of their choosing to act as defender / possible baron candidate should they defend?

DUEL Olivia wrote: What types of council involvement would you like seen? There should be a way to bring back the council without causing something that could be deemed as unfair if one person were to get a punishment while another doesn't.. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of..

If a title holder is stripped of retires a title while they are under challenge, the barons council may come together and choose to either allow the title to be defended by their most senior baron, a baron of their own choosing ( and in doing so the title may go up to the Warlord Tournament if defended ), or a warlord of their choice that - should they defend the title from the challenger as acting proxy - they would become the newest Baron instead.

Or cut out the others all together and just say that should a title be under challenge and the baron retires / is stripped, the barons council may come together to elect a warlord of their choosing to act as defender / possible baron candidate should they defend?

I rather like the added option of a Warlord being chosen to defend a retired/abdicated title and, if successful, becoming the new Baron. What sort of criteria would determine eligibility for a Warlord to defend the title? I'm thinking along the lines of the Warlord having dueled within a month/a cycle of the retirement/abdication.