First of all, thank you guys so much for opening up this discussion and still listening to your player base! I really appreciate and apologize in advance for the word vomit.
vvvvvvvv
1) Do you feel that the battle ranking system should be altered to be more accessible to new players? If yes, how so?
Unfortunately, I am not sure what the best answer is to solve this. See ideas on Q2.
I love that you are rewarding players that have been here for a long time, but also knowing that starting as a new character I had a long waiting period before I was at the same level was disheartening. What I can say is that it was very intimidating for me to look at the ranking system and know that as a level 0, I had such huge disadvantages stacked against me for winning a territory. Then, even if I did manage to get one, I would be at a severe disadvantage for holding it/the occupants within. This was further compounded for me, personally, by the fact that territory owning is the most rewarding part of roleplaying for me & the character I had in mind (Solomon) had previously battled in his backstory.
I will say that this did force me to get creative with Solomon in order to get a land, and opened up new RP opportunities I may not have otherwise pursued. The longer I'm here, the more I've come to appreciate it though!
2) How would you feel about a "beginner's luck bonus" being offered to unranked characters, giving them an advantage in their first battle (e.g. an extra point/side of the die)?
Honestly, I'm on the fence about this. If used once, does it go away? A bonus would be nice, but personally I would prefer that it be tied into something like a site wide activity or quest.
By site wide activities I mean things like the random events that were posted. For example, if your character participated in the Falls tainted water, that character can get one +1 on their next non-practice battle by linking the post where the character participated, limited to 1x per thread).
And Quests could be things like the random events, such as the tainted water supply. Except instead of having it clear up on it's own... maybe interested characters need to investigate/remove the item that is tainting the supply? As they investigate, a mod could post just a quick response with what they find. IE Sue starts walking along the creek and Joe looks into the pool at the base of the Falls. A mod posts that Sue finds a pile of rotting vegetation. Etc. Would likely need to be limited so that you don't end up with something that takes forever to clear.
3) Do you feel the length of time it takes to reach rank 3 is too long? If yes, what do you feel a reasonable length of time would be?
I don't think 7 months is what the average player is looking at? If it takes 20+ battles to reach rank 3 you would need 3 battles a month to reach rank 3 in 7 months. Considering unranked horses have nothing to be challenged for, you are more realistically looking at 10 months. Counting 1 practice and 1 attempt to win a territory per month. I think the only way around this is joining the Peak/Lagoon and being the one to issue their battles? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, haha!
4) Do you feel that dice roll battles should be altered (e.g. count for less exp)? How do you feel about dice rolls for practice? Do they add anything to the game, or should they be nixed?
I LOVE that you have dice roll battles. For most of the sites I've been on, battles have been a severely underused part of the game and/or only used for hugely climactic plotlines. Having practice and low stakes fights be dice rolled (in my opinion) largely contribute to the battle board being as used as it is on TLI.
That being said, I am more partial to PRACTICE dice roll battles being worth half a point less. I think if you are battling for something (a mare/stallion for example) you should still be able to get the full XP from it even if it is a dice roll.
5) Should characters be allowed to take on more challenges per season than the current limit allows, as long as they are willing? If yes, how should this affect exp limits?
I like the way you guys proposed this, with one challenge response mandatory and the others up to the player.
As for the XP, what if we did something where if you lose, you gain half an XP point? Since you are already losing something (quite possibly from being underleveled), maybe you get XP instead so you are not totally losing out by accepting the challenge. Otherwise there isn't really an incentive to respond to the extra non-mandatory battles.
6) How would you define a "co-lead"? How should we classify them, for the purpose of leader-specific rules regarding battles/raids/territories, etc?
Personally, I think for ease of rules, I think a co-lead should be a horse that leads a separate herd within the same territory as the owner. Lead partners that do not run their own herds (such as traditional lead mares/stallions that are the partner of an owner) would not be counted as co-leads.
IE for the Desert for example, (in my opinion) Scarecrow would be considered a co-leader because he is allowed to have his own mini-herd. Same with the Cove & Requiem.
7) Should co-leads/queens/consorts/companions count as high-stakes in battles where they are being challenged for, since the actual territory owner/boss/prime minister is protected from being challenged for, but co-leads and other elite ranks have no such protection? Or should they remain low-stakes, since they are only one "thing" being challenged for?
I think if you go by the definition I offered above for a co-lead, then yes, they should be high-stakes and/or be allowed to fight for themselves.
I do think that generally if a horse is promoted to a high rank they are generally highly regarded and likely something that most leaders would fight strongly for (ie mates, best friends, close family, etc), which makes me want to lean toward them being high-stakes. But if you do this, it opens up a new window of how many roles will you be allowed to protect, etc. Maybe keep the limit of 3 that we already have, but specify that the limit of 3 that can be protected this way must include any co-leaders? IE a herd could then appoint a co-lead, a partner mare/stallion, and one other protected role like heir or second partner.
That being said, I'm not hugely opposed to them remaining low stakes, I just know it would feel strange to have Solomon fight for a mare he claimed 5 minutes ago with the same fervor as a mare that he trusts to lead the herd when he's gone.
8) Should co-leads be eligible for being challenged to a battle even if the territory owner has already been challenged for the season, or should they be protected from this as part of the privilege of being a co-lead?
I think if you go by what I suggested above (co-leads being ones that are allowed to have their own herds) then I think they should be eligible to be challenged for the horses they have laid claim to with an option to default the battle to the owner. IE in the Desert, if someone were to challenge Scarecrow, he would then have the option to take on the challenge himself or ask Cain to step in. If Scarecrow fights, he gets the EXP, but if Cain fights, he would (unless already maxed out on the XP for that season). If Cain stepped in, Cain would still be eligible to be challenged that season (since the original challenge was for Scarecrow).
9) Should co-leads be required to share posting duties with the territory owner in order to keep the territory active? If yes, how would you suggest this be enforced, and what what type of co-lead should be count toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should queens/consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?
I think the rules are fine as they are. There are certain responsibilities that come with being an owner of a territory and I think this should still be one of them.
10) Should co-leads count toward the player territory limit? I.e. if a player has two characters who are co-leads, should they not be allowed to claim a territory? If yes, how would you suggest this be enforced, and what type of co-lead should be count toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?
I agree with your commentary on this. I do not believe they should count toward the territory limit. I think if they player base continues to grow this may be something that needs looking at in the future, but I think for right now, I echo your thoughts.