1) Do you feel that the battle ranking system should be altered to be more accessible to new players? If yes, how so?
I do believe in rewarding veteran players. At the same time, I feel like while the odds for dice roll battles could be considered fair, the odds for a roleplay battle are almost insurmountable for unranked characters. The player of a rank 3 horse would need to make some serious errors for you to even stand a chance of tying them at this point. Which means that unless you gain ranks, the odds of winning a challenge for a territory are stacked heavily against you. (I realize keeping territories from changing hands too much isn't necessarily a bad thing but can be discouraging from a new/returning player POV)
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)?
I don't feel like this is a great answer in that RP-wise, it makes no sense, and logistics-wise it could be a nightmare as it may encourage people to keep creating new characters in order to get that greater chance at a win.
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?
It is highly unlikely that your average character will reach rank 3 in 7 months or even 10 months with the current ruleset. Honestly, with the limitations in place on how many challenges can be issued to a territory per season (and I'm not saying I disagree with it), even finding the opportunity to issue a non-practice challenge is difficult. Plus most unranked characters have nothing to be challenged for unless they are members of the Peak/Lagoon - and that's only 1 challenge you can respond to defensively per season for all members.
I would propose either allowing a character to challenge for their freedom once per season regardless of whether the character holding them captive has already responded to a challenge. Or having high-stakes and dice roll battles being separately counted. Possibly even both.
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?
As dice roll battles are currently the only guaranteed method of attaining xp, I don't really support the idea of reducing the xp they award unless xp between ranks is reduced or attaining it through legitimate battles is made more accessible.
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?
See above - re: my comments on allowing both a high- and low-stakes challenge per season. But yes, I think characters should be allowed to respond to more than one challenge per season if desired, and should be rewarded full XP for it under the current set of rules (which is, if they win).
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?
A co-lead to me is a horse that shares the land but with a separate herd. Therefore they should count seperately for challenge limits, etc.
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?
Any high-ranking horse should count as high stakes. That said, I believe only the OWNER of a territory, the owner's MATE, and the SECOND should count as a high-stake (or in the case of the Peak/Lagoon, the lead and the two subordinate leaders). The second's mate, any other mares, heirs, etc do not generally have any powers and thus should be normal stakes.
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?
They should be able to be challenged, as I feel that such a privilege really makes no sense. This may also help alleviate the issue of there being so few opportunities to issue challenges per season.
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 type of co-lead should be counted toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should queens/consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?
Maybe not required to hold the territory, but I feel that if a co-lead with their own herd does not actively post within the territory for 2 weeks, any individuals they claimed should be free to go and the rank available to a new co-lead as determined by the territory owner.
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 counted toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?
At this time I don't feel this is necessary. However, having a separate limit (ie: 2 leads and 2 co-leads) may not be a bad idea.