Chat

1) Do you feel that the battle ranking system should be altered to be more accessible to new players? If yes, how so?

No. The whole point of the ranking system is to keep new players from coming in, winning territories and mares left and right, and then disappearing. The ranking system was built to reward long-term, active players, and players who play their characters according to a character's claims. With this system in place, you can't just drop a character in the game, say he's a master fighter, and win everything without playing it out. If forces a player to actually play that out. If you alter it to give new players an advantage, you might as well eliminate it.

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)?

Hmmm... I'm not sure about this. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I do like the idea Loveinspired proposed about more opportunities to acquire battle bonuses via participation in in-game events or quests. Right now you really only win these things in contests or featured player events done OOC, which are rare. Making bonuses a little easier to obtain might be helpful for unranked characters, but also reward activity, as the ranking system was put in place to do.

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?

Realistically, it does take longer than 7 months to reach rank 3. One of those experience points gained each month must be gained by being challenged. The chances of someone else stepping up and challenging your character every single month is low, unless you work something out OOC. You also can't challenge for much if your character doesn't already have a territory or a position as co-lead. I don't think 7 months is too long, but the opportunity to reach that should be more readily available. I believe a character should be able to gain 2 or 3 points with practice battles per season. If they are challenged or issue an actual challenge after participating in all of their practice battles for the season, then they just don't get any experience points for those.

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 don't believe dice roll battles should be eliminated. They are a great way for players to challenge without investing excessive amounts of time and energy into the game at a given point in time, which helps those of us who work full time, and helps keeps the battle board active. I do agree that they seem a little spammy at the beginning of each month. I think dice battles should be worth less experience than role-played battles.

This can be worked out in several ways, but here is are my thoughts:

I'm leaning towards dice roll battles being worth 1 point and RP battles being worth 2 points, with monthly gains still capped at 3 points for the season. This way, even if the rule remains the same that only one practice battle is allowed per season, characters could choose to role-play that practice battle and get 2 points each for practice instead. I don't like the idea of people being forced to role play out practice battles, but this would offer some encouragement. I also think judgments of practice battles should be open to critique so they act as practice for battle judges too!

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?

YES. If a character is open to being challenged again, then they should be allowed to do so.

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?

1) Co-leads could be a romantic partner, close friend, or family member of the territory lead that rules over the same herd. If this is the case, then they should be challengable for herd members, or be able to block raids the same as the primary territory lead. I believe these characters should count separately in monthly challenge limits (for example, if someone challenges for a herd member via one lead, someone else could then challenge for another through a different lead). If co-leads can block raids and benefit a herd, then they should also have to actively protect the herd as well. They either have these rights or not, as appointed by the primary lead.

2) Co-leads could also be a second or third lead within a herd that has their own sub-herd. In this case, then they are responsible for their own sub-herd and only that. The primary lead is not responsible for the second or third lead's sub-herd.

What type of co-lead each character is must be clearly defined by the primary lead of the territory upon appointment. There must be some sort of clear statement of such in the territory layout (or on the updates board if a layout update is pending). And if the co-lead is a type that has their own sub-herd, then which members are a part of the sub-herd must be clearly indicated in the layout, either by a symbol by their name, being listed separately or otherwise.

There should only be ONE primary territory owner, and this owner would then have the power to appoint co-leads or remove co-leads. They are ultimately responsible for receiving challenges related to the territory itself and their posts alone count for territory activity.

If there is no official co-lead or second or third lead clearly indicated on the territory layout or in a pending update, then the territory defaults to no co-leads and the primary lead is responsible for all challenges, raids 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?

Yes. I believe co-leads should be considered high stakes, but only official co-leads. People can give all the fancy titles they want on their herd layout. High stakes should only count for characters in actual positions of power.

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?

Oops. I kind of went overboard and addressed this above. See question 6.

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 count toward this (i.e. just full co-lead, or should queens/consorts/figureheads be applicable as well)?

I also addressed this one in question 6.

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)?

No. Co-leads, like lagoon and peak leaders, are appointed via IC interaction. The true territory owner has all the power to give or revoke these positions at any time based on events IC. Making these characters count towards a limit isn't really fair because they don't really own anything, and are at the mercy of the territory lead. And, if their posts are not required to keep a territory active, then it's not really any added responsibility for the player, so shouldn't contribute to stretching anyone too thin.