Here you can chat about life, roleplay, or whatever you like. Please be polite and kind to each other at all times.
Consider joining our Discord Server to chat with other members and receive announcements live. You can also use the @ command there to ping mods and other members.
>> Posted on May 24, 2020 at 12:59:22 PM by Uforia
1) Do you feel that the battle ranking system should be altered to be more accessible to new players? If yes, how so?
I don’t think it should be altered. Even though it takes a long time in RL to earn rank 3, the only horses really aiming for that rank are characters set on owning a territory or obtaining a position of leadership/power. Thus, it should take time. This allows for IC development and greater reward when characters do achieve a higher rank.
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)?
Personally, I don’t like this idea. What happens if they luckily win? Now they’re a low rank who’s upset a high rank and could lose their prize next challenge. Yeah, there’s room for character development and plots there, but the same can be argued for a situation wherein it’s just luck that allows a win and not a game enforced handicap. I like it when it’s actually luck, and not an additional gift by the game. Adding a bonus like this, to me, feels unnecessary and forced.
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?
Short answer: No.
It’s good that it takes time, because that requires effort and dedication and shows, as you say, the masters. I understand concern for incoming players feeling disadvantaged, but to that I say: they’ve read the rules and understand this is a ranked game. That means they need to put in time and might not be able to have a successful fighter on the battle board initially. The reality of ranked games is that they require time and persistence from those trying to achieve a high rank. The same applies for existing players who have grand ideas for new characters or foals. We have to work to earn it, and everybody starts at rank 0. There are ways to speed the process up in game, either by winning a territory or earning the favor of an existing lead to earn XP under the relative safety of a higher ranking horse.
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?
Sabrina’s suggestion that multiple practice battle dice rolls earn XP led me to this thought: Maybe limit players to 3 practice battles, the first being a dice roll for easy XP, but the next two must be written out. Quick spars to earn XP that will give players themselves more experience in written battles and (Sabrina also said this) give judges practice, too.
If the whole point of practicing battling is to get good enough to win at high stakes fights, then it makes sense to me to incorporate the written aspect in additional low-stakes practices, both IC and OOC. It benefits players & their characters.
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 don’t like this idea. If a character is able to be challenged, that means they’re in a position of power and have a herd. Challenges are a reality of a leader. Being able to say “Naw, you don’t get to try to take this horse from me,” to a challenger is wildly unfair, and seems to favor the horse being challenged, especially if there are zero repercussions for declining. It feels like godmoding, or as if everyone has won a perk that allows them to decline a challenge. I dislike it a lot, and don’t see it working.
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?
At the end of the day, only one horse can claim to own a territory.
It makes sense to me that a second-/secondary herd would be responsible for their band just as the territory leader is responsible (and thus able to challenge and be challenged by others), the only difference being their activity doesn’t count toward the claim on the territory and they can’t be the one challenged for rights to the territory. I don’t think the second should be a horse who can be challenged for if they have a herd of their own.
It also makes sense to me (for the game mechanics, at least) that, since mares are able to claim just as much as stallions, that any horse elevated to partner to the lead of the territory have as much rights & responsibilities as the horse who owns the territory, with again the one difference being activity having no bearing on the validity of the claim of the territory.
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?
High ranked are high stakes, in my opinion. I think referencing the specific herd HTML is all that needs to be done for this one, as most are “lead mare/stallion, consort/confidante, herd, children.” Like, it’s easy to see who a leader might demand a high-stakes battle for if they’re challenged to dice roll based on the herd layout.
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 a horse has a herd they can be challenged for the members of that herd, regardless of whether or not they are the owner of the territory in which they live.
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 addressed this in 6: since ownership of the territory falls ultimately on one horse, I feel the responsibility of activity/posting duties should fall solely on their shoulders regardless of how else power/responsibility is distributed.
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 don’t think so, especially if they aren’t responsible for territory activity via posts. Replies: