Ruscfast
Militia/Mercenary
FN: R???lfr (Routh-OOL-vur)
R???lfr, Leader of the Sons of Ornlu, Warlord of Calligarry of Strathclyde
Posts: 66
|
Post by Ruscfast on Jul 22, 2009 21:48:58 GMT -7
Firstly: Happy Birthday Mog
This was inspired from a form of duelling from Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. I thought of it since most of what we all do is called "practise" as I assume it hons our skills without any focus on who wins or loses. What this would be is actual "fighting" without going to events as there is a sort of ranking system that is recored. In short this is a way for people to gain an amount of prestige each week. The layout is as close to how it appears in the game as I can make it.
How it works, all we need is a sheet of paper and a rope. At any point during a practise any fighter may challenge another; the one challenged decides the terms (weapons, armour, etc.) which they both much observe and they enter the ring and fight. The winer is declared the victor. At the end of the day the one who is undefeated is the "Champion of the day" and their name is recored. They retain this title until defeated in which the are "Champion of another day". The only other rule is that in order to challenge a champion or former champion the fighter must have held these titles before or have the "approval" of one who has and to challenge the raining champion all former champions must be defeated first.
Still a work in progress, but the still very easily adapted.
|
|
|
Post by Moginheden on Jul 23, 2009 12:23:21 GMT -7
This name has been taken by another game, also it's a fairly common concept in video games so I wouldn't call it Mandalorian. How about "Champion's Honour"? or "Ranked Dueling Ring"?
I like the idea though.
|
|
|
Post by Moginheden on Jul 23, 2009 13:41:06 GMT -7
The system in a lot of games ignores "of the day" and just keeps everyone's rank until they defeat whoever is above them, and anyone can challenge the bottom ranked person, (so not just the champion is fighting.) Duels can happen at any time, but if you are defeated you can't challenge anyone for the rest of the day.
The idea would be we have 3 ranked spots. Say one day they start like this: Champion - Ráðúlfr 2nd - Randvar 3rd - Poniente
I want to get ranked. I'm not allowed to challenge Randvar or Ráðúlfr yet, so I challenge Poniente.
Poniente sets the rules of our duel to a single short blue each, and doesn't mention armor. We fight, (my armor counts as normal rules, he isn't wearing any) I win.
I then challenge Randvar. He sets the rules to no armor, single long blue weapons. We fight, (I still wear my armor, but it doesn't count.) He wins.
I can't challenge anyone again since I was defeated.
Now Draggoas wants to get ranked but isn't currently on the board so he challenges the 3rd, (me) Since I am being challenged I can still fight. I set the rules to full armor, dual wielding blue swords. I win.
Randvar then decides to challenge Ráðúlfr. Nether has any armor so that's ignored. Ráðúlfr decides to allow any weapons. Randvar wins.
Ráðúlfr has been defeated so he can't challenge Randvar to get his champion spot back till the next day.
The day ends with: Champion - Randvar 2nd - Ráðúlfr 3rd - Moginheden
Poniente ends the day the same as anyone who has never won.
Is this the system your looking for?
|
|
|
Post by Moginheden on Jul 23, 2009 13:44:55 GMT -7
If the system I described is what you were going for we can ignore the paper and have 3 tokens, (like the ones from the mini-event) that we pass around
|
|
|
Post by Cib on Jul 23, 2009 18:30:30 GMT -7
If something like this were to happen maybe each realm could have an official "scribe" that records the day's stats to a web page that lists stats and such?
|
|
|
Post by David of Doell on Jul 25, 2009 15:57:20 GMT -7
I like how you'd have to start at the bottom of the ranking and work your way up so not just the top guy is fighting. But it sounds like you only have one chance to make it to the top as you can't re-challenge someone. It just means you can't recover from a mistake. Cool idea though.
|
|
|
Post by Cib on Jul 26, 2009 16:59:16 GMT -7
It might be interesting to use something like this for units or 2-4 man teams as well.
|
|
|
Post by Moginheden on Jul 26, 2009 21:35:50 GMT -7
This game isn't like the other games we play. It's not done in 10 minutes then forgotten. It's something we would maintain between practices. You'd still get more than one chance, just not in the same practice.
It's less of a game and more of a ongoing tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Cib on Jul 27, 2009 10:23:25 GMT -7
It's less of a game and more of a ongoing tournament. Exactly, if we ever want to have ongoing stats, something like this might be our ticket.
|
|
gafiltafish
Militia/Mercenary
I got a mean arm
Posts: 85
|
Post by gafiltafish on Jul 27, 2009 12:05:05 GMT -7
We did this in amtgard because we have political offices to keep the parks running smoothly but the only person who could be challenged was the Champion. The problem we had was every person in a 50 member park started challenging it it was nuts and took most of a weekend once. But if you restrict it like Mog said it usually works a little better.
|
|
|
Post by Moginheden on Jul 27, 2009 15:47:00 GMT -7
Ya I figure we probably want about a minimum of 30% of the regular members to hold a ranked level so that the same person doesn't have to face all the challengers at once. This system works with every member being ranked rather than top 3 but that becomes a hassle to track and cheapens the status a little since it's gradual instead of having a rank at all = good player
|
|
|
Post by Cib on Mar 17, 2011 19:02:31 GMT -7
I would like to revisit this, I think it would be a good thing for the organization. Do we want to keep working here, or start a new thread?
|
|
|
Post by David of Doell on Mar 18, 2011 0:56:19 GMT -7
Ya I figure we probably want about a minimum of 30% of the regular members to hold a ranked level so that the same person doesn't have to face all the challengers at once. This system works with every member being ranked rather than top 3 but that becomes a hassle to track and cheapens the status a little since it's gradual instead of having a rank at all = good player People might feel bad if they're not one of the "rank at all = good player" so it's better that everyone has a rank. I agree with limiting challenges in some way so one cannot rack up a whole bunch of points in one go. The ranks could be based on points. One point is earned for defeating someone below your rank, two points for someone equal to you and three for defeating someone above your rank. This would work best if ranks were based on a range of points instead of just the highest number of points. Actually levels might be better because then there isn't a cap. Now to illustrate my entire idea. Level 1:1-5 points, level 2:6-10 points, level 3:10-20 points etc. (this is merely an example levelling curve). Bob has 11 points(level 3) and Jim has 19 points(also level 3). Instead of Jim being the #1 rank because he has the most points, he has an opponent of equal rank but less points. So either level 3's can earn 2 points for defeating the other as long as they remain the same rank. The problem with the other system is that you're basically going to end up ranking the top players as #1, #2, #3 etc. Where #2 has to beat #1 to advance but that's not a fair scale of a players skill if he is only measured against the top person. As an example say I'm average against Mog but really good versus everyone else and Mog is good vs me but only average against everyone else. I wouldn't be able to advance past Mog even if I was a better overall player because in that system rank #4 has to beat rank #3 in order to advance. My proposed idea is that a player will advance based on his ability to defeat a variety of other players. So instead of ranking your players like this: 1. Billy 2. Steve 3. Sally It would be more like this Level 1: Sally, Bob, Tom etc. Level 2: Steve, Jim, Justin Level 3: Billy, Hank So in this scenario we can say that Billy and Hank are of similar skill level even though one could have more points than the other. Maybe Hank sucks against Billy but that doesn't stop him from advancing because he doesn't have to challenge Billy, he can challenge the level 2's though at less of a point gain. The advantage of a lesser level gaining 3 points for defeating a higher level is that if a new player joins and is already fairly good at Belegarth he can advance to his "true" rank more quickly than if he had to fight tons of duels just to catch up to the players that have been playing for several years. If the newcomer beat three level 1's, his equals at the time, he would advance to level 2 with 6 points in the course of only one day. This may sound confusing but I tried to put as many examples as I could. I hope you understand it. In summary I propose: 1. Levels with ranges of points instead of straight number ranks that only allow one person to claim title of #1. This allows a player to advance by defeating a variety of opponents and not merely the person above them on a list. This shows a players overall skill not just their ability to beat the one opponent above them. 2. Possible scoring system of 1 point for beating someone lower, 2 for an equal and 3 points for defeating a higher level. This will prevent extreme level separation such as some players being level 30 while the others in the realm stay at 5 for example. This allows a new player to advance quickly if they are already skilled without wasting time duelling players who they are much more advanced than. 3. Limited challenges per practice. Perhaps only lower ranks can challenge those above them or maybe a person can only challenge those within their level range once per practice. 4. Experience curve. It gets harder to level up as you gain levels so that players eventually "settle" at a level reflecting their true skill in addition to their battle experience. A player with three years fighting experience will naturally have more points than a newcomer but will not be 100 levels above them. If the new player could consistently beat the veterans he would catch up in points therefore attaining an accurate big picture. These are the basic building blocks I'm proposing. Everything is flexible and open to tweaking.
|
|
|
Post by Cib on Mar 18, 2011 10:13:57 GMT -7
How are pints gained and lost (thus preventing infinite point inflation)?
How do we keep a player from intentional stagnation? (Gaining a high level and refusing to fight after for fear of loosing it?)
|
|
|
Post by David of Doell on Mar 18, 2011 23:45:09 GMT -7
How are points gained and lost (thus preventing infinite point inflation)? Rapid growth of level ranges is the would prevent infinite inflation. If I kept with the example curve of doubling the points for each level then level 6 would require 81-160 points and level 7 would require 161-320 points. Assuming we play only half the year, 26 weeks, you would need to gain 12 points a week to end up with 312 points at the end. This means you would have to win against your equals 6 times for 2 points per duel or defeat even more lesser levels for 1 point per duel. It would be highly unlikely that you defeat EVERYONE of equal level EVERY practice otherwise they wouldn't be an equal level to you for very long. Assuming there is a limited number of duels allowed per practice your point gain per week would be limited. In evenly matched duels a person would win about 50% of the time meaning it would be more likely to gain around 6 points per week. Based on 6 points per week a player would attain 156 points at the end of 26 weeks, level 6. Another player with only 81 points could also be level 6. If each player was only allowed to initiate 3 duels per practice but could accept all challenges then points gained weekly would be reasonable. This levelling system would be gain-only and not affected by losses. With my proposed system you can't lose points and are therefore not likely refuse a fight. Challenge RulesHere's some ideas: -A player can only initiate two challenges per practice but can accept all challenges initiated against them. -A player can only initiate challenges to levels equal or greater than their own but can accept challenges from all levels. -Are players allowed to refuse challenges? Based on the above rules I would say no unless they are not fit to fight eg. injury. -A challenge consists of three duels, best out of three -Who determines what weapons are used? Challenger or the one being challenged? Perhaps the one being challenged gets to choose. Perhaps both choose secretly to prevent tailoring your combo to your opponent's.
|
|