Loyalty Wall

[Sylus Kurgen]

This is a concept that was tried, and I'm not completely educated on how well it did in the test phase. In theory it's a nice political gem. For those that don't remember it, or weren't here when it was tried, the Loyalty Wall has one purpose. Protect the Overlord. When an Overlord has a complete roster of 7 Loyal Barons, Warlords are unable to challenge for the title without the grant from a cycle's WLT.

The idea then becomes Warlord A wants to challenge for Overlord, but can't without breaking up the Wall. There are 3 ways to do this.

1. Challenge a Baron themselves, become Renegade, and then Challenge.

2. Convince one of their Warlord buddies to challenge a baron, become Renegade, and then the Warlord can go for the gold.

3. Convince an already Loyal Baron to go turncoat and then challenge.

The heart and soul of the concept is to introduce a mechanic of intrigue to the game. Back room deals and such in a play for power.

[Spell]

I voted no.

It's a hard sell, like SOA. The reasoning for the change (moreso for SOA) had been that complaints were made multiple times and more frequently, and this was discussed with Administration (DoS and one Admin included) as well to the point of agreement that the Loyal Wall, at least for that time period, had to go.

We've only recently had threads about how hard it was to achieve titles for new players, and now the discussion is being turned back to difficulty.

My vote for no isn't because of these reasons though, I'm voting no because.

1: I'd rather see the Overlord *not* be challenged by Warlords at all, unless they win the Warlord Tournament.
2: Renegade Barons being the only source, outside of Warlord Tournaments, for the Overlord to be challenged.

This way becoming a Baron is the first and foremost thing any newly minted Warlord should focus on, and puts more focus on the Warlord Tournament for being another way to gain the advantage to become Overlord.

That's my personal opinions though. My competitive nature sees it as a good option, but I also have to think outside of my own box and look to the current issues of the playerbase. How many people are actually calling for the Loyal Wall to return? How will this affect newer players attempting to rank up, should they see that a high probability that the Overlord will step in on their challenges? Will it be worth even the effort?

If SoA is to be brought back as well in any form? My opinion would be a an easy: No. (I enjoyed SoA btw, but SoA+Loyal Wall seems far too unfair to newer and more casual players).

Also, are votes going to be counted to coincide with posts regarding why? Since it says "Please explain" in the choices. Any vote without an explanation will not be counted?

[Sylus Kurgen]

I voted no.

It's a hard sell, like SOA. The reasoning for the change (moreso for SOA) had been that complaints were made multiple times and more frequently, and this was discussed with Administration (DoS and one Admin included) as well to the point of agreement that the Loyal Wall, at least for that time period, had to go.

We've only recently had threads about how hard it was to achieve titles for new players, and now the discussion is being turned back to difficulty.

My vote for no isn't because of these reasons though, I'm voting no because.

1: I'd rather see the Overlord *not* be challenged by Warlords at all, unless they win the Warlord Tournament.
2: Renegade Barons being the only source, outside of Warlord Tournaments, for the Overlord to be challenged.

This way becoming a Baron is the first and foremost thing any newly minted Warlord should focus on, and puts more focus on the Warlord Tournament for being another way to gain the advantage to become Overlord.

Also, are votes going to be counted to coincide with posts regarding why? Since it says "Please explain" in the choices. Any vote without an explanation will not be counted?

That's how I'm treating it. I don't want just a "No" I want thoughts for or against.

[Spell]

I edited my original post to add:

"That's my personal opinions though. My competitive nature sees it as a good option, but I also have to think outside of my own box and look to the current issues of the playerbase. How many people are actually calling for the Loyal Wall to return? How will this affect newer players attempting to rank up, should they see that a high probability that the Overlord will step in on their challenges? Will it be worth even the effort?

If SoA is to be brought back as well in any form? My opinion would be a an easy: No. (I enjoyed SoA btw, but SoA+Loyal Wall seems far too unfair to newer and more casual players)."

But Sylus was quick with a reply. Thanks for it! Good to know about the voting.

[PrlUnicorn]

I voted no. The Loyalty Wall has rarely been used and has made for some interesting RP in the process. However, it also may have discouraged Challenges and other RP in the process. The Overlord has Loyal Barons to Test any challengers but WLT winners. I think that has been useful over the years. If an Overlord chooses a Champion that can't defeat a Challenger on any given night, that comes under the heading of them's the breaks when they have to face someone on their own.

I miss the political process of the Barons' Council. However, having a set line up for championing a vacated barony has been helpful.

To add to Spell/Jesse's comments on SoA, I have never really cared for that process. When I have a Baron character, I tend to be more active with that character in live roleplay and taking part in events. Whether or not that character is dueling every week, it is a more active presence. Maybe I am wrong in this belief, but those characters that are active Barons seem to be given more time without being challenged. I'm not saying that's why I am a more active player during those times, it just seems like the community respects those efforts to encourage play/writing activities.

[Munchem]

I voted yes. It's a valid strategy.

[Kalamere]

I meant to post this earlier for a little perspective, but got caught up in other stuff. I voted No because Challenging for Overlord is already vastly more complicated than the other two sports.

I could just leave it at that, but lets use a visual aid to really drive it home.

-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------

Quoting Cor over here from the other thread, since this is where it applies.

He is not wrong. There are far more complications and possibilities around an OL challenge than there are for either the Diamond of the Archmage.

The thing is though that the OL is actually challengable whereas the other two are not. The only way to get to Diamond or Archmage is to win a tournament held every two or three months. The Overlord can be challenged at any time (excepting the blackout period around the WLT), which makes it unique among the top titles.

Once a cycle we have an OL challenge that matches the Archmage. Win a tourney, get a title shot. For all the other challenges, I'm all for making those a bit more difficult while at the same time doing something to make baron alignments somewhat more meaningful.

I'd be in favor of re-instatng the loyal wall rules.

[JewellRavenlock]

I voted yes.

I've always liked the potential for RP deal-making that comes with the Loyal Wall idea.

Does it make it harder to challenge? Yes! But that's what I like about it. It means you have to do one of those things Sylus originally suggested in his first post.

[Sylus Kurgen]

9 Votes, but only 5 have posted to the thread. 3 for, 2 against. I'm going to keep the thread open to let others come forward with their personal opinions and thoughts on it.


Corlanthis pointed out the gauntlet already involved with challenging for Overlord without this in play. All of those roads are built around political intrigue. In recent years the Arena has been compared to WWE in some ways, for me I agree with that, but I also look at it like the Roman Colliseum. The Overlord is Emperor, Barons are Senators, Warlords and under are all the Gladiators. What does it take for a Gladiator to take down an Emperor?

I'm voting yes to the Loytalty wall simply because...the Overlord should be the HARDEST title to challenge for. New players SHOULD be encouraged to try for a Barony first before trying to go for the #1 seat.

I've said it in other places now, but I firmly believe there needs to be a difficulty progression that's naturally inherent in the sport. The higher you climb, the harder the game gets, with more things asked of the players. This isn't a pick up and play game from the App Store. Being a Baron requires a level of commitment and personal responsibility to the game. Overlord as well.

[G]

I voted no because once you have an Overlord who can't be challenged, you'll have a bunch of people complaining about how the Overlord can't be challenged.

And when/if you have any events that give prizes that allow for challenges to Barons, you'll have a bunch of people complaining how you're making it easier for someone to depose the Overlord.

More to it than that, but those are the immediate problems that I recall from the last time we tried this debacle.

[Sylus Kurgen]

I voted no because once you have an Overlord who can't be challenged, you'll have a bunch of people complaining about how the Overlord can't be challenged.

And when/if you have any events that give prizes that allow for challenges to Barons, you'll have a bunch of people complaining how you're making it easier for someone to depose the Overlord.

More to it than that, but those are the immediate problems that I recall from the last time we tried this debacle.

People complained about having to do a little extra work, and then they complained that they didn't have to do as much work. For me, the effort put in to achieving something should match the reward.

[G]

The tune will quickly change the moment someone *Finally* gets past that Loyal Wall to finally meet up against the Overlord, and then.. they find out that they're only going to be tested once they get there. The cries of the unfairness of it all will be deafening, as will the amusement of those protected by the wall.

It's already difficult enough to get the title of Overlord, and a Loyal Wall makes it even more difficult.

[Kalamere]

G, your experience as coordinator dealing with the complaints is appreciated and fine input. Ultimately it's a thing Sylus needs to deal with whenever pretty much anything is changed.

Rather than hear the opinions of others who have complained to you though, I would prefer to hear your own thoughts on the topic.

[G]

Rather than hear the opinions of others who have complained to you though, I would prefer to hear your own thoughts on the topic.

My main thoughts on the topic, aside from the complaints dealt with, are really that it's already more than difficult enough to achieve the title of Overlord. With that in mind, what purpose does it serve to make it even more difficult?

If there's going to be a wall that a warlord has to get through and then there's another chance that after having gone through all the effort that it takes to get past that wall, then that warlord/baron won't even get the opportunity to fight the Overlord because of a test? (Which acts like a wall anyway)

Now, if you add the wall and remove the use of the Test, that's a different story.

There's so much one has to do as it is if they challenge the Overlord. Get rank, then challenge, then coordinate for when the challenge takes place, then plan for a test just in case, then coordinate with whoever you're going to use for the test or counter the test, then actually get the time set to fight that challenge, then spend the hours it takes to go through the actual fight.

You add the Loyal Wall and it makes me less likely to be interested in bothering to even be remotely interested in challenging again because that's just a lot more work to do on top of what I already have to do.

Making things more interesting doesn't necessarily mean making it more difficult.

[Sylus Kurgen]

Rather than hear the opinions of others who have complained to you though, I would prefer to hear your own thoughts on the topic.

My main thoughts on the topic, aside from the complaints dealt with, are really that it's already more than difficult enough to achieve the title of Overlord. With that in mind, what purpose does it serve to make it even more difficult?

If there's going to be a wall that a warlord has to get through and then there's another chance that after having gone through all the effort that it takes to get past that wall, then that warlord/baron won't even get the opportunity to fight the Overlord because of a test? (Which acts like a wall anyway)

Now, if you add the wall and remove the use of the Test, that's a different story.

There's so much one has to do as it is if they challenge the Overlord. Get rank, then challenge, then coordinate for when the challenge takes place, then plan for a test just in case, then coordinate with whoever you're going to use for the test or counter the test, then actually get the time set to fight that challenge, then spend the hours it takes to go through the actual fight.

You add the Loyal Wall and it makes me less likely to be interested in bothering to even be remotely interested in challenging again because that's just a lot more work to do on top of what I already have to do.

Making things more interesting doesn't necessarily mean making it more difficult.

Overcoming the Loyalty Wall in itself is a test. I'd support that voiding a Test of Worthiness.