A idea for a change to YB. More info/new idea at end of thread

[Zappo]

I like this idea

It would help recycle players though the ranks, if they so chose, and would make the fights that a tier 7 person has very tense.

What? Wasn't the whole point about minimizing the effect of bad luck, esp. on high level fighters that took a lot to develop? And now that someone proposes that a fighter of the highest level gets killed (from a mechanical POV) with only one loss, to anyone... you say you agree? Unless you see forced retirement as something very different from death, there's something I'm missing here.

 

[Jin Chi]

I had suggested something similar to this a while ago with a slight difference.....

I think you should only lose a rank when you lose to a lower-ranked fighter. There should be no penalty at all for losing a fight to an equal or greater ranked fighter....

Of course, if you get rid of lost ranks altogether, you might need to balance the classes some more since Honor has a real advantage in the rank loss department and Sashes never lose a damn rank anyhow.

I have to say, I am so frustrated with the yo-yo effect that I've only fought 1 match or so in the last couple of weeks and I'm really not looking to fight any others probably until the next rules upgrade....

It is hard enough to win in this game. It is even harder to advance when a couple of bad fights can wipe out your entire career.

 

[Vanor]

What? Wasn't the whole point about minimizing the effect of bad luck, esp. on high level fighters that took a lot to develop? And now that someone proposes that a fighter of the highest level gets killed (from a mechanical POV) with only one loss, to anyone... you say you agree? Unless you see forced retirement as something very different from death, there's something I'm missing here.

Yes, but I do see retirement as different then death. If I reached tier 7, and loss I'd still keep RP'ing as the retired master. And it's not to anyone. You can only lose your spot as the tier 7 person to someone in tier 6/rank 10 of your path.

Also if you didn't want to take the chance of being forced to retire, you could simply stop fighting when you hit tier 6 rank 10.

Myself I thought it would be better for the tier 7 person to be knocked back to tier 6 rank 0... But I do think Phoneix's idea has merrit... But as you said, I don't see forced retirement as the same thing as death, in my mind it's very different.

In fact, if I ever reach tier 7, I'd proably retire anyway. Keep RP'ing as Vanor, and start a new character for fighting with.

 

[Phoenix8008]

What? Wasn't the whole point about minimizing the effect of bad luck, esp. on high level fighters that took a lot to develop? And now that someone proposes that a fighter of the highest level gets killed (from a mechanical POV) with only one loss, to anyone... you say you agree? Unless you see forced retirement as something very different from death, there's something I'm missing here.

Zappo, here's a revision. The Tier 7 fighter could fight anyone else normally, except for someone who is at the top of Tier 6 and challenging them for their spot in Tier 7. Only when being challenged for their spot would a loss force a retirement/death/dissaperence. Also consier this: the fighter would not have to dissapear. They could stay around for IC purposes but just not fight anymore. Anyway, after you have reached the top, what purpose is there for staying around?

Another possiblity is this: The Tier 7 fighter could always switch paths and drop a Tier to remain an active fighter.

Edit- yep, what Vanor said! Wicht, I'm especially interested in your opinion of this possible fix for the 'top-heavy' problem, since that was your main issue with this proposed rule change.

 

[Zappo]

I don't have any trouble with the tier 7 suggestion. It won't still affect anyone for some time. Even if you could no longer lose ranks, it still would very seldom kick in.

Yes, but in a RPG the point of the game is to have fun, if people aren't having fun, then someone is doing something wrong. It seems to me that a lot of people feel they could have more fun in YB then they currently are.

Just as I don't launch ordinary kobolds at 10th level characters, just as I would consider a DM doing this a very poor one, I fully expect a sizeable portion of my character's destiny to be out of my control. Would you demand to automatically pass all saves that would kill your character, or to be immune to domination, or to reroll on the Reincarnation table until you get the same race you were before? You wouldn't be happy playing Call of Cthulhu, I guess. The fun lies in facing challenges - both fighting challenges (you lose a rank if you lose), and roleplaying challenges (you turn to Yakuza if you lose).

I don't see tier advancement as being a prerequisite to roleplaying enjoyment. The old Kerall had a good IC thread and many IC bits in every fight he was in, and I got a few compliments for the last plot twist - and, more importantly, I had some real fun. But he never got past Gang Boss 0. And in the last few fights, I've actually arranged things so that he would almost certainly lose and become Dirty Bastard 0 again before the reset, so that I could have the rules backing me when I stated that something terrible would happen to him on another loss. Advancement is fun in the sense it allows the character to evolve and thus gives a roleplaying opportunity. But it is just one way to evolve, one opportunity, among many others that impossibility to lose would destroy. Not all characters are heroes that always win and can only get more powerful.

Anyway, this seems to be one of those totally subjective things. I think you should post a poll to find out the general consensus. I recommend, don't just place "yes" or "no", give a few options and place a suggestion to read this thread too, so that people can see the different POVs.

 

[Zappo]

Edit- yep, what Vanor said! Wicht, I'm especially interested in your opinion of this possible fix for the 'top-heavy' problem, since that was your main issue with this proposed rule change.

No problem, it wouldn't be a large influence (for the single person - it would influence the "bell curve" much, though). My problem (one of them ) isn't the prevalence of powerful characters, but the increase of complexity for the individual that this prevalence brings. This solution would not do much to simplify things for the individual, since it would only affect very expert players anyway.

I've checked the hall of records, and I see that Vanor is right when he says that few would go up a tier. Maybe I am pessimistic in this regard. The effect would scale with time, though, and combine with the buffer ranks and powers that influence the ranks gained/lost after a match; I'm not sure that a simple count of wins and new tier would reflect the potential situation precisely.

 

[Vanor]

I see your points Zappo, and I do plan on running a poll, in a few days. I wanted to give people a chance to discuss this before I made a poll and had people vote.

I wasn't really planing on a simple yes/no poll, but I found when working on the rules committie, that having a poll with multable choses, you seldom got much resloved. To easy to get a 3 or 4 way tie, or not a clear majorty support for one idea over the others.

I think this idea is cut and dry enough, that a simple poll could be used. But I would try to include each sides PoV in the poll, and would proably put the poll in this thread to make sure people making informed votes.

 

[Vanor]

I've checked the hall of records, and I see that Vanor is right when he says that few would go up a tier. Maybe I am pessimistic in this regard. The effect would scale with time, though, and combine with the buffer ranks and powers that influence the ranks gained/lost after a match; I'm not sure that a simple count of wins and new tier would reflect the potential situation precisely.

Well there wouldn't be any buffer ranks anymore, and powers that effect ranks gained/loss after a match would have to be delt with in some way.

The effect would scale in time, but looking over the hall of records, not many people would be any higher then they are now. The thing to remember, is you still have to win to advance. So if someone is running a 50/50 win/loss they wouldn't advance very quickly. They'd be at Tier 4 after 20 games... I think 20 games would be enough to get the hang of stuff.

 

[reiella]

Not so much in favor of this, much of the same reasoning Zappo gave.

I'd be more inclined to making tier lose in general more difficult, but even then, I would like to keep some level of 'lose'.

The No-Lose situation takes alot of the risk out of the game.

And as said, alot of pathes have their 'recovery' from lost ranks being a feature. Dark/Lights extra rank from beating one of opposing path. The Yakuza ability to gain another extra rank for beating another higher ranked yakuza, and the Sash coin.

Consider for a moment just how much more Yen Gray would have if he didn't pay for all those loses in rank.

 

[Vanor]

Risk when you have no real controll over winning or lossing isn't much fun IMO. Basicly it's a crap shoot, and I don't like playing craps...

If there was a way someone could controll their chance of winning, then I'd agree the results of losing should be there... But as it is, your "punishing" people for something they have no controll over.

In RPG's you have at least some control over your character, your saves go up, you can do things to improve your odds of suriving a fight... In YB none of those things really exist, unless your fighting someone a great deal lower then you.