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

[Zappo]

Look at the hall of records... You'll notice that the top 5 people are not honor fighters, in fact out of the top 10, only 3 are honored fighters. Also there isn't a single honored fighter past tier 4.

OK, we could have a trouble with the Honor path, but that has no relevance to this discussion. It's clear that fighters do go up in power with tier. They don't go up in win rate, and OF COURSE, I may add, wins will be equal to losses no matter what the rules. For every winner, there's a loser.

That is my whole point... This isn't a real competitive game, so why make it so hard to advance?

YB not being competitive is actually one of the main reasons - perhaps the main reason - for which losing must be a possibility. Because since the challenge isn't provided by other players, it must be provided by the rules themselves: advancing is the challenge. There's no other source of challenge. No challenge, no fun. That's my point in a nutshell.

 

[Vanor]

advancing is the challenge. There's no other source of challenge. No challenge, no fun. That's my point in a nutshell.

Would you quit playing YB tottaly if this change was made?

 

[Zappo]

More: if really people are going away because they find advancing too difficult (and only a poll can reveal this), the solution doesn't need to be so drastic as making loss impossible and advancement certain. There are compromises. Requiring two losses for a rank-down could be one. If that isn't enough (though to me it seems already too much), we can require two consecutive losses.

Warning: the following statement wasn't verified. And I failed my Statistics exam this semester .

The latter choice would (statistically, on a huge number of fights) have about the same effect as your proposal.

edit: hmm, let's see. If you lose with two consecutive losses, on 2 fights (after a win) you have 25% of losing, 50% of going up once, and 25% of going up twice. On 2 fights (after a loss) you have 25% of losing, 25% of staying, 25% of going up once, 25% of going up twice.
With no losses, on 2 fights you always have 25% of staying, 50% of going up once, 25% of going up twice.
Ok, the previous statement is officially screwed.

 

[Zappo]

Would you quit playing YB tottaly if this change was made?

Not sure. It would be much more boring for me, but there are aspects of the game that I like beyond those that such a change would influence.

 

[Phoenix8008]

YB not being competitive is actually one of the main reasons - perhaps the main reason - for which losing must be a possibility. Because since the challenge isn't provided by other players, it must be provided by the rules themselves: advancing is the challenge. There's no other source of challenge. No challenge, no fun. That's my point in a nutshell.

This rule change would not alter this! Advancing would still be a challenge, just not quite as big of a challenge.

Hold on here a second. Pardon my playing with the words again here, but what is competition? In a competition someone wins and someone loses, right? So if YB is as non-competitive as you say, then what is the problem with no one "losing" as you define it? Yet you say "losing" MUST be a possibility because this is not a game based on competition? I'm confused.

You say "no challenge, no fun"? I say no advancement...NO FUN!

 

[Vanor]

Not sure. It would be much more boring for me, but there are aspects of the game that I like beyond those that such a change would influence.

Well if the idea of not being able to drop from losses would effect your enjoyment of YB, and I could see how it would for some people... You'd be free to put a stiuplation in your fight that if you lose you'd go down in rank.

I think that could make everyone happy... perhaps not but it might

 

[Wicht]

I will weigh in again, though Reiella and Zappo are making most of the points I would make.

1) If people are only playing the game to advance in ranks and are quitting because they are not advancing fast enough for their own taste, well, that sounds a bit like powergaming to me, not an interest in character development.

2) Taking away the ability to lose would greatly skew the game in favor of those who play fanatically and newcomers would have an ever increasing chance of losing thus making it less fun for them.

3) Losing ranks is not the same as losing a tier. At the moment losing a tier is difficult, especially for the honor fighters. Rank wins and loss is often similar to the motions of a yo-yo I will agree. But I do not see all that many losing tiers (a few but not many).

4) IMO gaining a tier, especially at the higher levels, should not be all that easy. My idea is that people should shoot through the first two tiers fairly quickly but getting through the next few tiers should be grueling. And IMO this makes the ultimate victory that much sweeter in the end.

5) Just as not every boxer gets to experience the joys of a championship and just as every athlete does not get a gold medal, not all kung-fu fighters should eventually reign supreme.

6) I would still play (I think) if the rules were changed but the game would lose some of its appeal to me as all harm from losses are wiped away and it becomes a constant drive to reach the next power-level. To reiterate my first point, this is not IMO role-playing, it is power gaming, and while I am not that bothered with power gaming per se, it is not my ultimate reason for enjoying YB.

 

[Zappo]

This rule change would not alter this! Advancing would still be a challenge, just not quite as big of a challenge.

No. With the suggested change, advancement (or at least not going back) is a mathematical certainty, and actually even staying still for long is extremely unlikely. With the current rules, it is highly probable, but not certain.

Hold on here a second. Pardon my playing with the words again here, but what is competition? In a competition someone wins and someone loses, right? So if YB is as non-competitive as you say, then what is the problem with no one "losing" as you define it? Yet you say "losing" MUST be a possibility because this is not a game based on competition? I'm confused.

"Losing" as a game term must be distinguished from "Losing" in a human-versus-human competition sense. Since you already cannot lose in a competition sense, the only challenge is in the game rules themselves.

You say "no challenge, no fun"? I say no advancement...NO FUN!

Matter of opinion. Need a poll.

 

[Vanor]

1) If people are only playing the game to advance in ranks and are quitting because they are not advancing fast enough for their own taste, well, that sounds a bit like powergaming to me, not an interest in character development.

I can see your point, and agree more or less... But I don't think it's powergaming. I think of it more like this, if everytime you played D&D losing a fight, or simply retreating cost you a level... Would that be as much fun?

2) Taking away the ability to lose would greatly skew the game in favor of those who play fanatically and newcomers would have an ever increasing chance of losing thus making it less fun for them.

This would be a problem yes... But I think more people would be willing to make new characters once they reached the uper levels, so the newcommers would have someone to play with.

3) Losing ranks is not the same as losing a tier. At the moment losing a tier is difficult, especially for the honor fighters. Rank wins and loss is often similar to the motions of a yo-yo I will agree. But I do not see all that many losing tiers (a few but not many).

I agree, but I think the yo-yo is frustrating a lot of people

4) IMO gaining a tier, especially at the higher levels, should not be all that easy. My idea is that people should shoot through the first two tiers fairly quickly but getting through the next few tiers should be grueling. And IMO this makes the ultimate victory that much sweeter in the end.

I guess this is a matter of perspective, to me the fun is the journy not the goal. But I can deffently see your point.

5) Just as not every boxer gets to experience the joys of a championship and just as every athlete does not get a gold medal, not all kung-fu fighters should eventually reign supreme.

In RL yes, but this isn't RL... I play YB because it's fun.

6) I would still play (I think) if the rules were changed but the game would lose some of its appeal to me as all harm from losses are wiped away and it becomes a constant drive to reach the next power-level. To reiterate my first point, this is not IMO role-playing, it is power gaming, and while I am not that bothered with power gaming per se, it is not my ultimate reason for enjoying YB.

I see your points, and I'm not saying my idea is perfict... But I do think it would be more fun for most of the people now playing... But I agree with Zappo that a poll needs to take place. I just would rather let people have time to discuss it first.

 

[Sabaron]

I can see your point, and agree more or less... But I don't think it's powergaming. I think of it more like this, if everytime you played D&D losing a fight, or simply retreating cost you a level... Would that be as much fun?

Last time I checked, losing a battle often means death. Death usually means losing a level.

I agree, but I think the yo-yo is frustrating a lot of people

Those who have stayed through the yo-yo seem to find themselves quite powerful. Look at Darkwolf.

I don't support this system myself; if the yo-yo must be broken I'd prefer some other way... and I've been a victim of Tier loss before.