Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
A idea for a change to YB. More info/new idea at end of thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 92732" data-attributes="member: 633"><p>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 <em>consecutive</em> losses. </p><p></p><p>Warning: the following statement wasn't verified. And I failed my Statistics exam this semester <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.</p><p></p><p>The latter choice would (statistically, on a huge number of fights) have about the same effect as your proposal.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>With no losses, on 2 fights you always have 25% of staying, 50% of going up once, 25% of going up twice.</p><p>Ok, the previous statement <em>is</em> officially screwed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zappo, post: 92732, member: 633"] 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 [i]consecutive[/i] 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 [i]is[/i] officially screwed. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
A idea for a change to YB. More info/new idea at end of thread
Top