Date: 9/23/97 9:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: JOaknshld
Let's not all forget how hard it already is fer RDI Golden ta track peer wins. He is aided by da Warlord Corner's listing of all peer matches, but if we were ta institute a method where non-warlords could accumulated peer wins, we would also have ta find a way ta relieve our standings keeper from having to delve into countless record books and verify when and at what rank certain warlord wins were attained.
RDI Golden is a great standings keeper, who always works fast on verifying peer wins. But let's not take him fer granted, or assume da process of verification is some easy job. I'm not saying I'm all against making DoS more complex, what I am sayin' is we must take every aspect of da change seriously. So after all da rules are changed, don't forget ta make time fer keeping da standings keeper in mind.
Simply,
~Jeffrey Oakenshield~
A new idea to kick around.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/23/97 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: KayneRune
Here's an "idea to kick around",
Instead of allowin' those darn grandmasters and below (god bless their soul; I really mean that), to gather peer wins just like any ol' Warlord of a few years, let 'em have a WL rank. Now this WL rank is by no means like the WL rank that us warlord's got. What I'm sayin' is that they can use the number of peer wins that is the difference between their warlord wins and their warlord losses. I know I'm not eloquent, so I'll sketch a quick example to show ya what I mean..
Commoner Layne Dune has beat 8 warlords, and has lost to 3 warlords. Layne Dune now has 5 peer wins, as it is the difference between his warlord wins and his warlord losses.
Just a sidenote, boyz 'n girlz, I in no way favor this change of rules. I'm just simply stating an idea. I feel that gainin' the warlord rank should be a goal, and that it's advantages are a privledge. Now I'm not going to trash anyone here, but just because someone's been around a long time and haven't made the rank don't mean that they should automatically get the rights therein.
Gainin' Warlord is a special thing...
Don't make it so it's advantages are taken for granted.
~Kayne Rune
From: KayneRune
Here's an "idea to kick around",
Instead of allowin' those darn grandmasters and below (god bless their soul; I really mean that), to gather peer wins just like any ol' Warlord of a few years, let 'em have a WL rank. Now this WL rank is by no means like the WL rank that us warlord's got. What I'm sayin' is that they can use the number of peer wins that is the difference between their warlord wins and their warlord losses. I know I'm not eloquent, so I'll sketch a quick example to show ya what I mean..
Commoner Layne Dune has beat 8 warlords, and has lost to 3 warlords. Layne Dune now has 5 peer wins, as it is the difference between his warlord wins and his warlord losses.
Just a sidenote, boyz 'n girlz, I in no way favor this change of rules. I'm just simply stating an idea. I feel that gainin' the warlord rank should be a goal, and that it's advantages are a privledge. Now I'm not going to trash anyone here, but just because someone's been around a long time and haven't made the rank don't mean that they should automatically get the rights therein.
Gainin' Warlord is a special thing...
Don't make it so it's advantages are taken for granted.
~Kayne Rune
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/23/97 11:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: DravenIl
I am sorry to say that this debate is truly bothering me. The term 'peer win' refers to a peer besting a peer, not a lesser rank besting a higher rank. We need not spend our time debating over 'how' this should be done so much as 'if'; and I say it should not. Merging of ranks in this matter will only serve to add further dissension among those of the rings, in my opinion.
~Draven Altruis II
From: DravenIl
I am sorry to say that this debate is truly bothering me. The term 'peer win' refers to a peer besting a peer, not a lesser rank besting a higher rank. We need not spend our time debating over 'how' this should be done so much as 'if'; and I say it should not. Merging of ranks in this matter will only serve to add further dissension among those of the rings, in my opinion.
~Draven Altruis II