Warlord Ranking

[DoS Archive]

Message 1 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/07/1997 11:45 PM Central Standard Time
From: BadgerAx
MsgId:



You know, I like the new warlord ratings…I truly do.

It feels right to rank the Warlords by their current cycle W/L to me, as no one could be expected to catch up to a Warlord who had been accumulating wins over millions of cycles (An exaggeration I know). What I don’t think is right is rating them only against other Warlords.

Now stay with me people, Don’t strangle me yet. You see I don’t truly care how many times a Warlord beats a stiff of a commoner or Swordsman (Like me), but I am interested how many times that Stiff beats the warlord.

You see it’s all well and good to say that you are rating them against their equals, but if that warlord is getting beat by the dregs of DOS is He/(Politically correct)She, truly deserving of that top ranking among Warlords? Just a question I think you should be asking yourself.

Badger Ax
Common Swordsman in DOS

[DoS Archive]

Message 2 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:17 AM Central Standard Time
From: Zaradda
MsgId:



Why should we be brought down by several bumbling nit-wits attempting to wield swords?
Rank those of true skill.
Rad

[DoS Archive]

Message 3 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:19 AM Central Standard Time
From: Alyxz
MsgId:



::just laughs, suddenly glad he's been cursed to never make warlord again::

[DoS Archive]

Message 4 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:20 AM Central Standard Time
From: Zaradda
MsgId:



There is no question to ask.
Why rate several rambling nitwits carrying blades?
A lumbering slug can defeat anyone by chance. A warlord can defeat anyone by skill.
Rate only those deserving of rank.
::left unsigned::

[DoS Archive]

Message 5 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:28 AM Central Standard Time
From: PrlUnicorn
MsgId:



::just glances at the unsigned notes::

Seems to be a lot of this going around... ::shrugs and walks off::

[DoS Archive]

Message 6 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:29 AM Central Standard Time
From: DravenIl
MsgId:



This rating is based for a measurement of skill, primarily used when determining who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' of a rank such as Baron. As only Warlords can achieve this rank, the practice of including only peer duels in the warlord rankings seems to suffice.

~Draven

[DoS Archive]

Message 7 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 1:05 AM Central Standard Time
From: IainMacKnz
MsgId:




I think, unless I've been struck dim, that what Badger proposes is not that other ranks be ranked with the Warlords, but that Warlords be penalized for failing to defeat those whom they should.

To the unnamed nitwit who misunderstood this, and insulted every dueler who's ever walked cold into this arena and proven themselves promptly in the process, I can only say that if you are, indeed, a Warlord, I can only hope that your rank shrivels away to naught sooner than later, so that you can refer to yourself as a nitwit attempting to wield a blade.

~irm

[DoS Archive]

Message 8 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 2:01 AM Central Standard Time
From: MorganFay
MsgId:



::laughing::

Well, BadgerAx, rumor has it that many Warlords won't deign to duel a lower ranked duelist.

But I sure would like to see a list like that too.

I remember when I was a commoner how good it felt to beat a Warlord and it surprised them. Very thrilling, indeed.

I think, if you want, you can do your own research on this since the dueling results get posted every week. It basically lists everyone who defeated someone. :)

[DoS Archive]

Message 9 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
From: BadgerAx
MsgId:



>>From: IainMacKnz<<


>>I think, unless I've been struck dim, that what Badger proposes is not that other ranks be ranked with the Warlords, but that Warlords be penalized for failing to defeat those whom they should.<<

Aye Iain this is in truth what I am saying. BTW I have never known you to be dim. Thank you for putting my point in such a simple and straight forward manner. Perhaps in the future I should try to be more to the point like this, so as not to confuse anyone.

Again it is only somthing I wanted people to think about. As I said I do like the basic Idea of the rating system, I just think it might be refined in this one way.

Badger

[DoS Archive]

Message 10 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
From: DukeUzieI
MsgId:



::shakes his head::

Do as you wish. There was once a Commoner that had his own Practice DoS website...and if you looked it up you would find many a commoner that had beat Warlords in practice. The same applies to this also. I made Warlord by dueling Warlords almost all the way up. I both agree and disagree with you Badger. The system is....as Draven pointed out, a way to somewhat *prove* the worthiness of a Warlord for a Barony against those of his peers.
But also I believe that things become complicated enough in the Arenas and to propose yet another set of rules or guidelines that should be followed would do naught but make the Arena more of a burden...and less of a freedom than it should be.

Just some thoughts,

~Adonai~
~Warlord of the Duel of Swords~( And Once a Future Overlord[Its a joke some will get])

[DoS Archive]

Message 11 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:08 PM Central Standard Time
From: QnLuthien
MsgId:




..and can we talk about the "Jump" move again?



::runs::

[DoS Archive]

Message 11 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 12:08 PM Central Standard Time
From: QnLuthien
MsgId:




..and can we talk about the "Jump" move again?



::runs::

[DoS Archive]

Message 12 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 2:19 PM Central Standard Time
From: PKardinal
MsgId:



Rad,

Jus' cause someone is a commoner, it doesn't make them a nitwit. And jus' cause someone is a Warlord, it doesn' make them special either. That chance that a commoner will beat a Warlord is what guides us to win. We all guess whether an oppenent will sidestep or parry. Then we make our move from that guess. Without the chance of that, no one would win.... it'd just be a random choice of moves put together. Commoners can have just as much skill as any Warlord or GM, but they may not have as much
luck.

~Phil

[DoS Archive]

Message 13 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 3:04 PM Central Standard Time
From: Zaradda
MsgId:



<>
Have you not heard of Wins over Losses, "irm"? I'd suggest that in the future, you consider all the aspects of this "fine" sport rather than splay your insults 'cross the board as a bursting artery.

<<To the unnamed nitwit who misunderstood this, and insulted every dueler who's ever walked cold into this arena and proven themselves promptly in the process, I can only say that if you are, indeed, a Warlord, I can only hope that your rank shrivels away to naught sooner than later, so that you can refer to yourself as a nitwit attempting to wield a blade.>>
I'll happily accept your challenge. And..according to recent records, I'd suggest you concern yourself over not dropping to that status yourself. I can and will happily shove my weapon down your throat, and all others, "irm". You have been warned.
Zhan of Pageon

[DoS Archive]

Message 14 of 41 Subject 129 of 250
Subject: Re:Warlord Ranking
Date: 09/08/1997 3:20 PM Central Standard Time
From: SirCetran
MsgId:



>>Well, BadgerAx, rumor has it that many Warlords won't deign to duel a lower ranked duelist.<<

You have heard that many Warlords will only duel Peers or higher, by choice. But this a second side to it... many Commeners + will only duel their rank or lower due to the fact that they are trying to hit Warlord... since Warlord is the Rank with all of the luxeries. I personally have not dueled many Commeners as of late, mainly because Warlords ask me to duel when I hand up me "OPEN" sign before the Commeners do... but that is beside the point.

Now, in my opinion, if you begin to penilize Warlords for losing to a Commener - Grand Master... you will find many more Warlords dueling only Peers and higher for now they have -No- reason to fight a Commener - Grand Master. If they did then they would only be risking their ranks on the Warlord's chart with what to win? A WoL? We know how many Warlord's are truly concered by that.

I myself, would become hesitant to begin to duel Commener - Grand Master's due to the fact that I have nothing to gain out of it. As many do feel... it should be equal on both sides. By penilizing Warlord for losing to a Commener, it is not.

Ex. OS Legolas defeated myself by a score of 5-3 in an average run of nine rounds. I am penilized by taking the loss as I would had I lost to a Peer. This would take my winning percentage down and OS Legolas would take nothing more than a win. Now, if you have read the standings... OS Legolas has not dueled since June twenty fifth, and will be taken out of the cycle circulation filterization system come the end of this cycle. He basicaly went for one duel and went back home to tell his wife and kids that
he actually beat a Warlord in swording when he has had no prior knowledge to the sport beforehand, and would go back cropping his fields of corn the next day on his farm.

What I am saying in a nice, tidy packadge with ribbon on top is... this would not give Commeners - Grand Masters more reason to face Warlords, but give Warlords more reasons --Not-- to face Commeners - Grand Masters, and go on facing their Peers and higher Rank... for they have more skill anyhow, right? Right.

I say drop the issue before it becomes out of hand and everyone begins to argue. I personally do not agree, and thik of it as a bit silly. Mabye a chart of winning percentages of Warlord's against lower ranks would be more appropiate, but even something as simple as that is not nessisary and I think of it as Petty.

Respectfully,
~^~Sir Damien Cetran~^~