Post by Lost on Sept 19, 2008 11:09:10 GMT -5
Me again 
I used to rp battles a lot (and plan to start terrorising people again soon, lol), so I was having a glance at the battle rules, and I think there's maybe a couple of additions that would benefit the site... They were rules we used to have on my old site, since people used to battle a lot (it was a pre-dominately dark game), and they helped keep things fair, as well as reflecting RL.
Firstly, there was a 24 hour rule - you had to repsond within 24 hours of your opponent's last post, or you were disqualified. This basically meant that you didn't hav a week in between posting, and the battle didn't go on for years in the game.
Second, rather than letting people decide for themselves who won, we had a judging panel. This meant that if a player was shy about their rp ability, they wouldn't lose out just because they didn't want to say "I was better" The judging panel had three judges, one of which was always the site owner (unless I was involved in the battle - obviously you can't judge your own fight, since it defeats the object!). We had about 6 judges in total, and would select 3 who wouldn't be in the fight, or directly affected by its outcome, to make sure noone was biased. The battle wasn't actually judged on what moves the characters made, but on how well they were RP'd by their player. This rewarded the ability to role play well, and meant that people would try to make the battle interesting, rather than just posting a few lines saying they'd kicked at their rival. The judge would compare each couplet (player A's first post post to player B's first post, player A's second post to player B's seconf post, etc), and award one point to the post that they thought was better written. All the judges scores would be added up, then devided by 3 to determine who was the winner. The judges would each give a bit of feedback to the players, to help them improve.
No godmoding or powerplaying was allowed - not sure if that's a general rule here or not, although I know it's not listed uinder the battle rules.
Rather than having 3 attacks and 2 blocks, we made it so that each player had five posts each, and could do whatever they wanted within the rules in those posts. It meant that the posts would have more content.
A mare could not beat a stallion, and a foal could not beat an adult. Just because it reflected rl really - stallions are stronger than mares, and foals are obviously weaker than adults.
When a character won a fight, they were awarded a battle point. Battle points were added on to the final judges' score, giving a slight advantage to those who had won battles before. This reflected rl, in that those horses that had more experience battling were a little more likely to win.
Wow, posted more than I intended to, sorry! Anyway, I don't know if you're interested in using any of those rules, but I thought they might help to make things a little more interesting
I used to rp battles a lot (and plan to start terrorising people again soon, lol), so I was having a glance at the battle rules, and I think there's maybe a couple of additions that would benefit the site... They were rules we used to have on my old site, since people used to battle a lot (it was a pre-dominately dark game), and they helped keep things fair, as well as reflecting RL.
Firstly, there was a 24 hour rule - you had to repsond within 24 hours of your opponent's last post, or you were disqualified. This basically meant that you didn't hav a week in between posting, and the battle didn't go on for years in the game.
Second, rather than letting people decide for themselves who won, we had a judging panel. This meant that if a player was shy about their rp ability, they wouldn't lose out just because they didn't want to say "I was better" The judging panel had three judges, one of which was always the site owner (unless I was involved in the battle - obviously you can't judge your own fight, since it defeats the object!). We had about 6 judges in total, and would select 3 who wouldn't be in the fight, or directly affected by its outcome, to make sure noone was biased. The battle wasn't actually judged on what moves the characters made, but on how well they were RP'd by their player. This rewarded the ability to role play well, and meant that people would try to make the battle interesting, rather than just posting a few lines saying they'd kicked at their rival. The judge would compare each couplet (player A's first post post to player B's first post, player A's second post to player B's seconf post, etc), and award one point to the post that they thought was better written. All the judges scores would be added up, then devided by 3 to determine who was the winner. The judges would each give a bit of feedback to the players, to help them improve.
No godmoding or powerplaying was allowed - not sure if that's a general rule here or not, although I know it's not listed uinder the battle rules.
Rather than having 3 attacks and 2 blocks, we made it so that each player had five posts each, and could do whatever they wanted within the rules in those posts. It meant that the posts would have more content.
A mare could not beat a stallion, and a foal could not beat an adult. Just because it reflected rl really - stallions are stronger than mares, and foals are obviously weaker than adults.
When a character won a fight, they were awarded a battle point. Battle points were added on to the final judges' score, giving a slight advantage to those who had won battles before. This reflected rl, in that those horses that had more experience battling were a little more likely to win.
Wow, posted more than I intended to, sorry! Anyway, I don't know if you're interested in using any of those rules, but I thought they might help to make things a little more interesting
