The Pagoda

[Amber Eyes]

So, for those of you who were around during the pagoda. What about it did you like? What would you change? I'm working on a re-vamped version for 3.0 and I'd love some imput.

For those of you who were not here back in the day, the pagoda was a player run ongoing tournament of sorts. It consisted of the tiers, warriors, Masters, and the Grandmaster.

Basically, a player is able to challenge one of the existing warriors. If you win the battle, you can either take the warriors place as a part of the pagoda, or try your skill against a master. If you win against a master you can again either take thier spot or challenge the Grandmaster.

The old system consisted of 6 warriors, 3 masters, and 1 grandmaster I believe. The player is able to choose which warrior and master they wish to fight. It's a bit more complex than that but I think I've got the basics down. I'll answer any futher questions as they come up.

I personally at this point want to make it 4 warriors, 2 masters and 1 grandmaster until activity picks up.

[Saxon]

Are you clearing the slate and allowing us to compete for it again or are you allowing the current grandmaster to retain his title and giving us a chance to take it from him?

If the former, I'm pretty sure Bloodrose will want to have a word with you. =P

[Amber Eyes]

From what I can tell, Bloodrose was GrandMaster, Christoph was a master and Task was a warrior.

Are any of the other people from the list still active?

Duo Maxwell
Ira Shinkara
Trago
Quentin Boone
Kahne
The Mathemagician
Masters
Ebivoulya

I'm not going to take the spots, as they had no control over the Pagoda dying. Each will retain his spot if they want it. For the other spots I'm we will be allowing you to battle for them, though I haven't decided exactly what kind of set-up we are going to use. Basically, if you are still around and you want your spot, let me know either here or via PM within the next week as I plan to have things a bit further developed by then.

Also, just so I know what I'm looking at, post here if you would be interested in battling for one of the open spots.

[Saxon]

Would there be potential to modify the rubric used in the Pagoda? For one, I do not think continuity has any bearing at all in battles. Sure, we could come up with some sort of story, write it and have the judge determine who is the better man, but all the same, if we're talking about an actual fight between the characters of writers, there are some aspects of the judging rubric that need to be changed for use within the Pagoda which could better determine who is the better writer instead of knocking off points for not mentioning althanas canon or getting really personal with some sort of overarching plot in a story that doesn't require it or has the means to support it without sacrificing points in other areas of the rubric.

Just a thought.

Tl;dr - I think we need a seperate rubric for battles to be used in the Pagoda exclusively.

[Slayer of the Rot]

I'm pretty sure that basically all of the people on that list are inactive.

[Christoph]

Tl;dr - I think we need a seperate rubric for battles to be used in the Pagoda exclusively.

I don't think continuity itself is a problem. We just need to adjust how it's gauged. That, however, deserves its own thread.

On topic: As the former Pagoda manager who, admittedly, ran it through both its best and worst times, I have a clear understanding of what worked, what did not, and why.

The good times came about due to a large amount of publicity and excitement surrounding it. A good deal of stock was placed in a player's standing, and the collective ego of everyone around at the time did the rest. Basically, if you thought you were good, you could prove it against a lineup of elite battlers. The simple but effective gambling system helped get everyone involved. Also, when I took over, I increased the rewards considerably, but I think even more could be done to encourage activity.

The fatal flaw in the Pagoda, and the reason that it eventually died, was that its structure made it so Hierarchs often had nobody to battle when they actually felt motivated to battle, yet often got challenged when they -didn't- want to battle. This resulted in boredom and inactivity, and thus it became difficult to keep a full, active roster.

I recall Hierarchs being able to go into a "vacation mode" of sorts, which is helpful when one gets really busy or is feeling really burnt out. Another problem was that players knew who the tough opponents were among the warriors, and would thus avoid challenging them if they wanted a better chance of winning and moving up. Perhaps giving a significant rewards bonus for battling Hierarchs with winning streaks would alleviate that a bit.

Finally, once a Hierarch becomes a Master, their pool of challengers dries up quickly, especially with a wall of tough Warriors beneath them. This can lead to boredom quickly. I don't even remember ever getting any challenges once I moved up the ranks (granted, activity had faltered a bit by then). Therefore, I would propose allowing Masters to, every so often, issue open invitations for people to challenge them directly. Perhaps use this to connect the Pagoda with the Citadel a bit, making it so only players who won a Citadel battle in the past month are eligible or something. Just a thought.

Also, yes, I would like to keep my Master spot.

[Duffy]

I would love to take it from you, Christoph ;).

[Saxon]

I don't think continuity itself is a problem. We just need to adjust how it's gauged. That, however, deserves its own thread.


Actually, it is in the suggestion I was describing and it is relevant to this thread given that Amber Eyes asked for suggestions so that she can improve the Pagoda when it is brought back. So, please do not assert yourself as the governing authority over the merit of my suggestion.

Continuity and several aspects of the current rubric have little bearing on battles, and aside from recalibrating from how they are gauged, my argument was that a modified rubric should be implemented and include other areas in which the judge should focus on his or her subsequent judgment.

In no way do I think that simply readjusting the weight of areas of the rubric for this will fix the problem I have described or should be the only means in which to do it.

Remove continuity as one of the aspects of the rubric. Look at other aspects of the rubric which do not have bearing on battles and cut them as well. Take the points from their scores and add them to the weight of things that matter in a battle. Action, Pacing, Clarity, Setting, and Mechanics. A battle rubric would make grading far easier and I think operating under the assumption that using a rubric as a one-size-fits-all for every aspect of how things are written here is a poor mistake to make.

In that aspect, a modified rubric for battles would allow judges to better ascertain who was the better performer in a battle then they would if it was simply a story judgment.

This is not an attempt to fix whatever structural problems you faced in the Pagoda as a manager. This was my attempt to convey concerns I faced as a judge when I had to judge battles in tournaments and saw that the rubric we used fell short of what is required to gauge a writer's strengths in a specialized environment. Under current conditions, it requires a story and a developed plot with indications of a person's personal history or Althanian canon to fully pad themselves from a negative score. Changing the rubric in this sense would allow participants in battles to focus instead on the competition and the battle itself and allow them more room to focus on what they need to do which is fight their opponent.

I liked the attempts others have made to write a story with another person, finish it, and turn it in for a judgment with the intention of seeing who outperformed the other, but in reality its a long trip to make to shoehorn information into a thread that the rubric itself considers pertinent. In suggesting this, if it were implemented, I think it would better serve the Pagoda and everyone involved. Expediating the process, making it easier on the judges and the players, and have less gray area for either party to muddle through.

I hope this adds some clarity to what I was talking about, Chris.

[Christoph]

I don't necessarily disagree entirely, but I don't think we need to take that extreme. "Story" elements are still going to be important, even in battles. Do we need to encourage huge sweeping backstories that link said battle into a larger plot? No. Honestly, we often shouldn't need to do that with any thread, unless said thread is specifically designed to be such a story. So, I honestly think that Continuity needs to be redefined in general, but again, that specific topic is for another thread, as it concerns more than just battles.

As for a battle rubric, I think that Persona, Technique, Dialogue, and Continuity remain important and should not be removed. Regardless of the venue, Althanas is (and hopefully remain) as much a writing site as a game site. Well-written battle posts are just as important as clever combat maneuvers. A fight is always more compelling when between compelling characters. That said, am I also annoyed that it seems like we need to write huge introductory posts, setting up a complex storyline, in order to get good scores in battles? Hell yes. Should we remove the categories that aren't as "important" to battles? No. Would I be opposed to reducing their value to increase the importance of other categories, or against redefining some of the categories a little? No. I think a combination of the two would be more than enough.


And I would love to see you try, Duffy. :p

[Duffy]

*Cracks knuckles.*

Consider yourself formally challenged, for when the Pagoda returns!

[Atzar]

I'm glad you're bringing the Pagoda back. I was the one who resurrected it this last time - I ran it for awhile with some success until I left the staff, and Karuka and eventually Christoph took over at that point. I always enjoyed the concept - it's why I made an effort to bring it back in the first place. Well, that and the fact that Dirks nagged me about it off and on for about two years.

I don't really have any suggestions or comments for you right now, although I probably will once I think about it some.

Incidentally, why is everybody referring to the upcoming overhaul as 3.0 now? Where'd the 2 go?

[Elrundir]

Beats me. I just kept seeing Max use 3.0 and followed suit. *bleats like a sheep*

(Although, isn't this Althanas 2.0? Or "Newthanas" as we called it once upon a time?)

[Letho]

I always felt that Bluthanas was 2.0, since the 1.0 was the Tanthanas. That would sort of make this 3.0, but who really gives a damn, right?

Oh, and related to the topic, I have absolutely no opinion on the Pagoda whatsoever. :P

[Atzar]

I always felt that Bluthanas was 2.0, since the 1.0 was the Tanthanas. That would sort of make this 3.0, but who really gives a damn, right?

Oh, and related to the topic, I have absolutely no opinion on the Pagoda whatsoever. :P

Tanthanas...Bluthanas...

So will we remember this one as Blackthanas? I think that's the skin most people use...

[Silence Sei]

Right, a few weeks back, Dirks found out we were -currently- using 2.0, meaning we're going to 3.0

But I do appreciate the mindless sheep-like nature.