Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eric]

2] ºDetermine the Nature of the Challengeº
The host and the challenger must then decide it the match will be an IC Challenge or an OOC Challenge. This means that if an IC Challenge is chosen, the challenger has to RP learning the host’s identity and location and maneuvers him into a Match. This does not mean that the RP is used as a means for the Host to forever avoid having to face his challenger. The host must make it possible for the challenger to complete the terms of the RP event. This is not the battle part. You are going to face off with each other. You are just being creative about it.
If the OOC Challenge is chosen, then no RP concerning the challenge is performed. The details are agreed upon and the Match takes place.

What a drag.   I mean, it's a good plan, but giving the hunter the tools to hunt them down? I can see some very long wait times for the IC route, because goodness knows how long it would take to RP said event. Making it possible for the hunter doesn't mean making it easy or convenient.

But I digress. I think 1v1 should be the only option for OOC matches for the sake of convenience. And if there are multiple others in the match, those "supporters" have no say in the rules of the match, or at least the picking of the judge. We don't need 4 people butting heads over who is going to be the judge.

[Ѕhadow]

2] ºDetermine the Nature of the Challengeº
The host and the challenger must then decide it the match will be an IC Challenge or an OOC Challenge. This means that if an IC Challenge is chosen, the challenger has to RP learning the host’s identity and location and maneuvers him into a Match. This does not mean that the RP is used as a means for the Host to forever avoid having to face his challenger. The host must make it possible for the challenger to complete the terms of the RP event. This is not the battle part. You are going to face off with each other. You are just being creative about it.
If the OOC Challenge is chosen, then no RP concerning the challenge is performed. The details are agreed upon and the Match takes place.

What a drag.   I mean, it's a good plan, but giving the hunter the tools to hunt them down? I can see some very long wait times for the IC route, because goodness knows how long it would take to RP said event. Making it possible for the hunter doesn't mean making it easy or convenient.

But I digress. I think 1v1 should be the only option for OOC matches for the sake of convenience. And if there are multiple others in the match, those "supporters" have no say in the rules of the match, or at least the picking of the judge. We don't need 4 people butting heads over who is going to be the judge.

They took the time to actually rp it so they get 'dibs'. Then some think otherwise, which is why I stated the crisscross method. You go from OOC to IC and back. So not only IC challengers or OOC ones are done. Having a bijuu is never going to be easy or convenient.

I want 1v1 only. Anymore than that is downright awful. It doesn't work and takes months. No joke. That Kiri ordeal? STILL GOING ON AS WE SPEAK. It's stupid and doesn't need to be an option. 1 v 1 only.

[Eric]

2] ºDetermine the Nature of the Challengeº
The host and the challenger must then decide it the match will be an IC Challenge or an OOC Challenge. This means that if an IC Challenge is chosen, the challenger has to RP learning the host’s identity and location and maneuvers him into a Match. This does not mean that the RP is used as a means for the Host to forever avoid having to face his challenger. The host must make it possible for the challenger to complete the terms of the RP event. This is not the battle part. You are going to face off with each other. You are just being creative about it.
If the OOC Challenge is chosen, then no RP concerning the challenge is performed. The details are agreed upon and the Match takes place.

What a drag.   I mean, it's a good plan, but giving the hunter the tools to hunt them down? I can see some very long wait times for the IC route, because goodness knows how long it would take to RP said event. Making it possible for the hunter doesn't mean making it easy or convenient.

But I digress. I think 1v1 should be the only option for OOC matches for the sake of convenience. And if there are multiple others in the match, those "supporters" have no say in the rules of the match, or at least the picking of the judge. We don't need 4 people butting heads over who is going to be the judge.

I want 1v1 only. Anymore than that is downright awful...

An earlier question I had is my reply, in short. What is the point of doing it IC-wise?

If both OOC and IC battles have 1v1, then the RP implications would state that the hunted would have to leave their nest, or in some way be isolated, in order for an IC fight to actually be 1v1 (and keep everything IC. Those knowing they are hunted wouldn't just up and engage in a 1v1 fight for the shits of it) unless there is some level of OOC added into the behavior of hosts.

All that considered, if IC fights are also 1v1 and the host is forced, RPwise, to engage in a 1v1 battle after also giving greater possibility of tracking for the hunter in some shape or fashion, why would a host want to fight IC when they can practically do the same thing in an OOC match?

As much of a mess as it is, there are apparently folks who would prefer a 2v2 or larger biju match of some sort. Otherwise, considering the stipulations, doing it IC is literally a waste of time and effort, as all the hunter is doing that is different from OOC is actually hunting down the character. Fighting them 1v1 just due to defacto rules renders null any jinch's attempts at venturing out with allies.

Again, in short, what is the point of there being an IC option? The answer is to have the IC experience, however gruesome it has been in the past (and will possibly be in the future) that is more than just "send PM or make post, start fight".

I do however agree that there does not need to be an entire village backing the jinch. A hard cap at 3v3 for the IC fights seems more reasonable than strictly limiting it to 1v1.

[Eric]

MY thoughts on the matter:

IF it is open ended like this and the host and MAIN challenger agree...fine.

But if they do not agree then it would have to default to an OOC match.

I however wish to refuse others to hone in on the event. I see no reason to permit it to be further complicated just because it can be. Only one fight at a time against one challenger. The next guy can wait his turn. No matter if the challenge is being rp'd or no. I seriously wish to have a list of challenges and the order they will be handled in to be adhered to.

The challenger and the host set the rules. I don't see any point in forcing people who wish to do an IC match to go the OOC route either. Obviously you will not be doing it that way. As a host you will take part in determining how your match will be. You do not need to decided how everyone else will do theirs as well. We should be flexible enough to allow people who wish to RP that option of doing so. You don't see the point in it. Well they do. How does it hurt you for them to do as they wish and for you to do as you wish? A limit of 3v3 sounds reasonable.

As long as I am not forced (while a host or even as a future hunter) to do an IC route, regardless of the hunter's initiative, then I'm done beating my drum on the matter. And as long as folks don't use the RP fight as a way to drag out fighting other challengers I am also putting the sticks down.

I won't put my stones down though until I see how this works in practice.

[Suishou Koji]

Why do you think I stepped down from having a Bijuu? I had it for 2 or 3 weeks and I gave it back. Too much a hassle.

[Eric]

Snorts...he said stones.

anyway...Absoultely. we are not going to know how any of this works until it is used or what the real time problems of it will be until they occur.
to have a flexible guide though that can be altered as needs be hopefully will be of use to people in the future.

Personally I never want to be a host again. I Can't handle the hoo ha. Which is a shame cause Yugito without her Nibi is just odd.

It is gonna be an issue though when the host really wants to rp and you say...ARGH. I don't know what to do. its wrong to try and force either option. I am against that completely.

what about the one fight at a time thing? I see that as just trying to stop the madness before it can start.

Sticks and stones.

The one fight at a time thing is the only way to do it. Multiple fights at a time, just is not going to work. So placing both preferred method of combat along with the challenge lets other challengers know not just what position they are in, but what the person before them might be doing.

If I see that there are 5 people wanting the IC option before I challenge, I'll find some other host personally. Heck, if there are that many people ahead of me, I would probably just go find another host anyways, or come back later, even if it was OOC.

So yeah, challenger's entry: name, (beast desired should be implied based on thread replied to), preferred method of challenge, and preferred judge. If host doesn't like it because of any of said criteria, they do have to let the challenger know before they pass the buck, in case they are willing to compromise.

[Eric]

Ok....so the edits were made to rules 1,2,3 and placed in the official thread. Please vocalize objections if I got those 3 wrong. Here are the next three for discussion. As always even after we decide on the edits they are still easily revised and flexible.


5] ºShould the Biju be Host-lessº
Should the Biju be sealed within something not a Jinchuriki, whomsoever is in possession of the tailed beast (for a prolonged period of one week or more) is entitled to assume duties of fighting for possession of the Biju. As such: Biju are not to be set free to roam; they must be sealed and delivered to the kage of their last Jinchuriki.

6] ºHow to declare a winnerº
The battle commences with the initial post & terminates once either combatant is unable to continue. Such a feat can result in several ways, including knock-outs (concussions, etc.), full paralysis, almost-fatal wounds & so forth. So long as both parties declare it plausible & understand the longevity/risk of the claim, it's considered eligible for use. However, things can, of course, become debatable in an attempt to reach such a goal & in doing so arguments are bound to commence. Judges chosen before the match will officiate. If desired, either party can have other hosts or officials of sorts represent them for a more "legitimized" (as some have called it) reasoning or "Back-up". All discussion is to be kept civil as is befitting of a participant in this event.

One judge to rule on match. That's my pitch and I'm sticking with it.

Additionally, ownership should be specified to be a single person who is responsible for the beast. While cool to have "it is the village's pot, so we will fight for it as a village" idea, it would be rather tricky having even OOC fights with the potential mass of people who would be butting heads.

There needs to be a designated owner at all times the biju can be contested for, even if said owner is not the host. If an inactive is considered the owner, it either goes next in line already to have been designated or the beast goes up for public tourney (which I guess is a larger scale OOC challenge of sorts).

[Eric]

Additionally, ownership should be specified to be a single person who is responsible for the beast. While cool to have "it is the village's pot, so we will fight for it as a village" idea, it would be rather tricky having even OOC fights with the potential mass of people who would be butting heads.

There needs to be a designated owner at all times the biju can be contested for, even if said owner is not the host. If an inactive is considered the owner, it either goes next in line already to have been designated or the beast goes up for public tourney (which I guess is a larger scale OOC challenge of sorts).

I like the word Champion better than owner. But the concept is the same.

Not entirely the same thing as far as I see it. An owner would host/control the beast as if they were a jinch, whether they were the original host or not.

A champion would merely fight for it in the absence of the actual jinch, thus preventing the tailed beast from even being used in the challenge for it.

[Eric]

Which is precisely why I don't like it.

An owner would get all of the perks and none of the risks. Seems like a cheat to me.

only hosts should get to use the beast as if they were a host.

If the beast is passed over due to the original host's inactivity, then the new "owner" IS the new host, by defacto really. Unless I missed something.

[Eric]

then what you are saying is to pick a new host.

What I am now saying is "backup host", yes. Though champion indeed is probably what I was originally for in the post where I brought the matter up.

[Trev]

I haven't been reading too carefully, so forgive me if this has been addressed, but are we throwing out the tailed beast as summons concept? I know most players don't take that route, but it was an option.

[Sabumaru]

I haven't been reading too carefully, so forgive me if this has been addressed, but are we throwing out the tailed beast as summons concept? I know most players don't take that route, but it was an option.

Kage did, I think. Obviously people will at times. I even thought about it.
I'd say same challenge rules apply. Why not right?

[Eric]

I haven't been reading too carefully, so forgive me if this has been addressed, but are we throwing out the tailed beast as summons concept? I know most players don't take that route, but it was an option.

Kage did, I think. Obviously people will at times. I even thought about it.
I'd say same challenge rules apply. Why not right?

More or less, the only real difference is the IC route, since keeping the beasties in a pocket dimension will make it rather difficult to acquire IC, even if the owner is beaten.

As far as champions and the sort, it's alot less sticky seeing as no extraction and sealing have to like, ever go on that might result in the death of a party member. I'm too lazy to reference the rules though, so no doubt if questions arise about it (which they will given time) we'll address them as we go.

[Sabumaru]

I haven't been reading too carefully, so forgive me if this has been addressed, but are we throwing out the tailed beast as summons concept? I know most players don't take that route, but it was an option.

Kage did, I think. Obviously people will at times. I even thought about it.
I'd say same challenge rules apply. Why not right?

More or less, the only real difference is the IC route, since keeping the beasties in a pocket dimension will make it rather difficult to acquire IC, even if the owner is beaten.

As far as champions and the sort, it's alot less sticky seeing as no extraction and sealing have to like, ever go on that might result in the death of a party member. I'm too lazy to reference the rules though, so no doubt if questions arise about it (which they will given time) we'll address them as we go.

Most people just magically seal the beast in themselves. I did. Even if it's kept in a pocket dimension and the fight is IC, I say the challenger gets it. It warps out of the pocket dimension because it's too powerful to be held by a dead man's eye. Or something.

[Eric]

Reading over the rules in preparation for deliberation, I noticed that we lacked a statement regarding what we are going to do if a challenger, or host, goes inactive during their battle.

We never worked out a solid tournament format either in case a champion cannot be found for the tailed beast and the beast goes up for pot. Thoughts and suggestions on it? It's too early for me to be taking a crack at it.