User:Raine Valen/Musings/Title Decay

I don't like the title system.
Why?
Because titles say nothing about skill.
They say how long someone's been doing something, but not much else.
Anything that accumulates without decay can be farmed, period. The speed can depend on the farmer's skill, of course. But even a slow farmer can make g3 with enough time.

The second issue with titles is that they don't scale with difficulty. 9000 SS/LB runs doesn't make a player better than someone who does 20. Rolling 9000 randomways in UW with SF doesn't make a player better than someone who rolls 20.

To remedy the former, I suggest title point decay of 10% of the current tier (r10 heroes will have to work harder than r3 heroes to keep their ranks) per day. In order to keep a rank in a form of play, a player would actually have to engage in it. That makes sense: "I Vanquish five places per day, I'm a Legendary Vanquisher ." Not, "I Vanquished everything in the game and got this title, now what?"
Furthermore, points toward higher tiers should only be accessible by doing more-challenging things. For example, winning round 3 in RA would give a g0 person 3 points, a g1 person 2, 1 for a g2, and 0 for a g3; a g3 would have to win round 4 to advance their title. High-ranked heroes wouldn't farm UW, they'd hold Halls. Mister Legendary Vanquisher wouldn't vanq easy places, he'd be vanqing in the Realm of Torment, or in Hell's Precipice, or whatnot. Super-Drunkard wouldn't drink rice wine, he'd seek out rarer stuff.

Of course, losing title would make people QQ, so add another option: Display Current Title or Display Maximum Title (and with a distinction between the two: current in gold and max in blue, or something).

Additionaly, this wouldn't work for every title (Carto, anyone?), and the tiers would have to be adjusted for the rest (perhaps 1 point per <title activity> with tiers every 10 points?). But a title system that requires players to hold their titles would make a lot more sense, IMO.