An alternative method for gaining renown

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Orion

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
Q&A Starter Old Guard
The entire renown acquisition system:

if (Enemy killed by player)
Enemy casualties + 1
X = (Enemy Level - Player level) * [0.1 * (Battle Advantage * -1)]
if (X > 0)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + X

else if (Enemy killed by player troops)
Enemy casualties + 1
X = (Enemy level - Player level) * [.075 * (Battle advantage * -1)]
if (X > 0)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + X

if (Player troop killed)
Player casualties + 1
Renown penalty = Renown penalty + (Soldier level - Leadership skill)

if (Player victory)
Renown rewarded = (Renown rewarded - Renown penalty) / 10
else if (player defeat)
Renown rewarded = (Renown rewarded - Renown penalty) / 20

if (Battle advantage < 0 && Faction involved = true)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + Battle Advantage * -1

if (Player troop number > 1 && non-NPC troops = true && Faction involved = true)
if ((Player casualties * 1.25) <= Enemy casualties)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + 5
if ((Player casualties * 1.5) <= Enemy casualties)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + 10
if ((Player casualties * 2) <= Enemy casualties)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + 20

Player renown = Player renown + Renown rewarded

Orion said:
If you want to see the evolution of my end result, read the post, if you just want to see the end result, go to the big text

In my opinion, a simple fix would be to have each unit give a certain (low) amount of renown per kill. Of course, once you've killed some hundred people, you'd have oodles and oodles of renown. What's to prevent some one from just killing looters and looters all over again?

Renown rewarded = (Enemy level - Player Level) * 0.1

As far as I know, the highest level units are 29. So, if a level 1 player killed a level 29 Nord Huscarl, the renown given would be 2.8, rounded to 3. That's quite a bit for a single kill, and a player could possibly get over a hundred renown in a single battle this way. Not very balanced, eh?

Of course, it does make sense if it's just the player against loads of enemies. Of course, if you just run in to a single Nord Huscarl and beat him in single combat, it's not very impressive. You wouldn't get much renown for that, now would you? So the number of troops should be considered as well, or perhaps battle advantage.

Renown rewarded = (Enemy level - Player Level) * [0.1 * (Battle Advantage * -1)]

If the player starts with a negative battle advantage (with more enemies than friendlies present), then the battle advantage would positively affect renown rewards. Say you start with a battle of advantage of -10. The above equation would then be like so for killing a Nord Huscarl:

Renown rewarded = (29 - 1) * [0.1 * (-10 * -1)]

Simplified: Renown Rewarded = 28 * [0.1 * 10]

Simplified again: Renown Rewarded = 28 * 1

Again, that's still quite a bit, right? There's a fix for that. Instead of instantly rewarding this renown, have it accumulate throughout the battle, then when the battle is over, there are 2 things that can be done with it.

History is written by the winners, so if you win the battle, you get a positive bonus to your renown gained in that battle.

Renown rewarded = {(Enemy level - Player level) * [0.1 * (Battle advantage * -1)]} / 10

In the example provided above, this would result in the player getting 2.8, rounded to three, renown for killing that Huscarl, in a battle against enough enemies to yield a -10 starting battle advantage (player is largely outnumbered).

We can't forget the losers, though, especially if they kill more than their number before being captured.

Renown rewarded = {(Enemy level - Player level) * [0.1 * (Battle advantage * -1)]} / 20

For that Nord Huscarl, this translates to 1.4 renown gained, rounded to 1. I just realized this is getting a bit contradictory, because I said earlier it would figure out some of this at the end of the battle. Well, let me just rephrase a bunch of this crap.

END RESULT

In a battle, say you kill 10 Nord Huscarls and then get knocked unconcious. The battle advantage was -10. For each kill you get, the renown added to the total for the battle is figured with this equation (written in a C++'ish way because it seems easier for me to do it that way):

X = (Enemy Level - Player level) * [0.1 * (Battle Advantage * -1)]
if (X > 0)
Renown = Renown + X

If the calculated value is positive (in other words, if the battle isn't in your favor and you kill some one), it adds to the total renown. If the battle is in your favor (positive battle advantage) you won't get any renown for the kill.

It would accumulate in that manner. For those 10 Nord Huscarls, you would end with 28 renown accumulated. Now, at the end of the battle, it goes through this:

if (player victory)
Renown rewarded = {(Enemy Level - Player level) * [0.1 * (Battle Advantage * -1)]} / 10
else if (player defeat)
Renown rewarded = {(Enemy Level - Player level) * [0.1 * (Battle Advantage * -1)]} / 20

For those 10 Huscarls, whose renown potential is 28, you would get 14 renown.

If you ask me, that's reasonable. If there are enough enemies to give you a -10 battle advantage, and if you come out on top, you should get plenty of renown for it. Even if you lose and still manage to kill more than your number in enemies, you should get some recognition of your courage and bravery. If you have troops with you, the battle advantage will of course be smaller, so each kill by you would give less renown, which balances itself out yet again. If the battle advantage is in your favor, you'll end up with a negative value. Negative values would just be discarded.

You could tweak the formula if needed, to yield lower renown rewards, or you could modify renown to be on a larger scale, requiring more renown for the same benefits.

Eventually, when you've hit level 29, you wouldn't get renown for killing troops. To incorporate the idea of only gaining renown in battles with factions that was mentioned previously, I'll throw this in here.

if (battle advantage < 0 && faction involved = true)
renown rewarded = renown rewarded + battle advantage * -1

This would be calculated after the renown-per-kill was calculated. In said battle with Nord Huscarls, this would result in a renown reward of 24. Of course, the odds are really, really against you in that case, and by killing 10 enemies your self in that case would get you some recognition.

Of course, how often do you see Nord Huscarls? I've only ever seen them with King Ragnar, and only in very low numbers (less than 10). Most enemies faced would yield low, low amounts of renown, and the higher the player's level, the fewer enemies there would be that would give him/her renown.

Yeah, this post is kinda long-winded, but I don't think it's half bad either. I actually kind of like it.
Click to expand...

As an addition to my previous post, I'd like to offer this as well:

Perhaps if the player was fighting bandits, there would be an additional renown bonus at the end as well, though smaller. Maybe...

if (battle advantage < 0 && faction involved = false)
renown rewarded = (renown rewarded + battle advantage * -1) / 2

Cuts the additional renown reward in half.

Upon further thought, both this and the part at the end of the quote should probably only happen if you win the battle. If you lose, there's no extra renown, just that gained from kills.
 
An interesting idea. I think that renown as it stands now could use some improvement (that includes going up slower and such) and I should also think that sometimes renown should be gained for losing if you go against pitiful odds and make the enemy suffer. Looks at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans suffered 99.9% casualties. The only guy who lived was the guy who was sent back to Sparta, and even his life went to crap after that because he was considered a coward once he got back. But boy are they famous for getting crushed because they made the Persians suffer so badly with just their small army.

My only problem with the per kill approach is what if you play a character who doesn't lead from the front. Some of the most famous figures in history lead from the back without really getting into the fight themselves. They are famous because they were brilliant tacticians who lead their armies well. Now from reading your proposal it doesn't sound like there is much to be had if you are less a warrior and more a tactician (granted who is gonna play a tactician in this game but still not everyone is a straight warrior).
 
I see your point, and you're right. I completely forgot about the less direct approach.

There's a simple solution for that, too, which is also relatively balanced.

Gain renown for each enemy killed by one of your soldiers, using the same equation, but perhaps...

if (troop kill)
Renown gained = (Enemy level - Player level) * [.075 * (Battle advantage * -1)]

Say you're level 1, you have a hero who kills a nord huscarl (level 29). Starting battle advantage is -10.

Renown gained = (29 - 1) * [0.075 * (-10 * -1)]

Renown gained = (2:cool: * [0.075 * 10]

Renown gained = (2:cool: * 0.75

Renown gained = 21

3/4ths of what you would get if you killed the unit your self, but that's the price you pay for being more cautious I suppose.

Everything else would work the same, but you'd get 3/4ths renown for your troop's kills, and full renown for your kills.

Thanks for pointing that out, Arak, otherwise I wouldn't have even thought of it. I guess I just catered my idea to people like me.
 
Another addition, to counteract the player who leads a massive party of epic knights and farms renown.

Every soldier lost on the player's side should counteract the renown gained from killing an enemy soldier. In this way, if the player loses 30 men, and kills only 15, they would get little (if any) renown. I can't write up a formula for how it could be calculated right now, because I have to go get something to eat, but when I get back I'll add it on to this post.

This wouldn't just apply to the players who prefer to lead their armies from the back, but also those who fight on the front lines, just like the other formulas I've proposed in this thread.

When a player's soldier dies, the level of that unit, along with the player's leadership skill, could be used to calculate how much of a renown penalty that soldier's death would incur.

Renown penalty = Renown penalty + (Soldier level - Leadership skill)

This would accumulate the total renown penalty for the battle, and at the end of the battle, the amount of renown rewarded would be calculated like so:

Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded - Renown penalty

Simple. I'm going to edit my initial post, and put the entire system at the top for easy referencing.
 
All that math just confuses me!! But if that makes so when we defeat the king of Swadia, Vaegirs, Nords and the King like thing the khergits have we don't get some miserable 20 renown I agree!
 
Orion, it still significantly favours those who lead the fight rather than those who simply lead. Good leaders will attract men to fight for them, and I think renown received for your force's performance demonstrates this. A fighting leader - a soldier's soldier - inspires his men and I think it'd be more appropriate to instead receive a morale bonus. There would still be an advantage for fighting yourself (as we all do, it's just a matter of to what extent), but those who fight less are less significantly handicapped.
 
Perhaps. But which is more awe-inspiring?

Hearing a tale of a man who single-handedly slew 50 men, or hearing a tale of a man who ordered his soldiers to kill 50 men? If morale influenced how effective your troops were in battle, it would make sense for a leader who was at the front of the charge to inspire his troops and raise morale, and that would be great. However, as I see it, morale only determines if people will occassionaly leave your army because of not getting their wages or not having enough food, etc. Renown is more like a personal skill than a party skill. It's the fame of the leader, not the fame of the entire party. Sure, the entire party went against incredible odds and won, but if the leader just sat on his horse and watched, how heroic does that make him? Yeah, he led the battle, and he gets some recognition as the leader. However, if he had personally killed a fourth of the soldiers, charging bravely in to combat, leading his men from the front, then stories of his courage would be widespread.

I'm not really thinking about how fair it is, I'm thinking about how realistic it is. Some guy who just sits on his horse while his men do all the fighting isn't that outstanding. Sure, he might be a tactical genius, but the guy who charges headlong in to the heat of battle and emerges victorious again and again is more fearful.
 
My preference there is for gameplay reasons, as if combat characters earn renown much, much quicker, then why try to be anything else?

As for realism it doesn't really matter, since armies are as large as leaders can afford them to be. How many men you could attract is irrelevant at this time. Realistically, there should be no party limit, but instead it should be governed by what you can afford.
 
Your comment on realism relates to something entirely different. I'm not talking about getting more people to follow you, I'm talking about gaining renown. Getting more people to follow you is just one of the perks of having more renown.

As for gameplay, I can see your point, but you aren't actually fighting. You aren't getting your hands dirty. It doesn't make sense for you to take all of the credit, and you shouldn't. Maybe instead of cutting the renown gained from your troops' kills in half, it could be 3/4ths.
 
I'm not talking about getting more people to follow you
Click to expand...

But that the main use of renown. As for realism and renown, again, I say that good leaders tend to get renown whether they fight themselves or not. They do get most of credit as that comes with the territory. The majority of it should come with the result, and that gained from personal combat should be seen as a bonus, rather than what drives the gain in renown.

Maybe instead of cutting the renown gained from your troops' kills in half, it could be 3/4ths.
Click to expand...

I can't say and it's something that we will only find out when tested. It may suit some but not others. For me personally 1/2 would probably work, as I tend to fight with my men (I've tweaked the game to make soloing much tougher) and in large battles, so the value of my own performance would be much lesser than someone who semi-solos with an elite band of warriors.

Perhaps. But which is more awe-inspiring?

Hearing a tale of a man who single-handedly slew 50 men, or hearing a tale of a man who ordered his soldiers to kill 50 men?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd only have to slay half a dozen to be known as a man who slew 50 :lol:. This brings me to another point, and that is that I think we'd be renowned as a warrior in any case. Given the scale of the game, we're pretty much forced to be one of those leaders who fights with their men (and let's face it, that's where the fun is), rather than standing behind the lines.
 
So then I see no problem with the system I've proposed, if the game practically forces you to play as a combat-oriented character anyways, as you stated.
Click to expand...

No, my point is that while we all play combat-oriented leaders, there may still be a large difference in the renown gained by one who solos and one who 'fights with his men'. I just think the meat of the renown should be based on the result rather than personal performance, and that the renown gained from the latter should just be a bonus. Whether your system works depends completely on the balancing between the renown gained from your kills, and that gained from your force's kills. My problem is with your system, but to make sure it's balanced. I think more emphasis on force performance is both realistic and better for gameplay balance, but I don't want to remove the effect of personal performance, as it's a nice reward for fighting well.
 
Oh, I see what you mean...

Hmmm. To be honest, the solo player right now gets more renown than people who play with troops. They also get more loot. More experience. More everything. That's just what happens when you solo - you don't have to share with anybody if you do it all your self.

I can't really think of a way around soloists getting more renown than people who play with soldiers. Personally, I'd love to solo, but I'm forced to use troops for sieges, and I don't want a bunch of cannon fodder, so I train soldiers now. The thing with soloists is that the odds are always against them, and if they come out on top, I think a massive renown reward is suitable. It just makes sense that one guy, who takes out hordes of enemies on his own, should be extremely famous. Obviously, he's a combat expert. Everyone would want that man on their side, because of what he's capable of.

The problem is, with sieges requiring that you have soldiers, that solo player isn't going to advance much farther than open field battles. They would only get fiefs if the King/Khan granted it to them, and if they don't take it, their chances of receiving it are even slimmer. By soloing, they're crippling themselves.

However, I can see your point, and I might have a way to counter-act that a little. I was going to offer a suggestion about comparing losses in the battle and determining an extra reward based upon that, but I already have something like that. Perhaps you would not only gain fame as a fighter, but as a leader as well. Therefore, if you had troops in the battle, then you would have that extra possible renown gained from comparing the losses. If you're solo, you don't get that bonus. With that, only players who used soldiers would gain extra renown from their soldier's effectiveness. If you had no soldiers, you wouldn't have a chance of getting that extra amount.

Hmmm... I'll tweak the formula at the top of the original post. Tell me what you think, because I'd much prefer this than the current system.

[Edit]

Ok, I added this:

if (Player troop number > 1)
if ((Player casualties * 2) <= Enemy casualties)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + 20
else if ((Player casualties * 1.5) <= Enemy casualties)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + 10
else if ((Player casualties * 1.25) <= Enemy casualties)
Renown rewarded = Renown rewarded + 5

If the player has more than just the hero in the party, then it compares the number of player losses to the number of enemy losses. If the number of player losses, multiplied by 2, is less than or equal to the number of enemy losses, the player gets an additional 20 renown (number can be changed). If the player's casualties times 1.5 is less than or equal to the number of enemy losses, they get an additional 10 renown. If the player's losses times 1.25 are less than or equal to the enemy's losses, then they get an additional 5 renown.

Now, at the moment, these don't stack. However, they could if the "else"s were removed. In that case, if the player completely obliterated the enemy, and lost only a couple men, they could get +35 renown.

This only counts if the player has troops, and NPCs probably wouldn't count.

In fact, let me change it so it stacks.

Check the OP for the modified version.
 
Well, we have it here in pseudo-code, all we need to do now is implement it. It seems solid, and better than the current system. I, personally, am the fighting leader; I can't really bear to solo (full damage, good AI, etc) with more than 10 opponents, unless they're looters or something, or they're mountain bandits and I'm a horse archer. More often I am the knight in shining armor, with lance and sword, and I demand a company of men to justify my status. As it is, though, you may need to fine tune it. Perhaps you should take off renown for "McClellans" who don't actually participate in their nation's war, rather do nothing but constantly kill bandits and sea raiders. Of course, there's nothing wrong with getting your troops their taste of warfare, but it's possible to make yourself seem a little... disloyal, if you hesitate to fight in your glorious kingdom's war? That is, if you're attached to a nation at all. This is a little more in tune with faction relations, but maybe at a certain point of renown, kings will disregard the attacks you've made on their lords with gold and lands to win over you; if you can't beat them, join them after all. Eventually, a king will get annoyed, perhaps afraid, of you reaving his armies over and over, and since men aren't getting rid of you, perhaps materials will.
 
To be honest, the solo player right now gets more renown than people who play with troops
Click to expand...

If they're true soloing, but many soloists still have the typical force behind them, they just kill as many as possible themselves.

This is kind of irrelevant for me though, since soloing in my mod will be restricted to the suicidal, so obviously that means that aspect won't need to be balanced.

kings will disregard the attacks you've made on their lords with gold and lands to win over you
Click to expand...

That's a problem with the world map AI though. I agree that it doesn't make sense for people eager to battle with me after I handle all of the friends, and renown should give some kind of boost to party strength (as level of troops currently do) to try and simulate the fear factor. It'd be great to implement this (renown affecting world map) and renown in general with Chel's battle morale. Higher renown meaning soldiers will fight till the end for you.

I can't really think of a way around soloists getting more renown than people who play with soldiers.
Click to expand...

Although it can be addressed with the renown system (simply minimising the significance of our own performance would work), the real cause of soloing is the poor AI and the low stats of the troops.
 
Zaro said:
If they're true soloing, but many soloists still have the typical force behind them, they just kill as many as possible themselves.

This is kind of irrelevant for me though, since soloing in my mod will be restricted to the suicidal, so obviously that means that aspect won't need to be balanced.

That's a problem with the world map AI though. I agree that it doesn't make sense for people eager to battle with me after I handle all of the friends, and renown should give some kind of boost to party strength (as level of troops currently do) to try and simulate the fear factor. It'd be great to implement this (renown affecting world map) and renown in general with Chel's battle morale. Higher renown meaning soldiers will fight till the end for you.

Although it can be addressed with the renown system (simply minimising the significance of our own performance would work), the real cause of soloing is the poor AI and the low stats of the troops.
Click to expand...

The entire point of soloing is to play alone. I know from my own experience of it. If you have troops, it negates the whole purpose.

How renown gained is used, I won't get in to that here. That isn't the idea behind my post.

I think the real cause of soloing is the player's desire to create a medieval death machine. It's totally badass to take out 100 Swadians on your own, and challenging, intense, entertaining, etc. The fact that most troops encountered are rather weak just makes it easier to do so, and is not the cause of the problem.

Personally, I think minimizing the bonus you get from your own personal acts completely goes against the system I've proposed, and also does not have any logical sense behind it. If you're a battlehardened warrior known throughout the land for slaughtering hordes of enemies, and you killed most of them your self, it doesn't make sense to be less famous than some guy who did the same, but with the help of his men.

It's counter-intuitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Siege battles are weirdly bad for the defender
Replies
18
Views
534
Vaan2020
Need More Info Loss of relationship when we should gain.
Replies
1
Views
76
MArdA TaleWorlds
MArdA TaleWorlds
SP - Player, NPCs & Troops Combat pacing: Slowing down the infantry zerg rush; so that more advanced combat tactics and formations are more meaningful.
Replies
4
Views
136
k86
Back
Top Bottom