The 'renown' system dilemma

[nox]

A long standing issue that began with M&B and continues today is how the renown system awards renown based on numerical comparison, which is obviously not a linear metric.

Thus, the way to gain renown is to field veteran heavily armored cavalry troops against the largest and most poorly prepared enemy.  This sort of meta-gaming leads to the game being played counterintuitively and punishes the player who isn't aware of the quirky mechanics.

I have some ideas, but before I put them forward I'd like to hear what other people think.  I'll follow up with what direction I am thinking, and maybe kick some ideas around.

Your input is appreciated.

 

[Feragorn]

How about having some sort of battle difficulty or skill parameter? Maybe taking enemy reputation into account, if possible.

For example, troop numbers are taken into account, so are troop types and tier, and so are number of armies in the battle.

Hypothetical situation:

General Player goes into battle with 50 troops. All of them high tier cavalry. He goes into battle against three enemy lords with 50 men each, but their troops are low conscripts.

So it'd go like this.
Comparative army sizes: +10 (+5 for each equivalent army size larger. If two equal armies went together it'd be 0.)
Troop tiers: -5 (High tier troops vs low conscripts)
Troop types: -5 (Cavalry vs footmen)
Number of enemy armies: +2 (One for each more army than allied forces have.)

 

[xenoargh]

I think there are a bunch of problems here:

1.  Renown should be awarded on a very limited basis for numbers vs. elite combat; just flat cap it, frankly.  If you want to get into complicated territory, IIRC there's a script in Warband that offers a tentative (and, imo at least, fairly poor) weighting value; better yet, go look at the OSP auto-battle improvement code, where troop weights were calculated somewhat more accurately and then passed to the engine via some python tricks and a bit of logic.  Really, I think that there needs to be another tuple that can be set that gives a value, so that game designers can flat-out declare, "these guys are OP for level due to factors that the engine and code cannot easily be written to judge accurately".  But that's just me.

2.  Please fix the absurd battle size disparity issues, where if Tactics isn't boosted enough, you get into situations where you only get a couple of guys and the other side gets 100.  Hint, there's a flat fiat limit in Blood and Steel, set quite a lot differently than it was in Warband, let alone M&B.  It's just plain silly and unrealistic, and it also tends to tip Renown into absurd levels for people gaming the system because of the way the math's currently set up. 

Right now, it makes perfect sense to do Renown runs by taking yourself and only yourself and elite equipment and taking out bandit units personally. 

The big problem in WFaS with that is that, since Shield and Power Draw wasn't removed, you can fairly reasonably build a player who's pretty bulletproof and can roll up renown reliably with a bow or pistol-and-shield combo.  The bow issue is, well, particularly egregious.  See how Power draw effects damage, accuracy and hold times to see why nobody with any sense should actually use any firearms in SP at the current DPS

3.  Find other, better ways to reward Renown.  For example, achieving a 10:1 personal K on the battlefield or better, 1 point.  For keeping your Companions who joined a battle alive, a point.

There are lots of ways to make Renown make more sense, frankly.  I'd honestly rather have a Karma system than Renown, though.

 

[lotsofpaper]

I think the renown you gain should definitely be partly based on the renown of the person or people who you defeated...

If I were to beat the king of the swedes who has 200 troops, I would gain no more renown than beating any OTHER lord with 200 troops. Why does that even make sense? Wouldn't a person defeating a KING on the battlefield merit more gossip than some Podunk nobody lord?

 

[wannyboy]

I think the renown you gain should definitely be partly based on the renown of the person or people who you defeated...

If I were to beat the king of the swedes who has 200 troops, I would gain no more renown than beating any OTHER lord with 200 troops. Why does that even make sense? Wouldn't a person defeating a KING on the battlefield merit more gossip than some Podunk nobody lord?

indeed, the renown of the defeated enemy should matter. I would also add personal kills and the kd ratio, after all, defeating a king with 150 loses is far less impressive than with 15 loses

 

[il_son]

Renown system should go.
The new system should be like this.

It depends on you behavior. and how many lords have noticed you.
Like this
                        Noticed  I                    Not noticed.
You get noticed by speaking to many lords or doing stuff.
Then rumors will appear and you will be notcied.
After a while they forget t you.

The postitve and negegatve effects on your behiover is stronger when you are noticed.

And here is the behavior :
It will apear in you behavior.
Like being brave andstand and fight until you lose will have good effects on brave lords but have bad effects on smart lords. So if you standt and fight and never flee brave lords and lords who like such honourble things will think good of you.
The smarter ones will think that  your and idiot.
If you want to join a faction and the king doesnet let you you can turnnto the lords wifes.
Make them think you should get in.
They mae their males want you in and then the king has to listen.
Who thinks my idead is good.                                                                                 

 

[khornebread]

Use the cost of troops to weight the renown system.  Make it simple, to avoid gaming it have it taper off at the top.

Ro = old renown for battle
Rn = new renown
Ce = total weekly cost of enemy troops
Cp = total weekly cost of friendly troops (might have scale down mercenaries)

Rn = Ro x  Ce / (Ce +Cp) 
to taper off add
Rn final = Rset x  (Rn / Rset)^0.5

Where Rset is a predetermined value of Renown (like 5)  though this rewards small BS battles over large glorious ones

 

[original]

I was thinking give a fixed amount of renown from battles regardless of battle advantage.
Currently successful sieges give a fixed +5 renown. Any land battle with enemy Lords should give the same amount.
Though battles with bandits, looters and deserters should give a lesser amount, like +3.

But people saying you should get renown based on the renown of the enemy Lord you defeat sounds like a great idea.

 

[khornebread]

I was thinking give a fixed amount of renown from battles regardless of battle advantage.
Currently successful sieges give a fixed +5 renown. Any land battle with enemy Lords should give the same amount.
Though battles with bandits, looters and deserters should give a lesser amount, like +3.

But people saying you should get renown based on the renown of the enemy Lord you defeat sounds like a great idea.

I don't like that, I can get 5 renown for 1 bandit or 40 winged hussars.  The enemy lord could just have gotten beat and be injured and low on troops.  The renown system should reward well calculated risk.  Think Hannibal, the Alamo, Robert E Lee (except at Gettysburg) not McClellan (too timid) or Custer (bad choice).

 

[Schmon]

I find the best way to farm renown are armored pikemen or cavalry in Crimea vs. Tatar Raiders.

 

[original]

I was thinking give a fixed amount of renown from battles regardless of battle advantage.
Currently successful sieges give a fixed +5 renown. Any land battle with enemy Lords should give the same amount.
Though battles with bandits, looters and deserters should give a lesser amount, like +3.

But people saying you should get renown based on the renown of the enemy Lord you defeat sounds like a great idea.

I don't like that, I can get 5 renown for 1 bandit or 40 winged hussars.  The enemy lord could just have gotten beat and be injured and low on troops.  The renown system should reward well calculated risk.  Think Hannibal, the Alamo, Robert E Lee (except at Gettysburg) not McClellan (too timid) or Custer (bad choice).

Well as I stated in my post that you quoted, bandits, looters and deserters will only net you 3 renown, not 5.

The problem is that as nox as stated, there is meta-gaming now. People are deliberately making their army sizes small to take on enemies to gain maximum amounts of renown. So we need to change it so that there is less power-gaming.

The +5 renown from successful sieges is also static, no matter how many troops you kill in a siege, you only get +5 renown. By giving a fixed renown gain from land battles as well, people won't be that choosy in selecting battles for renown; they all give the same amount anyway.

A compromise can be made. You can make the base renown gained from fighting other Lords 5. But then it will be modified by the Lord's renown. The higher the renown of the Lord that you defeated, the higher your overall renown gained will be.

So bandits will always give +3 renown. But a fight with a Lord may give you 5-15, depending on the enemy Lord's renown. I think making this based on the enemy Lord's renown is a great idea.

 

[nox]

The calculation as is was a fine idea, it just becomes cumbersome in practice because renown is such a crucial element.

Off the top of my head I would like :

- renown to be a lot easier to get when you have none, but are doing big things
- the party size bonus from renown to eventually cap (so the player isn't driven to raise it infinitely)
- have renown gain per battle have more to do with the significance of the battle than the numbers.. i.e. defeating an army that is ransacking a town or sieging a castle, defeating a castle, defeating very famous people with similar forces
- notable acts (razing villages, sacking towns/castles, releasing and capturing lords)

i'd calculate army strength using the not very reliable compare strength function rather than headcount.

 

[wannyboy]

Use the cost of troops to weight the renown system.  Make it simple, to avoid gaming it have it taper off at the top.

Ro = old renown for battle
Rn = new renown
Ce = total weekly cost of enemy troops
Cp = total weekly cost of friendly troops (might have scale down mercenaries)

Rn = Ro x  Ce / (Ce +Cp) 

Lol this system realy gives low renown in early game if you ask me
old renown: 100
Ce: 500
CP: 250(so you are at quite a disadvantage)

Rn = 100 x 500 / (500 + 250)
Rn = 5000 / 750 = 6.666

guys with low renown should raise fastest because everyoen is amazed by them and they will get a lot of attention. Guys with high renown are expected to do great stuff so people aren't amased by them that much

 

[nox]

exactly.  A nobody that does something famous becomes a somebody, but a somebody that repeats the act doesn't double their fame.

 

[Brownboot]

Can the troop value be calculated from the units XP value and be fairly comparative?  I've never payed much attention to that stat but I think it should be a fairly legit barometer.

I would also like to see a separate comparitive check for number of lords on each side. 

 

[khornebread]

Use the cost of troops to weight the renown system.  Make it simple, to avoid gaming it have it taper off at the top.

Ro = old renown for battle
Rn = new renown
Ce = total weekly cost of enemy troops
Cp = total weekly cost of friendly troops (might have scale down mercenaries)

Rn = Ro x  Ce / (Ce +Cp) 

Lol this system realy gives low renown in early game if you ask me
old renown: 100
Ce: 500
CP: 250(so you are at quite a disadvantage)

Rn = 100 x 500 / (500 + 250)
Rn = 5000 / 750 = 6.666

guys with low renown should raise fastest because everyoen is amazed by them and they will get a lot of attention. Guys with high renown are expected to do great stuff so people aren't amased by them that much

Rn = 100 x 500 / (500 + 250)
Rn = 500 / 750 = 67.666

 

[nox]

Can the troop value be calculated from the units XP value and be fairly comparative?  I've never payed much attention to that stat but I think it should be a fairly legit barometer.

I would also like to see a separate comparitive check for number of lords on each side.

There's a function that calculates unit strength for a given 'army' but I really haven't looked at the internals of it lately.  That can be tweaked, too... yeah the troop exp value is certainly a whole world better metric than headcount, in any case.

I am thinking that it would not be terribly hard to have something that gives a calculated weight to the 'value' of a given stack... right?  factor in armor, weapon skills, weapon vallue/dps (?) and junk * stack size.  Anything really would be better than what we have.

 

[khornebread]

Can the troop value be calculated from the units XP value and be fairly comparative?  I've never payed much attention to that stat but I think it should be a fairly legit barometer.

I would also like to see a separate comparitive check for number of lords on each side.

There's a function that calculates unit strength for a given 'army' but I really haven't looked at the internals of it lately.  That can be tweaked, too... yeah the troop exp value is certainly a whole world better metric than headcount, in any case.

I am thinking that it would not be terribly hard to have something that gives a calculated weight to the 'value' of a given stack... right?  factor in armor, weapon skills, weapon vallue/dps (?) and junk * stack size.  Anything really would be better than what we have.

Don't over complicate, use weekly wages or level or something easy. 

 

[Leberecht Reinhold]

What about instead of counting numbers you count tiers?
I have 10 T5 troops. I fight against 30 T1 bandits.
I have an army worth 50 (instead of 10) and they have just 30.

That fixes the problem, but the game still requires quite a bunch of renown farming. You could add a bonus of +x for each 10 troop you kill alone. You can add also a bonus for each enemy lord involved, the bonus being depending on their renown (for example, enemy_renown/200). And give a small penalty for each packet of renown you have. Or alternatively, just give the bonus for enemies with more renown than you.

So if you, fully equipped as hero (600 renown), go and defend poland with about 200 troops (counting allies and all that) of average T3 against a barbaric horde of angry sweedes (1000, average T3), in which they are 8 lords, with an average of 400 renown each, and you kill 20 with your sword, then you have:
1000 troops*3 Tier / 200 troops * 3 tier = +5 for battle numeric disadvantage.
(400/2) renown/lord * 8 lords = +16 (All the f**** sweeden is knoking in your door)
(600/200) = -3 penalty for your previous renown
===========
-> 18 renown.

Instead of the normal 5 you would get. Sounds much more worth considering you just defeated Sweeden.

 

[nox]

I think we're of the same mind.  Whatever we do, it'll take troop badassness, however we figure that out instead of headcount.  That and it'll be capped one way or another. 

I don't want renown to be a grind.  I want it to come naturally as a part of playing, and be the middle phase of growth along with securing a holding - however you do that.