PDA

View Full Version : Revamping the Renown System



Lament
03-07-2013, 08:25 PM
Currently the accumulation of renown is just mind boggling slow, even if you purchase bonuses it is still quite low.

First is an example to demonstrate.

Promblem - Rank 2 requires 20 kills and 150 renown to upgrade from rank 1-2. The basic unit also costs 10 renown and 5 kills or 30 renown + 40 to upgrade from basic. Altogether that is 20 kills and 220 renown or 25 kills and 200 renown. Based on consitent scoring matches we are looking at approximately 16 matches give or take. Let us say an average 15 min match and were looking at 4 hours roughly to get 1 unit from basic to rank 2. Do a little quick math and that is 20 hours to get 5 rank two's.

Solution - Adjust it so that upgrading costs for units are either via kills OR renown. Not both!

The other two alternatives are increasing the current renown earnered by at least a factor of 2, more than likely 3. Or on the other hand, reduce the costs a fair margin.

franknarf
03-07-2013, 08:37 PM
Just some notes on the math:

First, it's worse than you say: you forgot the 40 to upgrade from zero to one. So 180->220, 160->200.

A killed unit gives you its rank in renown, so a top-level team is worth 18. A win against that should net you 20 or so. Until you get there, as you add higher-rank units, you'll be facing higher-rank teams and getting more renown per kill.

Vexbane
03-07-2013, 08:58 PM
I still say some renown values should increase.

- Is a 50% reduction in my turn time worth only 2 renown? Seems a little low. I suggest 4.

- One renown for a win seems very trivial to me. Higher ranked matches take longer to do. So that 20-30 minute win nets me 1 renown.... woohoo. I suggest 3-5 depending on relative rank of the team. Even more would not be out of the question.

- Additional ways to earn bonus renown would be good to.

I can understand and appreciate the time it takes to level a unit. Currently though the leveling system is not very good imo. If that were to change then the grind would be more tolerable. I do not care if you scale everything up a bit. Just make me feel like I have earned enough. Right now I do not feel like I am getting what I am worth. I am fine with like 8-10 battles for rank 2. Rank 3 seems a little high though imo. I do appreciate the lowering of rank 1 though.

RobertTheScott
03-07-2013, 09:49 PM
A killed unit gives you its rank in renown, so a top-level team is worth 18.

So I take it that level 0 and 1 units are worth the same, but level 2 units are worth more?

franknarf
03-07-2013, 09:57 PM
I thought so...my memory isn't what it used to be, so I might have this wrong.

Impaler
03-07-2013, 10:06 PM
150 renown for an upgrade is way, way too much. Reduce to something reasonable like 50 or 75.

mouton
03-07-2013, 10:39 PM
Before this update, I had no problem with Renown and its F2P aspect.

Now it looks like a hell of a grind, EVEN with the 18 euro boost, which is ridiculous. Seriously, I was praising this game as a rare case of F2P done good. It saddens me to say that now it looks - *looks*, nothing conclusive there yet - like any other money-grabbing F2P setup.

raven2134
03-08-2013, 12:21 AM
Well could be high...just also note people need something to spend the renown on. People have max rank 1 teams less than 2 weeks after launch. Would probably take 2-3 weeks to make a full rank 2 team. And 2.5 months for a full rank 3 team?

At least you do have something to put the renown into over a long period of time. And not "k, I've maxed out after 1 month, what do I do now?"

Lament
03-08-2013, 12:46 AM
That assumes you only want 1 team of a rank 2. Which to me, is extremely boring and hugely time consuming.

raven2134
03-08-2013, 07:22 AM
Not necessarily. It's just that people need to stop thinking of progression in increments of total 6 promotions. Yes 6 fills the team, but also remember, you're not likely to require a complete team overhaul to reach a new build, just change out a unit or 2. Moreso when you already have access to the ability of a particular unit from rank 1? This means once before and after you hit 6 you actually build 1 at a time.

Butters
03-08-2013, 07:31 AM
I'd expected rank 2 to cost 100 rather than 150, but it's not as bad as some make it out to be (and certainly not money-grabby, I really do not think so).
I think Carrots hits it on the head : how do you keep people from obtaining everything they want in the first month after release ? I think that's what the devs are balancing for.
Admittedly I have been playing more than the average player, but before rank 2s started to roll in I already had 15 rank 1s (which will be even easier to get now). And for most of my playtime I did not use expert mode nor had a booster (actually purchased the permanent booster, but only a few days ago).
The rank 2s will need work to get to, and that's OK.
I, for one, don't want to see rank 12 teams all over the place any time soon.

mouton
03-08-2013, 07:59 AM
I'd expected rank 2 to cost 100 rather than 150, but it's not as bad as some make it out to be (and certainly not money-grabby, I really do not think so).
I don't think it is their intent either, but the patterns the game falls into start resembling F2P games that are very much pro-money-bono.

I think Carrots hits it on the head : how do you keep people from obtaining everything they want in the first month after release ? I think that's what the devs are balancing for.
That is a question of game design. Should a game offer solid gameplay which makes people come back to it over and over again despite having all features unlocked at the start or should the long, drip-drip-drip progression be the gameplay itself? F2P aspect does not help at all, as it gives the devs all the wrong motivations.

To each their own, of course, but grind really kills it for me.

raven2134
03-08-2013, 08:58 AM
It is a concern, and to each his own, but to focus on a phrase you mentioned:


Should a game offer solid gameplay which makes people come back to it over and over gain despite having all features unlocked...

I think the game achieves enough of this from rank 1 play already. And with a rank 2 team being achievable within a month of steady(not intensive) play...I think it's a good middleground.

The opposite is as true, in the extreme that everything, even rank 3, is unlocked within 1 week, many players will also lose interest and motivation.

Lubanja
03-08-2013, 10:00 AM
2700 to upgrade from all rank 1s to all rank 3s. By their cash-shop value that is well over $100. It really needs to be recosted, or renown gain increased. They claim to want a not pay-to-win model, but this is making the game pay2win (or grind for 60+ hours).

piotras
03-08-2013, 10:22 AM
It's pay to advance quicker. If you spend $$$ on advancing units to rank 3 it doesn't mean you're a winner. Game starts after the tutorial at power 1 (i.e with the free thrasher) and building your team is part of the experience, as it is in every strategy / rpg game - from zero to hero.

EDIT:
Personally, I have little interest in rank 2 and 3, too much grind for me with a single build. I would rather build a different rank 1 build and see how it goes.

I think that the mindset of a fully ranked team only approach (in contrast to advancing units one by one) is from the fact that you can buy the experienced units, so rather than having to progress your team from scratch you just grind until you have enough to buy a full rank 1 team. Although it's impossible to do with rank 2 and 3, people still remain in the same mindset.

BTW: I love to see the kill-count removed as a requirement for promotion and have the battle count per unit be used instead (so there's is no issue of SB not being able to finish off units while archers going crazy with finishing kills etc.)

Yellow
03-08-2013, 11:25 AM
Well could be high...just also note people need something to spend the renown on. People have max rank 1 teams less than 2 weeks after launch. Would probably take 2-3 weeks to make a full rank 2 team. And 2.5 months for a full rank 3 team?

At least you do have something to put the renown into over a long period of time. And not "k, I've maxed out after 1 month, what do I do now?"

Exactly, thats the same way i see things, i have had no issue so far gaining renown, as for yesterday i had 500 renown standing there doing nothing(i had already 20 units, of them 12-14 were rank 1, and had bought 3 Barracks upgrades)

So when rank 2 and 3 came out i was able to upgrade a couple of units to level 2 and still have like 200 renown left...

scase
03-08-2013, 03:47 PM
I don't think it is their intent either, but the patterns the game falls into start resembling F2P games that are very much pro-money-bono.

That is a question of game design. Should a game offer solid gameplay which makes people come back to it over and over again despite having all features unlocked at the start or should the long, drip-drip-drip progression be the gameplay itself? F2P aspect does not help at all, as it gives the devs all the wrong motivations.

To each their own, of course, but grind really kills it for me.


2700 to upgrade from all rank 1s to all rank 3s. By their cash-shop value that is well over $100. It really needs to be recosted, or renown gain increased. They claim to want a not pay-to-win model, but this is making the game pay2win (or grind for 60+ hours).

You guys seem to be misunderstanding what p2w stands for. This game is in no way shape or form a pay to win format. Now you can clearly argue that it is a pay to ADVANCE format and you'd be totally right.

Pay to win gets the name from the unfair advantage a player who spends money has over one who does not. Someone could spend 10000$ on this game and have no advantages over someone who spent nothing, they simply have top ranked units that play against other peoples top ranked units.

Now could the renown take some tweaking? Definitely. Could it be steering people towards buying renown? Pretty likely but, I don't think Stoic is intent on bleeding people dry or boring them away from their game. It most likely (since this isn't a finished game) just needs more balancing.

Vexbane
03-08-2013, 08:03 PM
For me the renown gain is also about the pride of earning that victory or winning that underdog match and being rewarded for it as what I feel I deserve. Or reaching that achievement for an extra boost. If people do not get what they feel they deserve (within reason) than it demotivates them to play.

One renown for a win? That is too low. Especially for a hard fought battle. I feel I deserve more so it devalues every win. Makes them feel like not much of an accomplishment. I got 1 renown for my epic comeback underdog win. I felt cheated. One lousy renown? I could have just surrendered and played another match it would have been faster and I would earn more renown that way. I have seen this trend where people surrender more now. Not only to they will earn renown faster by just playing another fight, but it also slows your opponents team leveling down, especially with under rank 6 teams counting for elo. It is more productive when farming for renown to surrender than finish a match. It should not be that way. I got a 12 win streak. Not a lot compared to the other cheesy farming players, but I felt like it was a good thing. What did I get? 1 renown. woohoo. Again it is not enough. With the game balance now though I would not raise this any.

My point? Raise the amounts that players get so they feel like they are getting a better reward for their efforts. I do not care of you scale up the costs of the units to match. I would rather get 5-10 renown for a win and have base units cost say 25 instead of 10 then 1 renown for a win with 10 cost units. I want to feel rewarded for my efforts and good play. Right now I do not feel this way.

Some ideas for renown:
- 1 renown for every unit alive at the end of the match
- 1 renown for every WP stored in the horn
- 1 renown for the win for every rank the team is to a min of 5. (so winning against a rank 6 team nets 6 renown)
- 1 renown for an underdog bonus for every rank of the higher level team you beat
- 1 renown per rank of the unit killed (to a min of 1). So killing a rank 2 unit nets you 2 renown.
- expert bonus should be increased to 3 (I am losing 1/2 of my turn for 2 renown...)
Have a random bonus objective or two that pops up every fight for extra renown for your team. This could be programed several ways including some based on bg composition. Like:
- 1 renown for using a special x times during a match
- 1 renown for not spending any wp on a certain unit
- 1 renown for getting 2 kills with 1 unit (used for low str units only)
- 1 renown if they survive until the end (this would be good in like BB who die often)
- 1 renown for getting x armor break with a unit.
and many more could be programmed. These would be random and different for each player. You could get say 2 per match and 3 if you are on a x winning streak or 4 in an underdog match. In this way you can earn extra renown and it discourages surrendering.

I am all for having to wait a bit to level my units and understand not wanting to be able to build a rank 3 team in a few weeks. I just feel the values should be increased across the board for the gains. If you want to raise other costs after that I am fine with it.

raven2134
03-09-2013, 03:16 AM
Hi Vexbane, some interesting ideas you proposed, and some which have been suggested also during beta, who's to say the renown for doing stuff in battle won't be coming at some point :) (I suggested that before too).

Just to note some things though:
1. No Elo is recorded now for teams under 6 power.
2. Most people can earn 10 renown total per win, while the defeated party walks away with about 5-6 renown. (Meaning the accumulated bonuses from winning, besides the win bonus itself is +4 renown: +1 for win+1-2 for full 6 kills, +1 for win streak).
3. The units alive and horn willpower to renown is something questionable because these may create unwanted player behavior or conflict with the main objective of winning the match.
4. I think bonus renown for playing at, with, and against higher tier/power teams is planned to be implemented, but in the resolution screen instead of per unit-rank killed.
5. It is probably better to keep the gap of renown between winning and losing moderate, because while we do want tor reward a player for winning, we want the experience to be fun, and fulfilling for both parties, not just the winner :).

Just my 2 cents.

scase
03-09-2013, 03:19 AM
2. Most people can earn 10 renown total per win, while the defeated party walks away with about 5-6 renown. (Meaning the accumulated bonuses from winning, besides the win bonus itself is +4 renown: +1 for win+1-2 for full 6 kills, +1 for win streak).


Not to nitpick seeing as it's only 1pt of renown, but since it's such a small number to begin with.....My wins usually net me 9 for a win. And that's including all kills, win streak bonus, and daily match bonus.

So no 10 is not the norm. I've gotten as low as 7 with a win before, and based on the cost of promotions and the fact your avg game is 15-20min that's absurdly low.

raven2134
03-09-2013, 03:30 AM
6 for kills 1 for win for 7 guaranteed on victory.
Win streak is conditional, for +1

Win or lose people have access to daily login bonus of +1
Expert timer for +2

The bottom 2 bonuses I included to come up with 10 for winning. 11 when on a win streak.

Also promotions now cost 40 renown. You can promote 1 unit within 2 hours...even if you didn't win those matches.

Vexbane
03-09-2013, 12:33 PM
Hi Vexbane, some interesting ideas you proposed, and some which have been suggested also during beta, who's to say the renown for doing stuff in battle won't be coming at some point :) (I suggested that before too).

Just to note some things though:
1. No Elo is recorded now for teams under 6 power.

I realize this was just implemented and I like it. Still has nothing to do with renown gain:).

2. Most people can earn 10 renown total per win, while the defeated party walks away with about 5-6 renown. (Meaning the accumulated bonuses from winning, besides the win bonus itself is +4 renown: +1 for win+1-2 for full 6 kills, +1 for win streak).

I would say my average for a win is about 9 imo as win streaks are not a guaranteed thing or common enough to include as auto. This also assumes you play on expert. While I have no issue doing it, it should not be considered an auto for base calculations. A bonus is just that, extra. So really a win nets you 7 renown (with no bonuses) and a loss is anywhere less than that all the way up to 5. This is really the bread and butter. You can consider all bonuses etc.. and can earn 10 for a win, but that is not necessarily going to happen. IMO no bonuses should be taken into account for win vs loss renown gain comparison except what you get for winning. So in reality the difference is much smaller. I have walked away from a loss with 8 renown, with my opponent getting 10. My point is 1 renown for a win is too small and it feels cheap to me.

3. The units alive and horn willpower to renown is something questionable because these may create unwanted player behavior or conflict with the main objective of winning the match.

How so? I would say about 85% of my losses were with my opponent having 1 unit left. Another big chunk after that is 2 left. So on average a player will earn another 1-2 renown per match, but as much as 6. This will be a very rare occurrence (with a match maker that is working right:rolleyes:) and your opponent should get something big for dominating your team. I do not see how earning extra renown for the wp left in the horn changes anything either. If anything it makes the match harder if you want to farm, which it should be. Again with balanced units and a match maker this will cause no issues. Right now though it is not that way so I can see some hesitation in this area. It will also make surrendering much harder for an opponent to consider as their opponent will gain a lot more renown. Win-win imo.

4. I think bonus renown for playing at, with, and against higher tier/power teams is planned to be implemented, but in the resolution screen instead of per unit-rank killed.

Playing against a higher tier team should be a rare occurrence imo so having a decent incentive to win and finish the match against being an underdog is a good thing. Right now being an underdog is common in the matchmaker and it should not be. So again in a balanced world having a decent bonus for beating a more powerful bg will have minimum impact most of the time.

5. It is probably better to keep the gap of renown between winning and losing moderate, because while we do want tor reward a player for winning, we want the experience to be fun, and fulfilling for both parties, not just the winner :).

I agree with this sentiment as well. My suggestions imo would keep it that way most of the time. It just scales up the amount of renown you get, which is the point I am trying to make. Scale the whole system up.

Just my 2 cents.
Mine in red.

raven2134
03-09-2013, 01:09 PM
The red, it burns my eyes! D:

Anyway :p

Nice replies.

I suppose the bonus for winning could increase, but really Vexbane, I don't think it should increase by more than 1 or 2 more points. Even 1 or 2 more points adds up per game and over time. So yes, while the bonuses shouldn't factor into the difference between a win or a loss, bonuses mean additional renown earned either way...which raises the question, if we have a number of bonuses, and possibly more coming, do we really need to give more bonus for winning? Maybe for now, but again I'd only be comfortable to increase the bonus by 1-2 points.

How might horn/surivors influence behavior you ask, people suddenly become conscious when the objective of the game changes or when more are added. It's not all about what's in front of you, sometimes it's about what's in the back of your mind. We've had many discussions of elements in the game (such as kills for promotion) which may possibly be encouraging sub-optimal play (for reasons I won't elaborate here but I think you can fathom why). I'm not saying kills to promote really does so...but do we really need more game mechanics that could introduce conflicting objectives into the game? We want to spend willpower from the horn, not give it a second thought on the willpower you could save to earn more renown (and this is especially crucial for newer players who can build pre-conceptions/misconceptions). Additionally, the game already lies on maim/kill weighing scale...do we really want to be creating dynamics and complications where in we DONT want to get rid of a unit costing us turns, or creating this mindset again...just for that extra point of vital renown?

Last, I was not speaking of the underdog bonus. I think, and I'm not sure, I just also read in the chatbox, that stoic has in mind to have higher level matched teams earn more renown...ie team power 10 vs team power 10 earns more than team power 6 v team power 6. That should be alright :), right?

Vexbane
03-09-2013, 02:30 PM
My point is not to just raise the renowned earned in game, but also raise costs a bit too. This way you keep the game going at the rate you want. It is a psychological change, or lateral shift that I feel will help the game in the long run. Getting 1 renown for a win seems trivial, while say 10 ish sounds more reasonable. The actual values do not matter. The point is People are more apt to play and spend $$ on a game where they feel rewarded better. Gaining more renown will make people feel more rewarded. Even if you raise the prices on stuff.

Let's say I have 2 items that both cost the same. Let's say 1 to make it easy. Product A has a price of one marked on it. Product B has a 1 marked on it with a sign that says "Sale 25% off". Which product is going to sell more? People always want to feel like they are getting deal B, even though they are paying the same.

Many people (myself included) feel the renown gain is too slow. I think a majority of people would rather the overall renown gain go up even at the cost of some prices going up (even if they do not think so) to keep the game leveling rate the way you want it.

Another example.

Someone gains 10 renown. Someone else gains 25 renown. Who is going to feel like they got more? Regardless of the costs of items? Someone who gains 10 renown and sees that the cost to get what they want is 100 is going to feel like that is a lot more than someone who gets 25 renown and sees the cost is 250. Even though they are the exact same in value. People like to see bigger numbers.

Anyway I am rambling now and made all the points I can. Raise the amount of renown gained and the cost of some items if you want. Just increase the amounts people get in general.

Bloodaddict
03-12-2013, 04:30 AM
3. The units alive and horn willpower to renown is something questionable because these may create unwanted player behavior or conflict with the main objective of winning the match.


Using this arguments the expert mode needs to be dropped! I made more than one sub optimal move because of the reduced timer (and probably lost games because of it), but I still use it to make the game faster and earn that extra renown.

(I don't want the expert mode to be dropped! Just wanna say that your argument here is probably not the best one... :) )

KRD
03-12-2013, 04:42 AM
Oh, oh, oh. Yeah, let's get rid of the tournament timer.

Too late now, Bloodaddict, the cat's out of the bag!

raven2134
03-12-2013, 06:27 AM
Hmm, seems I'm being misunderstood.

The tourney timer is a constraint, you do not consciously/intentionally make bad plays because of the timer. You end up making a bad choice because you're pressed for time.

Horn usage is another matter. The incentive of renown may cause someone not to use the willpower. When the objective in the game for this stat and mechanic is to use it.

Well, that may just be me. I would however expect that IF horn willpower-renown was introduced, or units alive-renown was introduced...you'd get new players making posts about how the mechanics conflict with winning the game.

"WTF. Why do I get less reward for using up my horn. I can't play the way I like and earn maximum renown." Etc.

KRD
03-12-2013, 06:35 AM
On a serious note, I totally see where you're coming from with that and I agree that we can probably come up with renown bonuses that aren't conflicting in that regard. More achievements anyone? :o

Bloodaddict
03-12-2013, 06:38 AM
Raven, I fully understood what you meant but I was talking about the expert mode in Versus, not Tourney. There is is no constraint but an option, similar to the option to use the horn or not...

netnazgul
03-12-2013, 06:41 AM
Well, that may just be me. I would however expect that IF horn willpower-renown was introduced, or units alive-renown was introduced...you'd get new players making posts about how the mechanics conflict with winning the game.
Still receiving more renown by having more characters standing alive at the end of battle is understandable and logical... but the issue with it is many players will try abuse it by protecting their characters, running circles, hiding maimed ones in corner etc, thus increasing total game time, which is not good.

raven2134
03-12-2013, 07:06 AM
Indeed, it's hard to say how people will be influenced.

Ah good point Bloodaddict. Still, there has to be some practical way to practice with a quicker timer. Also, a faster timer does not consciously or intentionally inform the way a player will play or choose, unlike how game mechanics can and will do so. Constraints tend to work subconsciously.

I do concede that you do make a point about expert mode in versus though and my own argument about conflicting mechanics.