PDA

View Full Version : For earning renown, how important is winning?



quartex
02-21-2013, 11:55 PM
I was losing a very close game recently and it occurred to me that losing a close game and winning a close game is almost the same in terms of renown. If I win a close game, I get 6 renown, if I lose I can easily get 4-5 renown. Let's assume that I don't win regularly enough to get a winning streak. The difference in overall renown seems pretty small. In terms of earning lots of renown over time, my winning percentage doesn't seem to make that much difference. So in short the game rewards you for how many battles you play, instead of how often you win.It's almost like we're emphasizing quantity over quality (losing 6 battles is as good as winning 3).

I'm not encouraging Stoic to penalize losing players more, it's bad enough when I only get 3-5 renown per battle when I lose. But I think the bonus for winning should be bigger. It's not just killing 6 units, it's the glory of winning! A slightly higher return on renown would also make a lot of people happier. (I'm more interested in promoting units and exploring more of the game, than in my rankings, which is why I'm concentrating on the rate of renown gain)

Any thoughts?

franknarf
02-22-2013, 01:27 AM
For me, it's enough of a difference that I really care about winning close matches:

I get 11 if I'm on a winning + daily streak (= 1 + 1 + 6 kills + 2 expert mode + 1 winning);
while I get at most 8 (0 + 1 + 5 + 2 + 0) if I lose and one less in subsequent games until I make another winning streak (by winning!).

That single loss costs me at least 5 = [11-8]+2*1 points (the latter two from subsequent games where I don't have a winning streak). Across these three games, we're talking 33 vs 28. Although the loss isn't much as a fraction of my earned renown, ~15%, it's enough to motivate me to always play to win. Without the expert mode, it's higher at 22 v 27 (~18.5%), so looking introspectively, I think the penalty (or "difference") is strong enough. Of course, the difference is less if you pay for the renown booster or lack valor! ("lack valor" = have given up on winning streaks)

(My numbers may be off; sorry about that. I don't anticipate winning or losing any more games until they fix the team-power calculation.)

netnazgul
02-22-2013, 01:52 AM
I think 1-2 additional renown for a win would be nice

piotras
02-22-2013, 07:29 AM
That would put new players off a lot. If both winners and losers earn renown at a similar rate it's easier to balance renown costs etc.

Anyway, you got your rankings to boast about :p they don't.

InfiniteNutshell
02-22-2013, 09:11 AM
You already get a bonus of 1 renown for winning on top of your 6 renown for defeating 6 enemy units. Are you saying you want this bonus to be bigger, or did you not notice it's already there?

netnazgul
02-22-2013, 10:19 AM
That would put new players off a lot. If both winners and losers earn renown at a similar rate it's easier to balance renown costs etc.
If both winners and losers earn renown at a similar rate, it still puts new players off a lot. New players will play, so saying, in their own league (due to elo, squad power and other factors added by devs currently). Good win/lose ratio will not only push them up in rankings, but also give them additional renown to upgrade characters earlier and get tougher opponents earlier.


You already get a bonus of 1 renown for winning on top of your 6 renown for defeating 6 enemy units. Are you saying you want this bonus to be bigger, or did you not notice it's already there?
In fact yes, I didn't notice... but still ADDITIONAL 1-2 renown would be nice :)

Druski
02-22-2013, 10:40 AM
Agreed with several of the posts already. As it stands, players who play often (daily streak) and win often (winning streak) are looking at a regular 11 renown per game. Many of us managed to get a full team in 1 to 2 days without purchasing any renown from the store. If we were to further increase winning renown, it would be viewed as unbalanced and we'd have some sort of 99% vs 1% outcry on our hands.

Winners get to look at moving up in rankings as another reward aside from the renown as well. Personally I feel its at a pretty good balance.

quartex
02-22-2013, 10:53 AM
I'd forgotten about the 1 bonus renown you get for winning, but my point is that you should get even more renown for winning a battle.

Arnie
02-22-2013, 03:14 PM
You'll get 1 for winning +1 for at least one more kills. The really good players should bury their enemies and collect quite a bit more renown. A loss, when you've only killed 2 of the enemies units, is quit dismal.
So bury them viking style!

Budikah
02-22-2013, 05:39 PM
A neat thought to cross my mind - getting a renown bonus if you win based on how many of your troops are left standing versus the enemy (0).

IE - You win the fight with 2 characters left you would receive 2 renown extra... silly things like that. Not a big deal and certainly not an overpowering boost. The most I've ever won by in that sense was 4 guys left to my enemies 0. While you get renown for winning obviously - I'd love to see a renown bonus for absolutely decimating your enemy.

netnazgul
02-23-2013, 03:29 AM
A neat thought to cross my mind - getting a renown bonus if you win based on how many of your troops are left standing versus the enemy (0).

IE - You win the fight with 2 characters left you would receive 2 renown extra... silly things like that. Not a big deal and certainly not an overpowering boost. The most I've ever won by in that sense was 4 guys left to my enemies 0. While you get renown for winning obviously - I'd love to see a renown bonus for absolutely decimating your enemy.
Yep, I've also thought about that. Maybe some additional renown for a great superiority over your enemy, say if you left with 3+ chars - +1 renown for that. For now it's no point trying to save any of your characters more than the last one.
But on the second thought it could make battles last more due to winning player not willing to sacrifice any of his crippled forces for a quick win and trying to strategize as long as possible.

franknarf
02-23-2013, 08:32 AM
@nazgul. Yeah, I think the team has said they will not do that, because (besides perhaps dragging out games) it would distort players' strategies away from winning. (Imagine rewarding a chess player based on how many pieces they finished with. :) )