Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: The Renown System

  1. #21
    How can you have emails offline? Aren't offline emails just regular mails?

  2.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #22
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    319
    No. These are off the grid completely. Don't ask questions...

  3. #23
    Superbacker Ratatoskr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    280
    Sounds good. I trust you guys to get it right.

    And I'm glad you like my crest, I've gotten rather fond of it too. Even though this is the dapper version and the imperial version is the one going in the game.

  4.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #24
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    319
    You may smile to find that I just completed the Weavers Hut, the place you go to attach your crest to your banner and I included a "Top Hat" tag to search for Top Hat crests. I've seen so any backers with them it may come in handy.

  5. #25
    Junior Member MrFusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9
    I JUST discovered this topic - and now I am a little nervous.

    Just the other day, I was thinking about how 'playing a lot' would put a player at a HUGE advantage over those who dont.
    I also did talk to Arnie IG about it, and he told me they are well aware of the problem and will try to fix it by placing players with roughly the same amount of Renown against each other.
    I thought thats a good idea, but after reading this topic, and especially being reminded of League of Legends, i think theres a huge flaw in it.
    Well, a couple honestly.

    First off, why does someone who plays a lot/buys Renown have an advantage?
    Simple:
    You need Renown to upgrade troops!
    A fresh Warrior is 10 R(enown)
    20 R make him a fully upgraded Warrior, 40 a Warhawk I , 84 make a fully upgraded Warhawk, the one we all fear and currently play.
    I Probably dont have to tell you how much more powerfully a fully upgraded Warrior is vs a vanilla one,
    dont even get me started on the fully developed Warhawk I!

    Now lets consider we have a system in place, where I, a guy who does not play much and has no money to spare, do not have to play crazy Tirean, who spends money as he pleases and plays a whole day cause he does not have a job (He's obviously living off his parents!)
    Keep in mind, we will NOT have 20 million players as League of legends does, so in order to play against anyone at all, the Renown matchmaking HAS to be forgiving!
    So, where is the the limit of how much more Renown Tirean can have in order to play me?
    20?
    This would, especially in early states of the game, where almost all my team is Vanilla, be a good enough advantage.
    Later on it would be less, but 5 more Strength on a Warhawk definately IS a lot...
    But with only that little a difference, and considering a win will net you 6+ Renown, it would only make 2-5 games difference.
    With the rather small playerbase we'll have
    (I am aware it will be a lot bigger than right now, but lets face it - there still wont be 100 guys with roughly the same Renown online all the time!
    I'd be glad if it was 10 in the +-20 range...)
    the range is probably going to be a lot bigger.
    Like 100 or more, which would cause that fully upgraded Warhawk 1 to wreck my puny team.
    Now Tirean sure is one of the best I've played so far, and I probably would lose against him anyway.
    But even tho I seem to win way more than I lose, most of my games still are very close.
    Those close games will ALL be lost if the other guy simply had way more Renown - or even SOME more!
    2 Armor/2 Str on every second guy ARE a huge advantage I will not be able to overcome I'm afraid.
    I'm definately not that bad a player, but I'm not THAT good.
    Tirean might make it, but even he will struggle against a team that simply has that one more Monster in its roster.

    So it's either playing against huge odds or not playing at all.
    If the Renown gap allowed is too narrow, I might not get a game in weeks.
    If it's too wide, ill get slaughtered by bad players with money/too much free time.
    And of course, I might bash in a head I never would have had a chance against if it was a 'fair' matchup of same Renown worth teams.

    I MIGHT be able to live with the 'play a lot -> win a lot' problem, as playing a lot will make you better at the game - to some extend.
    But a clear pay to win is a major turnoff to me, as much as I love the game.
    And you know I do, cause I've spent almost all my time since I knew about it playing it...
    There goes my vacation days :P


    I hope this wall of text does not discourage anyone to read it!
    Oh and sorry Tirean for choosing you for my exemples.
    Thats what you get for kicking my ass so muh!

    Im off to thinking about solutions now and hopefully might get a few good ideas on how to adress these issues.

  6. #26
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    MrFusion, I know you'e being facetious but re: your digs at Tirean, I have 2nd most games played AND a full-time job. The thing I don't have is a social life :P Back to your concern though, matchmaking is supposed to match players by power level (team point total) and elo level (abstracted skill level based off w/l ratio and levels of the people you win or lose to).

  7. #27
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Got a girlfriend sweetjer? Off-topic and I do mean to brag I have most games played, a full-time job (8 hours mon-fri) and I go on dates/spend family time on the weekends/sometime during the work week. To be fair though, the only thing I'm really playing right now is TBS:F and some Phoenix Wright Ace: Attorney on the side

  8. #28
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    Yes, I do, raven! She works most of my days off. I also diverted all of my gaming to this game, and yes, it still is a ludicrous amount of gaming. I've been dealing with a lot of crazy stuff the last month and this game has been my escapist venture from the cold unforgiving reality of actual existence. I'm gonna start...going outside again. Things like that. Pretty soon. Maybe...

  9. #29
    Junior Member MrFusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9
    All of this does not change the fact that playing much means winning more
    You guys are good, I played both you and carrotts...
    So, you ivest time in this AND are good - means I wont ever beat you? :P

  10. #30
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    The main take-away is that they plan to make it so you aren't playing against teams that are way stronger than you. if your team is 66 points you shouldnt be matched against someone who is 70pts and so on. Of course that depends on the strength of the matchmaking algorithm and the number of players in the game. re: time investment, the more you do anything the better you get at it! hopefully!

    Also:
    If your concern is that you won't be matched with me and carrots anymore after launch, just add me on steam and I'll make a fair team with which to stomp ya!
    Last edited by sweetjer; 01-04-2013 at 06:05 PM.

  11. #31
    Junior Member MrFusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9
    Oh I plan on at leat playing near enough to you guys to amke you sweat :P
    The real fear i have is people who just bought their way to higher Elo succeeding there due to... even more money :/

  12. #32
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    nah cause they'll buy their 100 power level teams and promptly get smacked in the face by players like Tirean and carrots (and presumably you) who earned their way to those teams (and put in all these games pre-launch).
    Last edited by sweetjer; 01-05-2013 at 03:52 AM.

  13. #33
    Backer Grits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    106
    TBS is free to play? I'm confused. You know, in a perfect world, multiplayer would have infinite renown and that would be that. No need to level up except for single player. Maybe you guys could allow that in Tournaments? Don't know how you can run a tournament where everyone is different level. Anyway, I love the game and I like the DEVs so I'm not worried.

    For the record, I'm not against paid content in F2P games as long as it's cosmetic only. Or if you can just unlock everything for $20 or something. When they milk you, that's when it's bad.
    Last edited by Grits; 01-05-2013 at 01:28 AM.

  14. #34
    I'd be lying if I said I weren't worried about this system.

    Honestly I just wish I could pay a set amount, and play like we're playing in the beta now, that is, everyone has the capability to make a team with the max amount of points so that everyone is on equal footing, and matches are set up based on just rank, because most everyone will be playing with 66 point teams.

    Implementing the system as it's planned now is going to be really frustrating I think, for most of the reasons MrFusion brought up, but also because it means:

    - Trying out different builds and styles is going to be incredibly annoying, time-consuming and/or costly. One of the reasons I currently love the game is because there is a lot of variety and experimentation going on. If you have to invest so much time to progress characters, that's going to disappear.

    - Separates the community based on how much money/time you've invested. A guy who plays chess a lot gains experience from playing the game, but a guy who might be a bit smarter or understands how to take advantage of certain aspects of the game can still come out on top even even though he hasn't played as many games. But these guys would never play each other in TBS because one guy who has played more is probably going to have a higher renown team and not be matched up with guy two, or will have an unfair advantage if he is.

    - Playing against friends will be awful. Let's say you've played 50-100 matches, and your buddy is just starting. You're not really going to be able to play (fairly) unless you spend precious renown to buy new guys (or will we be able to take renown points from characters and not lose it forever?)

    - Tournaments. Please please please say you're using Grits' idea here and keep everyone on equal footing, if not for the main game, then for tournaments at least.

    Really getting tired of MP games implementing some kind of progression system, trying to I guess lengthen the amount of time players stick around, and make some money. It really does nothing but disappoint me, and so many games that would otherwise be awesome are really boring and frustrating because players have advantages over each other that aren't skill based, but based on some sort of point system that allows them better equipment/stats/whatever. I get that the matchmaking system is trying to solve that problem, but as MrFusion pointed out, games could quickly become hard to find if there's not some allowance for teams with different renown totals. Even minor differences would be pretty annoying here.

    I love the game currently, and I know I'm criticizing a system I haven't seen at work yet, but I'm just very worried it will sacrifice the fair, competitive aspect of the game (that is extremely hard to find these days it seems) for a progression system that I really don't feel belongs in any MP game that's trying to be competitive at all. I've yet to play a F2P MP game that handles this well, and I really really hope TBS won't join that list. I'd pay a good amount for this game in a state similar to how it is now, but I'm definitely not going to buy renown when I feel like it's causing all these issues. People still buy and want to buy turn-based tactical games. I don't even feel like you need this F2P stuff at all to be honest. Why not just combine the SP and MP, charge a normal price for it, and be done with it? I've paid full price for brand new games in this genre, I still do, and I certainly would for TBS.

    I really hope this is addressed more in the future, because I didn't even realize this system would be used when I first bought into the beta, and figured Stoic was basically just going to be making money from the SP campaign. Maybe that's unrealistic, but the renown system isn't really explained anywhere but the forums it seems.

    Sorry for the rant, typed more than I planned here. I just... really want this game to be awesome and have been let down by a lot of F2P games recently.

  15. #35
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I duno Kord. I can see where you're coming from, but imo if they do give a set price to play the multiplayer as is, the reality is there will be fewer players than if the game was freemium. Not to say that makes your balance and competitiveness concerns irrelevant, but I don't think charging a price for the game is the way to go, especially on this kind of project with no dedicated marketing behind it.

    Many games remain fun with the freemium model. It only becomes an issue when it's misused and abused to milk it's players. In an earlier post in this thread, League of legends was already cited as a more or less balanced and skill based MP game which is competitive and follows similar model/thinking.

  16. #36
    Junior Member MrFusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    In an earlier post in this thread, League of legends was already cited as a more or less balanced and skill based MP game which is competitive and follows similar model/thinking.
    League of legends only charges you for cosmetics and some additional content you might never use (eg champions)
    While having more champions is cool, most people play about 5 champs regularly.
    so you don't really need money at all - and if you use it, you wont have an advantage in the game itself.
    Just some more stuff to try when bored.
    Skins, the main money machine, does not get you ANYTHING other than looks.

    But in TBSF, renown equals strength, as it is used to increase armor, strength etc

    So, yea, they both have micro transactions, just with a different goal.

  17. #37
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Not just mrfusions. Quoting Sean

    There are a variety of games out there that use a system like this quite well. League of Legends is a great example - you can buy a variety of things, from new champions to skins, to rune pages, to booster packs (including IP boosts, XP boosts, time boosts, game boosts and win boosts). I use it as an example because I'm a pretty avid player of it and not once have I met someone who could compete with me just because they could buy stuff or level faster - the game itself takes skill and the stuff you can purchase only gets you "leveled" faster but doesn't give you any advantages. When I'm matched up with other players, it's based on your score (definitely more complex but this isn't a LoL forum so I won't go too much into it).
    This seems to be similar direction as TBS:F. Levels = unit strength. Faster leveling in LoL means stronger character. Faster leveling in TBS:F means stronger team. I'm aware we're not only talking about the end-point (maxed out teams), but also the experience - playing against with and against these real money transaction shortcuts. But if it can be managed in LoL as described by Sean, I think it's quite possible we can see it managed well in TBS:F, which is also a game which requires skill.

  18. #38
    Junior Member MrFusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    This seems to be similar direction as TBS:F. Levels = unit strength. Faster leveling in LoL means stronger character. Faster leveling in TBS:F means stronger team. I'm aware we're not only talking about the end-point (maxed out teams), but also the experience - playing against with and against these real money transaction shortcuts. But if it can be managed in LoL as described by Sean, I think it's quite possible we can see it managed well in TBS:F, which is also a game which requires skill.
    Sure, someone who is lvl 30 (max) will have an edge over someone who barley started playing.
    But the competitive part only starts after lvl30!
    This would mean you only play Ladder games in TBSF if you have a maxed out team.
    They way I see it tho, a maxed team is something of the FAR distance.
    Ladder games are being played on ANY renown level, as it is the only way to get renown in the first place.
    Which would be ok, if we only play games with people who are VERY close to our own renown (10 points even in the current meta of 'all maxed lvl1' is a huge difference)

  19. #39
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    10 renown difference is currently only 2 stat points difference on a single unit. Somewhere along these lines still seems within acceptable matchmaking if we consider skill-level also. Although I agree we need a bit more testing because 2 more points in armor when everyone has 1 break will be a significant advantage. We will see this once we get to testing from scratch.

    On a related subject, renown earning, which will also be important to how significant these renown disparities will be (since more/easier earning means less disparity ideally). Based on averages and numbers, to reach rank 1 max requires 10(stats) x 6(units) x 2(renown per stat-base units) + 11x6x4 rank 1. That's 120+264 for a total of 384 renown to max out your first rank 1 team.

    Currently 6 renown per win. Assuming the BEST possible scenario and every game is won (I'm not defending the idea, just projecting the fastest time to achieve a maxed out team), that's 384/6=64 games. Assuming 20 min ave. per game, thats 64x20=1280 min/60 min (so we get per hour), that's 21.33 hours of gameplay at best starting from scratch.

    Assuming a casual player will play 1-2 hours a day at best (1.5 hours on ave), this means it will take 2 weeks and a day or 2 (give or take) to make your first rank 1 maxed out team.

    This is clearly too much time to build a rank 1 max team. And this also means Renown disparities WILL be large in terms of ladder play.

    I'm sure stoic will be looking at this, however. Ideally, I would think we want maxed out teams to be achievable within half a week to a week of play by casual players, just by playing at their pace. Money transaction will save them that 1 week of time. People that want to be experimenting more but not pay would need to invest more time, but I think basing things on 1 week of casual play (5-10 hours worth), is a good place to start.

    I don't think it's wrong that there could be clear/occuring breakpoints in ladder play that encourage teams of certain levels to be favored. We can naturally aim for these in terms of competitive play. How we improve the experience while heading to these breakpoints is something that could be considered, and also whether we need to enforce other hard breakpoints to ensure fluid power matching.
    Last edited by raven2134; 01-05-2013 at 10:59 AM.

  20.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #40
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    319
    @Raven and everyone else who is concerned:

    We have completely overhauled the system making almost everything in the above post a non-issue. Sorry we haven't spoken of it too much, but we want to make sure everything we say is correct before officially rolling out the system. We hope to implement it in the next couple of weeks for testing. At that time feedback will be very, very appreciated.
    Thanks for your patience.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •