Favor and Renown: Partial Player Renown

[Pwesiela]

It's been suggested in another thread that all renown earned on behalf of a guild be tied to the character earning it. Thus, if Pwesiela contributed 1k renown to her guild, then decided to leave the guild, the guild would go down by 1k.

I do not favor this all or nothing approach. However, I see some merit in having the character's level of renown across Stormreach benefit the guild that the character is in. In this way, I would hope to add some guild benefit to having a character with high favor.

Now, as is, a character gains favor across the various houses of Stormreach by completing quests for said house on higher difficulties. As we do so, our total favor across the city goes up, as shown in our total favor. A higher level of total favor benefits the player: drow race, favored soul class, 32-point (champion) builds and tomes, etc.

Why not have these total favor levels also corrolate to the guild?

I propose having the major benchmarks of favor also reward the guild that the character is in. Thus, the guild is benefited by having, or aiding, a character gain renown across Stormreach.

I see no reason to change the current divisions: 400, 1750, 2500.

At each level, the characters guild would be rewarded with a number of renown. 400 would be relatively low, as it is certainly easy to obtain. Perhaps 500 renown points. 1750 is certainly more difficult, and would be rewarded with a higher number, say 5,000. As 2500 is the current highest level of favor renown, it should also grant the highest amount of guild renown, say 25,000.

Given the current spread between higher levels of guild renown, this isn't game breaking but provides a real benefit.

If a character leaves a guild, the guild renown would go down, though not extremely.

So there you go. The exact favor levels, or guild renown points, are certainly not concrete suggestions. But I think the overall idea has merit, as it prevents the more serious griefing issues identified elsewhere and has a real life practicality about it. It also serves as a way to reward guilds with characters who have been around for a while and have accumulated that past history with the city.

It's my 2pp.

[Alexandryte]

Within the current system, this wouldnt work. They would have to do a complete overhaul of the system for one fact:


What prevents people from just inviting en-mass and skipping a few guild levels (high lvl players typically have a lot more overall favor)?

Why not do the above but make sure its made up almost exclusively of as many alts and as few accounts as possible so to be considered "a small guild" for the small guild bonus?


I see what you are saying but it needs to be fleshed out more.


On the flipside of that, what prevents people from griefing a guild via getting them to a high enough point where decay sets in...have decay happen for the day.....and then leaving in droves....
A guild would be utterly devastated before the system had a chance to find an equilibrium again.

[Pwesiela]

Within the current system, this wouldnt work. They would have to do a complete overhaul of the system for one fact:


What prevents people from just inviting en-mass and skipping a few guild levels (high lvl players typically have a lot more overall favor)?

I'm assuming you're worried about those guilds that recurit straight out of Korthos.

This problem is self solving. They don't have favor, so they won't contribute to the guild level. Indeed, people who join this flavor of guild generally don't reach 400 favor until later than many could. Regardless, that's why I've put the (arbitrary) award so low. The guild renown curve is rather steep. Inviting mass quantities of players with 400 favor will have a minimal impact in the long run, so those guilds (not naming them) that do have mass quantities of lvl 6's with 400 favor don't gain a massive advantage. Further, many of these people are F2P or Premium, which means they have low number of character slots. Often, these players grind favor, but have to reroll characters to be able to do so. Rerolling them resets their favor, and thus would lower the guild level if they were over 400. If they were under 400, then it wouldn't matter.

I know of no mass-inviting guilds that don't recruit straight out of Korthos. However, my guild did think about getting some friends from other guilds to help us gain those initial levels, as we're a smaller guild. Joining, gaining a few levels, then leaving would leave the guild right back at where it started, plus whatever renown the others earned while in guild. You go up, you go down, and you're the same place you were before the mass invite. The only thing you might gain is access to an airship a little earlier than you would have. Not particularly game breaking.

Why not do the above but make sure its made up almost exclusively of as many alts and as few accounts as possible so to be considered "a small guild" for the small guild bonus?

Guild size for the bonuses is supposedly already tied to accounts, not characters. This is not an issue. If a person has 20 alts in the same guild with all alts over 2500 favor, why shouldn't the guild be rewarded for that?

I see what you are saying but it needs to be fleshed out more.

Hope I have done so

On the flipside of that, what prevents people from griefing a guild via getting them to a high enough point where decay sets in...have decay happen for the day.....and then leaving in droves....
A guild would be utterly devastated before the system had a chance to find an equilibrium again.

A guild wouldn't really be devistated by that. The only way it would really happen is to have the character be one with over 2500 favor. If they join, and then leave after decay sets in, then the guild really has only benefited. They got the bonus for the character being there, they got the renown as he earned it for the guild, and then they lost what the character originally brought. Yes, there may be decay, but that only sets in after guild level 25, which requires 781,250 points total. Even with a 2500 favor character bringing 25,000 points, that's a relative drop in the bucket. Even more of a drop at the higher levels.

[Pwesiela]

This was mentioned in another thread:

Hmm...Im still thinking this one through, not sure yet. It could be kind of a middle ground, adding a bit of player specific renown but not making the whole system dependent on it.

Of course there are a few things we'd have to consider...

1. Favor disappears when you TR, right? Maybe a TR level is worth X amount of "renown favor" to offset this, or the value is retained when you TR for the purpose of renown. Actually, that would encourage TR'ing which Turbine might like.

2. Renown decay is account based not character based. But maybe that doesnt matter. Maybe character based favor contribution is ok.

3. I'd like to see it be an option to not display this number to the public. That would allow those opposed to having an individual metric remain anonymous. It could still add to the guild total but wouldn't be obvious unless someone wanted to share it.

4. Decay rates may need to be increased to offset this additional source of renown somewhat. Otherwise, it would purely add more benefit to bigger guilds than it would to smaller ones. That would help address the "roll up a bunch of toons and favor grind quickly to maximize renown" issue.

Not sure...Im warming up to it, the above are just some off-the-cuff thoughts...

I agree with an added bonus for TRd characters.

Renown decay wouldn't be seriously affected by this unless you had a very large guild with everyone over 2500, especially given the curve of the leveling process. Decay would still largely be prevented and driven by active play

No problems with preventing the showing of this metric. Keep it to the individual player to know for sure, with only the guild level showing. No way to be sure that it was that one individual. Prevents unwanted poaching.

Grinding favor renown would be a lot slower than just grinding guild renown. Especially if the lower levels of favor (400) are kept low on the rewards scale.

[kernal42]

Having any kind of character-tied renown is more or less incompatible with the current renown system, in which favor decays. There are situations when this breaks down, some of which have already been suggested above. And there are, of course, graceless ways to kluge it together to try to fix it. The best solution is to keep separate guild and player accomplishments.

Incidentally, in keeping with that theme character level should be independent of renown gained; however character level compared with adventure level (as is currently implemented) is entirely reasonable.

Cheers,
Kernal

[Deathseeker]

Grinding favor renown would be a lot slower than just grinding guild renown. Especially if the lower levels of favor (400) are kept low on the rewards scale.

Actually, this is an interesting thought. The way its all working, it would encourage running a TR toon through Elite quests (Favor), while level appropriate (XP) and looting all the worthless chests along the way (Guild Renown).

That kind of behavior being encouraged? Gasp...that's starting to sound like playing the game as it was designed to be played! Im starting to think your concept has some merit!

[Pwesiela]

Having any kind of character-tied renown is more or less incompatible with the current renown system, in which favor decays. There are situations when this breaks down, some of which have already been suggested above. And there are, of course, graceless ways to kluge it together to try to fix it. The best solution is to keep separate guild and player accomplishments.

Incidentally, in keeping with that theme character level should be independent of renown gained; however character level compared with adventure level (as is currently implemented) is entirely reasonable.

Cheers,
Kernal

Favor only decays over GL 25, or 781,250 renown points. To instantly get into that level, you'd need 1563 independent characters with over 400 favor. That's over 1.5 times the max guild size allowed. Or, alternatively, you'd need 157 characters over 1750 favor. 2500 is much much rarer. And this is just to reach the point where you'd even start to have to deal with decay.

It is theoretically possible to keep a guild above decay by sheer members and favor, but it would take 176 guild members over 1750 to maintain lvl 26, 196 to maintain lvl 27, 219 to maintain lvl 28, etc. etc., 10,000 characters to maintain lvl 100. And this is only if 1750 really gave 5000 guild points.

But really, if your guild has 200 characters that have defended the city that much, is it really evil to allow them to keep a slightly higher guild level before decay kicks in?

Note: I have no clue what the decay rate calculation is. It'd be something for Turbine to consider when thinking about this.

[kernal42]

Indeed; you have suggested a method in which this might break down, and suggested a kluge to keep it working.
Note, of course, that the rarity with which this might happen doesn't change the need to account for that eventuality.

Favor and Renown are different mechanisms.
They have different counters, they are gained in different ways, and they have vastly different benefits, both in detail and in scope.
Thematically they are somewhat related, but that's not unreasonable because they will be correlated anyway; it's extremely unlikely that you would gain a significant amount of favor without *also* gaining renown. Considering this, I don't see any reason to re-count favor after the acts that provided favor also provided renown.
Furthermore, I don't see why a guild should have lots of renown just because characters who had done things joined it. Until those characters perform great acts in association with that guild, why would the guild have significant fame?

The exception to this is in starting guilds above 0 renown. When first implementing renown, it is not unreasonable to consider member favor in initial guild renown. Of course, since this is a one-time occurrence and is already in the past, the possibility is irrelevant.

Cheers,
Kernal

[Pwesiela]

Favor and Renown are different mechanisms.
They have different counters, they are gained in different ways, and they have vastly different benefits, both in detail and in scope.
Thematically they are somewhat related, but that's not unreasonable because they will be correlated anyway; it's extremely unlikely that you would gain a significant amount of favor without *also* gaining renown. Considering this, I don't see any reason to re-count favor after the acts that provided favor also provided renown.
Furthermore, I don't see why a guild should have lots of renown just because characters who had done things joined it. Until those characters perform great acts in association with that guild, why would the guild have significant fame?

The exception to this is in starting guilds above 0 renown. When first implementing renown, it is not unreasonable to consider member favor in initial guild renown. Of course, since this is a one-time occurrence and is already in the past, the possibility is irrelevant.

Cheers,
Kernal

They may be seperate, but they don't need to be, hence the suggestion nature of this thread.

Further, they are interrelated, thus giving a thematic base to implement it.

Imagine, if you will, the amount of "renown" a basketball team would have if a new team was started, lets say....in St. Louis, that happend to attract all the free agents to create a Dream Team. How much of a national buzz would they create just because of who's in it? Winning their first game would only create more buzz.

Now, lets translate to guilds and the Champions of Stormreach that join them. I think there should be some sort of benefit to the guild because of who's in it. Obviously, you disagree.

But how is it wrong?

I think guild decay is a valid argument, and would need to be appropriately addressed.

I think fears of griefing (as almost always) are greatly exagerated.

I think the amount of guild renown granted by total favor would need a serious examination for a proper level.

I think this would encourage players to run quests for favor, not only because it benefits them, but because it benefits their guild too.

And I think this would work with both the favor system and the guild system. As Deathseeker said, this is encouraging play.

And your own admission of starting it when renown started being viable is still valid today, in the numerous start up guilds that exist. New guild with all the top players of all the top guilds? That's a new guild to recon with.

[kernal42]

I think this would encourage players to run quests for favor, not only because it benefits them, but because it benefits their guild too.

And I think this would work with both the favor system and the guild system. As Deathseeker said, this is encouraging play.

This is the only compelling argument (and it certainly does have merit) to associate favor with renown.

We agree that they are related, which is reasonable since they will be correlated. There is no reason to artifically implement a stronger connection.

The Dream Team you discuss would certainly produce lots of media buzz. But they don't get an airship until they actually do something of significance. I prefer to allocate rewards based on actions; not based on speculations by the rumor mill. This, of course, is based on my interpretation of what "renown" represents. Other opinions may vary....

Cheers,
Kernal

Edit: While I'm sure the devs pick words to sound good rather than word-smith, Miriam-Webster defines "renown" as "a state of being widely acclaimed and highly honored." A group, no matter how skilled and famous, deserves neither praise nor honor until it accomplishes tasks of significance.

[Pwesiela]

This is the only compelling argument (and it certainly does have merit) to associate favor with renown.

We agree that they are related, which is reasonable since they will be correlated. There is no reason to artifically implement a stronger connection.

The Dream Team you discuss would certainly produce lots of media buzz. But they don't get an airship until they actually do something of significance. I prefer to allocate rewards based on actions; not based on speculations by the rumor mill. This, of course, is based on my interpretation of what "renown" represents. Other opinions may vary....

Cheers,
Kernal

They hopefully get a stadium...

[Pwesiela]

Guess I need to be more inflammatory to gain interest

[Xeraphim]

1) Person creates guild with new character.

2) Person outlevels their origin guild with their single player guild before capping

3) Person farms their way up massively beyond their parent guild.

4) Person disbands and slams that level up against the parent guild level, increasing it by quite a lot.

5) Players will do ANYTHING to exploit this game.

Effectively: Not a long term idea. Please let the guild renown system have its day for a while before trying to revise it.

[Pwesiela]

1) Person creates guild with new character.

2) Person outlevels their origin guild with their single player guild before capping

3) Person farms their way up massively beyond their parent guild.

4) Person disbands and slams that level up against the parent guild level, increasing it by quite a lot.

5) Players will do ANYTHING to exploit this game.

Effectively: Not a long term idea. Please let the guild renown system have its day for a while before trying to revise it.

Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying here. Are you saying that this could be exploited by my creating an alt, making it it's own guild, and then ramping that guild of one into high gear (outleveling my normal guild) and then take that guild of one, put it into the normal guild and thus greatly increase the normal one?

Cause if that's what you're saying, that's not possible with what I'm suggesting.

At most, creating an alt, guilding it alone, and then running up the renown, will not be able to greatly increase the primary guild. To join the primary, and thus give the massive renown you suggest, the alt would have to leave the guild of one and join the other. All renown from the guild of one would disappear, as the guild has been disbanded. All the alt would have to bring to the table is some static boost based off of the renown the individual has obtained, not the now-disbanded guild.

Or did I just greatly misinterpret your possible exploit?

[Mobeius]

I agree with this logic, I was thinking something similar in another thread... Here is what I wrote...

Well a person should have a certain amount of fame tied to them... How about a spilt... Like every 100 renown points the player gets 1 fame point favor maybe should enhance this as well... and should stay with the player even if they TR. This total is the clout they carry with this character and adds to the guilds base Renown level. Get the Idea?

A guild is a sum of its players and players that are more active and accomplish more SHOULD be recognized more and their activity pushes the guilds name more. So thats why i think a split should be there. A player should have a base that tags along with them but the renown they earned for the guild would stay.

I am no fan of Elminster, but if he left the good side and switched to the evil side the fame of his former group would still be there due to his participation, BUT, people would instantly recognize his formidable powers that just added to his new group.