Fame

[LAFiN]

I feel that your fame level drops far too slowly. How is anyone ever supposed to Outcast? Since L/F was introduced, I've never once seen anyone reach the majority of the red titles. I feel that their fame levels should be increased, or fame should decrease at a greater clip.

Thoughts?

 

[Max]

I completely agree with you Lafin. It has been a real challenge to get the title of "Wicked" this round, let alone any of the other low-fame ones.

I would suggest simply raising the fame levels necessary so that they run in line with the green title ones. I can't see this proving too problematic.

(Same goes for the titles that are neither red or green, simple put the same fame requirements as the green titles)

Doing this will give a much nicer distribution of titles I think And we all love to have our own special title don't we? <3

 

[Dax]

I've seen a couple of Outcast ones this round, actually - But tbh, fame should be lost when eta bashing. Why get fame for doing something so easy?

 

[LAFiN]

I can remember when L/F (or as it was known back then, H/F) were introduced, and there was something about Fame dropping over a period of inactivity. From what I'm noticing, this decrease is far too slow, and the fame levels for titles isn't as diverse as it needs to be.

I also agree with DaX, you should lose fame, or maybe gain infamy (?) from bashing/running trains.

Anyway, just thought it was something that could be done, since after about 10 lawful attacks, I'll have already had too much fame to get to the Outcast level, if I so desired.

 

[Stegosaurus]

I've seen a couple of Outcast ones this round, actually - But tbh, fame should be lost when eta bashing. Why get fame for doing something so easy?

No. You have the complete wrong idea of fame. Any action generates fame, and actions which cost large amounts of value on either side generate more fame. It's an indicator of how much of an effect you have on the game, or how "famous" you are.

Fame should be lost for no reason other than inactivity. I don't disagree it should possibly drop quicker, but to lose fame for attacking? That is moronic.

 

[Davs]

I've seen a couple of Outcast ones this round, actually - But tbh, fame should be lost when eta bashing. Why get fame for doing something so easy?

No. You have the complete wrong idea of fame. Any action generates fame, and actions which cost large amounts of value on either side generate more fame. It's an indicator of how much of an effect you have on the game, or how "famous" you are.

Fame should be lost for no reason other than inactivity. I don't disagree it should possibly drop quicker, but to lose fame for attacking? That is moronic.

I probably would have been a bit more polite in my wording, but I'd have said something similar to this.

 

[Dax]

Fame should be lost for no reason other than inactivity. I don't disagree it should possibly drop quicker, but to lose fame for attacking? That is moronic.

I understand the system of fame and honour - You know I'm not a complete tool anyway Kieran. I didn't say 'MAKE EVERY ATTACK YOU MAKE LOSE HONOUR'.
Although looking back, what I said doesn't really make sense with the system. My ideal is to simply dissuade bashing even more than has been now. There really is no punishment still for a top alliance (or even a top 5 alliance), for bashing at +1, or +2 - When there are still plenty of players to attack in your area. And for rank 1, that is just a downside of being rank 1 (basically, put up or shut up).

H/F needs to start tying in with more punishments than simply a bounty.
- Rounds ago, an alliance bounty rate meant something. Bring it back.
- An equation to link H/F score with insurance/land cap. Make it universal for all the basic insurance and land cap values (basically, the base percentage - before the individual calculations are made, on top of that base %).

Example, a H/F tag of 'Dreaded' will drop insurance gains to around 10-15% (obviously this is all theoretical, and perfectly open to argument), and land cap at a base percentage of 5%. All other calculations for land caps (ie, the range modifier on your land cap, and other people being on your attack, etc), are calculated from that base score.
And by contrast, a rank of 'Glorious' could raise insurance to maybe 60% (again, entirely speculatory) - And not affect the land cap at all. Obviously the positive ranks already have bonuses like WK and WW, so any other adjustments for this would make it overly unfair.
But this WOULD encourage proper attacking, and it would give lower players a chance to actually learn - Rather than seeing 6-7 people over three ticks on you for your 3.2k land (and I have seen that this round, sadly).

It's all speculation and ideal, but the things that get to me about the modern game really surround the ideal of making things as fair as possible for everyone, not just the 50-60 players who are happy to play 13-16 hours a day and have a phone by their bed every night.

 

[Ogluk]

Fame should be lost for no reason other than inactivity. I don't disagree it should possibly drop quicker, but to lose fame for attacking? That is moronic.

I understand the system of fame and honour - You know I'm not a complete tool anyway Kieran. I didn't say 'MAKE EVERY ATTACK YOU MAKE LOSE HONOUR'.
Although looking back, what I said doesn't really make sense with the system. My ideal is to simply dissuade bashing even more than has been now. There really is no punishment still for a top alliance (or even a top 5 alliance), for bashing at +1, or +2 - When there are still plenty of players to attack in your area. And for rank 1, that is just a downside of being rank 1 (basically, put up or shut up).

H/F needs to start tying in with more punishments than simply a bounty.
- Rounds ago, an alliance bounty rate meant something. Bring it back.
- An equation to link H/F score with insurance/land cap. Make it universal for all the basic insurance and land cap values (basically, the base percentage - before the individual calculations are made, on top of that base %).

Example, a H/F tag of 'Dreaded' will drop insurance gains to around 10-15% (obviously this is all theoretical, and perfectly open to argument), and land cap at a base percentage of 5%. All other calculations for land caps (ie, the range modifier on your land cap, and other people being on your attack, etc), are calculated from that base score.
And by contrast, a rank of 'Glorious' could raise insurance to maybe 60% (again, entirely speculatory) - And not affect the land cap at all. Obviously the positive ranks already have bonuses like WK and WW, so any other adjustments for this would make it overly unfair.
But this WOULD encourage proper attacking, and it would give lower players a chance to actually learn - Rather than seeing 6-7 people over three ticks on you for your 3.2k land (and I have seen that this round, sadly).

It's all speculation and ideal, but the things that get to me about the modern game really surround the ideal of making things as fair as possible for everyone, not just the 50-60 players who are happy to play 13-16 hours a day and have a phone by their bed every night.

yes yes yes to everything you said, albeit with a major change to fame itself, as i feel its far too easy to get the high fame titles and keep them for long periods of time, so as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, a mahoosive increase on the fame decay rate, to make it a challenge to actually get high h/f and then as big a challenge to keep it