New Honor Gains System

This is a direct result from my failed suggestion about having more honor bonuses. Thanks for all the comments in the other thread.

Honor gains in attacks will mainly be based on honor difference between provinces.
Then modified based on difference in province networth, kd nw, and how heavily province has been hit.
Best gains would be when hitting someone with a little higher honor than yourself, similar to land gains. So attacking someone with much more or much less honor than you have will result in low or no honor gains.
Here's a formula I think would be a good example of how it could work:

MAX_GAINS = 12%

mh = my honor
oh = opponent honor

var_a = 0.05
if oh/mh > 1.1
var_a = 0.035

mod = 3^(-((oh/mh - 1.1)^2)/var_a)

your honor gains then would be:

mh * MAX_GAINS * mod * RELATIONS * ProvNWDiff * KdNWDiff * HowHardHit


RELATIONS could be the following:

No Relations: 1/10
Unfriendly: 3/20
Hostile: 3/10
War: 1

The other modifiers would be similar to current networth based gains for acres.

Also in War I was thinking that extra 25% honor could be created from attacks. I'm not sure how much is created now, also honor loss in war would have to be removed.
Honor from T/M ops would have to be modified as well, but I'm not sure how to do that.

Comments and Criticizm is very welcome.

As I commented in the other thread, I prefer a fixed gains system, not one based upon how much honor the target has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nfidel2k

I would prefer a fixed base gain with a modifier for certain attributes, such as size difference, honor difference, difficulty of the attack/op, etc

---

That's what you've said in the other thread. My system is similar, you've got max gains that are based on your honor (not the opponents), and it is being modified by honor difference first, then nw difference and kd nw difference.
But I haven't thought of how to change the honor gained from ops. I think there should be a minimum honor gained from ops in times of war. But I don't think it should be fixed, like taking 10 points for MS, it would affect a knight more than a baron. I think that ops should take honor in relation to how much both provinces have. So a baron casting on a baron would get more than a baron casting on a knight or a knight casting on a baron.

Why does it have to be that complex and convoluted?

If you really want a fair system just create a max honor gain per attack and base it off a curve comparing nw's during the attack.

Say you have a max honor gain with a trad march of 100 points, and say that max gain is to occur at 110% nw, so when you hit someone who is at 110% your nw during war you gain 100 honor points, say also that you create a low % value say 75% and set the honor gained when hitting down 75% and below is 0 honor points. You can also set a high point say 180% and above is 0 honor points then just make a straight line value for honor points gained in between those points.

This favors hitting up nw for honor gains but also eliminates the issue of high honor provinces losing massive amounts of honor when they get hit by low honor provinces. It could be exploited but so can the current system.

Quote:

---

Why does it have to be that complex and convoluted?

---

Please tell me how is my suggestion that complex and convoluted. I think it is very close in complexity to calculating land gains.

How would you like it if land based gains would return max of 100 acres per attack? Bigger provinces would be having rather low gains compared to their size. I think honor gains should be similar to current land gains.

In my idea you will only gain land from a similarly sized province that also has similar honor to yours. So a count hitting a lord wouldn't gain any more honor than a knight hitting a count. Think that solves honorwhoring. While at the same time a similarly sized provinces: lord vs lord and baron vs baron, will gain similar honor percentage wise to their own.

Could someone actually comment on my suggestion? Is there a way to abuse it? uzziah said he's version could be abused, but that doesn't matter cause current system can be abused. I think I've created an idea that cannot be abused easily or at all. I would like to hear if someone can find a way to abuse it, and then try to work a fairer system.

Um, this is pretty much how it works now, in principle.

Best honour gains are those close in NW with more honour than you. The only difference is there's no upward limitations on the honour taken. Why not just keep the current system but cap the honour gains from hitting upwards in honour ranks?

Ok. But I think I have done that, plus limiting honor gains for hitting too much downwards as well.

For example (keeping nw differences away for the moment):

1500 honor hitting 1600 honor would result in 176 honor gain + whatever is created extra during war. While next a 1424 vs 1676 would gain 142. This would happen because first case is close to max gains, while second, because of bigger honor gap, is not.

Hitting upwards:
1800 vs 2500 results in max gains of 16 points

Hitting downwards:
2500 vs 1800 results in max gains of 13 points

That is before other modifiers (such as networth differences) are included. While in this example the gains might be too high/low, it should be tested and adjusted to be fair before any thought of being implemented.

Otherwise I think this could be a good system.

Why put in a new code that does the same thing as the old one though? Surely better to just edit the values on the curve; at least easier I should think.

I don't know how the current system works underneath the hood. But assuming it has a curve for gains then you could possibly do 2 limits for hitting too much down/up. Though it would have to be gradual limitations not something like if the honor difference is greater than some arbitrary number. Though that could potentially take more code to do rather than having a curve that does that already. But we really don't know what would be easier to do.

Would really like to know how current honor gains are generated. Maybe someone in the know could provide us with details.

Quote:

---

That's what you've said in the other thread. My system is similar, you've got max gains that are based on your honor (not the opponents), and it is being modified by honor difference first, then nw difference and kd nw difference.
But I haven't thought of how to change the honor gained from ops. I think there should be a minimum honor gained from ops in times of war. But I don't think it should be fixed, like taking 10 points for MS, it would affect a knight more than a baron. I think that ops should take honor in relation to how much both provinces have. So a baron casting on a baron would get more than a baron casting on a knight or a knight casting on a baron.

---

Okay. From what I read of your initial post, all you really did was change the base value from your opponent's honor to your own honor. This is a pointless change, as under your system a baron attacking a knight would gain significantly more honor than the same knight attacking the baron. That doesn't fix the problem that the attack isn't harder for the baron to get off. If anything, it's a little easier. Your change would make it easy for provinces to get to prince; all they would have to do is T/M to baron, then convert to attacker and bottomfeed. The more honor you have, the more you would gain.

Replace the "mh" in your formula with a fixed value for the attack/op, and then you might be getting somewhere. The idea of using the combined honor values (with a smaller modifier) is intriguing, but runs into the same issue of the fact that a baron attacking a baron is no different than a knight attacking the same baron. Why should a baron making the same attack gain more honor than the knight?

Personally, I believe the other problem with the current honor system is the fact that there is not enough honor generation. Coupled with the no-longer needed 1% honor loss during war, the majority of Utopia ends up below baron in rank at the end of the age.

nfidel2k I agree that 1% honor loss during war is pointless and should have been removed. And in my first post I mention possible higher honor creation in war. I'm not really sure how much is created in the current system. But that's all we agree upon.

Also I wish you'd read more of the thread, especially my posts, when I showed by example how much a baron hitting a lord would get. The gains are minimal. The gains of a baron hitting a knight would be even lower.

Quote:

---

under your system a baron attacking a knight would gain significantly more honor than the same knight attacking the baron.

---

But just for example:

knight 1500 honor vs baron 2251 would result in a maximum of only 1 point gain, while a
baron 2251 vs knight 1500 would result in a maximum of a 4 point gain.

The baron does technically gain more in this system, but the gains are minimal. And if honor is your goal it would be more beneficial to make an attack on someone with similar honor. Gaining MAXIMUM of 4 honor points per attack wouldn't lead you anywhere.

Quote:

---

Your change would make it easy for provinces to get to prince; all they would have to do is T/M to baron, then convert to attacker and bottomfeed. The more honor you have, the more you would gain.

---

Simply not true. It might be easier to get to prince if you're fighting provinces with similar honor to yours, but definitely not by hitting knights and lords. And yes the more honor you have the more you'd gain, just like with land, or do you have a problem with land gains as well?

Quote:

---

a baron attacking a baron is no different than a knight attacking the same baron. Why should a baron making the same attack gain more honor than the knight?

---

It's a good question. And since I made my system similar to land based gains, that's how I explain it. A 1500 acre province hitting a 2200 acre province (assuming nwpa is the same for both, and that somehow the hit wouldn't fail) would not get good gains. Nobody likes being hit by a suicider, it's similar with honor, we don't like losing tons of it being hit by a knight.

I hope you understand my system better, keep in mind that the exampe is based on war, and no other modifiers such as nw difference etc. Specific values can be modified to make it fairer. But I think it's pretty good.

I did post my example of a possible formula, it's not hard to put some values in it and test it for yourselves. I would like to hear some criticism of the actual gains system. And not half mistaken ideas of what it is.

I prefer a fixed honor gains system.

The honor system ought to serve a purpose, to differentiate the better players. Thats vaguely put. Right now, the top honor provinces are either in the top honor KDs (good strategy, or ghetto bashers) and t/m. In your system, the honor ranks within a KD would still be roughly similar, I believe. Say you are a baron attacker in a KD of mostly knights (by sheer luck), your KD would be forced to war another KD of mostly knight to have good gains. You, will be forced to have lousy gains, and have to wait for the rest to be at your level of honor before they war some KD you can have good gains too. Right now, a KD has to plan such that they need similar NW for optimal warring. Must they also plan to have similar honor? Surely, even the consistent 50% rax elf warrior in a ghetto deserves some recognition.

I would like to see the hard workers get better honor than the rest. If a player can pull off 7 uniques in a min-time war, he ought to get better honor than his fellow player doing 3. Thats rewarding. The only way I can see that is with a fixed honor gains system. A count receives and loses as much honor in exchange with a knight, of equal NW.

There's the belief that the fixed honor gains would cause ghetto bashing to perpetuate. Indeed, its more likely for the honor KDs to come out with good honor versus a ghetto, rather than another good KD. But under fixed honor gains, the top KDs won't be those smart and patient enough to pick only easy wars. It would be those that fight the most wars, and win most of them. As long as you remove the ridiculous differential honor gains from honor ranks, KDs won't be forced to war only ghettos. They would war another good KD with less honor as well, knowing they merely have to outhit, not outhit double or triple their adversaries. In fact, im sure the top honor KDs would accept wars more readily, because their objective would be to war faster, and reduce searching time.

I do not feel the need for the system to disincentivise warring lower honor KDs. War is hard to find, as it is. Forcing honor KDs to find another KD at similar honor, and similar size, would likely make it most arduous to play. I would say it makes the game slower thus more boring.

Quote:

---

I did post my example of a possible formula, it's not hard to put some values in it and test it for yourselves. I would like to hear some criticism of the actual gains system. And not half mistaken ideas of what it is.

---

I'll admit that I didn't bother to figure out your exponential mod/var_a equation because it was late and I was tired. Your equation has a significant drop off as the relative honor moves away from 1.1 (10% increase). Hitting someone with 30% more honor than you would net you ~25% of the maximum gains. Hitting someone with less honor than you gains you negligible honor - (10% less gets you ~50% of max, 20% less gets you ~2/15ths of max gains, etc.) This is ridiculous when you add in that you can't view someone's honor score unless they happen to be ranked on a chart. So that lord you just attacked that you thought had more honor than you actually had less honor, and you got squat for the attack.

My original problem with your system (and my constructive criticism for it EARLIER) was that you can't base how much honor a player gains ON THEIR OWN HONOR SCORE. Hence why I stated that the more honor you have, the more you would gain. The complex modifier you created, while it does limit honor whoring through massive gains reduction, it does nothing to change my mind. So it is irrelevant whether or not you think I understand it. Maybe you had a half-mistaken idea of my english.

Do what you want with my criticism.

@Dlaf: I agree that honor needs to serve a purpose. Fixed gains can be influenced by KRNG and province NW. Skarp's mod formula is useful for dropping the gains, although I would change the Var_A switch to make the drop off less severe. I would probably prefer a bell curve though.

Province NW yes. KRNG probably not.

Suppose a KD of 20 100+k NW decides to war a KD with 20 100+k NW, and 5 overgrown 200+k NW t/m. I think the 100+k NW should exchange honor equally.

What I do not like about Skarp's system is
1) There's a cap for which you can gain honor. The consistent attacker is not rewarded.
2) Honor KDs are heavily restricted in their target search. We should encourage them to war other good KDs, so they do not ghetto bash all the time. That doesnt mean we make it useless for them to war any KD with less honor. Then they wont war an equal match with less honor either, cos its a waste of time. If anything, that system makes war harder to find, and game more boring.

Why is it more honorable to hit someone of equal ranks? What happened to 'for death or glory'?

The whole point of the honor system is that you get more honor by hitting someone with high honor than someone with low. The honor system sucks in many ways, but this is actually a rare exception, so why arent you wasting time on something useful instead like actually fixing the bad sides instead of the good ones.

@ Diaf

The fixed gains system benefits activity as you already mentioned, and you want that to be rewarded. I'll assume that each attack could gain 100 honor points. In a war between 2 good kingdoms I cannot imagine resulting in high honor gains for either, as the amount of attacks will be similar. I think gaining honor from ghettos would perpetuate, because it still will be easier to gain honor from them. I'm not sure if that would be best way of gaining honor, as you said the kingdoms with most wars (and won wars) will be gaining, potentially less, honor, but faster.

Quote:

---

Right now, a KD has to plan such that they need similar NW for optimal warring. Must they also plan to have similar honor?

---

I think if their goal is honor then yes. Let the best war the best.

Also in your example 20 province kd vs 25 province kd, those 5 T/M's don't just disappear. Everything held equal the 20 province kd has no chance of winning, and let's not even talk about gaining honor. Ultimately activity combined with strategy will decide which kingdom wins, and gains honor.



@ nfidel2k

My formula was only an example, and while I think it's a good idea I haven't claimed it's perfect. So the var_a can be modified to make drop of gains less severe. I don't understand why you think gains can't be based on one's honor. The more land you have the more you gain, why can't it be similar with honor gains. I could guess it has to do with what you said before about easily reaching higher honor ranks. Changing honor points that are needed for certain titles could be the easy solution to that. But with my system it would be increasingly difficult to gain higher honor points, as there'll be less and less opponents with similar honor.



@ divinorum

Quote:

---

Why is it more honorable to hit someone of equal ranks? What happened to 'for death or glory'?

---

You're right we should be able to take all honor and land, and kill a province with one attack. It is overly exaggerated, but, with land gains, topfeeding has been limited with networth gains, so I think similar limitations should exist in honor gains.

Skarp, your view of land gains is off. Currently Utopia uses a NW-based gains system, which means that the gains modifier is based upon the relative NW of your province and your target province. Other factors affect the gains as well, such as race, science, buildings, kd stance, GB protection, etc. But the gains are not based on the attacker's land size, they are based on the target's. Even in land-based gains formulas, the attacker's land size is only used to compute the gains modifier, not used as the base. Changing the base means that the gains formula would be more dependent upon the attacker's size, and less upon the target's.

Think of it this way: You and I both have a pizza. You have a medium pepperoni, and I have a large chicken and banana peppers deep dish pizza with garlic butter sauce on the side. I look at both of our pizzas and decide I want to take some of yours. I figure that 25% would be fair, so I reach in and grab. Do I take a quarter of your pizza, or do I take an amount of your pizza equivalent to one quarter of my larger pizza?

Now, this may sound contradictory, but I would support an idea similar to the earth-style land gains system, where the base value is the lesser of either the attacker or the target's pool. This would cap gains in both directions, but not hamper players in target selection. Throw in a small modifier to encourage upwards target selection. But I would still prefer a fixed-base system.

Similar limitations already exist. Honor gains are effected by relative NW just like gains are. Secondly i dont understand wtf youre trying to achieve with your example, make yourself look like a moron perhaps.

Yes divinorum, relative NW affects the current gains for honor. We weren't talking about the current system, but rather the thread idea which was a new system for honor. If you don't understand, I suggest reading the entire thread rather than one or two posts. Or take my summation: I like pizza.