Ignoring the upcoming "marauder benefits", I think the historic rationale for fame changes would be this:
In the past, ALL fame increases have been potentially beneficial and all fame decreases potentially detrimental. Thus, according to effort => reward logic, you needed to slowly work to increase any fame (i.e., see benefit). Similarly, decreases in fame could be instantaneous; you simply needed to anger the authorities to catastrophically decrease fame (i.e., see detriment).
Fundamentally fame increases and decreases have never been a symmetrical affair because rewards are slowly accumulated and punishments are swift and decisive (just like IRL). Don't confuse changing +50 > +100 with changing -50 > -100. The former takes a lifetime of "good works". The latter simply requires one heinous crime.
P.S. Obtaining the upcoming "marauder benefits" are inconsistent with this logic. But then again, the current efforts to inject a 3rd faction into the game seem to be introducing many inconsistencies in the historical precedents of the game.
In the past, ALL fame increases have been potentially beneficial and all fame decreases potentially detrimental. Thus, according to effort => reward logic, you needed to slowly work to increase any fame (i.e., see benefit). Similarly, decreases in fame could be instantaneous; you simply needed to anger the authorities to catastrophically decrease fame (i.e., see detriment).
Fundamentally fame increases and decreases have never been a symmetrical affair because rewards are slowly accumulated and punishments are swift and decisive (just like IRL). Don't confuse changing +50 > +100 with changing -50 > -100. The former takes a lifetime of "good works". The latter simply requires one heinous crime.
P.S. Obtaining the upcoming "marauder benefits" are inconsistent with this logic. But then again, the current efforts to inject a 3rd faction into the game seem to be introducing many inconsistencies in the historical precedents of the game.
Jola(Arispotle) of the ARMAGEDDONS