PDA

View Full Version : Change the way renown works?



Sintwar
09-13-2010, 03:55 PM
From what I can tell now, when you join a guild, any renown that you collect goes directly to that guild, increasing it's guild level. If you are booted from that guild, or leave it for whatever reason,the guild gets to keep that renown (and the level it achieved from it) for itself, while you are left with nothing to show for your work with that guild.

So, my proposal is to bind renown to characters instead of guilds, and not limit it to only players in a guild.

This way, it makes the individual more valuable to the guilds, instead of only making the guilds more valuable to the players.

So for example, imagine a player who has never joined a guild, but has earned a reputation in the world, having earned 110,000 renown for himself. Now all of the sudden, he joins a level 2 guild, his renown is added to the guilds renown pile as a collective, effectively instantly turning that guild into a level 13 guild, and if he leaves, it would turn it back into a level 2 guild.


Why does this make sense?
Imagine for example you have a world famous NBA basketball player renowned for his amazing abilities to play. He is on an NBA team, that pretty much sucks, with the exception of the fact that they have him on their team. In fact, they win every championship "only" because they have him.

Now imagine if he left that team, and started playing for some no-name startup NBA team. A few things will happen here. First, the new team that he joins will instantly become famous. Literally overnight. Then, there is a good chance that this new team will all of the sudden become the new champions. And third, his old team will suffer, lose fame and probably end up as a has-been failure, literally overnight, simply because he left.

As it stands now, a guild owner can wait until his guild is a certain level, and then drop his heaviest lifters without a second thought. It would be much like the NBA team dropping the best player they had, and not suffering even a little because of it.


How could it be implemented?

Because the system is already geared the way it is, changing it means that something will need to be done with the existing guild renown, so that they are not going to lose their level because of this change.

So in order to transition, perhaps the existing guild renown would be divided amongst the existing members, perhaps based on level. OR if they are already tracking who has contributed what, then simply assign that renown directly to the characters who contributed it, as that would make the most sense.

Also, because the guild as an entity would no longer have a claim on the renwon, the decay would need to link directly to the characters themselves, so the less someone plays a character, the lower the guilds renown collectively falls. This however should be offset greatly by what I will say in the benefits below.


What are the benefits?

1: First and foremost, each player would benefit directly for their efforts regardless of what guild they are in. If they get booted out their guild, or leave for whatever reason, and were carrying 90% of the renown in that guild, they will still be able to benefit from their hard work when they join the next guild, even if it was a much lower level before they joined.

2: It would make them as individuals much more valuable to any guild they belong to, and may even add a new level of intrigue to the game as guilds fight over and try to woo highly renowned players to join their guild as opposed to another.

3: Since each player would maintain their own renown, having an over abundance of renown amongst the members would prevent the overall renown from causing the entire guild to slip once level 100 is reached. So for example (hypothetically of course), if you had a guild with 3 people who have 25,000,000 renown each, not only would they have more than enough to maintain a level 100 guild, but the 3rd player who also has 25,000,000 would essentially be the key to ensuring that it would take a very long time for that guild to lose it's position, even if they stopped playing for a while. Unless that 3rd person left the guild of course.

It would also still benefit you greatly to be in a guild with a lot of players, because of the bonus.

... Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

TheDearLeader
09-13-2010, 04:02 PM
I have a suggestion to counter that suggestion...

Don't join a guild that would do that?

Guilds are about like-minded people sharing similar goals coming together to help one another, and be friends (albeit in a detached online sense). If you can't trust your guild leader to not boot you for something so selfish, you're in the wrong guild.

Also, Decay at high levels is painful, but manageable. There's really not a big need to perform such "culling of the herd" in order to maintain a guild level, provided everyone's doing *something* that involves killing mobs, opening chests, or obtaining end rewards.

Sintwar
09-13-2010, 04:23 PM
I have a suggestion to counter that suggestion...

Don't join a guild that would do that?

Guilds are about like-minded people sharing similar goals coming together to help one another, and be friends (albeit in a detached online sense). If you can't trust your guild leader to not boot you for something so selfish, you're in the wrong guild.


Well, it's not entirely about that. Perhaps you just want to leave the guild. Perhaps the guild has begun to deteriorate, or the guild owner quits or dies or something along those lines. Perhaps you are bored with the guild... There are a million reasons why you might leave a guild, not just because some jerk booted you out. That is only 1 example.

With a change like this, the same comradery could and would exist. But if that guild somehow dissolves, or you leave for one reason or another, I believe you should carry your renown with you when you go and wherever you go.

Or lets say for example the guild owner does turn out to be a jerk, and everyone wants to leave. He would still have a guild with a high level, and reaping the benefits of everyones work as it is now. But this this idea, they could easily re-form under a new leader (likely someone from that guild), without too much of a loss in guild level once they have re-formed.

Joseph
09-13-2010, 05:16 PM
Your idea is good, but... if I ask someone about the 'Harlem Globe Trotters' - everyone knows who they are - but no one usually knows who the players are.

The London Symphony Orchestra - everyone knows it - I've never met anyone who could name a single person in it (unless they were also a professional musician).

Special Forces are separated into groups - so if you say, "First Group" it has a specific meaning to it.

Which Marine Recon unit you are with relays information about your unit, and likely you.

Which SEAL team you are in tells people something about you.

The list goes on, and all are group oriented.

So there is something to be said for names. As in the case of DDO - everyone is a 'group' or a 'company'.

Personally I like your suggestion, but in the context of DDO, I think it should not be implemented. If it was, then I would love to see the old 'Monarch' system from Asheron's Call instituted with it. I used to love that system. Of course, I doubt that will ever happen.

Good post and good suggestion though. In a more solo focused game I would certainly agree with it.

Your suggestion does bring to mind an idea - what if character renown carried a benefit to it (not sure what). It would be interesting, as an example, to see just how much renown any person with the 'completionist' feat had earned on the way there...

AZgreentea
09-13-2010, 05:22 PM
Too expand on Joseph's post, the Dragonmarked houses are a good example of this in Eberron. Sure, some people might recognize some of the more famous people in House Cannith (the leaders for example), but if I told you I was Jur d'Cannith, you would only know who I was because of my association with the group. Most people in the world are the Cogs, the machine is the only one with the name.

Also, having renown attached to a person instead of a guild simply reverses the balance of power. It dosent make any corrections to it. Now instead of the guild officers being the jerk for booting someone, its a member for rage quitting.

blametroi
09-13-2010, 05:41 PM
So, my proposal is to bind renown to characters instead of guilds, and not limit it to only players in a guild.

This way, it makes the individual more valuable to the guilds, instead of only making the guilds more valuable to the players.


DDO is not the NBA.

In your proposal a player or players could basically take over a guild or hold it hostage with no penalty to themselves. I would say that banishing a toon from a guild should cost the guild all that reknown, but the player should not get all (or maybe any) of the reknown as something they can carry with them to a new guild.

If I leave a guild on my own, the guild might lose some of the reknown, but not all of it.

I'm not sure how I'd factor in decay.

How would you handle the situation where a rogue officer boots all the non-officer toons from a guild? This happened on at least one server I know of.

redoubt
09-13-2010, 06:09 PM
Well, it's not entirely about that. Perhaps you just want to leave the guild. Perhaps the guild has begun to deteriorate, or the guild owner quits or dies or something along those lines. Perhaps you are bored with the guild... There are a million reasons why you might leave a guild, not just because some jerk booted you out. That is only 1 example.

With a change like this, the same comradery could and would exist. But if that guild somehow dissolves, or you leave for one reason or another, I believe you should carry your renown with you when you go and wherever you go.

Or lets say for example the guild owner does turn out to be a jerk, and everyone wants to leave. He would still have a guild with a high level, and reaping the benefits of everyones work as it is now. But this this idea, they could easily re-form under a new leader (likely someone from that guild), without too much of a loss in guild level once they have re-formed.

1. perhaps you just want to leave. -- Your choice. The renown should stay with the guild.
2. the guild is deteriorating. -- make it better? Maybe you are the reason its going down hill???
3. if the guild leader is a jerk, people will figure it out. Folks talk. Guilds get rep that has nothing to do with renown
4. a few jerks could easily use the perks and support provided by a guild to quickly amase a lot of renown and then leave to form their own guild and magically have a high guild level. (Which sadly sounds like what you want to do.)

/ not signed

Sintwar
09-13-2010, 06:43 PM
Your idea is good, but... if I ask someone about the 'Harlem Globe Trotters' - everyone knows who they are - but no one usually knows who the players are.

The London Symphony Orchestra - everyone knows it - I've never met anyone who could name a single person in it (unless they were also a professional musician).

Special Forces are separated into groups - so if you say, "First Group" it has a specific meaning to it.

Which Marine Recon unit you are with relays information about your unit, and likely you.

Which SEAL team you are in tells people something about you.

The list goes on, and all are group oriented.

So there is something to be said for names. As in the case of DDO - everyone is a 'group' or a 'company'.

Personally I like your suggestion, but in the context of DDO, I think it should not be implemented. If it was, then I would love to see the old 'Monarch' system from Asheron's Call instituted with it. I used to love that system. Of course, I doubt that will ever happen.

Good post and good suggestion though. In a more solo focused game I would certainly agree with it.

Your suggestion does bring to mind an idea - what if character renown carried a benefit to it (not sure what). It would be interesting, as an example, to see just how much renown any person with the 'completionist' feat had earned on the way there...

Hmmm. You make a very valid point, but I think that this system also fits very well with that point.

For example, like the London Symphony Orchestra, Seals, Marines, etc, in order for them to maintain their status as leaders, they need to have active members. If they have none, they simply go down in history as something that "used" to be awesome.

The same could be true under this system. As long as the guild continues to maintain a healthy number of members and build upon it, it would remain a powerful and renowned guild. But just like the Marines, if one day, everyone in the Marines just up and left, and formed a new branch of military, and the Marines are unable to replenish their ranks, then the Marines will simply become a memory, and will not remain the powerhouse that they are today.

Or for example, say a fortune 500 company. They may very well be a fortune 500 company today, but if every employee quits, and they are unable to re-acquire enough talent to maintain their empire, they will enevitably fall, and will quickly lose their status as a fortune 500 status. The same would be true if their top selling employee left. They would lose a significant asset, and if they are capable of replacing him, they would be able to recover quickly, otherwise, they just lost a large part of what made them as successful as they were.

Same could be said for the London Symphony Orchestra. Sure, there will always be people that play instruments. But what happens if their top violinist dies or quits? They need to replace that person with someone who is just as good as that person in order to keep that part of the Orchestra in use.

So I guess the point here, is that a name is only as good as the people that keep it alive. So if someone is truly a great leader, they should have no problem growing and maintaining a powerful guild that is comprised of powerful members.





Also, having renown attached to a person instead of a guild simply reverses the balance of power. It dosent make any corrections to it. Now instead of the guild officers being the jerk for booting someone, its a member for rage quitting.

This is true, but only 1 member has far less potential to cause damage than the owner. As it is now, a guild owner could boot every single member from the guild, and keep his level 25 guild all to himself. Not saying this is the norm, but it is possible. With my suggestion, if he did the same thing, his guild would basically become nothing, and his former guild mates could easily re-form without having lost anything except what he had contributed.

With this proposal, even if someone powerful left the guild, he can be replaced in order to recover the lost renown.


Anyway, I'm know the idea could definately use some tweaking, and maybe there is another idea that is better. I just don't think what is in place now is what it should be.

eonfreon
09-13-2010, 07:04 PM
I think a better system is to have an individual renown system. Every individual would earn equal amounts Guild Renown and Personal Renown at the same time.
Guild Renown stays as is, in that all individuals that earn it are added together to the Guild.
The Guild Renown is permanent to the Guild (minus decay and everything of course).
So Guild Renown system stays the same as it currently is.

If the individual leaves he loses the Guild's Renown of course, but he retains his own.
Of course what this would amount to if/when he joined another Guild would have to be considered seriously by the Devs.

Just an idea, because I just don't see the Devs changing the system because people may want to leave Guilds or are booted by "jerks".